Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-03 TRUTTER PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 3, 2003 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of RUTTER/KW KOHANAIKI, LLC (SMA 03-012/UP 03-002/UP 03-003) was called to order at 10:52 a.m. in the Ohana Keauhou ` Beach Resort, Kahaluu Ballroom, 78-6740 Alii Drive, North Kona, Hawai`i, with Chairman Fred 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. RUTTER/KW KOHANAIKI, LLC (SMA 03-012/UP 03-002/UP 03-003) a.Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of project, an 18-hole golf course and golf clubhouse, public coastal park facilities, and related improvements. b.Use Permit to allow the development of an 18-hole golf course, golf clubhouse, and related improvements within the Resort-Hotel (V-1.25), Village Commercial (CV-10), Multiple Family Residential (RM-3), Single Family Residential (RS-10), and Open (O) districts. c.Use Permit to allow the development of a major recreational facility (portion of an 18-hole golf course and related improvements) within the Limited Industrial (ML-10) district. The property is located between the Kaloko Honokhau National Park and the `O`oma property, makai of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway (Highway 19), Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawai`i, TMK: 7-3-9:3 and 16. ` GALDONES:The Hawaii County Planning Commission will be back in order. Just for logistic purposes, I just want to let the members of the public know and the Commissioners 1 EXHIBIT B also, that we need to clear this room by 3:30 this afternoon because they're going to be using this room for other functions. I have here five individuals who have written to -, they have signed up to testify, Geri Bell, Jerry Rothstein, Karen Eoff, Janice Palma Glennie, and James Sogi. Is there anybody else? PUBLIC:Yeah. GALDONES:Okay. Could you -, Phyllis, could you have the gentleman also sign up. At this moment in time, I am not inclined to invoke a time limit on the presentations, however, as the day goes on and if it's going to get closer to 3:30, I would like to have everybody be given the opportunity to make their presentation, that at that time I may have to invoke time limits on the presentations. The other thing that I'd like to mention for the public's knowledge and for the Commissioners is we will not make, we will not go into decision making today, and I'd like to have Director Yuen speak to that. YUEN:The Department is going to ask the Planning Commission to defer decision making today, although to take public testimony, hear from the Applicant. They brought a number of their consultants today, and maybe if we can -, the Commission can think about their questions for the consultants, they may not have to bring them at the next meeting. This issue, as you may know from reading the paper, this has been the result of a long collaborative effort in which the Mayor was pursuing -, directly involved in mediating the meetings between the Applicant and people in the community. One of the things that came up in the meetings is that as far as the time frame of the decision making, we would have two public hearings in Kona. This would give people more opportunity, an extra opportunity for comment. There's also some more work that, frankly, I need to do on the application to prepare the recommendation and conditions. I will be recommending approval with a wide range of conditions that have been discussed previously with people in the community, but we're not ready to do that today. We do want to hear from people and, hopefully be -, we would -, as I say, the Department is asking for a deferral of decision making to the November 7 th meeting. GALDONES:Okay. With that understanding, Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 4. Applicant is Rutter/KW Kohanaiki, LLC (SMA 03-012/UP 03-002/UP 03-003). a.This is a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 500-homes/ home sites project, an 18-hole golf course and golf clubhouse, public coastal park facilities, and related improvements. 2 b.A Use Permit to allow the development of an 18-hole golf course, golf clubhouse, and related improvements within the Resort-Hotel (V-1.25), Village Commercial (CV-10), Multiple Family Residential (RM-3), Single Family Residential (RS-10), and Open (O) districts. c.A Use Permit to allow the development of a major recreational facility (portion of an 18-hole golf course and related improvements) within the Limited Industrial (ML-10) district. Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I on? Testing. Testing. Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, if I may direct your attention to the presentation map on the wall. First of all, the overall site plan or location map. The subject property is located in this ` general configuration, located makai of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. If the Commissioners will remember yesterday, we had discussed the Clifto's application, and that particular project is located here. The Kona International Airport at Kehole is located here in gray, and we ` have the Natural Energy Laboratories of Hawaii project indicated in blue. We also have the Kaloko Industrial Subdivision indicated in gray. This would be Hina Lani Street going `` towards the Hawaii Belt Highway, Highway 190. Also, this is Kaiminani Street, which leads to Kona Palisades and also to Highway 190. The Applicants are asking for, are requesting three requests, three items. One would be a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 500 homes sites and units within the Special Management Area. The Special Management Area as indicated in this `` location map is along Queen Kaahumanu Highway, makai side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The Applicant intends to provide for the, as I indicated earlier, residential uses, and that would be initiated in these areas, which is lightly highlighted with yellow. There are proposed plans to have 81 single family residential lots consisting of one-half acre to one acre, indicated in Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4. Also proposed are residential units in Areas 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and the density for those areas will be determined at a later date. The second request is to allow the development of -, excuse me, allow a Use Permit to construct a golf course within the areas currently zoned within the subject property, and the golf course, this is a purple golf course, the golf course layout would be in this configuration. There is also an area that is zoned for Industrial, Limited Industrial, at this corner here, so generally in this configuration, and the Applicant is also requesting a Use Permit to allow a major recreational facility, which would be a portion of the golf course, to be situated within that ML zoned district. Although not indicated on the map, the Applicant is also proposing to transfer a 109-acre portion along the shoreline for public use, and that, if you refer to your supplement, that is this book here, that the Applicant had provided, if you look at Page 3-8, although page is not 3 numbered, it's after Page 3-8, 3-7, there is a map indicating the proposed 109-acre area to be turned over to public, for public use, that is indicated in purple in the submittal. Generally, that is what is being requested by the Applicant. Oh, I also might add that there ` a public access proposed to this project. The public access will start from Queen Kaahumanu Highway, and at this portion, at this location there is a gate. There would be -, the public access would be, vehicular access would be routed toward the north in this general configuration, coming towards the north property line. There would be some public parking areas here, and the access would also be extended toward the middle portion of the property. There was a petition for standing that was submitted by Kohanaiki Business Partners for -, to be a party in a contested case hearing. However, that request was withdrawn this morning. We received a notice that, from the attorney, R. Ben Tsukazaki, indicating that Kohanaiki Business Partners has withdrawn its request for a petition for intervention. Are there any questions at this time, or anything that the Director may want to add? GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:No, I don't need to add anything further. GALDONES:Commissioners? Commissioners, any questions? KUBOTA:I have a question. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Mr. Hayashi, you know according to the Exhibit 3-7, Public and Private Access. HAYASHI:Yes. KUBOTA:The one that looks like that one. My line goes all the way to the boundary of I guess the southern boundary. The red line goes all the way to the southern boundary, which is to my right. HAYASHI:Okay. There was a supplemental submittal that was -, I think you have a copy of, also, and that -. KUBOTA:Oh. HAYASHI:That proposal has been -. KUBOTA:Changed. 4 HAYASHI:Changed to reflect that the access will stop in this general location. ` YUEN:Excuse me? The public -, the vehicular access stops at Wawahiwaa Point, but public pedestrian access will continue to the southern boundary. What has changed was that there is an earlier site plan that included eight-foot wide concrete -, the pedestrian access would be also by a concrete walkway to the southern boundary. The concrete walkway has been eliminated, but there would still be public access the whole length of the property. KUBOTA:There will be? YUEN:Yes, definitely. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Norman, just a question about the gate. I think when you were speaking of entering the property from the highway, we have that Mmalahoa Trail, we have the public access, and then we have the interior road into that project, where is this gate and how does the gate work? Do people have to go through a restricted entry at any point to go on Mmalahoa Trail or into the public access? HAYASHI:Okay. The gate will be makai of the Mmalahoa Trail. Mmalahoa Trail is here, and the gate would be located this -, at this -, located at this location. As far as how it's going to operate, that question should be directed to the Applicant; I'm not too sure as to how that gate would be used. GALDONES:Any further questions, Commissioners, of Norman? If not, is the Applicant or representative present? Please come forward. Please raise your right hand. Do ` you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? EADIE:I do. I do. GALDONES: Could you please state your name and your resident address. EADIE:Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, name is Dave Eadie, I'm the CEO of Rutter Development Corporation, the Applicant, address is 18012 Cowan, Irvine, California. GALDONES:Mr. Eadie, did you receive a copy of the Background Report? EADIE:Yes, I did, sir. GALDONES:Do you have any comments? 5 EADIE:No, not at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and for the Staff report, Mr. Hayashi. If it's appropriate now, I'd like to make a few remarks about the process. Excuse me, just a minute. This project -, history on the property, as you know, has been long and controversial. When we got involved in the property last year with our partners Kennedy Wilson, the name of the -, how the game is played has changed, I suppose, as far as communication. I'm not sure about all of the aspects of how Nansay processed their applications. I know it was a much more intense development. However, from the beginning, Mayor Kim had felt very strongly that we pursue an avenue of conciliation, collaboration, if you will, and I think the very nature of our proposed project being certainly not nominal, but compared to the zoning that's allowed, much less intense to the property. We embarked upon a program of trying to seek out answers before we got too far into conceptual design of the project, and I'd like to just briefly expand on the process that took place. In November, Mayor Kim organized a meeting at the high school just west of here, just north of here, excuse me. At that meeting, there was I'd say maybe 150 people. It was a very interesting meeting insofar as having the opportunity to meet people as well as list on various charts and subgroups what the concerns were about this property. And it was very informative to us to get a full understanding of what the hot buttons were, if you will, what the environmental concerns were. And that was very well attended by a very big cross-section of your community, activists, various advocacy groups, individuals who have followed this particular very important property for a long time. And as a result of that meeting that we had, what came out of it was an agreement to have a smaller group to focus on the design of the property, particularly in light of our inclination from the beginning to treat the shoreline as a potential public park in some fashion. At that point, it wasn't fully defined, but the purpose of the committee was largely to focus on the shoreline acreage and then to, also, of course, consider the merits of the plan and what could be done to possibly improve it. Those committee meetings started in earnest and organized in December of last year. There were six meetings. And in addition to those six meetings, there were one or two other meetings that were subcommittees of this committee to address specifically cultural issues, archaeological issues, if you will, respecting the property and how we intended to address those issues. As we went through these meetings, the plan evolved, particularly along the coastline, to address all of the concerns that were made known. At times, there was very lively and spirited discussions regarding how many hard improvements such as roads should be placed in this area that is, of course, right now just vacant land, unimproved land, if you will. And as we went through this process, and the iterations of the plan led to what everybody believed was a sound plan that could be embraced and would address the aspects of cultural artifacts, anchialine ponds, the park issue as to how the design of the park might function in collaboration with a 6 private community, if you will, that's going to be pretty much secondary housing, I think, but -, and it also meshed with our eye on trying to maintain a economically viable plan at all times. So what happened, and Norman touched on it, is you've got a golf course, and if you look at the 109 acres of public area that's being transferred, there's six holes of the golf course that separate the edge of the homes that are set back an average of 440 feet, I think, and more often than not the homes and lots would be set back quite a bit further. But the open space that is the golf course is going to be between the open space that is active public space along the shoreline and for public park purposes, and everybody thought that that was a pretty innovative design so that there would be, you know, a good buffer there. And it just so happens that the golf course and the public area, for the most part, avoids all of the anchialine ponds and preserves the archaeological features that are designated to be preserved. Speaking of those archaeological features, there are a number of data recovered sites that were not required to be maintained on the property, preserved, if you will, and the committee got into that in quite a bit of detail because notwithstanding the fact that the State agency said they didn't have to be preserved on site, we were asked to see if we could, nevertheless, try to preserve them. And we've done so, and your exhibits in the SMA application demonstrate that. At the end of the process with the subcommittee, the developers' goals and objectives have been set forth, but they're not necessarily required to be -, we're not required to be held to that, those standards that we're setting for ourselves, until and unless the County promulgates an approval with conditions of approval. To assure that early on all of the hard work of the committee and all of the specific aspects of the site plan that were hammered out during this time are assured to be resulting in the physical way that they have been planned, all of the parties, the parties at the work group agreed to a Good Faith Agreement, if you will, and that's in Exhibit -, or Appendix I, I believe, in your SMA application. A Good Faith Agreement was -, a memorandum of it was recorded with the Bureau of Land Conveyances, and it essentially is a binding agreement that will assure that everything we have represented on our plan will be done in accordance with the plan. So that's pretty much of a watershed event that speaks to, speaks volumes regarding the process here. I think it's something extraordinary. It is -, the Good Faith Agreement itself, the contract, if you will, was -, that idea was germinated by Councilman Tyler. It's a very sound idea, and many people have spoken to the idea that this is the way large projects at least should be addressed with public and private participation. There's a lot of work to go here now. We have, at this stage before you, a conceptual plan, and I want to underscore that because we don't have all the answers as to how this project needs to be designed in its final design aspects. As a matter of fact, if the project's approved, we would have at least six months of design activity with an army of various civil engineers and other disciplines that will get into every aspects of trying to responsibly implement the conditions of approval and the Good Faith Agreement. And to do that, as Councilman Tyler 7 has said, for instance, is we have to be very mindful of the details. The devil is in the details, and we are aware of that. We want to cherish and protect the land. That's our goal, and it's in our interest as well as the public's interest, so that will be our next step and we're bound and determined to deliver the best possible development that's going to be cohabitative with the environment. I appreciate the opportunity very much to speak before you today. We have a few consultants with us today that can speak to issues that were in the forefront of our discussions with the committee. The consultants here today are Dr. Paul Rosendahl, who's been the archaeologist of record on this property since the early '80s, Dr. Richard Brock, who has been a consulting biologist with the property, associated with the property since the early '80s, and Ms. Nancy Burns, who's a consulting civil engineer. I want to thank, also, the hard work and participation of the work group, Mayor Kim certainly, particularly Chris Yuen for his guidance. The Good Faith Agreement could not have been crafted without some legalese, and we had a person in the form of Jim Sogi, who offered free advice, free legal advice, if you will, to help us craft a Good Faith Agreement on behalf of the public. Angel Pilago with PKO was a particularly involved person in forging this alliance. `` The other members of the committee, including kpuna, NELH-A, Ooma, our neighbors, they all participated in a good faith way, and we're pleased that we've gotten to this point with a plan that is -, we believe can be embraced by the Planning Commission. Be happy to answer questions, and if there's any follow-up questions and answers that you would request of me after public testimony, I'd be happy to address the Commission. