Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-24 TECOMMERCE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 24, 2008 E. COMMERCE ENTERPRISES A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CORPORATION (SMA 08-000027) was called to order at 11:07 a.m. in the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Hau Room, 62-100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala Coast, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Lani Bowman C. Kimo Alameda Shelly Ogata Takashi Domingo Frederic Housel Andrew Iwashita Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel  Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager OgxkkhrEtihlnsn+Rs`eeOk`mmdq Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And four people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: E. COMMERCE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION (SMA 08-000027) Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the construction of an approximately 2,000 lineal feet pedestrian path and landscaping. The properties involved are a part of the Pahoa Beach Estates Subdivision located along the western banks of Waipiele Gulch, Pahoa, North Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 5-5-8:66 and 67. WATANABE: The third agenda item is – unfinished business again, this was a continuance – E. Commerce Enterprises Corporation. It’s SMA 08-000027. And I’ll turn it over to Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to the board. The th next application is a continued matter; this is continued from our November 7 East Hawaii Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the applicant, the applicant’s representative and the Planning Director were working towards an agreement to be able to resolve both the pending Board of Appeals matter as well as this after-the-fact SMA Permit. Since that time they have come to an agreement. And this morning the Planning Commission received amended recommendation with conditions that has been prepared by the Planning Department. With that, if I could direct this to the – there have been some substantial changes to the conditions – and I would like to pass this onto our Director to be able to go into detail about these changes. EXHIBIT B 1 WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Yes. I think – actually, Jeff, if you have a slide, do you have an aerial that, okay, yeah, this is a good one. DARROW: We have some -. YUEN: Yeah, you have quite a few. DARROW: Do you want to come back to this one? YUEN: Right. I think that one is a pretty good one to start with. Also, if you refer to Exhibit 1, the difficulty here is that there was a first violation, which was this road cut down into the gulch and to the sea, and that was originally cited by the Department. And then there was a second road cut from the end of the Uli Road cul-de-sac down to the first violation, and then there was some re-grading along the first violation to the sea. And when the application originally came in, the Department cited the violations and assessed the fine, the applicant appealed the citations to the Board of Appeals – it has been pending for quite some time – but in order to keep the cuts, they needed an SMA Permit, I mean, you can’t simply do a violation and then get to keep what you have done without getting an after-the-fact SMA Permit to allow it to remain. So the original proposal was that both of these, that this cut would be used for the public access – the one from the Uli Road cul-de-sac to the sea. But the Department wanted to see safety measures put in to place and after looking at the difficulty and cost of those safety measures, the applicant has come in with a different proposal where this cut would be closed off at both ends by rock and soil barrier that would be pushed up against so that they can’t be used anymore. And the public access would come down the first cut and to get to the first cut from the end of the cul-de-sac they would follow existing -. There’re existing roads on the property, one of which – and if we could show some of the other pictures I think it might be easier to see the rest of that, and if you look down at your Exhibit 1, this shows how the public access would go – so looking back at the picture, this is Uli Road here, then it goes, there is a road along the gulch that it follows for a segment that’s labeled as 2 on your map. The road stretched to come across here – that’s still labeled 2 on the map – and then 3 cuts across to the edge of the gulch to the road cut here, and then becomes 4 going down into the gulch, and then 5 to the sea. Then there’s also a lateral shoreline access that – let’s see here – that’s the closest we have that shows it. It doesn’t show well on this photo, but they have property extending in this direction and there would be a lateral shoreline access to the property line, and that’s a westerly direction. And so the gist of the SMA Permit is that the SMA Permit allows the use of the first road cut, it allows only limited use by the lot owners for vehicular access strictly for drop-off and pick-up purposes at the beach. It also allows emergency vehicles and pedestrian access. The second road cut would be permanently closed. WATANABE: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of the Director with regard to this settlement? Do you want to outline any of these other points within EXHIBIT B 2 the settlement such as they agreed upon $100,000 fine, etc. and maybe some of the plantings that you are requiring the applicant to provide? YUEN: The $100,000 fine is a separate agreement to settle the violation. The fines themselves don’t come to the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission doesn’t deal with violations. But the agreement between the applicant and the Planning Department is that if the Planning Commission passes the SMA Permit as stated in on these conditions, then the fine would be $100,000, all the pending actions of the Board of Appeals would be ended. Now, the applicant can also submit a landscaping and erosion control plan and offset work that’s, the cost of work done on that plan as approved by the Planning Director against the $100,000 fine. So they would, the Planning Director would both have to approve the work and, second, have to approve the documentation of the expenses. WATANABE: Thank you. It doesn’t seem like we have any questions. So for the record, there is no one from the public signed up to testify on this. So Mr. Lim, you are already sworn in and we already have your address and all of that. So are you in agreement with what has been summarized by the Director and what’s documented in this amended recommendation? LIM: That’s correct. E. Commerce Enterprises is in agreement with the proposed conditions by the Director in his amended recommendation dated November 23, 2008. We appreciate the Director’s willingness to work with us on this. As we got more into the specifics on how we would mitigate the larger cut and then keep it safe for public access, it became clear to us that it was a difficult enterprise. And so that’s why we proposed to the Director that we instead just shut it off. I think that will be working better for everybody. So we’d ask for the Planning Commission’s support for the amended recommendation and conditions. And if there’re any questions, I’ll stand ready to answer. WATANABE: Okay. Fellow Commissioners, any -? It doesn’t look like it. Mr. Housel? HOUSEL: Well, I have one question to Mr. Lim. During the previous Commission meeting where a party, an adjacent neighbor, spoke about his view and the possibility of erosion onto his property. Has that been resolved? Is the adjacent neighbor in agreement with this plan? LIM: Yes, we talked to, his name is Hermann Fernandez, and he is the one that raised the issues about primarily what they call the first cut because that’s right where his house site was and right in his view.So what we anticipate is going to happen is as far as the second cut, which is a longer one that we are closing off at some point in time I think what is going to happen is the ironwoods that are starting to already take over that area is going to cover that up. And we have, for the first cut, which is the access way that we are talking about now, that’s what the landscaping and the erosion control plan is going to be that the Planning Director will approve. So that’s design in part to grow some trees probably within the cut, so it doesn’t look like a graded roadway. And that would, I think, satisfy Mr. Fernandez’s concerns. HOUSEL: Okay, so he is consented to this plan? Is that correct? EXHIBIT B 3 LIM: Not technically consented to the plan, but he knows that that’s what we are proposing. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda? ALAMEDA: Yeah, I’m going to make a motion, if it’s cleared with Fellow Commissioners. WATANABE: Okay. Well, Mr. Lim, thank you for being able to work this out. It was a kind of tough one, I think. It looks like we are done with the questions, so you may be seated. Mr. Alameda, you wanted to make a motion? ALAMEDA: Thank you. With regard to Applicant: E. Commerce Enterprises Corporation, Special Management Area Use Permit 08-000027, I move that it be approved with the conditions as stated by the Director. IWASHITA: Second. WATANABE: It’s been moved and seconded. Any further discussion on this matter? Seeing none, Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Just for clarification, I’m sorry I didn’t catch the commissioner who seconded. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita. DARROW: And again just for clarification, this would be approval with amendments, correct? Because this is an amended recommendation. WATANABE: Yeah, the approval of the amended recommendation as documented and proposed by both the applicant and the Director. DARROW: Thank you. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. EXHIBIT B 4 DARROW: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Lim, you’ll be notified in writing then. LIM: Thank you very much. WATANABE: Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT B 5