ALAN ARAKAWA

"SHOULD THE MAYOR CARE THAT DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR IS TASERED FOR PUSHING POLICE OFFICER?"

2006-08-13T22:24:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
Aug. 13, 2006

"Officer subdues official with Taser"

HAIKU – A Maui County administration official was subdued with a Taser stun gun and arrested last month after a police officer responded to a dispute at a Haiku residence, police said.

David J. Ching, 44, of Haiku, who is first assistant to Maui County Managing Director Keith Regan, was charged with harassment and disorderly conduct in the July 29 incident, police records show. He was released after posting $200 bail and given a date to appear in Wailuku District Court this month.

Police responded to the location on Haiku Road at 9:49 p.m. after being called about a civil dispute over a vehicle, said Capt. Milton Matsuoka, commander of the Wailuku Patrol District. He said Ching allegedly pushed an officer while both were on the street outside the residence before the officer deployed a Taser stun gun. No other police officers had arrived at the scene at the time, Matsuoka said.

David DeLeon, executive assistant to Mayor Alan Arakawa, said Ching would not be disciplined, and Arakawa would not be involved in the matter. Ching has not responded to telephone calls about the alleged incident and the charges.

"HOW THE MAYOR CONDUCTS BUSINESS"

2006-07-31T13:05:00.000-07:00

Question: Spencer Homes received a promise for 30 water-meters by threatening to "go to the press". The Arakawa administration - "live by the press, die by the press" (or, "what goes around, comes around.")

THE MAUI NEWS
July 29, 2006

Paperwork nails fast-track housing up against the wall
By HARRY EAGAR, Staff Writer

WAIKAPU - Following some jawboning by developer Jesse Spencer, Maui County workers installed 30 water meters Friday at Waikapu Gardens, Spencer’s 411-house affordable housing project.
Spencer’s son, Mark, who is ramrodding the construction, says families could move into the first group of homes within 30 days. However, the runup to the opening of the project has generated mutual irritation over delays and accusations about who is responsible for them.
The Spencers actually had 68 homes completed except for meters and landscaping by Friday, and they wanted that many meters. The Department of Water Supply, committed to providing them at some point, hesitated to release them now because some paperwork is not complete.
Notably, the project does not yet have final subdivision approval, and Spencer cannot sell houses without that.
“I don’t quite understand what the big sweat is,” said Dave DeLeon, special assistant to Mayor Alan Arakawa, responding to the Spencers’ claims on Thursday.
* * * *
But Jesse Spencer doesn’t think it’s going very fast.
“I just want to get some hard-working local people into houses,” he said Friday.
He was planning a demonstration this weekend to make his point but called it off following the meeting that resulted in a promise to install the first 30 meters.“They feel the county needs to step up for them, and if it doesn’t, they go to the press,” says DeLeon.
Jesse Spencer sees it differently. He asks for inspections in order to proceed to the next step in construction and says he cannot get a clear response. He submits engineering drawings, and waits and waits for approvals.

* * * *

ALAN "NO CAN" ARAKAWA

2006-07-30T19:09:00.000-07:00

THE MAUI NEWS
Letters (July 30, 2006)

“The houses are there, but where is the county water?”

My husband and I were raised on Maui and currently work for the state and county. Despite having decent-paying jobs, we have been unable to afford a home at the current housing prices.
You can imagine our elation when we found out we would be able to purchase an affordable home as part of the Spencer Homes Waikapu Gardens project. This project has made our dream of owning a home on the island we grew up on and love a reality.
We are very excited and grateful for our new home, but at the same time we are disappointed that the project was held up by the Department of Water Supply. Waikapu Gardens has been in the works for a few years now, which means that the county should have had ample time to ensure that the necessary water meters were allocated and ready.
It is puzzling when many luxury communities seem to be granted all the necessary approvals without issue or concern on the part of the county, and yet the Spencers have come across all sorts of roadblocks when trying to provide affordable housing for the local community.
Where do the county’s priorities lie?
The Spencers are basically providing 100 percent affordable housing when comparing their highest market-price home to Maui County’s average housing price. They are making an effort to give housing priority to public servants and families who have a true investment in Maui’s future. We are asking the county to do the same.

