The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-11-07 TRUTTER PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 7, 2003 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of RUTTER/KW KOHANAIKI, LLC (SMA 03-012/UP 03-002/UP 03-003) was called to order at 7:10 p.m. in the ` Ohana Keauhou Beach Resort, Kahaluu Ballroom, 78-6740 Alii Drive, North Kona, Hawai`i, with Second Vice-Chairman Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:Hannah SpringerABSENT AND EXCUSED:Earl Fujikawa Bill Graham Fred Galdones Florence KubotaAurelio C. Mina, Jr. Jeffrey McCall Francis Smith 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 17 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: RUTTER/KW KOHANAIKI, LLC (SMA 03-012/ UP 03-002/UP 03-003) a.Continued hearing on the application for a Special Management Ar 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. b.Continued hearing on the application for a Use Permit to allow t 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.Continued hearing on the application for a Use Permit to allow t of a major recreational facility (portion of an 18-hole golf course and related improvements) with the Limited Industrial (ML-10) district. The property is located between the Kaloko Honokohau National Park and the Ooma property, makai of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Highway 19), Koh Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-9:3 and 16. EXHIBIT G SPRINGER:Members of the Commission and members of the audience, we are th now on the 9 and final agenda item. The Applicant is Rutter/KW Kohanaiki, L (SMA 03-012/UP 03-002/UP 03-003). (a) Continued hearing on the application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a sites project, an 18-hole golf course and golf clubhouse, public coastal park facilities and related improvements; (b) Continued hearing on the application for 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) Continued hearing on the application for a Use Permit to allow the development of a major recreational facility (portion of an 18-hole golf course a with the Limited Industrial (ML-10) district. The property is located between the Kaloko Honokohau National Park and the Ooma property, makai of the Quee Highway (Highway 19), Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-9:3 and 16. Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. I know the hour is late so IÓll dispense with going over the site map and the location maps since all of you are familiar with it. At the last meeting, the Planning Director requested that this hearing be continued in order to allow us the opportunity to absorb input from the public and to come up with our recommendation and proposed conditions. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the Special Management Area Use Permit Included with that recommendation are 87 conditions, proposed conditions. WeÓre also recommending the approval of the Use Permits, two Use Permits; and there are also attached to the proposed Use Permits 52 conditions. Are there any questions at this time? SPRINGER:Members of the Commission? Any questions or comments for this -. HAYASHI:Oh, just for the record, since the last meeting, we have received numerous correspondences. And, first of all, from Jerry Rothstein, you all received copies of those correspondences, including the e-mails that Mr. Rothstein had submitted. We also received from Richard Brock, whoÓs a consultant for the Applicant, who submitted the revised Water Quality Management, Monitoring Progr letter from Geraldine Bell, whoÓs the Superintendent for the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park; from a Michael Holland, an adjacent property owner, whoÓs president of Kaloko Land Corporation; and from Duane Erway. SPRINGER:Thank you, Norman. At this time, will the Applicant or their representative, and all of those who have signed up to testify, or those who are wishing to testify, please stand so I may swear you all in at this time. Please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. 2 SPRINGER:Thank you. WeÓll begin with the Applicant or his representative. Did you receive the Planning DepartmentÓs Background Report, Recommendation and any other subsequent materials? EADIE:Madam Chair, I received, this is Dave Eadie, Applicant for Rudder/KW Kohanaiki. SPRINGER:IÓm sorry, and your address, also. EADIE:ItÓs 18012 Cowan, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92614. SPRINGER:Thank you. EADIE:I received the staff report and conditions. I havenÓt received the material that was distributed tonight that I know of. SPRINGER:Does staff, are there any materials that the Applicant should receive as part of his Background? Is there anything more to give him? HAYASHI:Not that I know of, unless thereÓs something missing. EADIE:Madam Chair, excuse me, I do have the letter from the Nati Park Service. I think IÓve been copied on the e-mails from Mr. Rothstein. I donÓt know the last one that was mentioned, if I have that. HAYASHI:IÓll give him a copy. SPRINGER:Thank you, Norman. Thank you, Mr. Eadie. EADIE:Madam Chair and members of the Commission, thank you very much for waiting it out tonight. IÓm very grateful that you took the time to do this and we appreciate it very much. ItÓs nice to be back and itÓs a privilege to talk about the plan again tonight because weÓve come a long way in the intervening 30 days since we last appeared before the Planning Commission. Since that time, as Norman mentioned, the Planning Director and staff has interacted with the Applicant, with the general public, and numerous other people, and in that effort to talk out various issues that were brought up last time. A series of conditions of approval have been crafted down that are extremely extensive; and I might say that the, particularly with respect to the environmental conditions that have been proposed, they raised the bar for the County of Hawaii insofar as their stringent level of details theyÓre seeking to have us adhere to. And I think we take that challenge; and we wish to adhere to those and comply to the letter of the law, and to the ÐTÑ on these conditions. So I give you that promise. 3 Rather than attempting to answer positions or questions that I anticipate might come up tonight from speakers and in the, for expediency, I think IÓd like to just suggest if itÓs okay with the Chair to respond as you see fit. I guess, last, IÓd just like to thank publicly everybody who has been involved in the process. It has been a very long thorough process, well-intentioned by everybody; and the good faith agreement that was crafted really speaks to that cooperation. And I think we set a template here, and tonight weÓre seeking your approval. If you have any questions immediately, IÓd be happy to answer them. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Eadie. Members of the Commission, do you have any questions for the Applicant? Hearing none, at this time -. KUBOTA:I do. I have. SPRINGER:Oh, IÓm sorry. KUBOTA:I have several questions if no one else wants to monopoli mike. I know the hour is late and -. I wish to support this project. However, before I can give my stamp of approval, I have several questions that I would like clarified by the Applicant. And if I may start? SPRINGER:You may. KUBOTA:Thank you. IÓm working off of your Volume 1, initially. EADIE:Excuse me just a moment. KUBOTA:I think the best place for me to start is on page 3-9. EADIE:Yes, maÓam. KUBOTA:Okay. The second to the last paragraph, ÐThe concept for the open space component of the proposed development includes a voluntary commitment on the part of the property owner to transfer acreage as shown on Table 3-3 into public domain as permanent open space, which when combined with the public beach will total over 128 acres.Ñ Okay. And above that you have a matrix, 3-3. And as I and I think I alluded to this the last time and I didnÓt have a chance to really get into depth, but I did have a month to look it over. And, you know, by my calculation, I donÓt come out with 128.72 acres in public domain. I come up with 42. Let me explain how I did my math. Coastal park within the golf course, I donÓt count that as public domain, not by my definition. Beach facility, which is private, 3.05 acres, existing public beach area makai of the property line, I would imagine that to be the beachfront, and that would be now in the State, State owns that anyway. 4 EADIE:ThatÓs correct. KUBOTA:So, therefore, when you say you dedicate or you voluntari commit 128, over 100, total of over 128 acres, my figures donÓt EADIE:Commissioner Kubota, I think my answer to you last time was garbled. It was not a real good answer last time. KUBOTA:Yes, I wasnÓt quite satisfied with it so IÓm re-visiting EADIE:And I apologize. KUBOTA:Thank you. EADIE:What this summary shows is just that, it is a tabulation of the total acreage makai of the houses that are going to be or are committe space. The, starting from the bottom of that table, Commissione absolutely right, that is public domain already, the existing public beach. The remaining 109 acres is comprised of the four items that you see above that, and most notably youÓve made mention of the golf course, thatÓs in your view not public. And what this is in the way it has been proposed is that in order to commit the 109 acres of property we own to permanent open space, even though portions of that permanent open space are active, such as a golf course or active again but yet more of a public park, as IÓve described before, they all comprise permanent open space forever; and thatÓs the whole idea. The condition of approval that has been crafted by the Planning Director speaks to leasing back or an easement back to the developer for use of the open space component, that is the golf course, for golf course purposes. But I think the underscored point I want to make here is that the entire 109 acres that weÓre committing to open space is that way forever, albeit in use, for recreational purposes, public and private. I hope thatÓs a better explanation. KUBOTA:Yeah, thank you. I guess my question is, if it is dedicated to permanent open space, why donÓt we call it that instead of dedicated to public domain? Because my understanding of a public domain is that the public owns it, I mean the State or the County owns it, you know; and, essentially, thatÓs not whatÓs happening. Or am I convoluted in my thinking? EADIE:No, I think some terms are somewhat interchangeable. You know, in this application, we use certain terms and then they become the buzz word of the process here. I donÓt think it necessarily connotes that that particular term is more appropriate than another. I think just going back to the fact that we have permanent open space -. KUBOTA:Let me communicate to you why I feel so strongly. Being person, when I first read Ðthe commitment of public domain,Ñ wow And then I got into it, and then I started looking at it, and it was a big show for nothing 5 because itÓs not really what I consider public domain to mean. And, so, I think if you had said itÓs permanently committed to open space, I can buy that because thatÓs really true. But from what I read and what I figure, it doesnÓt jive. When you say you, Ðvoluntary commitment on the part of property owner to transfer acreage into the public domain,Ñ it sounds like a grand gesture, magnanimous gesture on the ApplicantÓs part. And even the fact that you are permanently committing these acreages to open space, permanent open space, itÓs magnanimous; and I appreciate that. But I think itÓs pulling the wool over the readerÓs eyes. And I donÓt know how many people read this, but I was thrilled when I read Ð128 acres.Ñ Okay, thatÓs one of them. Okay? Would you explain to me what the -? Okay, you said that the acreage that is part of the golf course fairway, you would lease it back, the County would lease it to you. According to the recommendation here, my stance of lease is that you get something in return for it, I mean, the landowner gets something in return fo here I said, I read for free. Is that correct? EADIE:I think the purpose in, and, again, this goes back to the way we had established the way of transferring the acreage. The concept of a lease or an easement, our concept was an easement. Mr. YuenÓs was to add an either/or situation where itÓs a lease or an easement. ItÓs just a method of enabling the Applicant to utilize that open space for the golf course purposes by whatever codicil is appropriate. And it isnÓt intended to have a, you know, for-profit transaction. ItÓs just a matter of following through with the next phase of this proposal where we offer this 109 acres and propose not to build any houses within that area, and yet we get this golf course acreage back and it all remains open space. ThatÓs basically the concept. KUBOTA:Mr. Eadie, if you kept the 109.33 acres, no, wait a minute, yeah, thatÓs the golf portion, isnÓt it? If you kept that portion in your ownership, you couldnÓt use it as a golf course? EADIE:We could, but -. KUBOTA:So why go through this big transfer of land and all of this? I mean -. EADIEWell, IÓm sorry, go ahead. KUBOTA:Yeah, okay. It sounds fancy but, I mean -. EADIE:We could have -. KUBOTA:Why? EADIE:We could have recorded covenants to and kept the land and not develop it; or in terms of any structures, homes, we could have done exactly what weÓre 6 doing. It just so happens it was structured this way; and when the application was filed, this is the way it has been reviewed. KUBOTA:I see. EADIE:It may be in your view preferable to do it the other way. I think the end result, however, is that, you know, in the ground nothing changes, itÓs just how we get there. KUBOTA:Yeah. So I canÓt understand, for the life of me, why you would take a convoluted route to get what you want at the end anyway. Because if you owned the land you can do it, right? You didnÓt have to transfer it to a public domain, so called, and then lease it back or get an easement back for free? I mean, no? EADIE:In our thinking, it was just at the time, anyway. our thinking was that it would be cleaner and it would be the best way so that it is transferred in whole, you know, for the whole 109 acres, and then get that back. But, you know, again, I say that it could go either way and it just happened to be structured this way. KUBOTA:Okay, excuse me, but you lost me there because I -. THI BADEAU:A good business decision. KUBOTA:A good business decision, okay, youÓre the expert. Okay? Then I go to one more, a couple more, then IÓll get off of this third paragraph from the top, and this has to do with Zoning Code, ÐA golf course is not listed specifically as being allowed in the use permit in the ÒM Industrial. ÐHowever, for that portion of the project site within the ÒMLÓ zone proposed for golf course usage, a use permit will be processed to request a Òmajor outdoor recreation facilityÓ under Section,Ñ blah, blah, blah, Ðwhich includes golf course usage.Ñ I checked the definition of a ÐMajor Outdoor Recreation FacilityÑ in our Code book and it says, that ÐA Major Recreation Facility includes a mini golf course.