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Eadie. Commissioners, are there any questions of Mr. Eadie? SPRINGER:Not at this time. GALDONES:Okay. Mr. Eadie, there's eight individuals who have -. YUEN:I wonder if we could bring up one of the consultants for questions now. I'd like to ask a question. GALDONES:Anyone in particular? YUEN:Dr. Richard Brock. GALDONES:Dr. Brock. Dr. Brock, may I swear you in, please. BROCK:Yes. 8 GALDONES:Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the ` Hawaii County Planning Commission? BROCK:I do. GALDONES:Doctor, could you state your name and your residence address, please. BROCK:Okay. My name is Richard Brock. My residence is 1820 Kihi Street, ` Honolulu, Hawaii. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Brock. Mr. Yuen has some questions for you. YUEN:I wanted to ask some general questions because there -, these are things that come up again and again in front of the Commission on coastal water quality, water pollution, and then on this site, in particular, we have concerns about the anchialine ponds. I ` know you did the, some of the initial surveys of anchialine ponds in West Hawaii. The general -, to give a lead up to the general questions about the coastal water quality, we're always concerned about the effect of what we're doing on ocean water, and just in general, the people are concerned about nutrient levels that have caused problems in other areas in the past. We now, we've had, we have a history of, and when we have -, for the benefit of the Commission, there is a great deal of sampling, of water sampling that's done as a condition of all the permits on water chemistry. Most of those over the last 20 years have had monitoring requirements, and there's been a great deal of data generated. As far as getting in the water, looking at the corals or the transects, I think our data may be much less detailed from a scientific point of view. What I wanted to ask Dr. Brock is what -, can you make some general comments about what -, are we seeing declines in coral reefs? Are we seeing unusual growth in algae? Are we seeing ` problems on the West Hawaii coast in areas where you have, where we've had development, where we have golf courses, in particular, out in the ocean? And what has been the experience as far as areas where we have golf courses next to anchialine ponds or upslope from anchialine `` ponds such as Waikoloa, Kkio? I can't think where else we have -. Waikoloa and Kkio would be the main ones. BROCK:Okay. Nice little short simple question to answer. Thank you. I'll try. What I'll say will be based on probably more than 20 years worth of looking at these systems, both pond systems, groundwater anchialine ponds and then your shore ocean waters. In general, where there has been development, say like at Waikoloa, where there are a lot of anchialine ponds, and as we all know, there were a bunch filled in a very heated contested situation in the mid-'80s, what we've seen there is -. And of course this golf course near anchialine pools, mauka of anchialine pools. What we've done there is we sample, just to give 9 you an idea, a flavor of what we do, we sample from coastal wells that are mauka of the development so we get an idea of what the groundwater is as it flows makai towards the sea. So we sort of know what levels of things are in that groundwater. And then we sample in the anchialine ponds and, in some cases, little coastal wells near the shoreline as well as out into the ocean. What we have seen over the years have been some spikes in certain nutrients in the anchialine ponds with absolutely no effect to the anchialine system, to the organisms in the system. And you'll say to me, well, gee, how can that be? Everybody that's taken biology knows that if you put nutrients in water, it'll turn green and it'll turn to heck. Basically, what happens is is this system has -, these anchialine pools have evolved with a natural groundwater feeding them. And that natural groundwater on this coastline, all the way from the north end of the Island all the way around the other side of South Point over into the eastern side of the Island, the anchialine pools have highly variable levels of nutrients. In some places, they are very, very high, in other places, they're very, very low. This is complete, as far as we know, completely natural. The materials come through a whole variety of sources. We -, and I don't want to go into a lot of detail here, but if you want to talk to me later, that's fine. Nitrogen, for example, is fixed by nitrogen fixing bacteria. You've got all kinds of nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soils here, and kiawe trees are a nitrogen fixer. These are all sources of inorganic nitrogen, if you will, into the system. So some places, as I said, these concentrations are very, very high and in other places they're very, very low, and we have the same critters, the same organisms in these anchialine pools. And I will say that in the anchialine system, the organisms that live in there are -, many of them are very unique to these systems. You have a very unique system here on this Island. They're extremely -, biologically extremely interesting. But anyway -. So the organisms are pretty much, from what we can gather, immune to the levels of nutrients that pass through the water that they're living in. It doesn't seem to impact them at all. The algae, which you would think would go nuts with a lot of nitrogen, for example, does not because, for those of `` you that know these ponds, there's paeula, the little red shrimp that live in them, they're `` real small. paeula are basically herbivores, and so they keep the limu crop down, and so the system stays pretty much in balance. It's a very, very nice system. NASA, by the way, has spent some time looking at these systems, the organisms in them, because they live for a long time, and they can live in sealed up containers and things. That's a different story. Anyway, so we have seen instances where nutrient levels have gone up, has had no impact in the anchialine pools. While I'm talking about anchialine pools, I'll we also sample, have sampled in a variety of locations on this coastline, looking for pesticides. The only thing we've found, we've found one thing. The one thing we have found is arsenic. Now arsenic is a active basis for a lot of the herbicides, but the arsenic levels we find, and this is primarily in the sediment, the arsenic levels we find are well below EPA guidelines. We find arsenic also in the groundwater, 10 natural -, it's all naturally occurring. We find it in sediment, whether we're talking about Waikoloa or Mauna Lani or whether we're talking about Makalawena, where there's nothing in terms of development. The levels are pretty much equivalent. So we do see it, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything in a negative sense, and these are low levels. All the other compounds we've sampled for, and by golly we've spent a lot of time, effort, and money doing this, we have been unable to find materials, and we've gone as far as sampling ```` the flesh of organisms. For example, paeula, because paeula will live more than 10 `` years, probably closer to 20 years, long live little shrimp. We've collected, taken paeula out of, for example, out of a pond at Mauna Lani where the golf course comes within about 20 feet of the pond, and this is after the golf course had been there for years. We sampled the shrimp there. We sampled the shrimp in a controlled area miles out in the sticks where there's nothing around in terms of human development, couldn't find anything. Just, you know, as an example. So we've put a lot of effort into that, looking, you know -, I don't want to see these things get messed up, as a biologist, so I'm just as interested as anyone else to see what's going on. Now when we get to the ocean, what we see, I've just said, gee, we have high nutrients in certain places. These nutrients enter with the groundwater. They are dissolved nutrients. They go in with the groundwater into the ocean and they mix. It's been going on from time immemorial, well before my time and well before the time any human beings lived here. In general, we don't see a problem. The mixing continues very well. And a lot of the bottom communities never see, if you will, they never come in contact, because the bottom drops off in most places fairly rapidly here. You don't see a lot of -, we don't get high nutrient levels near the -, in our bottom samples because we sample offshore and we take surface and bottom. Surface very often tends to be high, but it dilutes very rapidly. If we had a problem in the nearshore marine environment and we -, with high nutrient loading coming in and impacting the marine communities, probably the first thing we would see would be plenty limu. And you folks show me where you got a lot of limu under water, I -, you know, on this coast. You don't. You got some limu on the intertidal rocks, you know, and you know, the turtles, the honu come up and feed on it at night and stuff, but subtidally, you O`ahu, you look around Mui, you know, don't have a lot of algae. You go and look around Mui's famous for all the limu problems. We don't have that here, you're very lucky, and I think partly it's because it drops off quick so the bottom communities And the other thing that happens here is that your fish communities and your grazers that you have in your nearshore waters here, your sea urchins and your parrot fish, your uhus and your maninis and your sturgeon fishes and stuff, are still reasonably abundant and so that's what they feed on. They feed on algae, so they help to keep this all in balance. So you're in a good position and where development has happened, the levels that we've encountered have not been outside of the range that we have encountered in totally undeveloped areas, okay, so we've seen things go up, they'll go up and they'll come down, they'll bounce. With development, they tend to bounce like this, concentration of material through time, but the maximum reach of that bounce, from high to low, is not outside of what 11 we've seen in natural systems, okay, so we're still within the range of natural systems. You want me to keep going or you want me to -? YUEN:If there are other -, but I have one follow-up question, and if there are any questions from the Commissioners. And I want to say as you're saying this, we have to be very vigilant, and we will do that in connection with this permit, but I i+adb`trdsghrhr` concern and this is an opportunity with -, there's a concern with this application, it's an opportunity that the consultants have been brought here, I wanted to go through some of this with you while you were here. The follow-up question is how much -, we have a very systematic program on water quality sampling. How much do we have as far as transects of coral cover, for example? Do we have -, does the State have something like that? Is that part of what any individual resort is doing? BROCK:Okay. The State does a certain amount of that kind of sampling. Some of the permits that have been granted in the past have had conditions that require marine monitoring, you know, marine life monitoring, and I'm involved with some of those. The changes that we have seen, and I really didn't answer your question about coral, that you asked at first, the changes that we have seen primarily relate to major natural events, and I'm `` thinking like Hurricane Iniki. We have some very nice data from Hurricane Iniki. Just like on land where it was -, the damage was very, very patchy on land, the same thing happened ` under water. Most of the energy in Hurricane Iniki, from my experience anyway, of looking ``` on Kauai, Oahu, Mui, Lanai and this Island, most of the energy from those waves was dissipated in deeper water. In other words, it impinged on the bottom in deeper water, and by the time you got up into real shallow water, yeah, I mean there were still big waves and they were breaking, but most of that energy was dissipated deep. And so, as a consequence, a lot of the damage was done fairly deep. And you say, well, how deep? And I'll say on the order of about 45 feet on down to in excess of 120 feet. So a lot of it was about 80-90 feet deep where a lot of the damage really was bad, from my experience of looking at, you know, looking at these communities. So we saw a very large impact here, but patchy, so it impacted coral, yeah. Have we seen problem with abnormalities of coral growth and that sort of thing? No, we have ` not. We've sampled at Waikoloa, at Kkio, we've sampled further down the coast at Hklia, and if you want me to speak to that, I can, otherwise I'll keep my mouth shut. But we have not seen the level of impact that the general public believes has occurred, I will say that. And we've got the data to back it up. That data's been given to the State agencies. You know, our reports are made available to all the State agencies; I believe the County, also, received our information. So there is not as much marine life monitoring as there is water quality monitoring and, in general, I think the reason for that has been that the thought that has gone into this has been that if we're creating a change due to our activities on land, that change will probably be 12 mediated through changes in water quality. And so by monitoring water quality, if we see something kind of go haywire, that's the first red flag that goes up and says, hey, we might have a problem, you know, there could be a potential for impact in the marine community. So that's why the emphasis has been on the water quality aspects of it, in general, for a lot of the permits. GALDONES:Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Thank you for all that. That's certainly very germane to what we're all dealing with. Let me try to go with sort of a similar question but from a little bit of a different angle, but equally or more so general. There's a lot of development going to be happening, has happened, like that. We do have some really nice coral reef structure here. We have some pretty healthy reefs. We have a lot of reef fishes and all. I think my commonsense and probably most people's commonsense is that at some point in the future when this gets built out really heavily and it looks more like Honolulu or something, whether that's in 30 years or 70 years, I don't know, my commonsense tells me it's very unlikely that we'll see as healthy a marine environment anywhere close to as healthy as we have now. So that really our mission is if we see the development moving in that direction, to try to spot what elements, what facets of the development might be the things that are going to lead us to a place we don't want to be at. So do you have any insights you can offer with that in mind? BROCK:Boy, you know how to put me on the spot. Yeah, and actually, you know, we've seen some change and I -, but not with corals. The change that we've seen, and this is -, I'm talking quantitative change, I'm not talking just casual observations, the change we've seen on this coast has been related primarily to your fish communities, and it's, it appears to be related to over harvest, for the most part. There's some shifts that are occurring in your marine communities, in your -, and when I say marine, I'm talking the fish communities, where -. Nothing has disappeared, okay, let me preface my remarks by saying that, but the average size of a lot of the sought after species is considerably smaller today than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. I mean I've been looking at this coast since about 1970, and there have been some dramatic changes in the abundanbdneehrg-@mcHllmns in a position to say, oh, it's related to pollution. There isn't anything that supports that. Because some of our most diverse and high biomass fish communities, meaning lots, high standing problem, a lot of weight of fish per unit area, occur around our sewer outfalls off Honolulu. I spend a lot of time out there, too, looking at those. So, you know, and I mean that's probably -, on one sense, pollution in its kind of worst situation where you're dumping advanced primary treated wasted. I don't think it's related to that. It appears to be related to just simple use. `opihi. I mean for those of us that don't spend a lot of time in the Look at the abundance of water, you just look along the shoreline along this coast. Look what's happened to `opihi. If you've lived here for 30 or 40 years, you know what I'm talking about. If you see them, they're the size of my thumb nail on a lot of places now. Small kid time, there was choke `opihi, there was plenty. There's just a lot more use of resources. 