Keala Kaopuiki-Santos
Kihei

“Personality, attention make points with voter”

In the last four years, it seems that the administration of Alan Arakawa did not do anything remarkable for the average working citizen of Maui, especially if he or she lives on the west side.
What the common working man wants to see is the leader of this island and county stand up for the people and show a “can” attitude. Arakawa’s slogan should be “no can.”
My biggest gripe is with Arakawa administration is that he seemingly is unengaging, someone who when confronted with a problem by the people will put up a deflector to oosh you away. I’m sure Arakawa is a good man, but is he a good politician?
A long time ago, Frank Fasi said a good politician is “someone who can manage the state of government with tact, with a smile and find solutions to better the lives of the people.” Frank Fasi was one of the most fearless and innovative mayors Honolulu has ever had. Arakawa has the personality of a paralyzed snail.
I attended some of James “Kimo” Apana’s meetings to find out if he was just a smiling, handshaking former mayor. In several one-on-one conversations, he and I talked about issues. Not only did he listen, he took pages of notes, on one occasion for 2? hours.
When a candidate sits down, fills a notebook and is concerned about the well-being of everyone I know, that must mean something.

Ron Sambrano
Lahaina

"C'MON MAYOR"

2006-07-30T01:24:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
Saturday, July 29, 2006

“Maui has more pressing concerns than simple question”

I read the response from Mayor Alan Arakawa about his film commissioner (Letters, July 25). I wish he would get this upset about our homeless, affordable housing, developers setting their own height restrictions, roadside trash, the ice epidemic, our education system, traffic, protecting our aina and Hawaiian culture.
Now that it is election time he has all these new programs, too late! It sure is nice that he has the time to write a letter to a film student in response to my simple question of how many movies were made here in the last four years. The answer is still none. I would really love to see the receipts for the $12 million the film office has brought in. C’mon, mayor. The numerous people I know and help in the industry never saw a penny of it. And I would love to see the homegrown work force of local artists and technicians that has been built.
Every experienced production person I know has been working on Maui and Oahu long before our film commissioner came over from Hollywood. And they all advise me: Don’t read the trade papers and magazines, just do it (“Maui’s a natural for small productions,” Letters, July 25).
Maui definitely needs a change. I am a person really from Maui and our generation does have a right to ask questions and we do live aloha and are pono every day!

Malia Kamai
Paia

“Democratic governments should listen to the people”

I just came back from El Salvador and was extremely saddened by the control the government has over the media in that country. Significant channels of communication where common citizens can express themselves are nonexistent. Hence, the public is easily deceived by an abundance of biased reports and editorial columns.
I’m grateful to live in a society where that’s not the case. However, I must admit that recently I’ve felt threatened for simply submitting my thoughts and concerns to The Maui News. The County of Maui government sought me out and denied my existence. A truly democratic government should listen to the concerns of its people and make proper changes, not silence those who speak of its flaws.
I’m thankful to The Maui News for printing my letters and providing a legitimate channel for me to be heard. I just wish government officials would not only respect but also emulate the paper’s integrity.

Freddy M. Guzman
Kahului

“Executive decision’ violated separation of powers”

I would like to respond to the July 16 Viewpoint from Mayor Alan Arakawa defending his “executive decision” regarding developments on Maui.
First I would like to state that I voted for Arakawa in 2002 so I have no political ax to grind. I was hoping for a change from politics as usual. Instead, I and Maui County got a change for the worse.
It seems that the mayor must have been asleep in his civic class in high school since his “executive decision” to overrule existing laws in favor of a developer violates our separation of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
His job as chief executive of Maui County is to see that laws are followed and enforced, not overruled by “executive decisions.” On Aug. 2, Maui County will find out by the judicial branch if the law was followed or broken by the mayor. This is a very important date for all of Maui County since it will determine if our county government is for the people, by the people or for the developers by the developers.
The laws that were violated by the mayor’s “executive decision” were passed to protect the people such as those who live along Nakoa Street and Palama Drive, senior citizens who cannot fight an uncaring government or greedy developers.
All we can hope for is that the judicial system does the right thing and is pono.