Ñ ThatÓs the reference to a golf course permitted in the ML zone. Now, do you consider, I donÓt know how many acres you have over there, but the golf course fairway running through that ML zone, do you consider that to be a mini golf course? I mean, you know, in every other definition where golf courses are allowable, Mr. Eadie, I found that golf courses were called golf courses, and they didnÓt refer to it as ÐMajor Recreational Facility.Ñ And for the life of me, I cannot understand why, I guess the Director is involved in this, too, I canÓt understand why you change the nomer. It doesnÓt say golf course, it says mini golf course; and I hardly think that that development over there, where is that part, Norman, please show it to me, that ML zone. HAYASHI:I believe itÓs in this general area. 7 KUBOTA:Okay, okay. And the golf course is running through that area, that open area, and I hardly equate that to a mini golf course. My understanding of a mini golf course is a putt-putt golf, and it has nothing to do with the extent of your golf course. Okay? CouldnÓt you have come in for a zone change? EADIE:It appears that Mr. Yuen wishes to say something that, to answer your question. KUBOTA:Oh, thank you. YUEN:If you read the definition of ÐMajor Outdoor Recreational Facility,Ñ a portion of a golf course would fit that definition. KUBOTA:It would? YUEN:You know, to fit the broad definition of a ÐMajor Outdoor Recreational Facility.Ñ It is not a mini golf course. But to have a portion of the golf course within the ML zone does fit that definition. KUBOTA:IÓm reading it. YUEN:Yes. You want me -? I donÓt have it in front of me. KUBOTA:You want me to read it? Maybe IÓm on the wrong place. It says, ÐAmusement and Recreation Facility. Major Outdoor means a perma providing outdoor amusement and entertainment, including theme and other types of amusement parks, stadiums, skateboard parks, go-cart and automobile race tracks, miniature golf and drive-in theaters.Ñ ThatÓs what it says. YUEN:Yes, itÓs not exclusive. This is, a outdoor amusement faci golf course. KUBOTA: If they were allowing a golf course in the ML zone, why didnÓt they say so? YUEN:These are things that are allowable by Use Permit. KUBOTA:I beg your pardon? YUEN:These are things that allowable by Use Permit. KUBOTA:ThatÓs right. In every other, in other, what was, I think CV, CV needed Use Permits to run a golf course through it, RM zoning needed a Use Permit. But they called it golf course. They refer to it as golf courses. And in this ML is the only one that youÓre going to use to create, to allow this golf fairway to pass through without a Change of Zone; and youÓre saying that a ÐMajor Recreational FacilityÑ is a golf course. 8 YUEN:Yes, because it fits the broader definition of a Major Outdoor Recreational Facility. KUBOTA:All right. SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota, do you have more? KUBOTA:Maybe IÓll try to find that -. SPRINGER:Okay. KUBOTA:If other people want to say something theyÓre, perfectly okay with me, and you can come back to me. SPRINGER:Other Commissioners? KUBOTA:Yeah, go ahead. SPRINGER:Hearing none, Mrs. Kubota, weÓll wait for you. KUBOTA:Nobody wants to say anything? Okay. Non-significant zone changes, I found them, oh, sorry. Non-significant, IÓm so tired I canÓt even find my papers. Non-significant zone changes, the Planning Director is authorized or empowered to make those changes. But when I super-impose your proposed, I guess it was 3-2, your chart, 3-2, that has to do with golf safety setback. IÓll use that. When I tried to super- impose it on the current zoning map that you have and using the allowable, what is it, non-significant zone changes, you have to go over the Village Commercial area, M-3 -. RM-3 is what? Residential -. HAYASHI:Multiple Residential -. KUBOTA:Multiple Residential. Okay. I see where it crosses over those areas. Now the Planning Director is authorized to do non-significant zone changes provided that there are some numbers that you have to follow, and I canÓt find them. It was by percentage and by acreage. Have those changes been alrea YUEN:Yes. And if you follow the, the changes that follow the Co Zoning Code in terms of no increase in density, they follow the section in the County Zoning Code. KUBOTA:The no, what? YUEN:They follow the County Zoning Code in that thereÓs no change in density involved in those non-significant zone changes. 9 KUBOTA:Was it an either/or? YUEN:Those -. Pardon me? KUBOTA:Was it an either/or thing? YUEN:In the County Zoning Code, it is an or. KUBOTA:Yes, but was it an either/or? YUEN:Yes, itÓs an or, in the County Zoning Code. KUBOTA:If it lowers the, no change in the density, then you can make it the non-significant changes? YUEN:ThatÓs right. ThatÓs right. KUBOTA:Okay. It didnÓt have to do with both? YUEN:ThatÓs right. KUBOTA:Thank you. Okay. Now getting to our recommendation, on Special SMA recommendation, I happen to take this up first because I have it in my hand. No. 2 says, Ð(and the general public on limited basis),Ñ Ðan 18-hole golf course, golf clubhouse and ancillary uses, athletic and tennis facility to serve the residents (and the general public on limited basis.Ñ Was this meant for all of those activities or just for the athletic and tennis facility to serve the residents and the general public on a limited basis? EADIE:Actually, Commissioner Kubota, as I recall, this is a reflection of the provision in the good faith agreement that we had with the community residents. And thereÓs a provision in there for, to allow public golf play one day a week, and thatÓs what this covers. KUBOTA:I see. Okay. SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota, may I interrupt just a minute to get some clarification on that. Looking at that No. 2 of the parenthetical statement regarding the general public on a limited basis, which follows the athletic and tennis facility -. And if I heard your comments correctly, Mr. Eadie, they pertain to golfing? EADIE:ThatÓs my understanding, Madam Chair. The good faith agreement, I happen to have it here, and I believe that thereÓs, itÓs limited to golf. IÓm not sure what provision it is but if youÓll give me a moment, IÓll be glad to clarify it. I think itÓs golf, though. SPRINGER:Okay. We might like to look at the County condition then. 10 YUEN:I think that this reference in, page 1 is in error. We do not have any, we do not have any condition that requires them to allow the general public to use the tennis and athletic facility that theyÓre developing for their residents. So, it should not have been, that parenthetical reference should not have been in there in page 1. KUBOTA:It should go to only the golf course facilities? YUEN:Yes. There is no condition then, thereÓs no condition that requires them to have public use of the tennis and athletic facility, so it should not have been mentioned, put in that parenthesis on page 1. They can allow the public if they want to. But itÓs a little bit, but to have it in there in page 1 is a little bit misleading, because theyÓre not in, I donÓt believe theyÓve ever offered to do that, nor is that a requirement of the proposed conditions. SPRINGER:Then should the reference to the athletic and tennis facility be struck from our document and the parenthetic statement go up right after Ðgolf clubhouse and ancillary uses?Ñ YUEN:I think itÓs, we should just say Ðathletic and tennis facility,Ñ because thereÓs no condition that it only be residents or thereÓs no condition that it serve the public as well. SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota? KUBOTA:I thought Mr. Eadie, excuse me, Madam Chair, may I be recognized? SPRINGER:Yes, Mrs. Kubota. KUBOTA:I thought Mr. Eadie, to my query, earlier, said that was part of the agreement, good faith agreement? YUEN:I believe thatÓs only for the golf course. EADIE:That is correct. KUBOTA:Yeah. EADIE:Item 7 of the good faith agreement speaks only to the golf use. KUBOTA:Only to the golf course. So we can strike out perhaps Ða tennis facility to serve the residents,Ñ and say, Ðan 18-hole golf course, golf clubhouse and ancillary uses for the general public on a limited basis.Ñ ThatÓs what it says. 11 YUEN:Well, we donÓt need to say anything beyond for the golf course. All we have to say is whatÓs said there, and then the condition is specific that thereÓs a minimum of one day a week of public play. KUBOTA:Okay, okay. YUEN:And then we should, you know, on the next line where it say Ðathletic and tennis facility,Ñ we should just bring it to a stop after Ðathletic and tennis facilityÑ because we have no condition that requires or prohibits public usage. KUBOTA:Sorry IÓm slow, but itÓs because IÓm tired. YUEN:More than understood. KUBOTA:Thank you. Okay. I had one more thing, but go ahead, Ms. Chairman, because I had one more very important thing that I Oh, I know, I know. I found it, it was in here. We have so much paper trail that it takes a lot to keep things organized. EADIE:Yes. KUBOTA:And when youÓre exhausted itÓs harder. MCCALL:Madam Chair? KUBOTA:Go ahead. MCCALL:I have one question. SPRINGER:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:ItÓs, itÓs more or a, just -. I noticed in the PlanningÓ recommendations, you make a reference to no use of cloropyrifos? IÓm just curious why you chose one agricultural chemical which, incidentally, is not available I think in Hawaii or in the U.S. anymore, anyway, to be on the list. I think thereÓs -. YUEN:Yeah, my, well, it has been identified as, recently as some that can cause disruption of coral spawning. My understanding is that it is still, itÓs restricted but itÓs still available for general, for use on golf courses by registered operators. MCCALL:Okay, that may be, other some, many Ag uses have been pul from it. Yeah, it used to be a very common chemical, household chemical that was used in -. YUEN:Yes. 12 MCCALL:Okay. Thank you. SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota? KUBOTA:A last one. Number 12 of the SMA application, I guess, i Condition No. 12, on page 16, Mr. Eadie. I shouldnÓt be asking this, I should be asking Planning Director this, or maybe I should ask Norman. But heÓs going to refer it to you, I guess, so IÓll ask you. I go back to this exclusive easement or lease, free of charge to operate and maintain a golf course and golf safety zone and residents beach facility. My question to you is why would the County do that? Six-three acres? Real property tax, I mean, you know, and Mr. Eadie touched on it. He said they thought it was a better way, but itÓs a convoluted way. Why is the County doing this because the mainess with, if the County owns the land, donÓt you have an obligation to maintain it? YUEN:No. KUBOTA:What about the liability factors? YUEN:The way the law, first of all, the way this is structured i acres becomes public property. When itÓs public property, itÓs there forever. Sixty-three acres would be encumbered by a lease or easement for the private operator to operate a golf course. Golf courses are not necessarily forever. But as long as they want to operate a golf course they can operate a golf course. But the government owns, the County or another government entity -. It seems like it would be the County will own the land. As far as the maintenance and liability responsibilities, if someone, maintenance and liability go with the party that controls the property. So if the government, if they have an exclusive easement over certain areas, they will be liable for those areas and theyÓll be responsible to maintain those areas, theyÓll be responsible to maintain the golf course, and they will be liable for any accidents that occur on the golf course. KUBOTA:Exclusively? The County could be named as parties, so could they not as landowners? YUEN:The County can always be named as a party. To give you an example, the State leases out property in the Kanoelehua Industrial area. If you trip in, say, somebody doesnÓt maintain the parking lot, the lessee does not maintain the parking lot, they have a puka in the parking lot, somebody trips and they break their leg. They can sue both the State and lessee; but the lessee, not the State, is liable. Somebody can, people can always name you in a suit but the person with the control of the property is liable. And, in this case, the private operator will have exclusive control over the, over a set area which includes the golf course and the golf safety zones; and this will all be mapped out by metes and bounds. As far as taxes, the taxation is the same because there is a provision in the County Tax Code for a government property under lease or easement, and itÓs taxed to the person that 13 has the beneficial use of it. Property taxes will not be affected, whether the County owns it or if they own it. KUBOTA:IÓm pau. IÓm finished, your majesty -. IÓm sorry. Mada IÓm finished, in more ways than one. YUEN:I thought you were looking at me. HAYASHI:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:I do have a clarification that needs to be made on the record. And this is in regard to the previous question that Commissioner Kubota had asked about the Item 2 of the staffÓs or the DirectorÓs, DepartmentÓs recommendation on page 1 relating to an 18-hole golf course, golf clubhouse and ancillary uses. And in the bullet form it says, Ðathletic tennis facilities to serve the residents (and the general public on a limited basis),Ñ and the Director said that wasnÓt applicable. However, these are taken from, exactly from the ApplicantÓs request. And I looked at page 6-3, 3-6 of Volume 1 and I quote: ÐThe proposed developments, athletic and tennis facility will serve the residences (and the general public on a limited basis),Ñ end of quote, end of parenthesis, IÓm sorry. So thatÓs taken, this is exactly as taken from what the Applicant had proposed. So, basically, what weÓre doing is referring what the Applicant has proposed as far as the SMA is concerned. KUBOTA:So what are we representing then? What are we representi YouÓre saying itÓs, itÓs there and Chris is saying itÓs not there. YUEN:I think what Norman is saying is correct, then, that they did make an application. We should just leave it as it states. KUBOTA:So we leave everything in there, as is? YUEN:Yes. KUBOTA:To serve the residents (and the general public on a limited basis)? YUEN:Yes. KUBOTA:I rest. SPRINGER:Any other, Commissioners, questions or comments? Hearing none, at this time we do have several individuals who have signed up to speak on the matter. And, at this time, Mr. Eadie, if you can move back into the audience or to the side, and we can invite members of the community, members of the audience who have signed up to come forward. 14 OÓTOOLE:You were going to make your disclosure-? SPRINGER:Yes, thank you. Members, Corporation Counsel reminds me of a matter that she and I had discussed, and I apologize. I failed to disclose earlier that I am a member of the Kohanaiki Ohana, which is a party to the good faith agreement. The extent to which I work with the Kohanaiki Ohana is to occasionally help with field trips, and I have made donations to the Kohanaiki Ohana to support the Annual Keiki Surfer Earth Contest. Also, I may be referred to in the literature, the document. Mrs. Kubota, you pointed that out to me today. I have received no financial interest or gain from the interviews that have been conducted with me or for the work that I have done as a community member with the Kohanaiki Ohana. KUBOTA:Madam Chair, thank you for the disclosure. And if the Co Counsel feels that there is no conflict, legally speaking, I find it not a problem to have you participate. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mrs. Kubota. I would ask, also, any of the parties if thereÓs any concern. EADIE:No, thereÓs not any concern on our part. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you. Ms. OÓToole, is that sufficient? OÓTOOLE:Yeah. IÓll just say that we did review the Ethics Code together, item-by-item, and nothing applied. KUBOTA:Fine. SPRINGER:Thank you. At this time, I see Lunakanawai Hauanio is not in the audience but, again, his comments on all agenda items were submi agenda item (SEE EXHIBIT A). So I call Janice Palma-Glennie, Ro Bond, Duane Erway, Jerry Rothstein and Mr. Rollin Frost. Mr. Frost, are you present? FROST:Yes. SPRINGER:Again, weÓll start with the testifiers of the right-hand side of the table. YouÓve all been sworn in. So for those providing testimony, in your turn please state your name, resident address and proceed. Starting with yo PALMA-GLENNIE:IÓm Janice Palma-Glennie, and my address is P.O. Box 4849 and thatÓs Kailua-Kona. And I am speaking this time for Sierra Club island. IÓm not going to read my testimony. But I donÓt want to beat a dead horse, but the golf course issue still concerns and confuses me. I have been wondering since the very beginning of the agreement being made how public land could be private, and IÓm sure it was a good business decision, as Mr. Thibadeau said. But I also feel that the 15 public course should allow more than one day a week public play if itÓs public land. And, also, I mean, I actually donÓt support a golf course being built there at all, but if there is and thatÓs part of the public park and the public domain, I think it should be open to public use. I also want to say that we do support the use of the Audubon Gold tenets which Jerry Rothstein has been, you know, talking to the landowners about using. It seems like the best currently available method for protecting the shoreline from degradation due to toxic runoff. And it does seem to set the standard higher for the County, and that seems like a good thing. The other thing was the Water Quality Monitoring Program. My understanding is that there will be one and, of course, I guess, obviously, a baseline for water quality standards should be set prior to any grading or bulldozing of the property. And IÓm sorry I didnÓt see that, it could be in the permit but I didnÓt see that. Though, otherwise, in keeping with the one-third landowner, one-third community, one- third County management model, I believe it should be written in the SMA permit that a Water Quality Monitoring Program should be financed at the landownerÓs expense, whether or not the other two entities are able to financially do so. IÓm not really clear about how the cost of that Water Monitoring Program will go. But I just worry that in the future if you donÓt have the same people involved and money is tight that if the County and the public canÓt come up with the financing that this Water Quality Monitoring Program might lack, lag -. And that seems very important. The other last thing, which I donÓt know if thereÓs any possibility of changing this -. But the structure for the guests, the owners of the nearby homes, thereÓs going to be a clubhouse or beach facility built for them, and now I know itÓs down far by the national park -. We still believe that a structure for them should not b the public use shoreline area. History has shown that public, p the coastline engender private use of the area. And this area is used by the public, not as extensively as the bay there where the surfing is but a lot of people do go down there. And from what IÓve seen and my experience everywhere in Hawaii where there is a private facility set up, the local people tend to avoid that area, and then they lose it as their own. I appreciate the opportunity to talk. I appreciate all the work that has gone into this. I do hope that you make a few of these changes or make sure that some there and that the golf course could be for public play as well. Thanks. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions or comments for Ms. Palma-Glennie? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Janice, I just have one little feeling that IÓve noticed arising in the last few days, is that, to me, for them to develop this is not like developing Mauna Kea or developing Four Seasons and all where you have, you know, your pocket bay and donÓt 16 have really many users there, and you have beautiful sunset views Òcause you have all this elevation. I think they have a little bit of a harder sell, from my inexperience way. So I donÓt feel appropriate to try to push for the most advantage on every issue because I think we want to make it something that they can do well to their buyers. So if they need a little exclusivity around that particular area that, of the beach club or if they donÓt need public on their course all the time, if that helps them, I sure feel willing to go that extra mile to help them make the project a success. ÒCause I donÓt think weÓre losing too much by doing that, given the whole scheme of things. ThatÓs just my own personal feeling. PALMA-GLENNIE:Well, can I respond to that? SPRINGER:Yes. PALMA-GLENNIE:I feel like the community is losing a lot. And even though we are getting a lot, maybe more than we would have had in 1989, you know, if that plan had gone through, that I feel that these people are being welcomed into a space that is, I donÓt want to use the word ÐsacredÑ but it is just so, itÓs just so special to this community, and so useful and so necessary. And so I do feel like those people are lucky to buy a home. If theyÓre lucky enough to have the money and the wherewithal to buy a home in that place, then understanding that what makes it so spectacular and wonderful are those things like not having a clubhouse facility. And I know what youÓre saying, but I donÓt think they wouldnÓt be able to sell the places. Otherwise, if I did it, you know, I just think things are selling no matter what. If they donÓt have a roof these days -. But I feel like keeping it special is one of those things thatÓs keeping it public, but I appreciate your comments. So, thanks. GRAHAM:I understand. SPRINGER:Members? I have a question, Janice. When you discussed water quality monitoring, are you anticipating sampling of the water column only or do you have anything else in mind? PALMA-GLENNIE:You know, I donÓt personally. ThatÓs definitely not my expertise. IÓve been listening to what people have been saying, theyÓre interested in doing that. Sierra Club has people that are more knowledgeable than myself, but I know weÓd love to participate, you know. And if thereÓs a group doing that, itÓs fine. SPRINGER:Thank you. Rollin Frost? FROST:My name is Rollin Frost. I came, too, as an expert tonigh explain how I got to be an expert in a little bit. But the thrust of what IÓm here to talk about is environmental damage of a nature that you may not be aware of, most folks arenÓt. So I want to open a little space for you to think about this. SPRINGER:IÓm sorry, Mr. Frost, thank you for your name. Could y your address, please? 17 FROST:ItÓs 77-6473 Princess Keelikolani Drive, Kailua-Kona 96740. SPRINGER:Thank you, sorry to interrupt. FROST:IÓve been in Hawaii a long time. IÓve been in the environmental business a long time. IÓm an expert in fluid flow and porous media. IÓm an expert in water and brine and oil flowing through rocks. What I want to talk about is what goes on under the ground because youÓre not dealing with the normal place here. You cannot apply the rules of housing projects and, over the nation and over the rest of Hawaii at this place, because itÓs a unique place. Imagine ten blankets six inches thick overlying each other and itÓs flat. And what happens under that ground is significant because nothing stays there very long. ItÓs full of pukas, itÓs full of tubes, different permeability zones and porosity zones. TheyÓre quite a mess. I have some experience in the soils of Hawaii. IÓll tell you a few stories if I have time. But IÓm greatly concerned about what goes into the ground, and this area in particular because the transport mechanism is right there in front of your nose. You look at the pond down here by this little, the old KingÓs house, itÓs almost fresh. Where does that water come from? Have you ever gone out here to the park and gone in the little keiki pond in the morning? And thereÓs ice water on the top of the water. ItÓs hard to get in. ItÓs fresh water. You sit down near the edge, youÓll feel jets of this fresh beautiful water coming out. Sometimes itÓs really icy. You can reach down, pick it up, and itÓs wonderful. ItÓs much better than what youÓll get along Alii Drive in your house pipes. Where does that all come from? ItÓs flowing through these blankets all the time. So when you put something into that blanket, it doesnÓt stay there. My concern is the underground. IÓve a, chemical engineering at Berkeley, a master of science in environmental health from UH, 30 years of work experience in Hawaii in environmental health. In my 20s I worked for Dow Chemical. We were trying to find ways to flush more oil out of the ground so we started off with table models and core tests in labs; and I learned how to put brine and oil and all kinds of things through all sorts of stuff. We wound up doing field tests in little oil fields and big oil fields. We put brine in one injection well, popped up in some farmerÓs yard. We used tracer chemicals of all sorts. What happens out here is unlike any other place. You donÓt find them in the rest of Hawaii. I know Maui and Kauai and Oahu very well. You wonÓt find it in Hilo. Only here, along here, down a little bit south, youÓll find this wonderful weird ecology with these blankets and this flowing water underneath. So what happe in goes the termicide, some in the ground, nobody notices. You sell a house, escrow, mortgage people, they want to see those termite treatments, who cares, it rolls into the cost youÓre buying a house, and it goes into the ground. 18 Jerry wrote to most of you, I think. At my suggestion he called the termite company. He figured 50,000 gallons for the houses, for this project. WhereÓs that 50,000 gallons going? You just donÓt put it in the ground, forget it. Why would they come back and do it again? ÒCause it leaves, it disappears. Where does it go? Where it goes is down into these ponds and down to this ocean. And youÓre not going to find it by trying to test. I know how to run gafchromatograph, I know how to test for things. I sample all over the general area, IÓve done it for years. I was in charge of all of the pollution on Kauai for the Health Department. I was their environmental health specialist. Bruce Anderson put me in there special, fights some battles. And youÓre going to test it. If you think thereÓs a water quality program that will determine where the termicide went, you wonÓt find it Òcause when it comes out on the ocean, itÓs gone. You canÓt sample there. You can find indicator organisms, how much limu there is there. ThatÓs the way to go, how much, you know, anemone, how much coral, what happens to it. But by the t something wrong, the whole damn plateau is filled with the stuff and itÓll come out for years. How well do you know Honolulu? YouÓve all been to Honolulu. You know where Moiliili Library is? Well, I was safety director of PRI and the gas company. And under Moiliili Library thereÓs a pool of gasoline, two feet down, itÓs about four foot thick, quarter mile square. WhatÓs it doing there? ThereÓs another huge pool just south of Ala Moana, even bigger, comes up in gas company little meter things along the road. We have to face it. At one point, you couldnÓt throw a cigarette d because itÓll blow up. We tried to test the gas. Well, most of the additives have been absorbed out of it, itÓs old. Where does it come from? Up in N comes down. Why is a pool there? Because itÓs not normal soil, folks. Fire Department will tell you itÓs there, canÓt get it out. Nobody will take responsibility for pumping it out. Gas company pumped on it for a couple of months. We gave it up. Why is this peculiar pollution there? You know whatÓs happening under your feet all the time? Some of us have said, hey, asphalt roads. I saw only one study that ever looked at it; and they said, oh, asphaltines in the water that comes down through your asphalt road only go about 20 feet. Oh, really? My suggestion to you is this. If you ever put homes in there, homes are the most polluting source. The richer the home, the more likely the guy house, put the termicide in. You never see it, you donÓt care. I care. YouÓve ever been to QueenÓs Pond, QueenÓs Bath? QueenÓs Bath is a small puka jus nude beach was, down on the, in the park there. ItÓs the most delightful little 20-foot hole in the lava. And you go down, and thereÓs a tree growing on the bottom of the ledges where people could sit. They say Kaahumanu used to cheat there on Kamehameha. But you go to the water, itÓs fresh. ItÓs just a little salty. And thereÓs lichens, little colorful different kinds of lichens growing blue and green and yellow, all over the bottom. ItÓs like a little wonderland, little tiny fish. You put this project in, you say goodbye to QueenÓs Bath. ÒCause what comes in through the underground, if you donÓt stop the termicides and consider some of these underground pollutions, ten, fifteen years up the road, bingo. You want a sample for it? I tried a lot of stuff like that. I tried to put little 19 wells in, little five-foot wells, half-inch, they put tygon tubing in, suck Òem out. YouÓre going to be really lucky if you could find the stuff. ItÓs really complex. But itÓs there. And, you know, huh, where do you think it goes? So I couldnÓt swear to the asphalt teams and the things coming out of asphalt roads. But if I were you, IÓd say concrete roads. And if I were you, IÓd say you put a structure in here, no underground termicides, no liquids, no. Even paste and Try some termite guy, tell you, oh, it absorbs. No way. ThereÓs no more clay in that soil. You know, it migrates, and it does things; and itÓs impossible to try to find the stuff and test for it in some way. And even if you did, by the time you f the damage because the underlying layers are going to be full of it. So, anyway, to do it is to prevent it before it starts. Long time ago, I had a wonderful boss, told me once youÓve got t When you going to make a mistake, always make it in the safe direction. Now, you can make a mistake here. Make it in the safe direction. Tell the contractors and tell these people, look, you can build your houses, there are ways to do it. IÓve heard of a stainless steel screen goes underneath the whole foundation, the pukas are so small the Formosan termites canÓt get in and eat at it. IÓve heard of beds of diatomaceous earth which apparently they canÓt get through. ThatÓs the stuff you put in Now these may be a little more expensive than hiring a company to come in for a few hundred bucks and destroy whatÓs underneath your home and not know where the hell itÓs going to go afterwards, but make your mistake in the safe direction. WeÓre not dealing with a common neighborhood in a common environment. Thi ecology, a lot of it goes underground. Please mind that underground environment. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Frost. Commissioners, do you have any questions or comments? Director Yuen, you have any response to the testifierÓs recommendations regarding the liquid termicides or concrete roads? YUEN:I donÓt know any basis pursuing this problem with having an asphalt or asphalt-concrete mix road. On termicides, I did do, because this was raised in a letter, I did some research on the termite products that are commonly used by termite companies in Hawaii and applied to ground termites. I donÓt know that this is commonly done in the very dry areas, such as the resort areas of West Hawaii. I do know that we have residential areas mauka of anchialine ponds that have been developed for many, many years where there are healthy populations of shrimps in the anchialine ponds. The chemicals that are used by the termite operators in, that are now approved for use are not water soluble and do not move well, do not move into ground documented problems that have happened from them come when thereÓs some direct exposure into water. Like they use them, thereÓs a drain unknown to the homeowner, thereÓs a drain or pipe underneath the house, and from that it gets into the water. Many of these chemicals are also in agricultural use; and when they get sprayed directly into water 20 bodies then you do see some problems. But as far as the leachin application for a home site, thatÓs not something that is documented as a problem. FROST:May I reply? I would like to reply to that. You may be right that thereÓs no documenting that thereÓs leaching. I would also tell you thereÓs nothing in the scientific studies that denies it, and it says the opposite. And because it isnÓt water soluble certainly doesnÓt preclude its transport in this kind of a situation. These are persistent chemicals built to be persistent. I heard one man say, well, weÓre using some synthetic pyrithrins, great stuff. ItÓs like they cross-link it a little bit more so it wonÓt break down. ItÓs even more persistent. So that because thereÓs no scientific evidence of a hurtfulness here, I can tell you nobody has investigated it. The crack is wide open. When I first started, and I helped start OSHA here in early 1970s, we were in charge of pesticide use in Hawaii. It was a disaster. I saw people spraying themselves and rolling around there. It was a total, it still is, if you watch the applicators do it. Well, it was such a mess that OSHA got rid of it and we shunt it over to the Department of Ag saying, well, a lot of this is in ag use, and itÓs oversprayed, and all this stuff; and the guys that do the house stuff got lost in the cracks. A lot of them went to small outfits so there was less than ten, so we couldnÓt touch them in OSHA. So they could continue to poison themselves, the applicators themselves. So this is not a clean, this is not a clean business, this business of pumping the pesticides into your ground. And it slipped between the cracks. Nobody is watching it. Try to find out how much was put where. But IÓll tell you after 30 years in Hawaii, and I tested the waters for the Health Department for ecolis and things, I know what they can do, and they canÓt touch this. And the EPA isnÓt here, and nobody is here; and nobody is interested in finding out and funding studies about it. But what youÓll see is the more houses upslope, after a little bit the less life there is on the shore, the ponds go bad. Look at the ponds behind the, in the old Thurston place there behind the, that hotel. There used to be full of turtles and fish and things; and thereÓs sludge now. Now this is a unique environment and the common every day home t thinking of pollutes the underground environment, and nobodyÓs watching. So I would only caution you, if youÓre going to make a mistake, make it in a safe direction. ÒCause once that stuff is in the ground youÓre not going to get it out; and thereÓs no way youÓre going to find out exactly where it goes, and thereÓs no way youÓre going to stop it once itÓs started. ThereÓs no remedial thing you can do. Just go look around in the islands, you look at the shorelines, the more houses up above, the less life on the shoreline. So IÓve tried to give you peek of what the real cause is, Òcause itÓs real. Hope you take it to heart. Thank you. SPRINGER:YouÓre welcome. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions or comments? Thank you. Mr. Erway? ERWAY:Yes, IÓm Duane Erway and I live in Kailua-Kona on Princess Keelikolani. Rollin is actually a neighbor of mine and my address is P.O. Box 2807, Kailua-Kona 96745. 21 rd Since my testimony of, at the last meeting, October 3, IÓve talked to two people, to Richard Brock and to Chip Fletcher. And as a result of those conversations IÓve got some additional things that IÓd like you to consider. First of all, following Dr. BrockÓs meeting, at the last meeting, I had a brief conversation with Dr. Brock about termicides, about Oahu; and he mentioned just in passing that he wished he had had barriers under his house, the type that Rollin was mentioning and that I mentioned in my previous testimony. TheyÓre not that expensive. And if, I donÓt want to put words in Dr. BrockÓs mouth, but he wishes that he had the same kind of passive, non-chemical thing. And the reason is that if you look on the note at the bottom of my submittal this time, there has been two pesticides used in termite control that were found at dangerous levels in oysters that were collected on Kaneohe Bay on Oahu, and I put a reference there that you can look at that further. So this is what Rollin is talking about. ItÓs really serious, itÓs a problem. And, fortunately, the solution is one that my guess is most homeowners would buy if they were aware of it. And most people want to be environmentally conscious, and probably the developers as well. The second person that I talked to was Professor Chip Fletcher, and he mentioned two things. Well, first of all, about, he says that the sunlight there is showing that the ocean is rising on an average about two millimeters a year from all reaso ocean is rising. He also says that the island of Hawaii is subsiding by two millimeters a year as well. Two millimeters a year isnÓt very much but thatÓs, the total change in level is four millimeters. And in a hundred years, four millimeters a hundreds years would work out to be nearly 16 inches. And what, with this change, then whatÓs going to happen to the recreational value at Kohanaiki Beach? This change, basically, particularly if homeowners and the developer decide to put up walls to protect it, the walls will do what seawalls do everywhere, they will reflect the storm waves a weÓve got in front of it. So we need a condition, and IÓve suggested the wording for that. Basically, no armoring of the property be allowed now or in the future, and also that all sand dunes near the shore must be left untouched. Professor Chip Fletcher indicates that thatÓs one of the, we donÓt want to bulldoze whatever protection we do have in the form of sand dunes. So with 16 inches of change in a hundred years, my concern is that we will lose, and Dr. Fletcher as well, we will lose much of the public beach if people begin to put up seawalls and do other kinds of armoring. And without the armoring, the shore will gradually move mauka maintaining the recreational value oft Pine Trees for decades to come. ItÓll basically eat into the 9-hole golf course where appropriate -. So the result of this condition, in fact, may require that the developer go back to the drawing board for the respective setbacks of not only where the golf course is but also the, for the benefit of where, perhaps, more homes. Surely the homes that are 500 feet away shouldnÓt be any problem, but what about other buildings and structures? 22 So the proper planning of setbacks now and taking notice of where the shoreline will be in a hundred years will benefit future homeowners and golfers be property loss from storm waves and it will preserve the recreati Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Erway. Commissioners, any questions or comments? Thank you. Mr. Rothestein? ROTHSTEIN:Aloha, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rothstein and IÓm here representing PASH; and IÓve been involved with Kohanaiki for 13 or 14 years, going way back to the first time that it tried to be developed. And because the developer was outrageous, it got stopped by public s lawsuits. I come here tonight not in opposition at all to this project. We support it. We come here tonight, is to favor environmentally stringent conditions, most environmentally stringent conditions for the shores of Kohanaiki. We had been in e-mail, and phone with Dave Eadie and others in the development company and we had been discussing the golf course issue since months ago, since September and before. And weÓve narrowed our issues down to just one. You know, itÓs whether this golf course should be built to the Audubon Gold standard or the Audubon Silver standard; and at present the Silver standard is in the SMA permit. WeÓre trying to upgrade it to the highest standard possible because of the sensitivity at Kohanaiki. The Audubon Silver Signature Program or the Audubon Gold Sustainable Development Program, thatÓs the subject of my testimony. IÓd like to read to you a quote from Ted Robinson. He is the golf course architect who I had spoken to and received letters from, too. He says something here which we totally agree with, weÓre hand-in-hand. He says, ÐI strive to seek the highest level of environmental planning and integration that a modern theory will allow. That is the goal.Ñ And my purpose here tonight is to, testifying to ask you to adhere to that highest standard of golf course design, construction, maintenance, monitoring, oversight and education as possible for the golf course at Kohanaiki. IÓd like to commend the Planning Director for his work in the golf course conditions. He has gone further than any other golf course condition in the past and thatÓs a very good start, although there are some amendments which weÓre going to s whatever is not fully integrated into the conditions, the Audubon Gold will take care of the rest. My outline here, what IÓll be talking about, is the objections that the developer has to the Audubon Gold, theyÓre basically two of them and IÓm going to add the Condition 66, which has to do with the golf course Silver, and then other conditions, other few other conditions related to the golf course, and then a few more other conditions. Forgive the way this is written. It wasnÓt really meant to be read. And it 23 may be kind of choppy and IÓm x-ing out parts of it that IÓm not going to address, so just bear with me. As I said before, Ted Robinson says, ÐI strive to seek the highest level of environmental planning and integration that modern theory will allow. That is the goal.Ñ Yet, he says Silver is sufficient. He gives two reasons: one, that there is no difference between Silver and Gold regarding the golf course; and (b) that he takes issue with the plant palate of the Gold, which is the right vegetation for the location. Plant palate means the selection of plants that is going to go to the golf course. And then, basically, in the Gold, the plant palate consists of those types of vegetation that grow naturally in that particular kind of environment. I will address, first, no difference. There is a difference. There are three phases to Gold; and thereÓs only one phase to Silver. And thereÓs a beginning, middle and end; and the Silver just does the bit, middle, and the Gold does the beginning and the end as well. The beginning part, it has to do with planning the whole golf course design construction based on ecological attributes of the property; and thatÓs based on principles of sustainable resource management. Now thereÓs a comprehensive environmental developed in the Gold in which the citing, design, management decisions are made. How you build a golf course results in the kind of environmental protection it ends up affording. The second part, which is in the Gold, and is also the basis of the Silver, is what they call the Natural Resources Management Plan, which has the integrated best management program, the best managing practices, monitoring and so forth. As Ted Robinson says in his letter, ÐThe usage and control of pesticides and fertilizer, drainage, buffers, chemical storage, washing, recycling and other factors are the same.