13 So I think those change -, I'm not pushing pollution out of the picture, I'm not saying it's not important, I'm not saying it's not important to monitor. By golly, it's very important to stay, try to stay on top of it best we can, because no one wants to do the wrong thing. But the changes that I think I've seen, I've encountered in our data have been changes in the fish communities, primarily, the organisms that people use. So the abundance and size of those organisms has decreased greatly. And there's been some shifts that occur. Other species that previously weren't very important become more important. Now somebody might say well, gee, Brock, that's a simple long-term natural fluctuation, longer term than my life space, maybe 50-year, 100-year fluctuations and things. Could be. I can't say no. But there's an awful lot of evidence from other parts of the world that over-fishing is doing a real number in a lot of places and so I think we're seeing some of that here. And so I think that will be one of the things that will change. And then what will Let's say we knock the fish communities back. Then you're going shallow water. You know, I'm talking about the bigger limu. And pretty soon the limu out- competes a lot of the coral. So those are changes, those are long term. They don't happen over night, they happen over generations. They take time. So it's going to be changes probably related to those sorts of things that will happen, and I think that's what happened on some of the other islands. Go to the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and look there, you know, up, you know, Northwest Hawaiian Islands a what you see there. It's phenomenal, just phenomenal. I mean y are herds of big ulua around you. I mean there's a lot of big predators. The biomass is -, most of the carbon is tied up in the living biomass, I mean looking at it from a chemical standpoint. It's phenomenal. And here it's still tied up in the living biomass, but on O`ahu, for example, living biomass is in the form of plants, of limu and things. So we've done some major changes on other islands, and that doesn't bode well for here, you know. It just means all of us have to rethink the way we use things, that's all. GRAHAM:Thanks very much. I have also been diving the West Hawai`i coast a lot since 1971, so I'm aware of the long term situation, too. I sure don't want to go into details at this point. But just completing the loop on what you were saying, if the primary source of long term deterioration is via loss of the fauna, the particularly the algae eating fish, the plant eating fish and all, then that's what we certainly have to watch out for. I also was thinking of I think what you guys would call turbidity, the general quality of the water. Is there a factor other than the nutrients and the plant growth coming from the nutrients, is there a factor relating to the clarity of the water that also may be deteriorating for some reasons you can point out, over a long term, like I was hypothesizing, 50 years or so? BROCK:Okay. Interesting you mentioned turbidity. I won't say anything about Hklia, but I will tell you something about Lana`i, unless you want me to talk about Hklia, th and you may not. I will say something about Lana`i. On the 29 of January 2002, we had seven inches of rain on the south shore of Lana`i, as measured at Hulopo`e. I monitor on that coast, that south coast and the east side of the island. Fortuitously, I was there the next morning, I was 14 planning to sample anyway, and we come from Lahaina and come across the channel. The channel was brown all the way across. It rained like the dickens over in West Mui, in this January 2002 storm. Normally, we've had storms like that in the past. I've been on Lana`i now for close to 20 years, 15 years. We've had big rainfall events, and these things, you get what I call, it vex out, it flushes out pretty fast, usually, on the order of a couple of weeks to a couple of months, and I'm talking very dirty water, extremely turbid water. Well, this particular event, it did not flush out. We came back several times to do our biological sampling, we have stations on the bottom just like we do out here, and we couldn't sample until April, late April of 2002. It was so dirty I couldn't see four or five inches in front of my face, so you can imagine how dirty this is. Now there's a lot of coral in these areas, and the thought was, gee, this coral is just going to eat it. Okay. To put everything in perspective, I have stations right in front of development and away from development. The declining coral cover actually with the 2002 rainfall events, and we had three big events through 2002, and that dirty water stayed around until after the third event, which occurred in October. Over a period of three days, we had 16 inches of rain on the south shore of Lana`i. You can imagine. Because there's lousy vegetative cover, it runs off like crazy, you know. It's really pilau, it's really dirty. The decline in living coral cover there was about 1.5 percent at stations fronting the development. Now IÓm not saying the development was good, the d they got a golf course and stuff, and they've engineered it and stuff, so that doesn't say it doesn't run off. It ran off there like crazy, too. It was dirty as the dickens. And my control stations, up to kilometers away, many kilometers away, it was closer to 6 percent of the living coral. But the point I want to make is that despite that huge input, and it lingered, it just -, I mean for an amazing amount of time, the coral survived, basically survived. We've seen that elsewhere. Further south here, we seen the same thing exactly. Very little mortality, with large inputs. The long term changes, you know, with silty water like Kki`o, , you know, the `Anaeho`omalu bays, I think those bays were probably fairly -, they tend to be clean in the morning and in the afternoon they're silty, you know. The wind picks up, the surf picks up a bit. It stirs the stuff up off the bottom, and it's probably been going on since before I was born. So I suspect that the coral communities have evolved with these kinds of perturbations you will, so to a large extent, these things really handled it pretty well, these corals so -. GRAHAM:Okay. BROCK:Yeah. GRAHAM:Thanks very much. We probably need to get to the public. BROCK:Yeah. GRAHAM:Appreciate your thoughts. 15 GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? If not, we have eight individuals who have signed up to testify, and it's nearly 12:00. I'm just contemplating whether we should take a lunch break now or begin with their testimony. SMITH:Go on. GALDONES:Okay. We'll take whatever testimony we'll be able to until we break for lunch. Mr. Eadie and Dr. Brock, could you allow room for the testifiers to come forward. I would like to call on Geri Bell, Jerry Rothstein, Karen Eoff, Janice Palma Glennie, James Sogi, and Burke Matsuyama. Okay, I guess some of the testifiers are gone, I guess. Geri Bell, Jerry Rothstein, Karen Eoff, Janice Glennie, James Sogi, Burke Matsuyama. I'm going to swear all of you in at the same time, so if you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GALDONES:Okay. Burke, why don't we start -. No, wait, hold on. the lady first, Geri. BELL:Thank you. GALDONES:We'll start with you. BELL:Thanks for the opportunity, Mr. Chair and Members of -. GALDONES:Geri, state your name and then your residence address, please. BELL:Geri Bell, residence address 64-1054B Mmalahoa Highway, Kamuela. I am Geri Bell. I'm the superintendent at Kaloko-Honokhau National Historical Park. The park abuts the southern boundary of the proposed development and is over 1,100 acres in size, both land and water. The national park was established in 1978 to provide a center for the preservation, interpretation, and perpetuation of traditional Native Hawaiian activities and c and that of my staff is the protection of the park's cultural and natural resources, in particular, its water quality. The park's massive fish ponds, Kaloko and `Aimak, and the ` fish trap Ai'pio illustrate ingenious Hawaiian construction and aquaculture techniques and provide wetland habitat for endangered endemic Hawaiian birds, water birds, and the threatened green sea turtle. While the park does not have concerns about this proposed project, has concerns about this proposed project, we believe that appropriate conditions attached to the SMA permit can allow for compatible development adjacent to the park. The element of this project that could have the greatest potential impact on park resources is the golf course. Impacts may come from the construction process, increased nutrients, pesticides, and other contaminants in the groundwater, anchialine ponds and nearshore waters, increased groundwater salinity, and decreased levels of 16 fresh water due to golf course irrigation needs and human impacts to endangered species habitat. We have forwarded to the Planning Director for his consideration would like to see made a part of the permit conditions. In fact, the Land Use Commission has a required condition of a 40-foot buffer around all anchialine ponds. We do not believe that golf tees, fairways, greens or any other manmade golf course feature zone around an anchialine pond. These ponds contain a unique ecosystem of invertebrates found nowhere else in the world. Although it has been demonstrated that the typical red shrimp, `` paeula, found in these ponds are relatively hearty, other organisms that depend on this ecosystem, such as the candidate endangered species, the orange black damselfly, are more susceptible to environmental change. Protection of the anchialine pond system found within this development should be a high priority of the SMA conditions. We are quite concerned about the impacts of increased groundwater salinity to park resources resulting from the developer's golf course irrigation plan. Wells upslope or adjacent to the park are likely to have the greatest impact on park resources. We strongly recommend that new alternatives be considered to reduce golf course irrigation needs. These alternatives should include drought tolerant grasses and other plants, liners to retain moisture, irrigation with treated wastewater, and perhaps other possibilities not yet explored. We are also concerned that the development of new manmade water areas can increase salinity and create easy paths for the entry of contaminates to the groundwater. Other water quality concerns are with the disposal of wastewater and storm water runoff from impermeable surfaces. We have found significant contaminants in our pond sediments and fish tissue. We request that the developer's wastewater treatment plan achieve at least a secondary level of treatment or two so that water may be used for irrigation needs. All storm water drains should be fitted with oil/water separators. Areas where toxic chemicals and fertilizer are stored, such as the golf course maintenance area, should require additional catchment conditions to prevent groundwater contamination due to accidental spills. The SMA mentions the need for water quality monitoring throughout the document, and the park would like to see a specific monitoring plan prior to approval of the SMA permit to be sure the needs of the park are taken into account. We appreciate the effort the developer is making to preserve cultural and archaeological sites within the development. Overall, there should be a preservation plan that designates sites slated for preservation, data recovery, and those requiring no further archaeological attention. We would also like the developer to agree to preservation in place for all human burials. This would include known burials, burials found during archaeological surveys, testing, or data recovery, and burials discovered during construction. This development has the potential for significant visual impacts on the park. The intrusion of modern elements on the Kaloko Fishpond landscape, especially, can have a detrimental impact on the visitor experience. We applaud the developer for limiting the first phase of structures to a single story. We would also like to have visual buffers between the park and the 17 development to alleviate this concern. The distance between the development and Kaloko Fishpond exceeds the distance of 200 feet recommended by the developer's consultant. The north end of the pond is currently covered with pickle weed, but comprises some of the best Hawaiian stilt habitat found within the pond. The park is presently restoring the Kaloko Fishpond wall, and once that is completed, we plan to remove the pickle weed from this important area. We are very much concerned about the location of the 8,000 square foot beach facility. We do not believe this location is consistent with the County's policies of scenic and open space restoration or beach protection. From the maps supplied by the developer, it could be moved further back from the beach without affecting the user's view of the ocean. ` We look forward to working with the County of Hawaii and the owners on the development of this adjacent property. We believe that all of the concerns above can be positively addressed and that we can be compatible neighbors. Mahalo for the opportunity to comment. GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Ms. Bell? Commissioner Thibadeau. THIBADEAU:Thank you so much. Can you make copies of your comments available to the Commissioners? BELL:Yes. THIBADEAU:Are you in a position to do that? BELL:No, I've scratched a lot of stuff. As the day, as the morning went on, I thought, oh, God, they don't want to hear about this. I can send -. Can I send you the comments, Chris? YUEN:We will -. BELL:Actually, most of these comments are in the letter that we sent to the Planning Director. THIBADEAU:I -. BELL:Along with the golf course conditions. THIBADEAU:I wanted to be sure of that. BELL:Okay. YUEN:I think we did -. 18 BELL:Yeah. YUEN:Send those out. THIBADEAU:Okay. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you for your comments, and they are -, we did receive copies of your written remarks. Have you had the opportunity to have discussions on these points with the developer yet? BELL:Yes, we have. In fact, I was a part of that planning group that he mentioned, and we have been in contact. And the wonderful thing about it is that we talk. SPRINGER:Okay. And these remain outstanding issues for you, however? BELL:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. BELL:And we've transmitted those comments to the Planning Director. SPRINGER:Thank you. BELL:Oh, sorry. GALDONES:Any further questions? Thank you, Ms. Bell. BELL:Thank you. GALDONES:Mr. Rothstein. ROTHSTEIN:Aloha, my name is Jerry Rothstein. I live here in Kailua-Kona on the `` Island of Hawaii, and I represent PASH, Public Access Shoreline Hawaii. We have a deep and abiding interest in Kohanaiki. It was our case, the PASH and Pilago vs. ` the County of Hawaii and Nansay that 10 years ago put a stop to the development on this very same site, a development which was totally out of place, totally incongruous. The development was totally insensitive to the public's needs, and as a result, it led to a lawsuit ` which went to the Hawaii Supreme Court and some history was made regarding Hawaiian rights in that case. And the SMA permit was withdrawn, and for the last 10 years, it's been sitting idle until a new development plan came along. And this time it was completely different than the other one because we had a developer who was very sensitive to the 19 community, very sensitive to the property, worked, as had been explained before, with community organizations and the government to come up with a plan that was acceptable. And that plan is acceptable to us, too, with the exception of one thing. And it's not that it's not acceptable, I'm talking about the golf course, it's good except that it's the language which is in the Good Faith Agreement which refers to the golf course. Though it's very, very good language, it has no meat to it, it's just bones. And what we want to try to do is come up with meaningful conditions that implements this. What it says is the owner agrees to use state-of-the-art measures and its best effort to avoid contamination or degradation of the ocean water or groundwater from the development, and the golf course, during construction or after, and to prevent leaching any contaminants into the groundwater table, ocean, and ponds. Well, that's our goal, too. But in order to implement that, that needs specific conditions so that it's not mere words, or words that can be interpreted one way or another, depending upon who's doing it. And this is what our concern is. We're not here to oppose this project at all. We're here to support it to the extent that it be not only a template, as the Mayor is so proud to announce, of community, developer, and government working