Anthony Gallo Jr.
Kahului

"APANA STILL WAITING FOR ARAKAWA APOLOGY"

2006-07-26T02:30:00.000-07:00

http://www.haleakalatimes.com/news/story2101.aspx

Haleakala Times
July 20, 2006

The race for mayor

Towards the end of the three-hour forum candidates were allowed to
ask a question to another candidate, whose name was randomly drawn.
This questioning produced some of the most interesting moments.

Tavares asked Apana, a former Maui mayor, about allegations that his
administration had not left the new administration with enough,
apparently referring to the lack of written documents from department
heads.

Apana said that original documents were never kept at the county
building and that he had instructed department heads to prepare
budgets for the new administration.

He also took the opportunity to point out that he had not taken a
computer that was missing at first but later found in another county
department. "I'm still waiting for an apology," he said.

"LONG FLOUNDERING ADMINISTRATION"

2006-07-25T13:00:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
Letters
July 23, 2006

"Maui Lani grading decision should sink re-election bid"

Like a tragic character in a short story, Mayor Alan Arakawa is about to play out the last scene of his long-floundering administration.

If the Sand Hills fiasco doesn’t drive the final nail, my read of voter behavior is in dire straits and hobbling on its last leg.

You can bet the farm, there’s no redemption.

Martin DuPont

Pukalani

"SOUR GRAPES ON LAW-BREAKERS"

2006-07-21T15:54:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
Letters
July 21, 2006

"Maui requires a faster pace in the new, digital world"

I am writing in response to Planning Director Mike Foley calling me a "sour grapes disgruntled former employee" (Viewpoint, July 16).
I do not need Mr. Foley to tell me that we are at the crossroads, nor do I need Mr. Foley to tell me how to plan Maui County.
I have been involved with the adoption of seven county community plans. Mr. Foley has done zero. I predicted that under his policies we would not see a general plan by the end of this mayoral term. Mr. Foley emphatically stated that he thought he would produce a plan. Two and a half years later, Mr. Foley doesn’t even have a first draft.

The reality is simple. The person who successfully predicted the future was the person who was correct. The person whose prediction was wrong basically failed.

I have stated publicly that I do not believe Mr. Foley purposely delayed the plan. He is simply an old-styled planner adhering to obsolete planning methods. He does not realize that in this digital world the emerging trend is speed.

Mr. Foley and I can trade barbs all day long. The bottom line is that we do not have an updated general plan. It is the people who suffer.

If we had a first draft, we could be working on that even while amending Bill 84, the new planning process.

Wayne A. Boteilho
Wailuku

“Past lawbreaking not rectified by continued lawbreaking”

Let me see if I can help to sort out the mayor’s "No-win situation" over the Maui Lani grading (Viewpoint, July 16).
Since 1991, the Planning Department, which Maui’s mayors are ultimately responsible for, have not enforced some building ordinances. Projects were granted discretionary approvals, thus actually breaking county laws when it came time to build.
The mayor states that in order to enforce the laws, as he is expected to do, it would result in lawsuits from developers who received the illegal approvals, and that will cost the taxpayers money. However, the mayor’s real dilemma is whether to show that he is different from previous government leaders and uphold the laws that were written to protect the people of Maui.

Will the mayor represent the families on Palama Street from previous transgressions of previous administrations, follow the laws, fight the lawsuits and, in the end, pay the piper what’s due?
As I recall, upon election, this was the mayor who stated that his administration was going to follow county laws. There comes a time when wrongs have to be made right, and it usually comes at a cost – paying for the past in order to walk into the future clean. The bills for these past transgressions are long overdue.

Michael Freistat
Kihei

"HAS MAYOR ARAKAWA NO SHAME?"

2006-07-20T15:25:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
July 20, 2006

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PLAYING POLITICS:

“When reached later Wednesday, Mayor Alan Arakawa said he was aware of Hokama’s resolution but that he “wasn’t sure” if he could support it even though he “wasn’t in disagreement” with the intent.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY:

Arakawa pointed out that, should the resolution be adopted Friday, it would not be his call, but the call of the Department of the Corporation Counsel, which advises both the administration and legislative branches, on whether or not to proceed.”
“It’s not up to me,” said Arakawa. “It’s up to Corporation Counsel.”