Ñ So thereÓs that both, the middle is the same in both. When you go back to the Gold, the third practice, which is the end of it, is what they call an environmental management and education, which includes what they call a Community Education and Informational Plan. That extends the criteria that they applied to the golf course to the rest of the development. ÒCause you have a good golf course and then you have 500 homes who are polluting through the termicide or have practices that are going to be contrary to good environmental practices, youÓre defeating your purpose. The Silver costs $35,000 and it entails nine visits from the Audubon people, whereas, the Gold is $100,000 and entails 20 visits; and there you have built enforcement and oversight. Because theyÓre there to monitor everything thatÓs being done and participating in what it is thatÓs being done. The Silver is engaged before you start infrastructure, whereas the Gold starts from the planning stage, from the very beginning. And the Silver has just a minor educational program, whereas the Gold has a major educational program. The sustainability, and the Silver doesnÓt. The benefits of the Gold are you get the comprehensive environmental master plan for sustainability, more monitoring. The golf 24 course is designed and built to maximize environmental protection and sustainability; and the Audubon Gold sustainable development is actually a fabulous marketing tool and it creates a great competitive advantage to say that youÓre an Audubon Gold golf course; and I hope that they realize that. Conditions 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 is part of the Gold. But the Planning Department, frankly, doesnÓt have the expertise or can require the compliance as the Audubon who makes 20 visits prior to final certification. So youÓve got built-in oversight and compliance. All right, thatÓs one factor. ThatÓs a relatively minor factor of the two. The major objection that they have is the plant platform. Ted Robinson says, ÐKohanaiki will have to adopt the desert type of planting palate, which I believe would be inconsistent with lush Hawaiian landscape offered by competing projects such Dave EadieÓs biggest concern is that Kohanaiki wonÓt be lush like Kukio and therefore reduces marketability. HeÓs wrong. Native vegetation can be lush and beautiful when properly selected. ItÓs a misconception, and it isnÓt so that itÓs, it canÓt look as good as any other golf course. Now in the first of Kukio, this very morning I spoke to Jim McPh the superintendent at Kukio of the golf courses. And hereÓs what he says: ÐThat all plant material that he has there survived in poor condition. The bulk of it is coastal tolerant vegetation such as naupaka, monkey pod, kiawe, hau, polomana. ThereÓs not a lot of formal landscape. Naupaka looks lush. And heÓd be very happy to assist in advising counsel of the Kohanaiki people. If we had more time, we could go out there and meet with the Kukio golf course superintendent, and he will show us their plant palate which would help convince Mr. Eadie that he can have a beautiful, lush golf course using native adapted plants, plants for the environment, plants for that particular environment. And if thatÓs not enough, then there are non-native plants that are particularly adapted to the environment. So thereÓs tremendous selection is what IÓm saying. You know, just asking around people, asking them about the kinds of vegetation that is adaptable down there, thereÓs coconut palm, heliotrope, monkey pod, kiawe, hibiscus, naupaka, patchandra palm, loulu palm, true kamane, breadfruit, hau, milo, naupaka, hala, naiau, noni, tea, beach morning glory, ilima, akia and kou, and a lot more. This lovely, beautiful plants; and they have a place in a golf course in that particular environment. And then, of course, there are other non-native plants that we all know like bougainvillea, kiawe. Now IÓm dwelling on this because this is the major objection. We donÓt want to risk the marketability. We want to be competitive because, and we canÓt course that doesnÓt look good. Okay. So I want to point out here all the multitude of options that they have. I read you the plant platform for Kohanaiki. Here is a checklist of plants that are grown at Kaloko- Honokohau and the Puukohala Heiau, pool sites that have the similar vegetation, similar climate as Kohanaiki. There are 65 species here, 125 plants. Here is the Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park, the strategies of vegetation management and the 25 Parks referring to the restoration of native Polynesian plants. They are a preferred pot planting list. There are 47 different native plants that are, they want to use to replant in the National Park. If we had time, we could take Mr. Eadie down there. They have seven acres of vegetation growing. He can see for himself what a beautiful vegetation can be, and the park is immediately abutting Kohanaiki. IÓm almost finished with this part. Ground covers for dry locations, 25. Then thereÓs relative soil tolerance of some plants, a bunch of high tolerance. Now it doesnÓt say for drought, but I look at the list and there are a lot of drought vegetation there. This is another salt water, salt and wind tolerant plants by Norman Bezona, Cooperative Extensive. There are 80 plants. And it goes on. I have a few My point is that there is plenty, plenty of vegetation, beautiful vegetation, that will grow in Kohanaiki as the basis of the golf course; and there is no reason to be concerned about that. And that is the major objection, that is the major objection. The other objections are secondary. Now I havenÓt even touched the Trees of Hawaii, which is a book on the coastal species. That was recommended to me, but I just didnÓt have time to -. S Another objection that you might find is that if you decide in favor of Gold, you are likely to come up with an objection by the Planning Director because we have talked about this. And his objection is that he doesnÓt want to impose a condition on a developer in which he recommends or require a particular consultant. Now I can understand that if itÓs the Planning DirectorÓs brother-in-law, you know, of course not. But Audubon International is not like any other consultant. First of all, they are non- profit, they are 501-3C Non-profit. Despite the fact that Mr. Eadie incorrectly, in his rd October 3 letter to Mr. Yuen, wrote that they are a for-profit endeavor, they are not. And theyÓre dedicated to not making money but to sustainable environmental protection and natural resources sustainability. TheyÓre more than a consultant. TheyÓre recognized as representing the highest standard of environmental protection and sustainability for golf courses around the world. And, in fact, several government agencies in several states have acquired Audubon signature golf courses as a condition of approval: Florida, Arizona, South Carolina; and I have a list of more in my folder. So that takes care of the objections and why Audubon Gold sustainable development should be the standard for the golf course. Now IÓd like to now move on to Condition 66. And thatÓs the one that reads: ÐThe applicant shall use registerÑ now I think thereÓs a mistake there, I canÓt understand the language. But it says, ÐThe applicant shall use register its course with Audubon International and use its best effortsÑ to keep, Ðto obtain and keep Audubon International certification at the Silver level for the golf course development.Ñ I would like to see that language changed no matter which way you go. You know, itÓs best effort. Either you 26 do it or you donÓt do it. You know, if you want to do a Gold, y you start planning. If you want to do the Silver, youÓve got to start before infrastructure starts, constructing infrastructure. So itÓs not, that should be tightened up the way thatÓs written. Now I have a recommendation on how to re-write it, how to write the Gold in the language, ÐApplicant shall enroll its golf course with Audubon International at the Audubon GoldÓs sustainable development level prior to designing the project,Ñ which you have to do if youÓre going to do Gold, Ðand retain its certification in perpetuity.Ñ Second part is when the SMA permit and Audubon Gold golf course requirements conflict, a more stringent condition shall apply. Because whichever way you go, there might be a conflict between what the standard is, or what Audubon says and whatÓs already in the condition, so you want to make sure that doesnÓt become an issue. Okay, going on to other conditions relating to the golf course. Condition 67 refers to the Department of Health Guidelines for Golf Courses. And No. 1, A, relates to the baseline groundwater quality, but it gives no timeframe. So IÓm requesting that a one-year baseline monitoring before construction begins is necessary. If you donÓt do one year, you donÓt do a complete year, youÓre doing inadequate baseline study; and itÓs always going to be a problem in the future. Also, specify monitoring f at specific intervals. ThereÓs no pesticide requirement in any of the monitoring protocols. It has to be specified that the pesticides that are going to be used need to be monitored. And IÓm suggesting that you use a West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring established ten years ago. State, Federal, County and private got together and established a West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Program. ItÓs more comprehensive than whatever standard is being used now. It includes pesticides in considering the sensitivity of Kohanaiki of the near-shore water and anchialine ponds that should be used. Now, Condition 70.C. I just donÓt understand it. I donÓt understand it. It says, ÐIn the area within 500 feet of the shoreline, the turf area shall be limited to the fairways, greens and tees, to reduce the area that must be irrigated and fertilized.Ñ But what else needs to be irrigated and fertilized other than fairways, greens and tees? So I think that has to be looked at and, either I donÓt understand it or it needs to be fixed. Okay, 70.N, ÐGreens and tees within 1,000 feet of the shoreline shall have a lining system to reduce potential leaching of nutrients and agricultural chemicals.Ñ That should apply to all greens and tees, because theyÓre all above the same underground water flow and they all leach into the same place. If Rollin was here, heÓd agree with that. So if youÓre going to do lining systems, which is a wonderful idea, that, it should be throughout the whole golf course. IÓm going to skip 71, 72; and IÓm finished with that section. I just got a few more short ones. About termiticides, I agree totally with Rollin about we need to protect; and thereÓs two ways of doing it. One is mesh or crushed lava, no, mesh, 27 a mesh that was referred to. Instead of pouring in pesticides, you put this mesh down, a little more expensive, yes, but they donÓt get through, the termites. And the other one is crushed lava, actually crushed lava to a certain consistency that they wonÓt get through. And if, I disagree with the statement that they donÓt leach into the ground and theyÓre not as toxic. But even if IÓm wrong, err on the side of safety. Th considering that right below those houses is a whole anchialine pond field. Next subject, Mrs. Kubota addressed about the 109-acre public park. I figured out my numbers and found, of course, that the park was not 109 acres; and, so, that was addressed. But I want to conclude it with, why donÓt you change the language so that -. You know, we understand what itÓs supposed to mean, but letÓs fix the language that says itÓs 46, well, my number is 46, 46-acre public park, and the rest of it is dedicated to open space, just a little change like that. The next item is about the height limit. YouÓve got a one-story height limit thatÓs 30 feet high and two stories, thereÓs 35. ItÓs an awfully high height limit. ThatÓs like over two stories high. And I know that the Code says 35 feet is the height limit, but other subdivisions that I know of, Komohana and another one I forgot, have 18- to 22-foot height limits. Why should this be a height limit thatÓs virtually two stories, over two stories high? So I want to bring that to your attention. The national park hasnÓt spoken yet; but IÓve seen the testimony, and we recognize the many issues that are being raised by them. They abut, not only do they abut the Kohanaiki but part of the park boundaries within the Kohanaiki property, 18 acres. So we urge you to satisfactorily address every one of their concerns, even if it takes a continuance to do so; and a continuance would also enable us to pursue the plant palate issue so that, where the development will be comfortable with the Audubon Gold. And, also, in favor of a continuance, you know, now that the conditions are finally out, theyÓve only been out for basically three days for the public, and IÓve had a chance to review them. ThereÓre 87 of them, and I think the public should over. Just one final thing, and thank you very much for being indulgent, and itÓs this: The 8,000 square-foot beach club facility, and IÓm not sure where yo know that the shoreline certification there is inaccurate. ItÓs way off. In fact, itÓs so far off that we called for a Contested Case hearing. And because of the negotiations that were going on with the good faith, in order facilitate that agreement which we support, we agreed to withdraw that Contested Case. And we did, just so, to enable this, to move this process along. I donÓt know where youÓre going to site it, but keep in mind that where they certify the shoreline is at the edge of the vegetation, at the makai edge of the vegetation. And anybody who knows Kohanaiki knows that that, where every year it goes way past that, up to the road and beyond. So when youÓre siting that, when youÓre siting that structure, make sure that itÓs far enough back so that the setback starts from where the shoreline really is and then move it another 100 feet back or something -. The 28 closer you do it the more in jeopardy itÓs going to be; and itÓs going to wash away in 20 years. So thatÓs it. I thank you very much. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Rothstein. Are there any other, are there any questions or comments from the Commissioners for the testifier? I have a few questions for the Planning Director based on Mr. RothsteinÓs testimony. Regarding the Gold or Silver standards, Audubon standards, as represented in Condition No. 66, can you respond as to why the Silver rather than the Gold was pursued? YUEN:As I wrote in a letter to the Planning Commission, it would not be proper for us to put a condition that required the use of a particular paid consultant for a project without the consent of the Applicant; and in this case the Applicant consented to Silver. To put this in some perspective, as Mr. Rothstein has said, and I think as youÓll look, as youÓll know by reading the conditions, the conditions on this golf course are by far the most comprehensive and stringent from an environmental point of view that have ever been put on a golf course project in this County. So I would like to have that in perspective. The Applicant has volunteered to meet the concerns to the point of going to the Silver certification. We seem to be then discussing primarily an issue of what plants are chosen for the landscaping of the facility. I would, again, put into perspective that weÓre dealing with an SMA permit for an area that is zoned for w visitor and residential and commercial units that has been scaled down to 500 residential units and where the entire shoreline, 45 acres is a public park, with public park facilities put into them, and IÓm sure that, and then, which is a condition that goes far beyond anything done on any project ever approved. I donÓt think I can, thereÓs any, thereÓve been any controls over any of the other coastal resort-type projects that limit the kinds of plants that they put it on a landscaping project. SPRINGER:Mr. Yuen, if I understood correctly from Mr. RothsteinÓs testimony, one of the benefits of the Gold standard is the, I think it was 20 visits by the Audubon Society to assure conformance. With Silver standard, there are 9 visits. Any comments with regard to conformance, assurance, the differences between the 9 and 20 visits? YUEN:Well, just that by taking the Silver standard, it is far in any permit. There was a golf course that actually was never been developed and it, because it involved, it did not involve a residential component. So some of the differences between Gold and Silver didnÓt, that make Gold more difficult did not apply in that case. SPRINGER:Thank you. With regard to Condition 70 or N.70 that lining should be comprehensive rather than limited to those holes below a thousand feet behind of sea level, do you have any comment? YUEN:As you get farther away the ground rises and thereÓs a greater lava area that would absorb any nutrients. 