Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-17 TECOMMERCE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 17, 2008 E. COMMERCE ENTERPRISES A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CORPORATION (SMA 08-000027) was called to order at 9:45 a.m. in the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Hau Room, 62-100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala Coast, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Lani Bowman Andrew Iwashita Takashi Domingo Frederic Housel Shelly Ogata Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel  Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And one person from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: E. COMMERCE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION (SMA 08-000027) Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the construction of an approximately 2,000 lineal feet pedestrian path and landscaping. The properties involved are a part of the Pahoa Beach Estates Subdivision located along the western banks of Waipiele Gulch, Pahoa, North Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 5-5-8:66 and 67. WATANABE: The first agenda item of the day is, the applicant is E. Commerce Enterprises Corporation. It’s SMA 08-000027. I do have one individual – well, let me back up a bit – the Planning Director is requesting that we continue this matter and I understand that the applicant is in agreement with that, as the details had not been worked out yet. However, I do have Mr. Hermann Fernandez who has signed up to testify; as you know, he was going to be the intervenor in this SMA. So with that, Mr. Fernandez, would you come up? May I swear you in, Mr. Fernandez? Would you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? FERNANDEZ: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. And then for the record again your name and address, please. FERNANDEZ: My name is Hermann Fernandez, and I live at 56-820 Waiolu Place, Hawi, Hawaii. EXHIBIT A 1 WATANABE: Thank you. You indicated that you had some questions, or at least one question, that you wanted to ask. FERNANDEZ: Well, just thinking back what happened at the last Planning Commission session, the question over this SMA after-the-fact is, my assumption is the SMA ultimately is going to be approved; it’s not going to be denied. The question is, one that is sort of a rhetorical question is how much conditions or mitigation measures is Mr. Mohammadi or E. Commerce Enterprises going to have to do to this property in order to be able to be granted an SMA approval. I’m just trying to, is that, my understanding is if it’s denied -. What happens if the SMA is ultimately denied? I can’t imagine that. WATANABE: Maybe I should defer that to the Director, because you’ve been in negotiations with the representative, yeah, of the applicant? YUEN: Right. Well, the Commission can deny the SMA permit application. At this point what we are -. The applicant came in with an application – and you’ve seen what they proposed. The Department had a set of recommended approval but with a different set of conditions that they would have to perform, which they did not agree with, and we are currently in discussions about that. If the application were denied, then it would become strictly an enforcement matter as to what would have to be done on the ground as far as fixing the problem. The difficulty, of course, is once somebody has done something like this, it is very difficult to actually fix it in terms of restoring it the way it was. So there is a violation that’s been filed, and they have contested the violation for this. The violation would involve fines and some follow-up work, and so that’s also, you know, in a parallel track. It doesn’t get heard by the Planning Commission; it’s with the Board of Appeals and there is a hearings officer who will hear the violation side. WATANABE: Did that pretty much answer your question? FERNANDEZ: Yes, I mean, my whole point with all of this is saying, you know, that I really, I would desire, right, that as much restoration of Waipiele Gulch occurs that is possible, right? That’s ultimately where I’m coming from that I think what has happened to the gulch itself and to the environment down there is horrific, and that the Planning Commission needs to really take a serious look at how much restoration can be achieved in that area. WATANABE: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of Mr. Fernandez? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: I have a question since you’ve lived there for a long time, and I’m not familiar with down there. Was there an existing vehicular – like, for fishermen – road that you know of? FERNANDEZ: My understanding in speaking with colleagues I work with in the office, that there was never an access road from the cul-de-sac in the back where the second violation occurred, right, the long road that goes down there. There was the ability, if you were bold EXHIBIT A 2 enough, to drive a truck, right, down from where Mr. Mohammadi’s residence is now, down into the gulch and then drive back towards the beach; that was possible. It wasn’t on any map. It wasn’t used widely. It was pretty dangerous to do. BOWMAN: Thank you. WATANABE: As a follow-up to that, Mr. Yuen, I recall that it was largely for public access. Although he went ahead and cut that road prior to obtaining any permits, so the work is actually illegal, but you had negotiated or proposed that that be public access for that valley. YUEN: He was supposed to put in a public access but not where he made the second violation. WATANABE: Then it really doesn’t help, does it? Any further questions? Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez, are you in any kind of a discussion with the applicant? FERNANDEZ: Since the last Planning Commission meeting I have not spoken to Mr. Mohammadi or Mr. Lim. DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. HOUSEL: Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Housel? HOUSEL: I have a question just to clarify the last answer regarding, to the Director, the public access. Was that expected to be a vehicular roadway or a walkway? YUEN: Strictly pedestrian. HOUSEL: So there was no intention to permit a vehicular access to the beach? YUEN: That wasn’t part of the access condition, no. HOUSEL: Okay. WATANABE: Do you have anything further to add then, Mr. Fernandez? FERNANDEZ: None. Thank you very much. WATANABE: Okay, thank you for your testimony. You may be seated. Now, maybe what we can do is deal with the Director’s request. It’s a little unusual in that the Director is th requesting that we continue this matter until the November 6 meeting in Hilo or the November EXHIBIT A 3 st 21 meeting which will be in West Hawaii. But given the complexity of the situation, I think it’s a reasonable request. Would we care to have any discussion on this matter? Or would someone prefer to make a motion on that? BOWMAN: I just have a question on how full the agendas are. I mean, would it matter which meeting? th DARROW: They are not that full at this time, so it’ll be okay; both November 6 and st November 21 agendas should be okay. BOWMAN: Okay. st WATANABE: Was your thought that why not just continue it to the 21? BOWMAN: Well, that was my thought because we are in West Hawaii, and it would help, if there are any testifiers, that they don’t have to drive all the way to Hilo. So I would move that we -. WATANABE: I understand where you are coming from. I’m surmising that the Director is concerned about remediation if indeed they are not able to reach some type of agreement on this. And I’m wondering if you would confirm that, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Well, there’re a couple of things going on here. One, it’s quite possible that we won’t have -. Because of the complexity of this, I would like to try as much as possible to settle the matter. If we can’t, then the Commission has to go ahead with it. It’s quite possible th that we wouldn’t be able to come up with something by November 6, but I would like to hold th that open as a possibility. For my own personal plans, I only have the November 6 and the st November 21 meetings left as the Director; my term ends the same time as the Mayor and I’m not continuing. And I have been quite involved in this personally, so I would like to try to, you know, I’ll still be around and be available to give information on it, if it doesn’t get done in November, but I would like to see if we can get it done. BOWMAN: Yeah, in that case – I forgot about that – so we could definitely then take it th up on November 6. WATANABE: Okay, so could I then have a motion to continue to -? th BOWMAN: I move that we continue this SMA 08-000027 until the November 6 meeting in Hilo. st WATANABE: Or the November 21? BOWMAN: Okay, or -. WATANABE: So that would mean it may not be agendized on the -. EXHIBIT A 4 th BOWMAN: On the 6. WATANABE: Yeah. BOWMAN: Okay. st WATANABE: Or the November 21. So everybody is clear on that? Do we have a second? DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Okay, great. Thank you. I don’t think we need a roll call vote on this. All thst those in favor of continuing to November 6 or November 21, say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. WATANABE: Any opposed? Okay, the motion carries then unanimously. The discussion ended at 9:57 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 5