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF TAKING CREDIT FOR OTHERS ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

"Three months ago, Arakawa essentially threatened to join Hall’s lawsuit if the state didn’t sit down with the county and work things out. The state responded by acknowledging that the 2025 master plan approved less than six months earlier was already obsolete because of the congestion at the harbor. The state said planning on the 2030 master plan would begin by the end of the year."

"Since then," said Arakawa, "his administration has been meeting with state transportation officials to “come up with solutions.” He said the state is in the process of contacting other harbor users about the updated plan, and that public hearings will follow.
“If they hadn’t done anything, we were probably going to sue,” Arakawa said. “But they opted to sit down and begin corrections that are necessary.”

"ANOTHER LAW IGNORED"

2006-07-19T14:52:00.000-07:00

THE MAUI NEWS
Letters (July 19, 2006)

"County administrations ignored law, leading to today’s mess"

“The Planning Director shall . . . recommend revisions of the General Plan at least every ten (10) years to guide the development of the county” – County Charter, Section 8-8.3.3.

The last time a county planning director did this was 16 years ago in 1990. It is shameful that the current and the previous administration can flout the law of the land and no one seems to care.

The planning process was changed by the council two years ago, ostensibly to speed it up by setting time limits for each step along the way to final adoption. Since then the Planning Department has gathered data and worked on maps in preparation for the starting gun of the process, the public meetings of the General Plan Advisory Committee.

Now the county attorneys have found another reason for delaying the start of the process by detecting a technical flaw in Bill 84.

Meanwhile, the 16-year-old 1990 General Plan is still in force and will be probably for another three years. This time the planning director will not only “recommend revisions” as mandated by Charter Section 8-8.3.3 but draft a whole new plan with maps as mandated by Bill 84.

The new plan will be very specific and will regulate land use throughout the county. It will have maps showing growth boundaries for each community and zoning designations, show transportation and road corridors, and designate where municipal buildings will be located.

This is a huge task and it may be in conflict with the intent of Charter Section 8-8.3.3, because by its nature the new general plan will usurp controls over planning matters that were previously in the hands of the community plan advisory committees.

Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen, but what is clear is that the community planning process will not start before 2009 and probably later.

The failure of timely planning and lack of action by our elected and appointed leaders has, to a large extent, resulted in the failure to build needed roads and infrastructure to keep up with past and current development, let alone with future development.

Hans Riecke
Haiku

"TIME FOR CHANGE"

2006-07-18T19:21:00.000-07:00

The Maui News (Letters)

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

"Legal snag in planning a lack of effort by planners"

First of all, Bill 84 was signed by the mayor March 4, 2004, so the July 10 editorial is incorrect saying it was passed last year.
The Planning Department has been making excuses for years now about why it cannot do the General Plan. The latest is this "legal opinion." Why couldn’t the Planning Department read the ordinance and know what they are required to do by law? Because they didn’t want to. It is as simple as that. Following the law did not fit into their agenda.
The language of the law is very clear: "The director of Planning shall: 1. Simultaneously transmit the proposed revisions prepared and recommended by the director of planning to the three general plan advisory committees."
They have had two years to do the work. Now they have to "drop everything" to work on the draft. Seems to me if they can do it in a couple months now, they could have done a fantastic job over the past two years. What were they doing?
Maybe if the Planning Department had been working on the plan as required by Bill 84 for the last two years they could have fulfilled their legal duty and people would be working on the plans, not hoping to get what’s available.
Instead of modifying a law to accommodate the Planning Department, the mayor should hire managers willing to follow the law and do their jobs. Enough is enough.

Beth London
Makawao

"WINDS OF CHANGE"

2006-07-17T16:48:00.000-07:00

THE MAUI NEWS
Letters (approximately one week)

"County being hypocritical in plan to use illegal house"

Sometimes the inner workings of our infamous county Planning Department just leaves us shaking our heads. I’ve been building on Maui for over 32 years now and have had to follow the rules governing the ever-changing and updated building codes.

But when the county attacks the owner of the “Montana Beach” house and uses every legal angle it can to say the structure was illegal and to finally achieve its goal of having the house stopped only to want to use it for the county purposes is just a little hypocritical.

Then to add insult to injury, Rob Parsons, who was one of the main participants in the original attack, requested that he would like to have an office in the building when they use it for public use.