29 SPRINGER:Thank you. And with regard to the discussion of the termiticides, this discussion of a mesh barrier or crushed lava or perhaps other bad diatomaceous layering, can we, how might we address that? Would that be through encouraging the Applicant or might a condition be applied to the application? YUEN:If the Commission is inclined to do something about this, it would, I would recommend one of two things: Either a condition encouraging the installation of that. Or if the concern is, the concern is particularly the use Commission wants to put a condition saying donÓt use ground treatment of, for termites, the Commission can go ahead and do that, rather than requiring that all construction have a barrier when, in fact, I donÓt know the ground termites are a significant problem in a very dry rocky environment like that. SPRINGER:Thank you. MCCALL:Could I make a comment? SPRINGER:Yes, Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Just last time I heard, I think, the Department of Public Works requires termiticide treatments; and I think they have specifics had, someone just had a, he was required to hire a pesticide applicator to put down a termiticide treatment under his slab. So I think there may need to be County changes of, before we can put any rules like this in. ROTHSTEIN:I inquired about that and they will reject that. They will reject another kind of termite barrier thatÓll work. I know, yeah, so, thatÓs all I have to say about that. SPRINGER:Thank you. Any other Commissioners have questions or comments? Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Following this dialogue, youÓre then saying that instead of the termiticide, you can put other protective deterrents? ROTHSTEIN:Yes. I called up a government agency, I donÓt remembe one it was, but they said there was no prohibition against that. They want to protect against termites and at the time they wrote that Code, they probably didnÓt know anything except termidicides. But if something else works -. I think in Honolulu itÓs actually in there, in their Code. SPRINGER:One last question. Mr. Rothstein, would you withdraw your support if the Gold standard is not adopted? ROTHSTEIN:No, I wouldnÓt. I just want, just like Mr. Robinson said, like I canÓt put any more better than he did, ÐI strive to seek the highest level of environmental 30 planning, and thatÓs the goal, and integration that modern theory will allow.Ñ An integration is beginning, middle and end. WeÓre 100 percent in accord there. LetÓs have them do it. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Rothstein. Any other questions or comments from Commissioners. Hearing none, Stanley? Be sure to please give us your name and address and then your testimony. BOND:Yes. Aloha. Madam Chairman and Commission members. My name is Stanley Bond. My residential address is 76-6249 Kupuna Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. I drew the short straw tonight and I am the Integrated Resource Manager for Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. The ParkÓs address is 73-4786 Kanalani Street, and No. 14, in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, also. Kaloko-Honokohau shares a boundary with Kohanaiki. And as the adjacent property owner and as a steward for the public for this park, we have an important interest in how this property is developed. Thus far, weÓve had open and reasonably frequent conversations with the developer and Hawaii County staff; and we appreciate the effort that the staff has put in in developing the conditions for this SMA permit and feel that on the whole the conditions are good. We do, however, have some co the current conditions and we would request that the Board modify these conditions to take into account our concerns. So, really, in other words, what weÓre asking to do is change some of these conditions; and, really, this is a complex set of conditions, quite long, two different sets with some overlapping conditions. You should have, I think, in th your possession a letter that we wrote on November 5 to the Planning Department about our concerns, and that might help kind of follow what we would like to see changed in here. You know, we have been through a long process with the Land Use Commission; and it took quite a while to set the final conditions on developments. So, you know, to have only had less than a week to work on these conditions seems to be, you know, rather a short period of time when we took almost a year with the Land Use Commission, not that we want to see that happen in this case. So I think maybe our first and our greatest concern is the height issue within the conditions. WeÓre concerned about the views from the north, from the park north towards Kohanaiki and especially about the views from Kaloko Fish Pond. And our main concern is at the north-west end of the development, you can see a set of lots that border the park and as well, were also very, can you point those out? The north-west end that border the park. So those lots in that area, that you can see. And, as well, weÓre also concerned about the beach facility which is quite a large structure, 8,000 square feet. And if you could please point out that location as well. So all of these are close to the park. So what weÓre concerned with is we want native practitioners, th managers for the pond and site visitors to have an appropriate experience at the Kaloko 31 Fish Pond site. And while there was viewscape analysis done by the developer from other areas, none was done from the pond. So we were quite plea developer committed to single-story structures in this first pha However, we were really surprised to find out that there was a 30-foot height limit for a single-story development, and thatÓs in your general, in what I call general recommendations, so thatÓs Condition 7. Now, and weÓre especially concerned, again, about those lots on the end that are really right adjacent to the Fish Pond; and there is kind of a gap and vegetation up there. Now, to me, this height or to the park, this height condition defeats the purpose of low- level structures along the coast and park boundary; and it is not typical of height limits in other Kona neighborhoods for single-story buildings. And, for example, through CC&Rs, single-story structures are limited to 18 feet above the construction grade in the Komohana Subdivision and all structures are limited to 22 feet above the average grade in Kona Heavens which is just right up, you know, Hinalani Street, up at the top of Hinalani Street. So, you know, we feel like that a height limit of 18 to 20 feet above the natural grade would be more than sufficient for any single-family, single-story, single-family homes. And we do appreciate the fact that vegetation screens are being required between the park and the development; and those are in your Conditions 2 and 9. But a 30-foot building would be difficult to hide in that location, even with trees it would be pretty difficult to hide a structure of that size. So, thatÓs our first request. Secondly, in the developerÓs Environmental Impact Statement, there, a faunal consultant recommends a 200-foot vegetative buffer between the Kaloko Fish Pond and the development to protect endangered water birds; and we would like to see that added as a condition to this SMA. In your general Recommendation 19, it deals with the storage of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers but it does not deal with the washing of equipment that uses those. And in the condition previous to that, it does deal with washing equipment in terms of oil, grease and those types of things. So I would recommend in that condition that we also add a sentence that would say, ÐAll wash water from said equipment must be treated to remove harmful residue prior to entering the ground.Ñ Something, anyway, along those lines. So we would request in your general Condition 28 and your golf course Condition 37 as part of the drainage plan and the park is part of a, as a party to that, that oil/water separators be required for and, all-surface runoff drains on impermeable surfaces. And so all roadways and parking lots, public roadways and parking lots should have oil/water separators. And now, in the wells, you know, what today we normally use just drywells, injection wells. We would request that oil/water separators be placed in those. TheyÓre actually pretty simple devices. We know that non-point source pollution from storm water runoff is a significant problem throughout Hawaii; and thi 32 by the Land Use Commission on the two recent developments that a park and we feel like that itÓs appropriate in this case as well to apply that condition. Again, a plan thatÓs being addressed within the conditions is potable and non-potable water. And I just would direct you to the fact that the County did pay for a model that was done by the U.S. Geological Service on water flow patterns and water simulation in the West Hawaii area and along the Kona coast; and cumulative development will have significant impacts on ground water levels within this area. So, you know, each single development maybe we donÓt see a lot of change; but, you know, as we heard earlier, we have 10 very large developments, large-scale developments that are planned in this area and thatÓs not including the residential developments that are going to be coming upslope along with those. And, so, you know, I think we really need to re-visit that model and think about what we need to do about our water quality or water issues for both potable and non-potable waters. So, within that, the Park would like to be named as a consulting party. Along with the ones that, for the plans that weÓre already in, weÓd like to be named as a consulting party on the following plans: The Anchialine Pond Management Plan, wh General Recommendation 57 and the Golf Course Recommendation 34. part of the Golf Course Management Plan or a consulting party on the Golf Course Management Plan, which is part of General Recommendation 68 and Golf Course Recommendation 44. And we would also like to be a party on the Cultural Resource Management Plan, which is in the General Recommendation No. 47. And I would also like to note or make certain that the Ground and Coastal Water Quality Monitoring Plan is not a final. The Park, we have received a copy from Dr. Bock. We have started review, we havenÓt completely reviewed it but we do have some concerns and we will pass those on as soon as we can to Mr. Eadie and Dr. On General Recommendation 57 and Golf Course Recommendation 44, that you maintain the 40-foot buffer around the anchialine ponds with respect to turf. And within that itÓs not clear how pond boundaries are to be established. We would recommend establishing those boundaries at the highest tidal levels. So the height, at the highest tide we would go and check those ponds and determine what the boundaries are of those ponds and then establish that as the, then the establish the 40-foot buffer from that point. For what I call General Recommendation 63 and Golf Course Recomm need to define what is significant decline and water quality would be. So, you know, thereÓs no definition with that. And we also need to determine what the course of action is going to be when or if a significant water quality problem is discovered. In other words, what steps are going to be taken to collect the problems. So we canÓt really just, it just canÓt be done on an ad hoc basis. We would like to see a plan on whatÓs going to be done if we do have a decline in the water quality. So, you know, there would need to be steps the developer has to follow. 33 Again, you know, there has been talk about the beach facility already; and we expressed before, weÓre somewhat concerned about the location. WeÓd like to see it moved back a little bit further away from the beach or maybe a little bit more out of the viewscape of the park itself. And just some general comments IÓd like to make on the anchialine ponds within the Kohanaiki area. Dr. David Foot from the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Station at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, conducted a preliminary survey of ponds on the Kohanaiki property within the ParkÓs authorized boundary; and we appreciate the fact that the developer did very graciously give us permission to go into the property and do that preliminary work. And Dr. Foot found and IÓll read this real briefly from what he said: ÐThe highlights of our September anchialine pool survey within the legislated park boundary at Kohanaiki include three endemic species of anchialine pool shrimp, including the Candidate EndangeredÑ species, now, this is, I didnÓt take Latin in high school so youÓll have to excuse me, ÐMetabetaeus lohena. We also observed the rare orange-black damselfly, Megalagrion xanthomelas, that is also listed by the FWS (Fish and Wild Life Service) as a Species of C other notable observations was a rare species of yellow-faced bee, Hylaeus anthracinus,Ñ wow, what a, anyway, a yellow-faced bee, that was not, Ðthat has not been recorded from Kona since 1892!Ñ So pretty unusual finding. ÐThe latter observation from heliotrope flowers near the pools illustrates the need to survey the terrestrial insects in this section in addition to the anchialine pool fauna. WeÓd like to revisit Kohanaiki to carryout night- time surveys of pools in December.Ñ And then he goes on to say ÐThe pools in this 18 acre tract rival anything within the current park boundaries. The population densities of opae-ulaÈat some of the anchialine pools were higher than anywhere IÓve observed inside the park. These pools are clearly a very important resource.Ñ So, with that, thank you for considering our concerns. WeÓll be happy to work with the Board and the County staff to fashion or modify language for these conditions; and IÓll be glad to answer any of your questions. Mahalo. SPRINGER:YouÓre welcome and thank you. Commissioners, any questions or comments for the testifier? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:You mentioned the 200-foot buffer between the development and the Kaloko Fish Pond. I didnÓt, I donÓt particularly see that in my paperwork that I have; and IÓm wondering how it relates to the map. I mean, is that a major issue, is that a simple thing or -? BOND:I think weÓd have to go and determine, you know, the exact boundary of the pond and then set the buffer from that pond boun recommendation from the developerÓs consultant. GRAHAM:This is a current recommendation, not something from the Ooma EIS? 34 BOND:Well, it was from the 1986 EIS; but that is the EIS thatÓs in effect being used for this project. So, you know, they havenÓt been required to develop a new EIS, so, then, IÓm presuming all of that material is relevant. GRAHAM:I see. SPRINGER:Commissioners? Mr. Yuen, do you care to respond to any of the recommendations that Dr. Bond made? YUEN:Briefly, IÓm quite sure that Kaloko Pond is more than 200 f from the boundary. SPRINGER:How about the National Park Service being a consulting party regarding the Anchialine Cultural Resources Management Plan and golf planning -? YUEN:An amendment to that condition to put them in as a consulti party is fine with me. If the Commission, IÓll do it anyway even if itÓs not a condition. I think thatÓs fine to have them as consulting party. IÓd appreciate doing that. SPRINGER:And one more thing. There were several comments regarding oil and water separators and other mitigation efforts in keeping with their previous positions. Do you have any comments on those? YUEN:Nothing beyond what I said earlier on the subject. SPRINGER:And I felt that that was well taken, the question about definition of Ðsignificant decline of water quality.