Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-17 Leeward Exh B (REVOCATION OF USE 90) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 17, 2016 PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED REVOCATION A regularly advertised hearing on the OF USE PERMIT NO. 90 was called to order at 9:44 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Brandi Beaudet presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brandi Beaudet, Thomas Whittemore, Collin Kaholo, Sonny Shimaoka and Keith Unger ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Scott Church and Barbara Nobriga ALSO PRESENT: Danny Patel (Counsel for the Commission), Duane Kanuha, (Planning Director), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately 14 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR (REVOCATION OF USE 90) The Planning Director has initiated the revocation of Use Permit No. 90 originally issued to Puakō Hawai‘i Properties by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1991 to allow the construction of six 18-hole championship golf courses, a golf teaching academy and related improvements on 3,000 acres. The property, currently owned by Bridge ‘Āina Le‘a, LLC and ‘Āina Le‘a Inc. et al., is located on the mauka side of the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway between the Mauna Lani Resort and Waikoloa Village, Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK: 6-8-001:025, 036-040, and 069. BEAUDET: Second Item on today’s agenda, Initiator Planning Director, this is for the revocation of Use Permit No. 90. Maija? JACKSON: Good morning. BEAUDET: We are ready for your presentation. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next item on the agenda is a request by the Planning Director to revoke Use Permit No. 90. Use Permit No. 90 was issued by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1991, to Puakō Hawai‘i Properties. It was to allow six 18-hole champion golf courses, a golf teaching academy and related improvements on approximately 3,000 acres of land. I’m going to move ahead just for a minute to orient the Commission. The subject property consisting of 3,000 acres is surrounded by a black outline in the middle of the slide. You can see Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway running in a north-south direction on the makai edge of the 1 EXHIBIT B property. You have Mauna Lani Resort along the ocean further to the west, and then Waikoloa Village is shown in the pink mauka of the subject property. This is the State Land Use District Boundary Map for the area, and you can see the majority of the property about 1,940 acres is in the Agricultural District and the remaining balance is in the Urban District. This was the site plan submitted when the applicant first applied for the permit back in 1991. So it shows the six golf courses distributed throughout the property. You can see the fairways spread around. The red dots are the clubhouses that they were proposing; there were five, and each of the clubhouses on the outer edge of the property services one golf course, and then the clubhouse in the middle is surrounded by two golf courses. The reasons that the Director is requesting this revocation, there are two main reasons. One, in 2005 the State Land Use law was changed to prohibit golf courses on lands in the Agricultural District. And as I mentioned before, about 1,940 acres of the property is currently situated in the Agricultural District. The change in the State law also included the grandfather clause that states, “Golf courses approved by county before July 1, 2005, for development within the Agricultural District shall be permitted uses within the District.” However, Use Permit 90 was approved prior to 2005, but it was also subject to compliance with 21 conditions that have not been satisfied to date. Specifically, Condition 3 required construction of three of the six golf courses be completed by 2011; to date construction of the golf courses has not even begun. Bridge ‘Āina Le‘a, LLC has indicated in writing that they have no plans to develop their 1,940 acres in the near future, and that’s an exhibit in your background report. We just received a letter that was provided in your background report from ‘Āina Le‘a Inc., and they say that they do intend to develop a golf course in the future, one golf course, on the Urban lands, but they will submit a new Use Permit application for the golf course in the future. The Planning Commission’s authority to revoke the permit is based on Condition 21; that’s our standard condition that we include in every permit that says, “should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director may \[shall\] initiate procedures to revoke the permit.” Additionally, the Zoning Code and your Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure also give the Commission the authority to revoke a Use Permit. Based on the fact that the golf courses that were permitted 25 years ago have not been established within the prescribed time period, the Director is requesting that the Planning Commission revoke the permit. We have received a few items since we distributed the background and recommendation to you. We did receive a letter from Jeff Sacher supporting the Director’s request to revoke the permit; th that was dated, actually that’s undated, no, it’s dated March 14. And then we also received a petition for standing in a contested case from Mauna Lani Resort Association, and that was a th timely filing with a filing fee and we acknowledged receipt of that on March 8. And I just wanted to add one other thing: Since we distributed the background and recommendation, we still have not heard anything from Bridge ‘Āina Le‘a, LLC of whether they support or are opposed to this revocation. 