Come on, folks, if the county uses its holier-than-thou measures to steal a person’s right to build a home after it issued permits and let them almost complete the structure, stating it is illegal, then how on earth does that give the county the right to say now we want to use the illegal structure for our purposes?

Keep the deal legal and tear it down and stop giving mixed signals about your own building codes in our county.

Steve W. Kear
Kihei

"Council fails homework; Planning Department a mess"

The County Council members who oversee land use and planning issues claim they had no idea the tally of committed units had grown to 17,138 and could actually be more! What do these council members get paid to do?

A recent audit of the Planning Department gave us all an insight to what a mess it really is. Right now every developer on Maui is rushing to get plans approved before the General Plan is updated.

Let’s be smart here, people. We need to halt all development until the General Plan is updated and try to restore some order to the planning process before Maui is too far gone.

Reggie Gilmore
Lahaina

"Use of ’Montana Beach’ house hypocritical"

The best thing to do with the illegal "Montana Beach" house is tear it down and sell all the pieces and leave a dinky monument honoring former dysfunctional county government.

But don’t be hypocritical and use it for continued county business.

Glenn Shepherd
Wailuku

"News stories add more reasons to change administration"

It’s time for a change. In one edition of The Maui News (June 25), there are two great stories that show additional examples of why Maui County needs a new administration.

In the first, "17,138 homes on the book," Council Member Charmaine Tavares says the long-range planning numbers came as a "shock," and that not knowing when or if the projects would be built made it difficult to plan for the future.

What’s really shocking is that the current administration didn’t inform the council planning committee chairwoman, council members and planning commissioners of these numbers until now.

In the second story, "GPAC stalls over legal question," Kehau Filimoeatu says "for a planning department, the planning is bad. The organization of this whole thing I think is falling apart."

Add these to the long list of Arakawa failures, including the most recent Maui Lani height violations, proposing to use the Hamakuapoko wells and the Water Use and Development Plan’s long delays.

Fred M. Guzman
Kahului

"Releasing number of homes planned a scare tactic"

Regarding the article about all the planned homes on the books (The Maui News, June 25), here goes Mike Foley again disguising his agenda by using scare tactics and numbers in general to have the people of Maui think the sky is falling.

Every time you dig into the verbiage of the Planning Department you will find a large amount of reconstituted rules that Mr. Foley helped pass himself, used as facts and quotes. The numbers for up-and-coming housing proposals are long-range statistics and not "the sky is falling, let’s panic" numbers Mr. Foley uses to deceive people into thinking this will happen overnight. Instead of saying we will work together to resolve these situations and help the people of Maui, he finds all kinds of negative angles to shoot every project down.

One moment you see the mayor and his housing committees and review boards on TV saying they understand the urgency for affordable housing and they will do everything in their power to help alleviate the shortage. Then, when developers come forward to help to fill the supply, they have their financial throats cut by either the planning commission, the mayor or the County Council.

It’s time for the long-term residents of Maui who need housing to stand up and say enough is enough and vote for someone who will think of them first instead of themselves and "I have it, so the heck with the rest of you."

Jim Cummings
Kihei

"HOPE FOR CHANGE"

2006-07-15T16:11:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
Letters
July 15, 2006

Candidate forum prompts hope for a change

To watch the process of the mayoral debate is encouraging. To see Mayor Alan Arakawa be made accountable is most satisfying.

For months I’ve listened or read as the mayor has taken credit for everything but the creation of the islands themselves. To see his statements pale in the face of facts gives me hope that someday we will be able to have a mayor of Maui County who does, in fact and deed, serve the people 24-7.

Jimmy Muschietti

Kula

"ARAKAWA FAVORS WEALTHY OVER LONG-TIME RESIDENTS"

2006-07-12T01:23:00.000-07:00

The Maui News (July 11, 2006)

"Subdivision fill policy may cover more projects"
By VALERIE MONSON, Staff Writer

WAILUKU – Mayor Alan Arakawa’s decision to allow two new Maui Lani subdivisions to be artificially raised so much that longtime neighbors fear damages to their properties could be even more wide-ranging.