Ñ Can we work on that definition and establish some benchmarks? YUEN:We will, my suggestion is that we do that in, rather than trying to define it sitting here, we put it in the monitoring plan which was, have all the details about how often monitoring takes place, and then we would put in specifics about what kinds of results need to be reported immediately. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Commissioners, any questions or comments for the testifier or the Director based on the testifie KUBOTA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota? KUBOTA:I donÓt know how the other Commissioners feel but, you kn there were many, many suggestions by the testifiers tonight and because of the state of my brain, I wasnÓt able to pick every one up. And I just feel inadequate about voting on something as massive as this project without fully putting together all of the concerns and 35 suggestions that the public testifiers presented to us tonight. Is there a possibility that we hold action on these tonight? SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota, thatÓs certainly in keeping with the recommendation from Mr. Rothstein; and his concern was that a continuance would not only allow further discussion with the Applicant regarding some of the issues that were raised tonight, and particularly Mr. Rothstein was talking about the plant palate issues, but would also give the public a chance to review the lengthy conditions that are part of the recommendations. And I think the same is true for us. KUBOTA:And I just feel that there are some recommendations made by the testifiers that ought to be included, reworded, nevertheless. But IÓm just not prepared to say which one, where and how, at this point. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mrs. Kubota, if I may, at this time, just ask if there are any other members of the public who would care to come forward a This is a public hearing and we offer you that opportunity. Seeing that there are none, thank you to the testifiers this evening; and, Commissioners, maybe we can continue this discussion. Other members, besides Mrs. Kubota, are there any opinions on what sheÓs suggesting, and given the amount of information weÓve been presented with, both in writing and orally? Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Madam Chair, IÓd like to, IÓm not backing off of it. IÓd like to suggest that maybe the Department should review all the recommendations we heard tonight, take a good look. IÓd like their opinion and their recommendation of what was told to us tonight. We just got this and we havenÓt had any chance to digest it or even comprehend half of it; and I think itÓs going to take some time. Planning Director should have these people look at them and get back to us as to what they consider either acceptable or recommendable. There are just a tremendous number of questions and I have some serious doubts about them. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner. Other members of the panel, Commissioner Smith, Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, IÓm willing to postpone a decision. I think, I mea want to commend the developer for, I think he has really gone that extra yard here to do everything, and then if he has a little more patience to allow us to really digest all this. But I, you know -. SPRINGER:Mr. Eadie? EADIE:Madam Chair, the only thing I can add to this discussion, I guess, and it seems apparent that itÓs going to be deferred, is that the, lot of the discussion tonight was focused on this Gold standard. If thatÓs an issue thatÓs confusing, and it was to me at one time, I have information on that that can be, can clarify everything right before you tonight without any problem whatsoever. I think importantly there thatÓs a 36 voluntary program. We made a major decision in agreeing to pursue the Silver standard; and I can assure you that when it comes to fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, Bronze, Silver, Gold, it makes no difference. And IÓd be glad to go into detail there. With respect to termicides and some of these other environmental issues that have been brought up, we rely on the codes and regulations which, and in addition to these conditions of approval, which are very stringent. And IÓve been talking with everybody youÓve spoken to tonight, in terms of, or actually Jerry Rothstein and Stan Bond, Geri Bell and we have agreed in large part with everything they said in terms of added review. The 200-foot setback was predicated on a, it was a resort proposal by Nansay where passers-by was a big concern there, not secondary housing that is going to be there three weeks out of the year. I mean, I think itÓs a different ball game, but as Chris, and I think thereÓs probably 200 feet anyway from the pond to us. What IÓm getting to is I donÓt think that the nature of all of the issues that have been brought up are that complicated, and I think we have experts in the audience tonight. If I canÓt answer the question and take a few more minutes of your time, then maybe we ought to continue it. But I think we can get closure here if you would just afford a few more minutes. SPRINGER:Commissioners Kubota and Thibadeau, youÓve heard the response from Mr. Eadie. Are you willing to continue on this evening or would you like to take the time to continue? WeÓve -. IÓd like to hear from Commissio THIBADEAU:My concern is that if we donÓt do something with it tonight, heÓs stuck for another month, in effect, and thatÓs not fair to him. And I think itÓs unfortunate to arrive at this point, the last- minute considerations, which I donÓt appreciate; and I donÓt think itÓs fair to the developer. I donÓt think heÓs aware of them either. I may be wrong. But I commend him for going with that Audubon Silver. I think thatÓs a major concession on your part. And I hope you realize what the impacts are going to be on you downstream a couple of years from now when youÓre trying to comply with anything they come up with. ItÓs a real can of worms you agreed to. EADIE:IÓm well of it, sir. THIBADEAU:And I think youÓre courageous, and I admire you for it you. SPRINGER:Commissioner Graham? Commissioner Smith? SMITH:IÓm ready to go. SPRINGER:Ready to go. Commissioner McCall? 37 MCCALL:Okay. SPRINGER:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:IÓm okay with proceeding and staying around as long as we But, on the other hand, I do feel like we work well as a unit here; and if Ms. Kubota is not comfortable, you know, I certainly will support her wish for a continuance, or Mr. ThibadeauÓs. SPRINGER:Thank you for that consideration. I guess then weÓve c time when IÓm willing to entertain a motion to continue or not. anybody would care to make to continue -? KUBOTA:Madam Chair, if we vote to continue, do we have to go through the whole gammit of hearing public testimony all over again? SPRINGER:Yes. KUBOTA:We do? SPRINGER:Yes. KUBOTA:Oh. That discourages me from making a motion. ItÓs not that I donÓt appreciate the content of the testimony. ItÓs just that weÓve been at this for over 12 hours and because we were so inundated with materials, IÓve been up since 4 oÓclock this morning and IÓve had it, and I donÓt think I can even make an intelligent decision, and I donÓt know what to even include in the recommendations and what to leave out. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mrs. Kubota. Mr. Eadie? EADIE:I appreciate that. Madam Chair, one last stab here. And I think weÓve got something rather unique before you tonight, and that is this plan has been scrutinized by many, many people over 12 months. And you have before you, before it even gets to your level, youÓve had the benefit of public scrutiny by many, many people in this process, over 200 as I recall at the high school. Again, at the high school at the end of the workshop sessions over 200 people. Many issues have been investigated by the staff, note-taking, adding infinite items over 12 months. And I think itÓs rather unique that something comes before you that is so sanitized, if you will, that it is a, itÓs something that is less of a concern over the unknowns at this stage. And I would just urge you one last shot at trying to get this closure tonight. I know you have a tremendous amount of agenda items coming up, and we certainly would like to have that effort to go forward and adhere, of all these conditions of approval. YUEN:If I could make a suggestion to just bridge the gap, and that would be to add, if the Commission wants to move forward, the issues on the height limits with 38 respect to the National Park, it does, the current conditions require a visual screen provided by landscaping and that that be prepared in conjunction with the National Park; and that would apply to the Area 4 thatÓs closest to the park. I think that we, if it turns out that the landscaping cannot provide an adequate visual screen, then the developer will have to lower the height of the houses. On the termiticides and the well/water separators, I would propose a condition that says that the Planning Director, in consultation with the National Park Service and the developer, shall explore the potential for pollution from well runoff and from termiticides and impose conditions that provide appropriate safeguards. This is a technical issue that weÓre not likely to resolve either today or two weeks from now, or a month from now. SPRINGER:Commissioner Thibadeau. THIBADEAU:This is probably a naïve question but is it necessary that this decision be made in Hilo (sic)? Could we do this, for instance, in Hilo at the next meeting. ItÓll give us time at least to take a look at that and -. IÓm trying to save these people some time. YUEN:I think we would have trouble properly noticing it for the Hilo st meeting on the 21 of November, which is the next meeting. I think we would be rdth moving this to the December 3, 4 meeting of the Kona meeting. THIBADEAU:Bad suggestion, IÓm sorry. ROTHSTEIN:Madam Chairman? SPRINGER:Excuse me, Mr. Rothstein, let us continue this deliberation. Commissioners, do we have a motion to continue? Hearing none, then it seems as though weÓre going to continue deliberation of this matter for some time more. MCCALL:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:IÓm generally comfortable with the conditions. I think these conditions, as IÓve gone over them over the last, you know, are by far the most comprehensive that we have ever, I have ever come across. I think that it reflects a long- term working out of, which has happened over the last year between I think most, you know, many of the members in this group here. There may be a few things that are not completely covered. There are some things that have come up here. I suspect many of these things are things that have been brought up over the last year and there have been compromises on both sides. And I think that what is happening is that, to an extent one side, well, I got 50 percent, I want 60 percent, I want 70 percent. I think that, you know, we need to look at what is fair on all sides. I think that the developer has shown a, very much a good faith effort to go the extra mile here. I think that, I think he has shown 39 himself to be a good neighbor in general; and I donÓt feel that we need to put any more conditions in here. I think, in my mind, in my heart, I think that what we see here is a developer who is willing to do things, not necessarily just beca think that if he feels that oil/water separators are going to work, I think he would put them in whether he is, whether itÓs written in here or not. Because I think that, to an extent, this is doing a golf course to a Silver standard, doing these other things. This is something that is now a value to Kohanaiki, I mean, to selling these lots. If nothing else, thereÓs a financial advantage to this. So IÓm generally comfortable with the, IÓm more than happy to take ChrisÓ additions, but IÓm generally comfortable with the conditions as they are. SPRINGER:Chris, do you have any amendments to make to any of the conditions before us that we should be considering? YUEN:No. I think that the issues that have been brought up are covered in the conditions. The request from the National Park for consultation is something that I would do simply as a matter, not of a condition. If I could just add one thing for the Commission here, is that you have spent a great deal of time with this matter and this has been, a lot of the issues have been discussed for quite sometime in the community before this came here. Had this not happened, had this process not happened, you would have had a roomful of people opposing this development. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:May I ask a simple question here. How do we handle the recommendations from the National Park people? They have real laundry list. We, are we going to go through each one of them tonight and determine whether itÓs going to be part of your recommendations, Mr. Yuen? I donÓt know. How do y seems to me thereÓs an awful lot of stuff weÓve got to go through. YUEN:If you want to generically handle them, I would say, add a condition that, ÐThe Planning Director, in consultation with the National Park Service, shall review the necessity for well/water separators and for limitations on termite treatment and come up with appropriate conditions.Ñ ThatÓs a le left for future action on an administrative level. The other things that have been requested, I just discussed the height limit, I think itÓs already covered by Condition No. 9. IÓve looked at aerial photos and scaled off the distance from Kaloko Pond. It looks to me like 300 feet. I have not done it on the ground but I have looked at this. The ground water changes issue is covered by a condition. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Eadie, do you have any response to the Commissioner, to the DirectorÓs suggestion to add a new condition to address the National Park Service concerns? 40 EADIE:Madam Chair, we would be fine with that. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just, now weÓre sort of saying how we feel about all this. I appreciated Mr. RothsteinÓs comments and even though kind of wears out for being lengthy, I think they were presented, you know, pretty well and to the point. And, you know, as I thought about all those particular things, I just kind of came to realize that even though I am not shy about going into conditions, you know, pertaining to golf courses and water quality which I, you know, both of which I know somewhat about, because of the level of effort that has gone into these conditions from the Planning Director, and IÓm sure from others, also, I just donÓt feel like it is proper for me to try to stick my nose in at a late date and say, well, now you should decide different on something. So, you know, I feel comfortable with what weÓve got based on the amount of good faith effort I know thatÓs gone into those. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Mr. Eadie, I have an additional question on an area that we havenÓt touched yet, and perhaps this may be brief. IÓm looking at page 29 of the SMA, Condition 76-C, regarding Ðtr customary access for cultural purposes, to those historic sites archeological surveys that are required to be preserved, on private land (except for burials).Ñ IÓm cross-referencing that with Volume 2 and the cultural impact study, and -. Are cultural practices then limited to that list of practices that are sketched out in that study? EADIE:Madam Chair, IÓm not the expert in this. The crafting of this condition was something that Mr. Yuen prepared. I will say that if thereÓs something in the body of our work that youÓre questioning our, Kepa Maley is still here, I believe. He is and would be mostly appropriate, I think, to answer the question, if thereÓs any details beyond the condition itself. YUEN:If I could answer that condition. No, the list of possible cultural practices would not be limited by what is contained there; but someone would have to demonstrate the validity of the cultural practice. SPRINGER:I see. And my concern is that most of those practices listed, I mean, those practices listed certainly are valid and occupational. But while story-telling is included, there is not any reference to hula or oli, the composition or performance or practice thereof, nor prayer. And IÓm looking at the final discussion on contemporary or neotraditional cultural practices. And it just begs the question for me given the comment, the last sentence there which says that ÐPotential cultural users engaging in contemporary or Òneo-traditionalÓ cultural practices would most likely consist of individuals having personal agenda relating to self-aggrandizement and/or personal material gain.Ñ And that is a rather inflammatory sentence. And IÓm just wondering does the cultural, cultural evolve from the traditional to the contemporary in light of a statement of that nature? 41 YUEN:That statement is not part of the conditions of approval. LetÓs put it that way. SPRINGER:Thank you. And, again, the practice is not limited to those listed by the author? YUEN:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Eadie. EADIE:Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioners, are there any, what are we going to do? GRAHAM:Can I just make one further comment -? SPRINGER:Sure. GRAHAM:To Mr. Ede. This is not a way of a condition at all but something that comes to me as, you know, over the last 15 or 20 Hawaii, both at the Hapuna Prince and at the Kukio place and all, as the construction phase moves forward, weÓve seen this huge mountains of fill kind of the road or down near the ocean that are, you know, really a bad visual eyesore. So I donÓt think you have the requirements in how you move earth on your project to have to do that. But I would just wish you would be sensitive to that and do whatever can be done to avoid anything like that. EADIE:Point well taken. Thank you. KUBOTA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Yes. KUBOTA:I have one more request. IÓm not going to make the condi would like the Director to reword the dedication of the public domain to reflect what really is. YUEN:Your point that the statement in the application may initially lead a false impression I think is a good one. However, I think that Condition 12 does very accurately state what the end result would be, and that is that the Applicant must donate 109 acres to public ownership. That means the public will own the fee interest in the land in that particular area as shown, that the Applicant will have an exclusive easement or lease without charge to operate and maintain the golf course, safety zones, and beach facility and the remaining area, which is 42 to 45 acres as shown in purple on that exhibit, is a public park open to public use. 42 Let me mention, of course, that the area is completely privately-owned now. We can look at this as a glass half-empty or a glass half-full. But this does involve over, at least over 40 acres of what someone, what anyone would consider a public park, and then another 60-odd acres of something thatÓs publicly-owned, permanent open space, but runned as golf course by the Applicant. So I donÓt think itÓs n in the conditions of the SMA permit to be more accurate. SPRINGER:Members, we have not yet closed the public hearing portion of this agenda item and Mr. Rothstein has -. And, Mr. Rothstein, if you can please keep your comments brief. ROTHSTEIN:Yes. Mr. Eadie made a statement that for a whole year this has been going on, there have been hearings, and meetings, and environmental impact statement, and so much public input. And, you know what, it all comes down to these 87 conditions. A year weÓve been working towards that, here they are. And, now, after itÓs been out for three days, hardly anybody knows about it. Just a few people saw it and youÓre ready to just pass it. I really think thatÓs acting very, very fast; and I would really ask you to, the right thing would be to continue this. I mean, it has been going on for a year. It could go on for another month. So much input has been given and thereÓs so much yet to come if you would allow it. So, you know, I know itÓs a lot of work, I know youÓve been here for 12 hours, but this deserves your full consideration and -. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Rothstein. ThatÓs consistent with what you testified to the first time you were at the table. Do you have anything new to offer? ROTHSTEIN:Yes. Well, you know, I mentioned to you that thereÓs a, two things in the conditions that just donÓt make sense; and if you just adopt it without looking at it, youÓll be putting something in the conditions that donÓt make sense. Now, one of them is Condition 66, ÐApplicant shall use register its course.Ñ What does that mean, Ðuse register its course.Ñ YUEN:ThatÓs a typo. We should take the word ÐuseÑ out. SPRINGER:Thank you. ROTHSTEIN:Okay. And then I asked that that language be, you know, itÓs so wishy-washy, itÓs so weak, you know, best efforts. And what happens if thereÓs a controversy between the Silver or the Gold and the rules? HowÓs it going to be addressed? YouÓre just asking for trouble. And I made a recommendation as how to word it, and I wish youÓd give that some further consideration. Also, 70.C, 70.C, ÐIn the area within 500 feet of the shoreline, the turf area shall be limited to the fairways, greens and tees, to reduce the area that must be irrigated and fertilized.Ñ I donÓt understand it. Can that be clarified? I mean, what else do you irrigate and fertilize, except the fairways, greens and tees? Do you want -? 43 YUEN:ThatÓs to prevent planting of the lawn areas and making additional areas besides those necessary for the golf course, fairways, gre ROTHSTEIN:But they canÓt do anything there except the golf cours YUEN:That is a condition thatÓs intended to prevent other, the whole area from being grassed. ROTHSTEIN:So it makes sense? I mean -. YUEN:If you look at the area of golf course, youÓll see that, you see an outline of fairways, greens and tees. There are many areas of lava around those fairways, greens and tees. This prevents those areas from being grassed within 500 feet of the shoreline. ROTHSTEIN:All right. SPRINGER:Mr. Erway? ERWAY:Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate Chris YuenÓs virtues. A note on that, it would be inappropriate to say that every house or building have a particular barrier for termites. I agree with that. But in light of the seriousness, potential seriousness of the problem, I suggest a wording for the condition that would simply be to forbid all chemicals that might otherwise be used to prevent or treat subterranean termites. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Erway. Commissioners, may we have a motion at this time, having afforded the public an opportunity to respond even after our deliberations. May we have a motion to close the public hearing portion of this agenda item? GRAHAM:I move that we close the public testimony portion of the hearing. SPRINGER:Thank you. Is there a second? MCCALL:Second. SPRINGER:Moved by Commissioner Graham, seconded by Commissioner McCall, to close the public hearing portion of this testimony. Discussion, Commissioners? All those in favor of the motion indicate so by saying aye. COMMISSIONERS:Aye. SPRINGER:Any opposed? Thank you, Commissioners. We have now cl the public hearing portion of this testimony, and we could go to decision-making. Commissioner Graham? 44 GRAHAM:If Ms. Kubota and Mr. Thibadeau are okay with us proceedi evening, I would suggest maybe we take a 5- or 10-minute recess and have the Planning Director and the Planning Department staff kind of clean up all these conditions and then they can be presented to us so that we can deal with them? SPRINGER:Is there any objection to that? WeÓll take a 10-minute recess, please. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 9:57 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m. SPRINGER:I will call this meeting of the Hawaii County Planning Commission back to order. Thank you, Commissioners and staff and audience for your, and the Applicant, for your patience with us as we move through this agenda item. Mrs. Kubota, do you have any -? KUBOTA:Do I have any -? SPRINGER:Oh, IÓm sorry, Mr. Graham. Do you have any follow-up f comments when we took the recess? IÓm sorry, Mrs. Kubota. GRAHAM:IÓm not sure exactly what youÓre referencing, but basically IÓm prepared to make a motion for approval. But rather than try deal with all the conditions, I would appreciate if the Planning Department could read into the record what the changes to the conditions are that came as the result of all the discussions youÓve had in the last hour, and then I could just incorporate them by referencing to the motion. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Yuen? YUEN:Yes. You would want to take the SMA permit first. And, in No. 66, delete the word Ðuse,Ñ and then add a condition that, ÐThe Director, in consultation with the National Park Service, shall review the potential for groundwater contamination by oil and by termiticides and impose such further necessary to protect the environment from contamination.Ñ SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. That just goes as a new condition YUEN:I think it would be better to put that in as new 85 and renumber the remainder, simply because of the order that things go in. SPRINGER:Sure. Is that it? YUEN:Yes. 45 SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Graham? When we get to decision- making weÓll be taking the SMA first. GRAHAM:Okay. So I would move that we approve Special Management Area Use Permit Application (SMA 00-012) with the conditions just delineated by the Planning Director, which is clean-up of Condition 66 by removing the word ÐuseÑ and an addition of a new condition which becomes 85, such that Conditio back one, and the text of new Condition 85 will be that which the Planning Director has just put forth. SPRINGER:Is there a second? SMITH:Second. SPRINGER:Thank you. It has been moved by Commissioner Graham an seconded by Commissioner Smith for the approval of the SMA appli I need some clarification here. The SMA numbers at the top of the recommendation did not match up with the numbers on the agenda. On the agenda we h on the recommendation we have 00-012. Which is correct? HAYASHI:ItÓs 03. SPRINGER:Thank you. GRAHAM:And let my motion so reflect, please. SPRINGER:Thank you, members. We have a motion before us, is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. 46 HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Madam Chair, motion caries, six-zero. SPRINGER:Thank you. Thank you, Norman. Thank you, members. We now move to the Use Permit application. And, Mr. Director, would you prefer this be taken as two or one? YUEN:I think they should be done separately. The changes that I suggested for the SMA permit donÓt apply to the Use Permit. TheyÓre specific. TheyÓre not specific to the golf course. SPRINGER:There are two, two use permits. YUEN:Yes, two use permits. I would suggest that they be done separately. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Director. Members, may we have, first, a motion on Use Permit application 03-002? KUBOTA:Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Mrs. Kubota? KUBOTA:The 03-002 reflects which Use Permit, No. 1? SPRINGER:Is that correct, Mr. Director, the Use Permit to allow development -? HAYASHI:That would be to allow a golf course within the Village Commercial, Multiple Residential, etc. SPRINGER:So thatÓs No. 1? HAYASHI:ThatÓll be 002. SPRINGER:And in the recommendation, thatÓs the bold-faced one, the one on top? HAYASHI:IÓm sorry, I donÓt have mine with me. Yes, thatÓs corre 47 SPRINGER:Thank you. KUBOTA:And No. 2, 002 is for No. 1 and 003 is for No. 2? HAYASHI:ThatÓs correct. SPRINGER:May we have a motion on the Use Permit 03-002? GRAHAM:Do I presume correctly that all the rest of the text applies to both of the Use Permits? YUEN:Yes. GRAHAM:Okay. Then I would move the Planning Commission grant Us Permit Application 03-002 to allow development of an 18-hole championship golf course, approximately, etc., in the document we have before us from the Planning Department, along with all the conditions of approval that are set forth herein. SMITH:Second. SPRINGER:It has been moved and seconded by Commissioners Graham and Smith to approve a Use Permit to allow the development of an 18- course of approximately 7,250 yards, golf clubhouse, related improvements and appropriate ancillary uses 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. ThatÓs Use Permit 03-002. Members, is there any discussion on that? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? 48 MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Madam Chair, motion carries, six-zero. SPRINGER:Members, next, Use Permit 03-003. GRAHAM:I move that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 03 along with the recommendations made by the Planning Department on the document we have here. MCCALL:Second. SPRINGER:It has been moved and seconded by Commissioners Graham and McCall to approve Use Permit 03-003 to allow the development of a major recreational facility (portion of an 18-hole championship golf course and related improvements) within the Limited Industrial (ML-10) zoned district. Members, is there any discussion? KUBOTA:Madam Chair, IÓm going to be voting against this Use Appl because by their own admission theyÓre calling it a portion of an 18-hole championship golf course; and I feel that it does not fit into the definition of an allowable golf course on the, in fact, the definition of Limited Industrial. It does not accommodate it. Contrary to Mr. YuenÓs interpretation, I interpret it differently. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mrs. Kubota. Is there any further discussion on this matter? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. 49 HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:No. HAYASHI:Chair Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Madam Chair, motion carries, five-one. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Eadie, youÓll be informed in writing of decision this evening. EADIE:Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 50 51