2 EXHIBIT B BEAUDET: Thank you, staff. Any questions or comments for staff? Thank you. Next I’d like to ask the applicant or its representative to please come forward. I’m sorry, not the applicant, but is there a representative of ‘Āina Le‘a who would like to come forward? Okay, just for the record, for the record there is no representation sitting here today for ‘Āina Le‘a Inc. PATEL: And so, to be clear, there is no one here from ‘Āina Le‘a Inc. nor Bridge ‘Āina Le‘a, LLC. BEAUDET: Mark that as no. JACKSON: Mr. Chair, I’d just like to add a couple more things for the record since nobody is here representing Bridge or ‘Āina Le‘a. The Planning Department did send out to Bridge via mail and also email the agenda as well as the hearing notice, and we sent it by email because the representatives of Bridge are in Saipan and they sent an email to us, letting us know that the mail rd is very slow, and they confirmed the receipt of the agenda on February 23 by email. We also sent the background and recommendation report, and we sent the petition for standing in a th contested case hearing, and the petition was confirmed receipt by email on Marth 8. BEAUDET: But there was no communication rather that they are okay — JACKSON: There was no — BEAUDET: — with the revocation or — JACKSON: No, they never expressed their — BEAUDET: Challenge or agreement. JACKSON: — their opinion. Yeah. BEAUDET: Okay. Thank you. There has been no indication of a request for testimony. If there is anyone in the audience who would like to come forward at this point, this would be your opportunity. Mr. Vitousek, I understand that you represent the Mauna Lani? VITOUSEK: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission. We petitioned to intervene. Mauna Lani — BEAUDET: We’re going to have to swear you in first. VITOUSEK: Oh, sure. BEAUDET: Do you swear now and before the Leeward Planning Commission to tell the truth on this matter? 3 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Yes. BEAUDET: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Mauna Lani Resort has been involved in issues relative to ‘Āina Le‘a for some time. We — BEAUDET: Sorry. Could you please introduce yourself? VITOUSEK: Oh, yeah, Randy Vitousek, I represent the Mauna Lani Resort Association. Mauna Lani Resort Association is the master association for the hotel, commercial and residential properties in the Mauna Lani Resort. Mauna Lani has been involved relative to the ‘Āina Le‘a project in several ways over the years, including, you know, we went into litigation at the Third Circuit Court challenging their Environmental Impact Statement that was found to be inadequate by the court, we were involved in a PUD application. Mauna Lani’s main concern is just that there be a thorough assessment of the environmental effects and regional effects of the proposed project. You know, we wanted to participate in any proceedings with respect to the request of revocation. We did not have a position on that as yet. But if there are not going to be any proceedings, then we are perfectly comfortable with the Commission going ahead and making a decision today, and we hope that you can do that. PATEL: Mr. Chair, if I can. So just to be clear, Mr. Vitousek, in light of the fact that there is no representatives here from ‘Āina Le‘a Inc. or Bridge ‘Āina Le‘a, would you still prefer to have the Commission act on your petition for standing first or are you okay with just moving on to — VITOUSEK: No, actually, we are okay with withdrawing — PATEL: Okay. VITOUSEK: — the, we will withdraw the request to intervene and the request for a contested case hearing subject to, you know, decision of the Commission. PATEL: Thank you. BEAUDET: With that, Commissioners, any discussion on the matter? Okay, so it is understood that — yeah, go ahead. UNGER: Yeah, to clarify, there is a letter, March 11, 2016, correct, from Alan Okamoto stating that they have reviewed the petition and they take no position with respect to the cancellation of the Ag classified land. Is that what, when you say you haven’t heard from representatives? JACKSON: Yes, I’m sorry, I meant that I hadn’t heard from representatives of Bridge ‘Āina Le‘a, but ‘Āina Le‘a Inc. had submitted the letter with their position. UNGER: Oh, okay, thank you. 4 EXHIBIT B BEAUDET: Okay, so, again, for the record, the petition for standing for intervention has been withdrawn. So, Commissioners, let’s proceed with a motion for the revocation of the permit. SHIMAOKA: Yeah, Mr. Chair, I move that the request to revoke Permit USE 90 be approved based on the Planning Director’s findings and recommendation, which shall be adopted. KAHOLO: Second. BEAUDET: It has been moved by Commissioner Shimaoka and seconded by Commissioner Kaholo for approval of the revocation of Use Permit No. 90. Staff, roll call. Oh, any discussion before we —. Thank you. JACKSON: Okay, Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Unger? UNGER: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion passes, five-zero. The discussion ended at 9:58 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 5 EXHIBIT B