Corporation Counsel Brian Moto told the County Council Planning Committee Monday that “other subdivisions have not been subject to a strict building height” that was adopted in 1991 to require that the top of the completed house measure no more than 30 feet from the finished or natural grade, whichever is lower.

“Sandhills is not unique,” said Moto, referring to one of the Maui Lani projects that the mayor said could ignore the provision because he believed the larger project district that includes the subdivisions earned their necessary entitlements before the county law was changed.

“The record will show that other structures, houses, were permitted whose height would not comply with the definition in the zoning code,” continued Moto.

That news took council members by surprise.

“This does not make me feel any better or comfortable about this situation,” said Council Chairman Riki Hokama who couldn’t understand the reasoning and was taken aback that there was no requirement that the developers get an approval from the Board of Variances and Appeals.

“What do you mean by strict interpretation?” Hokama asked. “You’ve told me we’ve strayed from the parameters, but it’s within the parameters?”

Last week, four Central Maui residents who claim their properties and lifestyles will be harmed by the newly filled subdivisions filed a lawsuit against Arakawa, the county and Planning Director Mike Foley. Once the new houses are built atop the elevated land, the new owners will get the ocean and mountain views while blocking the views from homes of longtime residents, many of them original owners. The longtime homeowners also fear dealing with runoff from the projects.

Gulches which once served as drainageways for both neighborhoods have been filled, which may leave the properties at the lower levels vulnerable to flooding.

The residents say Arakawa had no authority to usurp the County Code.

The legal action was off-limits for discussion Monday, but the mayor’s decision was on trial the entire afternoon, even though he wasn’t present.

Council Member Michelle Anderson, who put together a paper trail of the decision, said that “people are living in fear” that one of their neighbors could be allowed to do the same thing and block them out with a high wall of fill.

“I can’t tell you how many calls and e-mails I’ve heard from people who are terrified this is going to happen to them,” said Anderson.

Arakawa told The Maui News a few weeks ago that he made the “administrative decision” because Maui Lani received its Phase I and II Project District approvals in 1990, before the building height ordinance was changed. The mayor said he feared the developer, Valentine Peroff, could sue the county if forced to adhere to the more recent restrictions.

However, Peroff did not submit his grading plan for Sandhills Estates, which has impacted residents of Nakoa Drive, until Dec. 15, 2003. Phase III approvals for Sandhills Estates and the property simply known as Site 1-D, which runs behind the Dream City houses on Palama Drive, were issued on March 12, 2004, and Jan. 5, 2005, respectively.

"TAVARES SUPPORTER HUMILIATES MAYOR ARAKAWA"

2006-07-02T22:46:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
Sunday, July 02, 2006

"Anatomy of a failure: Updating the Maui County General Plan"

VIEWPOINT WAYNE A. BOTEILHO

Planning Director Mike Foley cannot blame county attorneys for the delay in updating the General Plan (The Maui News, June 25). The fault is his.

Mr. Foley knew in November of 2004 that the new General Plan procedure, commonly known as Bill 84, required simultaneous plan review by all three General Plan advisory committees.

I know because I was the one who told him. He responded by saying I did not “understand” the intent of Bill 84. When I told him I was one of the authors of Bill 84, Mr. Foley had nothing to say.

I scheduled a special meeting with Foley Feb. 15, 2005. I told Mr. Foley that we were blowing it with the General Plan. He said he “couldn’t disagree more.” I guaranteed that under his policy an updated General Plan would not be produced by the end of this mayoral term. Mr. Foley again disagreed, stating “I think I will.”

By mid-2005, it became apparent that the General Plan update would not be completed so I suggested that we at least require a first draft of the plan by June 2006. I was in the room when Mr. Foley gave a direct order to the Long Range Division chief to comply with my suggestion. A work schedule was then produced which did comply. Since then, every time you turn around the plan takes longer and longer.

Bill 84 was crafted to attain three main objectives, speed, implementation and accountability. This is what the people wanted. I worked for the County Council Planning Committee when we held two rounds of district meetings to determine what Bill 84 needed to contain.

I repeatedly attempted to advise Mr. Foley. In return, he accused me of trying to sabotage the General Plan. When I asked Mr. Foley to provide a single example of my sabotage, he could not answer.

What really occurred was a disagreement on how to speed the update of the General Plan.