together to come up with a satisfactory plan, as has happened here, but also to be a template for a golf course. Because this place is so special. I'm sure you know, but let me repeat it anyway. It's on a -, this project is on a field of anchialine ponds, some of which are exposed, and underneath it's all anchialine pond water. The coastal water outside is Class AA, the highest quality of water ` that you can have in Hawaii. Now we're going to have a park along a coastal strip, in between the ocean and -, no, we're going to have a golf course, six of 18 holes of a golf course in between 500 homes and a County, and a public park, which means we can have a lot more users than we've ever had there before, and that's good, because that place is a prime recreational resource. Add to it people who use the golf course, people who live there, 500 families, all are going to be affected by the quality of the golf course in terms of its environmental sensitivity. And, of course, there are endangered species in the park next door, and from what I hear, endangered species are right on the property, also. So all this leads us to want to be sure that this golf course is built to the most highest standards of environmental sensitivity as possible. Now I must commend the developer, Mr. Dave Eadie, who has demonstrated a real sensitivity to our concern and has put us in, actually in touch with his golf course architect, Ted Robinson, and we have started to deal and talk with them. And our purpose in talking with them is to come up with the meat of this Condition No. 10, to come up with the specific terms that we all agree on that can be inserted into the SMA permit or the use permit as conditions of approval. We are talking on the phone, emailing, and as the week goes by, we intend to be more and more on this so that we can come up with something so that by the next meeting we will have something to present to you that incorporates all the concerns that are being raised about the golf course from the national park and all the other people have inputs into that. 20 Now there are different ways of doing this. One is called biorational, in which the golf course will not use any toxic or synthetic, the petrochemical pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and no fertilizers that will leach, and that technology is here It's not something that's brand new, although it's being improved every year. And there are golf courses throughout the United ` States and even, I've learned today, in Hawaii that are biorational, and I hope by the time we meet again you'll have all this information because we intend to keep you informed. So we're not asking you to do something that's untried, experimental, but something that has been done elsewhere and works. And when it works here, and it's implemented here, it can be a, what did the Mayor call it, he calls it a template for golf courses. Imagine that, if we could find a technology that would no longer need toxic chemicals or leaching fertilizers that can be used for a template for all other ` golf courses that happen here on the Island of Hawaii, all golf courses that are presently being ` maintained and beyond to the State of Hawaii. So this could be an enormous step that could make this project not only a template for the development process but also for golf courses and ` ultimately for agriculture in the State of Hawaii. I hope that we can -, and the other thing is, aside from biorational, is another approach, and that's the Audubon Society's approach. And they have three levels called bronze, silver, and gold, and each one of them has increasing amount of criteria that make the project safer and safer and safer. Now, the golf course developer, Mr. Robinson, the architect, has already achieved the first, he's the first one to do a silver golf course in America. And it shouldn't be too much of a step to go from silver to gold, because if anything is worth it, Kohanaiki is worth the gold. And it's just a matter of being able to select certain standards, and maybe it'll cost a little more money, but in the end if it's going to be what's going to protect the environment, then it's worth every cent of it. I hope that we will be able to come forth with something for you that is already, this is it, we all agree on it, and we recommend you do it. If that shouldn't happen, then we'll come to you with the issues that are left unresolved, and it'll be for you to decide whether, well, this condition, let it go less sensitive or let it go more sensitive. I hope that doesn't come to that. But this is where we're heading, and we have a month to work on it, and we're going to work on it diligently. Where appropriate, we'll keep you informed. We want to educate you as we're educating ourselves, as we're educating Mr. Eadie and Mr. Robinson. And in the end, we want to see the golf course at Kohanaiki to be the finest and most environmentally sensitive golf course that could possibly be built there. And we support this development with that caveat in mind. Oh, I have one question. A little confusion about the size of the park. I hear 109 acres, and then I see that there's golf courses there, and I don't understand. Is that actually 109 acres of public park? Does that include the golf course? I just don't understand that, and I would appreciate if there was some, if I could get some clarity on the extent of the actual public park that public will have access to. 21 GALDONES:Norman? ROTHSTEIN:Thank you. HAYASHI:According to the information provided to us by the Applicant, a portion of the golf course will be within this 109-acre area. ROTHSTEIN:Well, will that mean that the public will have -, able to use that as part of the park? I don't understand. HAYASHI:I'm not able to answer that question. Perhaps that would be better directed toward, to the Applicant. ROTHSTEIN:Alright, we'll address that question to the Applicant. May I ask the Applicant or what? GALDONES:Mr. Rothstein, I'll have the Applicant be able to -. ROTHSTEIN:Oh, thank you. GALDONES:Respond. YUEN:You know, I haven't been involved in discussions. The portion of the, the portion of the area that is in the golf course would be an exclusive easement to the private owners, so the public will not, for example, walk across the golf course. ROTHSTEIN:So how many acres is actually public in that 109-acre park? YUEN:Forty to 45 acres, counting -, and the golf course doesn't physically cover the rest of it, but that -, the remainder includes the golf safety zones, areas where the golf balls can fly into. GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Rothstein? If none, is it Karen, Karen Eoff? PUBLIC:She's Janice. GALDONES:Okay, we'll take Janice first. GLENNIE:Aloha, my name is Janice Palma Glennie, and my address is P.O. Box 4849, Kailua-Kona. Aloha, Commission Members, thank you for this opportunity to speak. Though not always in the center of the Kohanaiki fray, Kohanaiki has for 14 years been my center. Angel Pilago has 22 been the wise leader of the effort to protect the land and culture of this area, and Karen Eoff, the intelligent, benevolent women who still at this moment eats, sleeps, and dreams Kohanaiki. I thank them and all of the other people who have worked, I have worked with since the last ``oma as open public space. 1980s in the effort to protect Kohanaiki and I appreciate the opportunity to speak before this Commission and hope that some of the wrongs of this body's past decisions can be righted today. Today we begin in a new way with new though abridged hopes and plans for the County, developer, and community to combine efforts and resources to create a park which will be a showcase for Hawai`i and beyond. Great diligence and focus must continue to come from our government leaders to ensure that the voices and work of the community are forefront and the creation and implementation of a park plan for Kohanaiki and ``oma and the community must feel empowered in its involvement in the park's creation. I ask that that connectiveness and benevolence of those who have worked so hard to create a positive outcome for this land be forever respected and this cas development and that at Kohanaiki it's never allowed to be replaced by the heavy-handedness and commercial mindness that we have seen everywhere else in fragile Hawaiian environments when corporations have held sway over the host community and lan Besides ensuring that the community is forefront in planning and management of the park, other parameters are crucial to maintaining what's unique and important to this area, but I'm going to send you a follow-up letter outlining my concerns and also Sierra Club's, rather than cover them now. Many of the points have been made by others speaking, so I'll just send those in. However, I'd like to mention that I feel that camping should be preserved as the bedrock of what has made Kohanaiki and ``oma so important, not just to our community but the culture of Hawai`i whose connection to the shoreline is traditionally free and open, the loss of which is fragmenting Hawai`i's social and cultural fabric in insidious ways. I ask that the allowance of camping be written in stone in any agreement made with this and subsequent landowners and that the likes of , where promises for camping were made and not kept, are not all Hpuna happen here. In fact, I ask the landowners, right now, to allow the renewal of camping today, not just for a few days a year, but for all days. Camping is not a problem when caretakers are on site at least every couple of days to give permits and occasionally patrol to eliminate the problems of squatting, long term squatting and the weekend partying of the teenagers. Camping has been the most deeply positive enjoyable experience for our youth and families and the reason why this area is so much different and more important than any other coastal `` area. The fight to protect Kohanaiki and oma has always been about the keiki, for them to be able to act in natural ways in a natural environment and to follow in the footsteps of a `` culture where ina, ohana and aloha aren't just concepts but a way of life. By definition, compromise leaves all sides a little sick and are sad to varying degrees. My heart weeps with joy and sadness to see the living legacy of what has been saved so far by nurturing land and connected community and culture, but I fear for the future of those children who have already lost the opportunity to go on an unrehearsed campout at Pine Trees, while all sides have spent the last year working on a plan for future use of this land. That year in the 23 life of a keiki is long and can be very important to their future growth, and that's why I ask that camping be allowed starting today. I look forward to strong decisions of support from the Planning Commission for this basic Good Faith Agreement as long as it promotes community use of the land and protects the natural resources on it. Mahalo for your time. GALDONES:Thank you, Ms. Glennie. Commissioners, any questions? Hearing none, Karen Eoff. EOFF:Aloha, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, Chris, my address is P.O. Box 4753, Kailua-Kona 96745. Thank you, Janice, for those comments. I am going to be brief. But I have been actively ` involved with the Kohanaiki Ohana since 1990. I've experienced first hand the history of our community's efforts over the past 13 or 14 years to protect this special piece of coastline. From court victories to trash pick ups, educational and environmental projects, fundraising, workshops, and forums, our community has participated in a major grassroots effort to raise awareness and become a part of this planning process. We have succeeded in getting the attention of our politicians, our planners, and the developers. It is a new time. We support the concept of this public park, a collaborative effort with ideas for innovative stewardship, management and monitoring. We are hopefully concerned that its success is only guaranteed if the following criteria are met and we can be assured that: 1. The developer will adhere to the intent of the "Good Faith Agreement." 2. The community group has fair and equal access to decision making when it comes to the park. 3. We implement management practices for monitoring our water quality and that baseline studies are conducted. And -, 4. If this truly is to be a template for future coastline development, that what it teaches us is to be selective and to consider only those projects that have a direct benefit to our community. This is a new time, and our communities will play a vital role in planning the future. We must protect our natural and cultural resources and the rights of all people. It is our hope that the developers and planners of the future will see this as a template and that the standards are now higher. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you for the written testimony. Commissioners, any questions of Ms. Eoff? Commissioner Graham. 24 GRAHAM:Thanks. Hi. EOFF:Hi. GRAHAM:Karen, I just wanted to ask you, we had, from the prior testifiers, we had a few specific comments like from the park service worried about the location of the beach facility, and Mr. Rothstein was worried about the management of the golf course, and Janice with regard to overnight camping, is there any particular aspect of what's there so far that you're concerned about that you want to bring to our attention, or is it more just the process which you spoke to? EOFF:I would defer to Angel, because he participated in the meetings and over the last 8-9 months has had a chance to air most of his concerns. GRAHAM:Alright. Thank you. EOFF:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:With regard to No. 3 of your concerns, when you talk about water quality, are you talking about both ocean and/or fresh water? EOFF:Okay. Yes, I can speak to that. We are planning, and hopefully it will be a collaboration with the County and the landowners, to do some baseline sampling soon in the ponds and the reef and do some work with Dave Rainey and do some reef check, what we were talking about earlier, transect and things like that. We'd like to begin some serious efforts towards, you know, on the community level and with students, how we've done ` projects in the past, including West Hawaii Exploration Academy students and other members of the community, and on the side, in our own way, to be part of that monitoring and management. I know there will be more official requirements done through the conditions on the SMA and the developer will hire people and scientists, experts to do that, too, but we encourage all of us to work together. SPRINGER:Thank you. EOFF:On those. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Okay. Thanks. James Sogi. SOGI:Hi, good morning, my name is James Sogi, I'm the vice president of Na ``` Keiki Hee Nalu O Hawaii. I live in Hlualoa, Hawaii. 25 As part of the -, a combination of the process that was described by the Director and the Applicant earlier, and in conjunction with working with the working group and from the comments of the community, I engaged in a series of long and difficult negotiations with the developer to enter into a written document which is attached to your materials as the Good Faith Agreement. That is a precedent setting document, I believe, which is legally enforceable `e` by Na Keiki He Nalu and Kohanaiki Ohana to enforce the terms of that agreement. And I request that this Commission require, as terms of the approval of the SMA, that the terms of this Good Faith Agreement be part of the conditions verbatim as further strength to the existing legal effect that it has so that the County, in addition to the groups that are signators to that agreement, be able to enforce the terms of that agreement. And if I may just briefly highlight the items of that agreement that are of the most concern and interest to the community. First of all, the developer has agreed to donate the 108 acres, 109 acres to the County in fee simple forever. The developer has also agreed in that agreement to pay for all the improvements of the park, including six bathrooms and at least six showers, 121 parking spaces, and roadways, and to limit any development on the project to that which has been described in the SMA proposal, and also to create the design of the park very generally as appears on the map and the SMA submittals. That proposal includes, for your information, Janice and the others, camping, which will be operated by the County. It also includes the requirement that they will preserve the anchialine ponds. And as Jerry pointed out to you, state-of-the-art techniques to prevent water and pollution or degradation of the anchialine ponds or the off-shore and coastal water areas. We're very concerned about that. Many, many people have -, the majority of concerns in the community surround the water quality, and I think some specific techniques need to be identified in this process to require the developer to make sure that there is no degradation of the anchialine ponds or the coastal waters and the plants and the fish that live there because our -, we're very concerned about that because our children play there, we eat the fish, and we all use that area very regularly. They've also agreed to build a canoe hlau, and we would ask that they maintain Hawaiian traditional techniques in building that. There was an article in the newspaper the last couple of days about Hawaiian thatched roofs and traditional building techniques, and we would request that that technique be used for building the canoe hlau. The developer has also agreed in this Good Faith Agreement to pay for one-third of the maintenance in perpetuity of this park in conjunction with the community and the County. This is a document that's going to bind the future homeowners association of the people that buy these lots in the future, and it will have to be included in their CC&Rs. This is a real novel thing that I don't know it's been done before. And the last thing that's extremely important to us is the community based management. In the agreement, the developer has agreed that the CC&Rs of the community association will 26 include a provision that the park itself will be managed one-third by the homeowners, one-third by the County, and one-third by a community based association of groups such as Kohanaiki ``` Ohana and Na Keiki Hee Nalu O Hawaii or other groups that have interest in this, and we're very interested in being involved in the management of this park in order to preserve the ability of the Hawaiian cultural practitioners and to ensure the preservation of the natural and cultural resources that exist there now, and we'd ask that these elements be made specific conditions of the approval of the SMA. And I would also like to add my support to all the prior comments of the prior testifiers. I agree with those comments. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Sogi. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Sogi? Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Mr. Sogi, with regard to the third portion, or No. 3 in the Good Faith Agreement regarding Kohanaiki, there's reference to the residents' beach facility, which I believe Ms. Bell commented on the park service having concerns with the location of it. In Section 3, there's specific reference to that beach facility as depicted in Exhibit B and C. If there were some amendment to the positioning of that beach facility, do you take exception to that or would you be willing to be part of a negotiation on placement of it that may be agreeable given the concerns that have been voiced earlier? SOGI:Yes, I would support the position taken by Geri Bell and the National Park. I understand that we have agreed that there will be a owners' beach facility there. The details were not specified. I would be willing to have that moved. I would be willing to be part of a process or a negotiation to locate that. That is one of the issues that I had that, in the negotiation process, was one of the things that, was one of the bargaining chips, if I might say, but the details of that are not solidified. But I'm concerned about the location of the canoe hlau. There is a traditional canoe launch there that I've inspected that is a unique finger of lava that comes out and a deep water channel that goes in with a little reef barrier that's protected from the reef that is just absolutely unique as a canoe launch. And one of the things that we intend to do in the future with this area is to have a community based program involving canoes and -, for teens and children and anti-drug use as part of the community building process. This would be a part of that. And my feeling is that part of the reason they wanted to move the hlau was because of the location of their beach facility, so that those are issues that remain open, and the location of that is something that I would like to discuss further and that should be a further area of inquiry of this Commission, I agree. And may I add one other point. As part of our negotiations, I was able to get the developer to agree to one day of golf per week on behalf of the public on their private golf course, which otherwise they were going to prohibit the public from using at all. 27 YUEN:If I could make one comment on the evolution of the canoe hlau. This actually got moved -, the planning changed. I talked to Angel about this, and he said that his concept was that this was actually a storage area for a double-hulled canoe, something not as ` big as a Hklea but, you know, a sizable double-hulled canoe that would not actually be launched from Kohanaiki but would be stored there and then trailered to Honokhau and launched. And when I heard that and talked to the developer about it, then the idea came of, well, it ought to be near the roadway where it could be launched from. This -, so that was -, so that was the concept that came, when that concept came from Angel, that's why it moved from that particular site, which is the best launching site, but not a particularly good site to store something like that. That doesn't preclude having a launch area in the future. I do think though what the developer is committed to is building a storage area, and then at a later date, if and when this becomes a public park, there can be a canoe launching area at the southern location. That can be simply a park facility. But that's why it got moved, and I just wanted to clear that up for the record that they weren't asking to move it because -, to get it away from their beach facility. It was simply to be nearer a hard surface and, also, in a more - , where there are more people around and it's a little easier to maintain security. SOGI:Commissioner, may I respond to that? GALDONES:Sure, Mr. Sogi. SOGI:The exact location of the canoe hlau I think is open to further discussion, and I think that's the agreement of the developer with us, as well. But one of the things that we hoped to use the canoe hlau for was also a community based meeting area in which there could be subsidized programs for youth and teens to learn and become involved with canoe-based activities, fishing, canoe building, paddling, and develop an educational community program surrounding that. And the location, I think, tentatively placed by the parking lot didn't seem to me to be a very good -, in light of what our concept was. And though the bigger 30-foot double-hull canoe that we're contemplating housing there may or may not be housed inside the canoe hlau, there certainly will be support canoes, smaller two and three-man fishing canoes that would be used in addition to the double-hulled canoe that would be stored there. And my personal feeling is that that canoe launch at the southern end is the ideal spot. YUEN:We can certainly -, we'll certainly talk about this further. This also is not an issue that has to be decided in the SMA permit. The SMA permit can allow for the development of a canoe hlau. We are talking about having further -, the exact details of public park development can be -, don't have to be done in the site plan for the SMA permit. GALDONES:Any further questions? Otherwise, Mr. Matsuyama. 28 MATSUYAMA:Thank you, Commissioner. My name is Burke Matsuyama, and I live in Kalaoa, Kona. I am the president of the Kohanaiki Business Park Association, and I come here today in support of the application. Everyone on the Commission, and especially the Commissioners from Kona, recognizes the importance of Kohanaiki to our community. It is a place where I go with my family to recreate on the weekends and, in fact, my eldest son is seldom home because he's surfing at the most popular surf site, Pine Trees. Kohanaiki provides a place for Kona families to rest and recreate and, most importantly, create ` memories that make living in Hawaii so unique and wonderful. But all of us know the dark history of Kohanaiki, drug use, rave parties, the homeless problems, rubbish, and abandoned cars, and the list can go on and on. This, too, has been the history of Kohanaiki. However, since the Rutter Group has taken control over the property, and with collaboration with groups like Karen's, the rubbish has been cleaned up, abandoned cars towed away, homeless problems addressed. I have personally seen the changes happen. And what it signifies to me is that the developer recognizes the importance of the property, not only as an economic asset but more importantly the value of the land as a community resource. This plan that you will be reviewing reflects this sensitivity and understanding. It is the culmination of over one year of hard work based upon a spirit of collective stewardship between Rutter, Angel, Jim, Curtis, the administration, and the community. Being personally involved in the process, I know that Dave and Ray from the Rutter organization is committed to continue this spirit of cooperation with the community at large. We also recognize the history of controversy with this land. Any feint hearted politician would steer clear of this community issue, but our Mayor is not your run of the mill politician. He has not only shown vision and dedication, but by personally getting involved with the process, he has shown courage. The Kona community owes a large debt of gratitude to Mayor Kim. In conclusion, I would urge the Commission Godspeed in approving this application. We need to continue the positive momentum started a year ago between Rutter Development and community leaders. I am very confident that the process will yield a project that all of us in Kona can be proud of. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Matsuyama. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Matsuyama? Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Mr. Matsuyama, did I understand you to say that you were a member of the community working group? MATSUYAMA:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. 29 GALDONES:Mr. Rothstein, you have a statement or a question? ROTHSTEIN:Yes. May I just take -? GALDONES:Could you -. ROTHSTEIN:Thirty seconds to -. GALDONES:Could you use the microphone. ROTHSTEIN:I would just like to ask for 30 seconds to make a statement. GALDONES:Twenty-nine. Go ahead. ROTHSTEIN:I just want to clarify about this Audubon gold. It's not just how to maintain a golf course, it has to do with every aspect of it. In fact, it can't be given except if it starts from scratch. Once a golf course is built, it doesn't qualify. So Audubon comes in and works with the developer to plan the golf course, how it's constructed, how it's maintained, and it goes on continuously year after year to recertify it and make sure. It's actually an enforcement arm, also. They actually, during the course of the construction, will come down a dozen times, fly over to participate, to make sure that it is done to the highest standards. So I just wanted to have you understand that to the extent to which the Audubon gold standard will make this a -, the finest environmentally sensitive golf course it could be. And we're looking for other standards, too. If there's something better, then we'll go for that. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you for your comments. Okay. If you could relinquish the chairs. You are excused and I would like to call on -, we have four more speakers, so what I'd like to do, Commissioners, is hear the four speakers before we break for lunch. KUBOTA:And then what are we going to do after that? GALDONES:We're going to recess for -, we're going to recess the meeting for the day because we are not going into any decision making today. YUEN:Although you do have to make a -, have a motion to defer and vote on that. GALDONES:Okay. YUEN:Just a formality. KUBOTA:What was that? 30 GALDONES:Mr. Yuen stated that we need to make a motion to defer the decision making. KUBOTA:That's later. GALDONES:Later on. KUBOTA:Yes. GALDONES:When we recess. KUBOTA:Yes. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:And as far as the Applicant's response to all the public testimony and the Commission's response to that, that all comes today or that waits for the next meeting? GALDONES:I'm going to allow it today. GRAHAM:Okay. So we'll just hold off lunch until we go through all that. GALDONES:Yes. After the speakers are done with, then I will call upon Mr. Eadie to get back for rebuttal. Okay, Commissioners? Mr. Tyler, Duane Erway, Arthur Mahi, and Mikahala Roy. Okay, except for Mr. Tyler, the rest of you, I need to have you sworn in. Could you please raise your right hand. Do you ` swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GALDONES:Okay. Please state your name and your resident address. We will start - , and then you may begin your testimony. We will start with Mr. Tyler. TYLER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You indicated that Mr. Ruddy will -, excuse me, Mr. Eadie will be providing rebuttal. I hope there's not too much rebuttal, there was a lot of good comments today, I thought. I'm sorry, I won't be able to stay for that, I don't think. But anyway, I come to you today not only as the elected public officer for this area, ` councilman for the district, but also a kamaaina and a long time user of this area. I'm very kupa to this, and I -. But before I begin my specific comments with respect to the application, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank everyone who provided testimony today as -, some of 31 whom, many of whom were members of the community working group. I want to also acknowledge Mayor Kim and his -, some of his department heads and staff who -, and including, of course, Director Yuen, who have worked very hard with the community as well as Rutter Development and Kennedy Wilson, the land owners and developers. I think it's been a very worthwhile process. It's been trying at time for everyone, but indeed it is the kind of thing that we need to have a lot more of. And I applaud Mr. Eadie and Mr. Rutter and the folks from Kennedy Wilson for participating in this and being patient and listening to the community. You have heard concerns about water quality, and I would say that I want to support completely the testimony of the previous testifiers, in particular, the time that Superintendent Bell and her staff, Dr. Stanley Barne and others have taken to look at this issue very carefully and to submit very detailed recommendations to you. The National Park Service is renowned in the world for its service and stewardship to the public, and I -, as everyone of you knows, approximately 18 acres of this subject property is within the national park boundary. The Rutter Development/Kennedy Wilson group have told me individually and collectively that they support the incorporation of the national park within this project, and I note from Superintendent Bell's letter, her first letter, which is contained in your Background Report, that she, too, on behalf of NPS and Kaloko-Honokhau National Historic Park are desirous of acquiring that property. Their management skills and their expertise are renowned, as I said, and I would strongly urge the Commission to include some provisions in the SMA permit to ensure that the National Park Service is a perpetual and vital part of this public resource area. The -, Director Yuen spoke this morning on another application about his concern doing piecemeal incorporation of nonpoimsrntqbdonkktshnmbnmsqnkradb`trdi+drodbh`kkxnmrl`kk projects. I would hope that in this particular case that you would, as part of the SMA permit conditions, include conditions similar to that which have been imposed by the Land Use Commission and been, also been suggested by previous testifiers this morning in great detail. The protection and insurance that public access and resources and traditional and customary ` rights as guaranteed by Article 7, Section -, I'm sorry, Article 12, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution are extremely important, and I feel confident that you working with the Director as well as members of the community, myself, and the developer will be able to cause this to come about. I think it's basic. These are the kinds of things that I look for as a -, look to protect as a representative and steward and servant of the people. I would say that we should make together whatever efforts we can, any and all -, to avoid any and all kinds of potential for problems that have been associated with, over a long period of time, with another project to the south, and I don't think any of us wants to go there. Certainly, the developer has indicated they don't, and I believe them. The status of the Ala Kahakai access, trail, national trail and access should be considered here. It already is a public resource. The -, I would ask you to incorporate conditions to ensure that ` the Public Trust Doctrine, as mandated by Article 11, Section 1 of the Hawaii State 32 ` Constitution, also further reinforced by the Hawaii State Supreme Court decision in the Ka ` Paakai vs. the Land Use Commission decision. I would urge that a 10-meter buffer on each -, neighboral buffer, landscaping or whatever is appropriate as determined by DLNR and the developer be put on either side of the Mmalahoa Trail so there is no encroachment to that trail, as has been done in the Waikoloa area. The -, it was not mentioned today but it has been mentioned in the working group meetings as well as during the State Department of Transportation Highways STIP meetings recently by ` some of us, that it is absolutely essential that access to the Queen Kaahumanu Highway be coordinated with other concurrent developments in the area. Yesterday and previously you've heard Clifto's and you've heard me testify on that a previous meeting. I believe and I note for the record that you have not yet received, at least I don't have it, that you have not received comments from the Department of Transportation Highways, it's coming under separate cover. Please don't make any decisions until you hear from them. And even if you do, you might have to, you know, it might be different from their recommendation. The issue is the proximity of major four-way traffic movements, or unlimited traffic movements, on a high speed arterial road, and there is one right now at Kohanaiki Business Park. There's another one proposed within a short distance by the subject applicant, and another by Clifto's, and I would urge you please to try to do the best you can to coordinate these altogether as best you can, or separate them by some distance. The restoration and perpetual management and care of the anchialine ponds, which has been represented to be done by the developer, is extremely important, and a good example would be some of the ponds to the north. If you haven't seen them, you should go look at them. There was discussion about setting up independent water baseline studies for -, to ensure that water -, perpetual water quality, and I would concur to that. I would urge you -, it hasn't been mentioned today, but I would urge you to put a condition on the SMA that would minimize the impact of lighting on the area, both to the residents mauka as well as to those who are utilizing the resources makai, that is in the ocean for fishing. And I would commend to you the examples of Huallai Resort Four Seasons at Ka`plehu and ` Mklei Estates in the Lands of Kau as being examples of how to have low impact lighting. Anything other than that, I think there's going to be a big problem. Previously mentioned on-site effluent use for the golf course watering, I hope that will be a condition. With respect to further, minimizing further visual impacts, underground utilities, I believe that's going to happen, but should be a condition. 