We needed to forecast the plan until the year 2020, not 2030. When we came into office, the technical reports for 2020 had been finished and paid for. We were ready to roll. Against my advice, Mr. Foley decided to redo the technical reports to 2030. This cost time and money which could have been funneled into expediting the General Plan.

We also needed a proper financial strategy to attain our General Plan goals. I presented such a strategy to Mr. Foley 18 months ago. It was aimed at having the county’s General Plan consultant deliver a first draft of the plan by the summer of 2005. We would then begin simultaneous general plan advisory committee reviews. Granted, we would have depleted our General Plan funding and would have had to seek a second appropriation, but at least we’d have a first draft of the plan.

Mr. Foley decided that adding scope to the General Plan contract was more important than finishing the plan itself. This is unfortunate because Bill 84 contains provisions for annual review of General Plan implementation – once the plan is completed.

So instead of fulfilling the promise of Bill 84, we are still stuck using the same old broken system. If the planning director wishes to dispute any of the facts contained herein, I will be glad to publicly debate him on Akaku: Maui Community Television.

I will pay for all expenses.

Wayne A. Boteilho was the deputy director of the Maui County Planning Department. He has resigned effective July 15. His last working day was June 30. He lives in Wailuku.

"ANDERSON HUMILIATES MAYOR ARAKAWA"

2006-06-22T01:22:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
June 21, 2006