33 I note that the Department of Transportation director has called to your attention three noise easements previously recorded in connection with the previous owner, Nansay, and I'm not an expert on these, but obviously these need to be paid attention to. I agree with previous testifier, that all burials, whether inadvertent or otherwise, be preserved in place. I also agree that -, and have tried to work with the developer ever since they came aboard to have camping be unrestricted. When I say unrestricted, I mean not just for certain days of the week. But that is public trail and property down there, where most of the camping takes place. And I would again urge Mr. Eadie to do what he can to work with the community, who is also interested in preserving the cleanliness and safety of the area. I'm almost done, Mr. Chairman. In conclusion, I believe that this application before you offers the opportunity for a new paradigm, as opposed to some other situations we have read about recently. It offers an opportunity for a win-win situation. It offers the opportunity for ongoing community participation in the decision making as well as the management of these very, very important public and private resources. Indeed, Mr. Eadie said this morning that Curtis Tyler had said at one of the meetings that the devil is in the details. Indeed I have, and I will continue to always say that because I believe it's true. And I would add the devil's also in how things are implemented. And I assure you that I -, whether I'm in elected office or not, I will continue to be vigilant and to assist where I can to ensure that everyone lives up to their promises, including those of us in the, you know, in the public sector. I am hopeful that there will be, this will culminate in a very successful project, as long as the community continues to be vigilant and the developer allows and affords the community the opportunity to be involved. I am cautiously optimistic because, again, the proof will be in the pudding. But I want to thank everyone for affording me, as your servant and steward, as well as all the others, an opportunity to participate in this process. I think it's been very healthy, it's been very positive, it's been very productive, and it bodes well for the future. And as long as we hold one another accountable, I think we'll do just fine. Thank you very much. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Tyler. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Tyler? Otherwise, Duane Erway. ` ERWAY:Yes, I'm Duane Erway, P.O. Box 2887, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. I am presenting these arguments on behalf of myself today because I finished them at 2:00 in the morning and I didn't have time to get them by the board of Plan to Protect, so that's -, these are my own comments. I'm a scuba diver, and so I've enjoyed the beautiful, pristine waters offshore, and so it's been naturally one of my major concerns. And the working group, community, and developer have done a superb job, and now it is time to examine how we can protect the coral, fishes, and 34 other sea life from degradation of water quality. This seemed to be a concern shared by the ` gatherers of salt, gatherers of limu and opihi, fishermen, and surfers, as well as dive boat operators in a multi-million dollar industry. There are three questions that I want to consider today, and for each of them I have conditions associated with them that I'd like to propose. The first question is what specific water monitoring needs to be planned and budgeted by the developer? The second question is should the developer be required to employ non-toxic methods of protecting against subterranean termites? The third question is will the planned integrated golf course management process suffice to keep our waters from being degraded? In terms of the water monitoring needs, I'd like to address water monitoring needs first. Yesterday, in Judge Ibarra's court, that's why it was 2:00 in the morning to finish this, I listened to discussions of the August 13 th report of Karen Klein and Dr. David Ziemann, water quality monitors for Hklia. I suggest that this monitoring procedure be adopted for Kohanaiki. It is as follows, and there are four parts to it. The court required Hklia to do a pre-construction baseline study of four quarterly samplings to consist of three days within 14 days. These must be "dry-season" samplings so that the rain can be less likely to confuse the result. The second thing is that once construction begins, the same quarterly samples as pre- construction. Again, dry-season samplings. The third thing is groundwater sampling makai of the golf course and mauka of the shoreline, that is to say within the public park, and also near the highway. So, as Dr. Brock said, you can figure out what's going in, what's coming out and isolate them. And correlation studies need to be done for each report between sampling events and fertilization and/or irrigation. This is a fairly extensive set of monitoring requirements. It's not cheap, and it goes on for some time, and so I think the developer needs to plan and budget these tests up front and make the results available to the Department of Health, other agencies, and perhaps some individual or group nominated by the kpuna of the working committee. The second thing I'd like to address, I respectfully request that the monitoring procedures be adopted as a condition of the SMA permit. 35 The next item is protecting against subterranean termites. Here the -, as some of you know, subterranean termites live in very large colonies in the ground and they can work their way through small cracks and destroy houses in six to 12 months, so they're a major concern. And fortunately, there are effective ways that are alternatives to termiticides that are worth the cost, when building new homes and buildings in such environmentally sensitive areas as Kohanaiki. I became aware of the serious problem a couple years ago because of a lecture by a University ` of Hawaii professor on subterranean termites and then I found a number of websites the last week and -, that are relevant, and I learned that there are very effective ways of fighting these termites without chemicals. And it basically boiled down to the physical barrier, either a mesh screen that, a specific mesh screen that is available or a basaltic termite barrier with wire mesh. You can buy it apparently at some of the major building supply houses and put a barrier underneath the concrete slab, as an example, if that's the -, where the house is going to be built. As a condition of the SMA permit, I respectfully request that every house and building on the property be required to have a physical barrier known to prevent subterranean termites from entering, and that no chemicals need be used to -, in fact, should be forbidden to prevent treatment of subterranean termites. Something would have to be in the CC&Rs for the future. The third thing is the golf course design may be the best way -. Sorry. Biorational golf courses may be the best way to keep from degrading water quality. And I'm encouraged by some things that Jerry Rothstein said today amcHsghmjsgdx&qdudqxhlonqs`ms-Sgdi+enq Hklia, and I've got two copies of it here for you, they have an Integrated Golf Course Management Process revised dated 1998, 31 or 32 pages which everyone assumed would protect us, and it did for the first three months. But I learned in court yesterday that on the latest sampling, which was in May, reported in their August report, the -, most of the -, the majority of samples did not meet the State requirements for water quality. The -, and most worrisome were samples of nitrates and nitrites that exceeded State and Federal quality standards. Now the lawyers argued, well, are you absolutely sure this is from the golf course and not from something mauka of the golf course? And so we hope that something would -, you can judge for yourself by reading the paragraph I copied out of the report from Karen Klein and David Ziemann, starting on, I guess it would be on your Page 3 of your copy. But it looks like the -, this was a period when there was no watering -, I'm sorry, when there was no rainfall, there was very little rainfall during this period, and that required a lot more watering on the golf course, it says in the paragraph here, and that -, and so there was nutrients and so forth came into the ocean and caused this violation of standards. Anyway, this may be one more reason to restrict the design to biorational golf course. We got one evidence where we tried it and it didn't work. And so the area -, and see, this may be one more reason for restriction of designing the golf course, and I recommend that that also be a condition of the permit. 36 I'll stop here and ask questions, answer questions happily. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Erway. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Erway? If not, we'll take one more speaker. I was hoping that I would have gone over the four of you by now, but since it's 1:00 and the Commissioners have not even broken for lunch yet, we'll take one more speaker and then we're going to break for lunch and come back and continue the testimonies. So, Mr. Mahi. ROY:Mine is short. Mine is short. GALDONES:Yours is short? MAHI:Aloha GALDONES:Okay. We'll see how long Mr. Mahi goes first. MAHI:Hello, my name is Arthur Mahi. I live in Hamanamana, North Kona. That's beyond Kalaoa, which you say Kalaoa; that's not the right pronunciation. And I've lived there all my life. And I'm here as a Hawaiian culture. The ocean is where we get our food. Right now, the ocean is nice, and you can fish from there, but when you put anything, especially a golf course, buildings, they say nothing will sink into the ocean. Eventually it will. But I see a lot of people say nothing goes in the ocean. But when people come to the beach for camping or sightseeing, surfing, they're the ones bring the pollution in the ocean. When they leave, all the rubbish is all over the beach and every ` place, you know. Keep Hawaii clean if you want to use the beach, because the ocean is our ` food source, we call it our icebox. All kind of fish and opihi used to be there, now is no more. People want only for make money out of our fish, you know, to get little baby fish to sell, make aquarium fish, that is a no-no. And some people catch fish and they don't like, they throw them away. If you don't want it, put it back for the people next. When they come, they have something to fish for. ``` Same like the ina. The ina provides, whether you want to take care of the ina. But, you know, I rarely, I feel funny feeling when everybody come over here, they own the land. In the Hawaiian way, you don't own the land, Ke Akua own the land. You're only caretaker. But everybody come here, I own this land, I own this land. My land, I don't own. I only pay the use of the land. If I owned the land, I don't have to pay tax. But you know, people come over here, make me all funny kind because, you know, the environment, that's what we're living for. As the old saying, ua la o ka lani ulu ka honua. What that means? When it rains, everything grow, even the human. Your coffee, coconut. What I see, coconut, they no look right. Why? People cut the coconut. What for? Coconut never follow you anyplace you go? They stay over there. And if you're dumb enough when you see dry coconut you sit down there, that's your fault. You know Hawaiians, you get hit 37 by a coconut, nobody complain. Now you sue and everything. Nobody own the coconut. And you put on the ground, it belong for everybody. But the coconut look nice with fruit on it. How you like running around here without head? Just the same as the coconut. And the trees, they're not put over there for you chopping them down. If you plant, you can do that, but the plants, in our days, Hawaii nei, it's for us to take care. The plants is when they're small, they're just like the baby. If you don't take care of them, they'll die. But when they come big, they're on their own. You don't have so much to take care of. And all of these forests, people like eradicate. What for? People say animals go in their house, destroy all their plants and everything. Why? That's not their land, that belong to the animal. When you like food, you go get pork chop, whatever your want, goat. That's how we used to live by. Nowadays, they eradicate the sheep for what? Never harm nobody. The sheep, they say destroy the bird. No, it don't destroy the bird, human do. But if, you know, we don't take care of what we have, we're never going to get. `` Now we go back to Kohanaiki. Okay. Kohanaiki is a good place right now. Opaeula, plenty. And there's all in the place where you said, Pine Trees. It's not a pine tree, it's mangrove. Let's get used to with that. I never see pine tree like that, big leaf and a lot of little trees. See, we never, when I was growing up, we never had that. You say anchialine pond. To us was drink water pond. We put some fish in there. When I go in the Army, came back, there's no more pond, a lot of mangrove, and there's more coming. If we don't stop them now, they're going to get out of hand. Now we talk about making canoe shed, like that. I know you're going to need entries to come in from the ocean, so you're going to want to do -, destroy a little bit of the, what you call the ocean to make canoe where it can go in and out. It's okay. But you have to cut down -. If you do that, you have to cut down the ocean so you don't get slam-banged right against the rock. And not only that, eventually, you open up a land near the ocean like that, take away all the boulders, and that's what they're using for slow down the water, you take away all that, what you have, no sand. You have desert, just a piece of rock here and there. But now we have to learn about the environment and food chain and life of the land and ourself if we like see, you know, the place still look nice. I don't mind all the park and all that. We have a lot of park is alright, it's good. But will the people take care of it? The rubbish can over there, all the rubbish all over on the ground. In the rubbish can, maybe quarter can, half can, and all of them around there. You know, if you bring rubbish, you throw rubbish, make sure it's in the can. If it fall down, pick them up. Only you can make the environment better or worse. And I love my land and all the Island, and all the environment, but only we can make it better. Mahalo. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Mahi. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Mahi? Okay, Ms. Roy, can you do it in five? Appreciate it. ROY:Aloha kkou, Members of the Commission, aloha to my Kona community, I'm Mikahala Roy. I sit today representing Klana Huli Honua, a 501(c)(3) 38 community group, and Na Kokua Kaloko-Honokhau, also a 501(c)(3). Also, I'm a member of the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-Honokhau Commission. We are remnants of the Kaloko- Honokhau Advisory Commission whose work resulted in the fruition of this national park. In other words, without the work of the workers of these initial committees, there would be no park. This began in the early '70s. So we are truly acquainted with these lands. However, we are not kupa, some of us are not kupa to these lands, and we gratefully acknowledge the great work of the communities that have been before you already and we thank them, all of the people that have put their time to this effort. I merely would like to be before you and on record that we have not had the opportunity to be present nor has membership of our groups today been there because we are inundated with ` development concerns of our ina aloha. Does this keep us from participating in this process? Negative. We are accustomed to being participants in process. And again, I say this. We also, this Na Hoa Pili Commission is the only Native Hawaiian commission appointed by the Congress of the United States to advise a U.S. National Park. This Commission has struggles of our own to keep our cultural affairs up and talked about with the national parks. I would like you to know the condition of the Hawaiian people today. In Kona, we are severely inundated, and I ask you to defer a vote today only because we would like to put input to this. We suggest that apart from any development that comes before you in the way of an application the County has an obligation to the Hawaiian people to meet the needs of protection of culture, and that's what this is about. Rather than being adverse to a developer, we are proactive in saying government, how are you helping us? Government, I wish you would take another arena to meet with these communities like we're doing in this process. We should not, we should not penalize any one developer for this process, this should be borne of government and the people ourselves here. Our groups move to participate to protect the Kona way of life. This is another reason we need to be a part of the process. Again, we would concur with many of the statements that have been made, it's just that we feel remiss we cannot -, if we are not a part actively of understanding what is at hand. Many of us in this room participate in many committees that work about the welfare of the land. Did you know that just within two weeks ago, Mr. Dan Davidson, Deputy for the Land under the Governor, just stopped the Burial Summit, the first one agreed to. This would have helped issues like what Mr. Tyler brought up, conditions for the safety of the iwi, for example, that we have at hand here, too, as well as other projects. I'm going to wrap it up by saying the Kona community is not a stranger with collaboration of parties, community, Hawaiian community and government. The present King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel would not be there today if it were not the developer that would fund the ` restoration, and the first one, of the Heiau Ahuena. The State and County, therefore, need assistance in acting as protectors of Native Hawaiian concerns and culture. I suggest that it be taken out of the arena of this particular application and that the subjects or the, rather the topics I brought forward be considered by you. That these issues are much larger than just say one year. And, for example, we have not been able to be a part. Again, I say, we may be 39 backing up extensively the voices that have been presenting because we do respect the voices ` of those ahupuaa, but it's just that we have been inundated. And I wish to put that on the record that the Hawaiian culture is severely being impacted and to the detriment of the people. Thank you very much. GALDONES:Thank you very much, Ms. Roy. Commissioners, any questions -? KUBOTA:I -. GALDONES:Of Ms. Roy? Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:I would like to ask Ms. Roy a question. Is it my understanding that you come before us today to express the fact that your group has not had a chance to interact with the planners as other groups have? Is that your concern at this point, and the fact that you either were not included by omission or because of your involvement in other, what shall I say, policing activities? ROY:That, ma'am, is your assessment, what you would take away from what I've said, but I will clarify the two points I'm trying to make here. One, we have a track record. I am representing two community 501(c)(3)s. The definition of a 501(c)(3) is that it upholds an interaction with the community, which you serve, and what you have not heard is our interaction with this process. Now the reason you have not heard that is number one, we have not, we have been very active with, as I said, other projects, which you are familiar with. The second is -. KUBOTA:Excuse me, Ms. Roy. ROY:Sure. KUBOTA:For interrupting you. I don't want you to get emotional about my question because all I wanted to get from you was a sense of what you were testifying about so that we, you know, we can perhaps -. We're not here to make a decision today. I think you were not here when we talked about that. We are going to continue this, okay. So I was going to suggest that in the interim, in the interim one month or so, that perhaps you can make ` some arrangement so that your voice or your representation of your ohana groups can be heard by these developers, that's all I was trying to get at. ROY:Thank you. KUBOTA:So I don't want you to get -. ROY:No emotion sent to you. Please don't accept that. KUBOTA:Huhu with me, okay. 40 ROY:No, no, no. KUBOTA:Thank you. ROY:I'm clarifying for you. KUBOTA:All right. My -. ROY:And again -, no, no, I don't think you understand. The point I'm making are two. One, that we have not participated for the various reasons. That doesn't mean that I don't know what's going on, I just have not been a party to that signature piece there, and I think that that is real important. If you ask for Kona community, Kona never has ` failed in giving their manao. But the mechanism fails sometimes to reach the people. I suggest that we can do this, and perhaps your suggestion anyway is well taken. The second is that these matters, like I say, please don't use an application, just one, to solve some of these bigger issues. I hope I can make myself clear enough. These bigger issues that come before you in the form of applications. Klana Huli Honua has been before you with regard to Doutor. This has been to protect archaeological sites that there has been no penalty that the State has given a developer for the damaging of sacred sites. This is incorrect, it's wrong. And so we come to you as a community party to let you know that the fight for this or the struggle is not just in individual applications, rather it should be before the government of integrity and the people of integrity. That's it. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? We'll recess until 2:30. RECESSEDThe Chairman called a lunch recess at 1:17 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 2:35 p.m. ` GALDONES:I would like to reconvene this Hawaii County Planning Commission. We have another speaker who had signed up to testify, Mr. Hauanio. Do you swear or affirm ` to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? HAUANIO:I do. GALDONES:Mr. Hauanio, could you state your name and your residence address and you may proceed with your testimony. HAUANIO:Aloha, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, my name is Lunakanawai Hauanio, and I'm from Kona. My father and as earlier testified, Uncle Arthur Mahi, they grew up over here in this area. 41 And I'd like to first thank the Commissioners for giving me the opportunity yesterday to vent a little bit. I apologize if I offended anyone. I just -, yesterday we have, you know, I've been ` involved with the West Hawaii Drug Court from November when we first started of last year, and it was just, you know, it's sad to see how impacted the ice have on our community. And to hear seven-year-old kids expressing selling ice because they don't like the idea that the haoles looking at them and their clothes, because the mother and the father, you know, they don't work, so instead of selling newspaper, you know, they sell ice so now they can buy new shoes and, you know, new shirt, new pants. So now the haoles no can make fun of them, yeah. I mean, anyway, that was yesterday but I ask you guys to forgive me yesterday if I appeared to be a little out of line. But anyway, I never go home until 4:40 this morning and then, of course, a new day came today. Thank you for allowing me to talk on the Kohanaiki proposal. And as I understood from Commissioner Kubota, that this is going to be a continuance, and I look forward to meet up with the developers to voice some concerns. First of all, I'd like to add on to the previous testimony by Duane Erway in his narrative relating to the hearing of the water quality with Ibarra yesterday. I don't know how you guys are going to do it, but what I'd like to do is make some recommendations. One is a little history. Hklia entered into an arrangement with the courts and created a, how you say, they entered into an escrow account, they're creating an escrow account, where the developer would put money into there and that money is to be used exclusively for the State, I guess, to hire the water quality guys and archaeological monitoring guys. And my addition to the recommendation is that these monitors that the County and the State put on these projects, that these monitors are to have at least five to 10 years of investigation background, to include with their archaeological expertise their water quality, land as well as ocean, their species recognition as far as sea life are concerned. ` Because we had a wonderful presentation last night with the West Hawaii Spear Fishing, Spear Fish Coalition; they had a talk-story. And this boy Ryan, beautiful Hawaiian boy, he gave a presentation regarding native species of algae and alien algaes. And what he -, I posed the question to him, and I asked if in their studies, do they come up with, you know, any sewage or, what do you call, pollution that they can detect while they are doing their studies in these algae studying that they did up along the coastlines of the Hawaiian Islands. And he, interestingly, he stated that there is different types of algaes that grow when there's pollutants or toxins that enter the water, and if our monitors are not keen to that kind of expertise, then we cannot distinguish whether or not the development that's in, that's fronting our resources, whether or not they are contributing to the impact. Now the -, in the hearing itself, and it was -, and I kind of knew it, yeah, because I guess like in every case that a State entity puts out against someone or some entity, the burden of proof is on the State, yeah, and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So my recommendation is that when these monitors -, that's why I said the need of these monitors to have these expertise, is to ensure that we can bring a sense of surety to the courts that, in fact, what's 42 happening on land, it's traceable to what's happening in the water or what's happening in the air. Your monitors, they got to have those expertise. And unless they have those expertise, the -, you know, you shouldn't allow any of these permitting process to go through, whether it's from the staff, I mean you know, from the State side, and the developer, or the developer's side. In the Hklia case, like I expressed in the, at yesterday's hearing, the community is, what do you call, they -, we do not trust the government, bottom line. We -, our faith in government is -, in some people it's okay but, you know, as far as us, it has been, for the past what, since 1991, watching all of these planning process go through, those of us who are aware of the process, we do not trust the government. Like I said in the previous, in yesterday's hearing, we could only prove one in the Hklia case, corruption, yeah, people that was on the take in the government, okay. And we have to -, here's another recommendation. We have to have the community base group in, within that area, wherever the developer, the development is happening, we have to have -, allow a community group made up of all of the stakeholders, no matter who, but living in that community, to oversee the monitoring, yeah, to oversee, have access to monitors, the monitoring report, the monitoring, how they are monitoring. Not to question them and get in their way, but to have access to observe them, how they're monitoring, what kind of questions they are asking, you know, from a -. You can stand away. You don't interrupt them while they're doing their investigations or while they're doing their duties, but you got to have that kind of scrutiny. Until, you know, the community feel comfortable that, oh, government is doing it correctly or that the developer is doing it correctly, we got to have it strict. The rules, the process got to be more strict than what it is now. I was going to show you guys something but, you know, computers, I love them. They don't work when you want them to. But anyway. Again, Ms. Kubota, I appreciate your questions and your, you know, your strength because, you know, we need that kind of questioning of why it appears that we're treating people differently, yeah. I appreciate that. KUBOTA:Thank you. HAUANIO:And Mr. Yuen, thank you for taking the blows and not going away. Mahalo, you guys. Thank you for all the hard work. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Hauanio. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Hauanio? Otherwise, thank you. HAUANIO:Just one more thing. Just another recommendation, and this was from Dr. Earl Bakken, and he made this comment while we were having a talk-story with one other development. He used this term chronobiologic, synchronized with the sun. Basically, what 43 they said was is you utilize -, when you're building something, you utilize the natural element, yeah, the maximum of the natural element to alternative energy or things like that. And, finally, that development, you know, the development right here, I'm looking at that picture, it's too damned close to the ocean. Mahalo. GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Eadie. Mr. Eadie, as you are aware in the opening of this application discussion, that we will not be going into decision making today. However, I will give you the opportunity to make rebuttal statements. EADIE:I understand, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I guess the term, starting out with the term rebuttal, it sometimes can suggest a contrarian view of things. I don't think that's the case here. We've had a very open and frank discussion today with the people who gave public testimony and discussion amongst the Commissioners, and we're taking a series of iterative steps, and I think this was a good step today. I'm not going to get into too many specifics. I would like to just basically speak about a couple of themes perhaps. First of all, I started out my testimony with capsulizing where we're at in the process. We are at a conceptual planning stage right now. And as such, we don't have all of the answers. The process we're going through right now with the Planning Commission is an attempt to identify the most likely issues and to fully understand those issues before a prudent decision can be made. Necessarily, when you get into more detail to understand such things as what Mr. Rothstein is speaking about, the biorational golf course, for instance, or other issues that are related to this proposed development, that's going to take more time than to just focus on that and make a decision that might not be entirely thought out. And I don't mean to say that we can't and won't diligently pursue those answers as we go, however, we have a situation where after a hopeful approval from this body, we will engage an employee, a number of additional people to go into what we call the design development stage. At that stage, the scope of the plans, the detail of the plans becomes much more thorough. And in addition to that effort of putting the project under a larger magnifying glass and getting down to inches versus yards on some aspects of design and how it's laid out on the conceptual site plan you're looking at, it would also involve validation of what Mr. Rothstein is speaking of. It'll also involve getting, weighing in with the State on the burial plan that has yet to be done. A long story short, there's a number of processes that will take place after approval that -, and before development that nail the plan down with the specificity that it requires so that everybody is comfortable at the end of the day before the first, I won't say spade of dirt is turned, the first chunk of lava is turned. The other theme I guess that I would speak to today that I heard loud and clear as everyone spoke at this table was that the line of communications, communication must be continued. This -, if we receive an approval from this body, it isn't like everybody goes away and starts drawing plans. That communication process continues. The details are shared. And there is a 44 continuous dialog that is a part of the process. I assure you that we're not going away. I know Chris isn't going away in administering the application. And the point of when we get to November is to craft cogent and reasonable conditions of approval that assure these processes will take place. But I can assure you just personally that we will carry on with that line of communication. There were a number of different topics that were touched on today. Rather than speaking to any one issue that I think in large part will be addressed in your final staff report based on what has been understood today from the testimony and from us, I'd basically, I think, try to stay here and answer questions. And if I can't answer those questions, we have very qualified people here, still here to answer those questions for you. One point about the last comment the gentleman, the last commenter made, was the monitoring and the need to have a experienced person to be, for instance a pond manager. There's no reason to expect we wouldn't continue to utilize the services of Dr. Brock, for instance, to draw on his decades of experience to be the pond manager for these anchialine ponds. Similarly, Dr. Rosendahl. And when the occasion calls for additional disciplines and experts to be involved in the process, we will seek and ask questions about who might be the best fit for this development so that it is carried out with all the good intents we have. So with that, I'll just open it up, if you wish, to questions, or close out. GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Eadie? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Thank you. Mr. Eadie, I'd like to just make one little observation first regarding the things you just said, and then I had one more question I wanted to come forth with. Not as a Commissioner but just as a human being, the only -, the thing that kind of caught my ear a little bit there when you were speaking about assuming the SMA permit is granted, that you really want to keep the lines of communication open and a lot of the design development's going to take place then. The only thing that was occurred to me is that before the permit is granted, I think the public in general has a feeling of more equality of power. You still need the permit, they still have comments to make here. And once the permit is granted, then the public can feel a little bit more like they need your good will or something and there's not that equality. So I think that's why in some of the testimony today we heard people saying, well, we need to have this down in writing, this needs to be a condition of the permit and all that, because I think the people want to get as much as they can while they still have equality of power rather than when they're just asking. EADIE:I agree, Commissioner. We're here to strike a balance on how much information is needed to make a prudent decision, and I think that we're speaking the same language here. We need to furnish you with the information you need to make that decision and not to defer. If it is deferred, just like you said, that condition of approval that will assure that that issue, whatever it might be, is addressed in finality is very necessary and important. 45 GRAHAM:Okay. And then the question I wanted to put to you. When I first read the material that we got a couple weeks ago from you folks and all, and I was reading about the 109 acres which you are transferring and in regard to the shoreline park, I also was struck by the fact that some of the shoreline park is golf course. And I know some of the people here today seemed to bring up that issue. My first sense was well, maybe this is just spin. You wanted to make it look like a big shoreline park even though you would be using part of your golf course. Probably, that's not the case. But it seems like if it is being transferred in some way, yet it's not for public use, it seems a little odd and unusual to have it go that way rather than just having you agree as a part of your permit that certain portions of your land would only be used for golf course so as to provide that buffer. So I guess what I'm trying to do is get from you a little bit more of what the thinking is that went behind how it was, in fact, handled so that I sense there is really more meat there than just spin. EADIE:Sure. I understand that question. In November last year when we had our first community meeting, the -, we really didn't have a plan that was -, we felt comfortable enough to share in detail. What I did that night was show on an easel essentially the project area divided into four parts. The most easterly part was an area that's a future development for us and not a part of the project. The middle two sections were the development proper. And then westerly, the most makai part, was to be an open space of some type, a public open space and some private open space. The purpose of the 109 acres is to assure that open space is maintained forever, basically. So while there are components of this open space that have a golf course which is, as Chris said, an easement, if you will, back or however it is formulated in terms of ownership, you know, I don't think it's that germane. What I think though is that that component of open space is part of a commitment to not have any development in the future in that area, development being structures or hardscape, if you will. And so that component was kind of a key area of the plan in terms of creating this buffer I spoke to earlier. And then the other parts were the, you've got the existing shoreline which is 20 acres or so, you've got the area in between the so-called golf safety zones, which is the area that is within the golf course that you want to stay, have the public stay out of for safety reasons, and the inner, the middle part is that public area that would be accreted to the existing ocean as well as a`ahumanu Highway. So you've got all of that the public access road going to the Queen K acreage that comprises the open space, and the underlying theme, being a little long winded here, is that it is committed to open space forever, even though it's GRAHAM: I see. So my short take on all that is sort of it evolved chronologically, but the net result of it, having been transferred, is actually one which gives more protection to the public than a new SMA condition on your use of the land. EADIE:I think it does. I mean that's before the application was even filed, that commitment was well underway. GRAHAM:All right. Thank you. 46 EADIE:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions of Mr. Eadie? Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Thank you. Mr. Eadie, I'd like to echo my fellow Commissioner's feeling of participatory engagement by the public, and I feel although there are fine-tuning parts that need to be done and issues that are still outstanding, I feel that there's not this anti project type of nuance that I feel, so I feel pretty good about that. I have a couple of questions that I wanted to pose to you. Earlier in the day, I talk -, I asked the Director about the public walkway along the shoreline. EADIE:Yes. KUBOTA:And I was told that there was amended walkway and that to get to the southernmost end of the shoreline, there was to be -, I understood it to be a concrete pathway that the public could use. Now is that correct, or am I misinterpreting the Director's response to me? EADIE:Initially, we did have an eight-foot concrete walkway that traversed the property from north to south. However, in consultation with Chris and in listening to these public forum meetings and the workshop meetings themselves, the idea of how much manmade hardscape do you place on a precious environmental area such as the shoreline was prevalent throughout. And ultimately, we decided that if you took access to Pine Trees, the other roadway, to -, or a little bit past the so-called Pine Trees, that's going to penetrate the property far enough to get adequate public access to the main areas, the main recreation areas of Kohanaiki. However, the walkway was kind of viewed at the end of the day as kind of an adjunct and not necessarily vital to the usage of -, for pedestrian access. It'll still be there. You can still walk on an unimproved surface southerly, and we felt that the elimination of that much manmade intrusion on the beach was a good idea. So the revised plan that was sent a few weeks ago reflects that change. And I think that's the current plan, so that walkway is not on there anymore. KUBOTA:I see. Well, if the public wished to access your southernmost point, they could do it by foot. EADIE:I believe so. This is -, go ahead, Chris. YUEN:Yes. Right now, there's a jeep road that runs the entire length of the property, from north to south. It's mostly sand surface, it's easy walking. What we would have then -, the public access plan is that the main public access road comes in to the north. Then there's a new vehicular public access road that parallels the present jeep road but is 47 inland a little bit, shown in red there. And it goes a little over half way to the southern boundary, and it goes past Pine Trees and ends -, which is shown in green there, and ends in a turnaround. From that point on, the public would be able to just walk on the present jeep road to the national park boundary, and then the trail continues on through that, through the national park, actually. Coastal -, after the vehicular access road is put in, the coastal road that exists now would become a trail, the entire coastal road would become a walking trail and would be closed to vehicles so that the pedestrian trail would be separated from the vehicular. This is -, if you go back to -, and it's in your materials, there's a letter from DLNR from 1990 saying that there should be a coastal trail and that we shouldn't have a mix of vehicles and people walking, so the new public access road provides quite a good way for people to drive to the most active use areas. And then at the very southern part, it would be a walk of approximately 2,000 feet to the southern boundary. That area is a little, even today is more -, it's in a quieter use by people, by and large, not quite as, not as actively used. So that's the concept of the public access plan. KUBOTA:Thank you very much for that very clear explanation. And I hope the people in the public that needed that information assured of their access to the southern boundary. One more question. Mr. Graham touched upon it. Mr. Eadie, I see -, would you give me a definition of a public domain as you use, as you refer to it in the, in your proposal. I ask that primarily because the concept of open space component of the proposed transfer, and it talks about 109 acres plus, into the public domain, and yet -, and I understood public domain to be public usage, but it doesn't seem to be that. So would you explain to me what my understanding of public domain is and what is referred to in your proposal? EADIE:Certainly. Commissioner Kubota, my interpretation of the public domain is that our voluntary transfer of property to the public domain, if you will, is essentially giving the property ownership away to whatever entity is going to own and operate the park, whatever entities. And that's what it means to me is we're transferring ownership. And with that comes rights and responsibilities, of course, and the County and/or the National Park Service would have an obligation to, as they accept this, to operate the park and its facilities. So it's a gift, if you will, and I don't want to be condescending, but that's what it is, it's a gift to the public domain, which is ownership of the property. KUBOTA:Ownership of the property. Thank you. So where does this 65.16 acres compare to this 109 or a total of 128 acres? I'm getting confused here, you see. I thought public domain is, as you explained it and I understood it to be, ownership of the property by the public. EADIE:Yes. 48 KUBOTA:And yet I see represented here, and maybe I'm missing something here, but the understanding that I get from the write-up in the Background Report is that the -. EADIE:I think you're alluding -. KUBOTA:Park. EADIE:If you look at Exhibit 3-3, I think it is, in your small blue binder, if you look at that and -. KUBOTA:Three dash three. EADIE:I think that's the exhibit. KUBOTA:Okay. I got it. EADIE:Yes, it's Exhibit 3-3. KUBOTA:Yes. EADIE:The 63 acres you are speaking of is what Chris has alluded to earlier, and that is -, and what Mr. Graham spoke about, and that is it's all part of permanent open space, but there is going to be -, that property will be the golf course. So it's open space -, it's the golf course component of the total open space acreage, if you will, the green area. The purple area is the so-called park area that's being added to the light purple area, which is the existing State ownership of the beach. KUBOTA:Okay. So in essence, the purple area, the dark purple area comprises 65.16 acres? EADIE:Actually, that's 40.85 acres. KUBOTA:Forty point -. EADIE:If you look at the upper right, there's a table that shows color keys to -. KUBOTA:Oh, okay, okay, 40.85, okay. EADIE:Yes. You got about three acres for that beach facility which is -. KUBOTA:Yeah. Yeah. EADIE:The access road from the west to the east is a little less than two acres. And all of that is part of the open space. 49 JTANS@9Nj`x-HftdrrHllfdsshmfbnmeused because when you say you transfer ownership into the public domain, then I -, and you have a golf course, golf holes on it, the greens, I mean the fairway is on it, does the public own that land? It sounds like a simplistic question, but I don't understand it. EADIE:Right now, that is the way that it has been characterized, yes. It's a -. The 109 acres would be transferred, and as Chris said, we would get an easement, a perpetual easement back from the County to utilize, improve, and operate a golf course. KUBOTA:Oh. EADIE:That's not to say though that the golf course, if that was an issue that -, and it may not be a bad idea, is the golf course itself, while it's kind of like a mechanical thing here, you could not necessarily, we would not necessarily deed the golf course to the -, or the golf course area to the County, and we could, you know, it would still be, we'd still commit to it to be permanent open space. That's not the way it was initially set up, but really what's important here I think is that this whole 109 acres is perpetual open space. KUBOTA:Yes. I can see that. EADIE:Yes. KUBOTA:It will be perpetual because the golf course fairway is there and the park is there. EADIE:Yes. KUBOTA:However, the dedication of the ownership of that property may not be 109 acres. EADIE:That's -. KUBOTA:May not be. EADIE:Right. KUBOTA:It could be, we hope it is, but it may not be. I mean -. EADIE:Correct. KUBOTA:That's what I'm reading from here -. EADIE:That's correct. 50 KUBOTA:And I'm getting confused. That's why I wanted it very clear. EADIE:That's correct that -. KUBOTA:Thank you. EADIE:Fine. Thank you. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner? Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Following this discussion, if we can keep referring to the binder, on Page 3-4, I'm looking at Table 3-1, and under Other Components, under the Coastal Park, net dedication, it says 40.86 acres. So I understand that that's the light, the purple color, I think, from 3-3, but what I'm interested in is in that net dedication phrase. I'm wondering, it seems to me that that net dedication, is that the amount of land that in this table is being referred to as being dedicated to the public or -? YUEN:The net dedication in that table is equal to the dark purple color in Exhibit 3-3. That's what that means. That's the coastal park area that will be actually not in golf course or safety setbacks and available for public use. EADIE:I think the word net dedication is -, just connotes the fact that that's a calculation of a convoluted area and the net area of that is -, it shouldn't even be there, really. SPRINGER:I was getting a bit confused using the term net, that seems like in total, and that was contrary to the-. EADIE:Sure. SPRINGER:Higher figure. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners? Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:No, no, I was going to say we can continue this discussion at our next meeting because we're going to have to get out of here in 15 minutes, aren't we? GALDONES:Yes, ma'am. KUBOTA:So do you want to continue this or do you want to -? 51 GALDONES:Well, if there are no further questions, then I would close this part of the hearing and go into a motion to continue the hearing at our next meeting, if -. ROTHSTEIN:Is it okay if we say something? GALDONES:Okay, I will allow. If you could keep it short, Mr. Rothstein, I would appreciate it. ROTHSTEIN:Well, Mr. Eadie is very consistent. He said both at the public hearing and the meeting we had a few nights ago and today just now about the consummation of the golf course should be done at the design development stage. And that sounds like that they don't want to nail down an agreement prior to that so that it could be included in the SMA. I mean the SMA is going to say something about the golf course. It could be something that I read to you from the fair -, from the agreement that was signed. But like Mr. Graham so eloquently pointed out, you know, the equality of power is diminished after the SMA permit. So that's why we feel very strongly that in the next 30 days we have plenty of time to work out as much as possible an agreement that can give us what we want as maximal sensitivity to the environment, you know, like the gold Audubon or biorational, whatever it works out to. And our hope that in our discussions day that we're going to be undergoing with Ted that we can come to some kind of conclusion, not that it's not going anywhere and then we come to the end of the month and we have a lot of talk but we'll handle it at the design development state. I mean the design development stage could be the very little nitty-gritty details that got to be worked out, but within the framework of having some kind of substantive agreement prior to that. That's what we're hoping for. I hope that we're not, we don't have crossed signals of that. GALDONES:Thank you for those comments, Mr. Rothstein. YUEN:If I could just say one thing. I expect -, the Department's recommendation will contain many and some rather specific conditions for the golf course. GALDONES:Okay. Any further comments or any further questions? Otherwise, thank you very much, Mr. Eadie. EADIE:Thank you very much, everyone. GALDONES:Commissioners, we need to go on record that we will continue this hearing, so the Chair is prepared to entertain a motion to that effect. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue hearing on Special Management Area Use Permit SMA 03-012 to the next November meeting in Kona. MINA:Second. Second. 52 GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Mina that Rutter/KW Kohanaiki, LLC Special Management Area Use Permit SMA 03-012, Use Permit USE 03-002, and Use Permit USE 03-003 be continued to the next meeting here in Kona. Any discussions? No discussions. By voice vote, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. COMMISSIONERS:Aye. GALDONES:Opposed, say nay. Motion carried. The discussion ended at 3:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janet L. Kama, Transcriber 53