"Anderson, mayor butt heads over Maui Lani"
By VALERIE MONSON, Staff Writer

WAILUKU – The growing mounds of fill in Maui Lani that threaten the way of life for residents of the old-time neighborhoods next to them sent the dust flying between Mayor Alan Arakawa and Maui County Council Member Michelle Anderson on Monday.
With the council’s Planning Committee asking why Arakawa exempted two new Maui Lani subdivisions from building height rules at the expense of the neighbors, the mayor found himself on the defensive during the hourlong discussion. His exchanges with Anderson were particularly sharp.
"How is this right?" demanded Anderson. "How low are we going to allow our standards to go just to let someone maximize their profits?"
The issue surfaced when it was learned that Arakawa made administrative decisions that will permit developer Valentine Peroff to mea-sure the peaks of his houses from the top of the finished grade that he has raised artificially by anywhere from 10 feet to 20 feet. The height of the fill will allow the houses to block the views of many of the residents along Palama and Nakoa drives – older sections of Kahului and Wailuku that borders the new projects.
Nearly 16 years ago, the council passed a law that said building heights must be measured from the top of the natural grade – not the finished grade – because a new owner in Kuau had added so much fill to his property that he blocked the views of the longtime residences around him.
Arakawa claims he had to give Peroff the exemptions because Maui Lani got its approvals before the new law was adopted. Members of the Planning Committee, especially Anderson, don’t necessarily agree.
Although Maui Lani was granted Phase I and Phase II approvals in its Project District review before building height limits were changed in 1991, the two subdivisions being filled were approved only recently. Phase III permits – the last requirement in a Project District – were issued in the last couple of years.
The 108-lot subdivision known as New Sand Hills at Maui Lani, which borders Nakoa Drive on the Wailuku boundary of the property, was given final subdivision approval in June 2005.
The 50-lot subdivision known as Site 1-D, which runs along Palama Drive on the Kahului edge of Maui Lani, has been granted only preliminary subdivision approval and still is awaiting final approval.
That’s the issue. What entitlements did Phase II approval allow in 1990 when neither subdivision got approval until just a few years ago?
Anderson produced a stack of documents that included a letter sent by former Public Works Director Gil Coloma-Agaran to the developer’s engineer on Aug. 2, 2004, that specifically said that the proposed grading of the lots on Maui Lani Site 1-D near Palama Drive "shall be consistent with the maximum building heights for the respective zoning. Building heights for new structures are limited to 30 feet above the existing grade."
Less than a year later, an application was filed on behalf of Peroff for a "mass grading" permit at 1-D where it was estimated that 228,500 cubic yards of fill – thousands of dump truck loads – would be brought in to raise up the 13.6-acre site. A space on the permit where the maximum height of excavation or fill was to be listed was left blank.
Planning Director Mike Foley apparently was alarmed by what was happening at New Sand Hills that abuts Nakoa Drive. In December 2004, Foley rescinded the recommendation for final subdivision approval after issues had come up "regarding the current grading and the future compliance with building height restrictions," he wrote.
But less than two weeks later – three days before Christmas – Arakawa reversed that decision "because of certain circumstances affecting" the subdivision, according to a letter he signed. Foley then recommended final subdivision approval for New Sand Hills two months later.
Sales began almost immediately – and all but half a dozen of the 108 lots have been snapped up, according to Carol Ball, owner and principal broker of Carol Ball and Associates. She said Tuesday that most sales have closed, water meters are in and some building already has begun.
Fill for that project came from sand cut from another part of the property.
Because Phase III approvals do not require public notification, the last time the neighbors of Palama and Nakoa drives had the opportunity to comment was in 1990 when Phase II was granted by the Maui Planning Commission. Some of those neighbors have said they had no idea that gulches would be filled in and that the grade would rise so dramatically.
The Nakoa Drive residents raised the issue to county officials more than a year ago, the Palama Drive neighbors more recently when they realized the fill behind them was reaching unexpected heights.
Arakawa told the committee that he was advised by county attorneys to allow the projects to proceed under the old law.
"I’ve heard a lot of accusations – you need to know how the system works because I don’t think you do," he said to the committee.
The mayor said he made the decision with members of his administration, including county attorneys, based on what approvals had been issued.
"There were inherent rights assumed by the developers as they purchased property," he said.
Anderson insisted that Phase II approval guaranteed nothing of the sort.
"Project District approvals don’t give specific directions regarding grading or site elevation," she said. "Project Districts are supposed to give you flexibility so that as each segment develops, you have that flexibility to create (the various subdivisions). It’s wrong to say they got these approvals with the Project District approval in 1990."
Some residents of the impacted neighborhoods – some have fill as high as their rooftops right in back of their houses – felt it was more than just a legal matter.
"This is a moral issue," said Dwight Nacua, who has lived on Nakoa Drive since the 1960s.
Public Works Director Milton Arakawa acknowledged that county inspectors had gone out to the site near Palama Drive because of complaints about blowing dust as the fill, trucked in from the old Paia Sugar Mill, was being spread. Council Member Joe Pontanilla asked if inspectors had noticed all the dump trucks and the growing plateau.
"Wasn’t it a concern of the department as to the height of the fill?" asked Pontanilla.
Council Member Danny Mateo wondered how the staff reacted when the mass grading permit was reviewed.
"When you see something like 228,000 cubic yards of fill, are there any red flags that go up?" questioned Mateo.
But Milton Arakawa said there’s nothing in the grading ordinance that limits the height of fill. He said the fill must be placed on the property in accordance with the law.
Again, Anderson strongly disagreed, saying there were restrictions on materials that could be brought in and that drainage is an issue because filling in gulches alters the natural terrain.
When reached after the meeting, Dean Higuchi of the Honolulu branch of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said packing the gulches with fill might be a problem even if it’s not a running stream.
"If they’re grading and moving soil and they don’t put in controls which leads to runoff and storm discharge, that could be an issue," he said.
Planning Committee Chairwoman Charmaine Tavares told The Maui News that she expected to take up the issue again at the next meeting scheduled for 1:30 p.m. July 10 in Council Chambers.

APAKAWA OR ARAPANA?

2006-06-22T01:18:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
June 21, 2006

"What a difference five years can make"
By HARRY EAGAR, Staff Writer

WAILUKU – You could have heard a pin drop – and Council Members Dain Kane and Danny Mateo tittering.
For five years, copies of two newspaper articles lay upfront but unnoticed in the County Council’s file on the Montana Beach dispute.
At Tuesday’s Committee of the Whole meeting, Council Member Bob Carroll read a few, suddenly timely sentences from them in a nearly empty Council Chamber but on video on cable Channel 53.
It was to make a point.
Earlier this year, Mayor Alan Arakawa and his environmental coordinator Rob Parsons floated a plan for the county to use the house built in the Montana Beach condominium – which it acquired in a messy, $4.5 million settlement – as an environmental education center.
Five years ago, while holding different jobs, the two men were pretty definite about what should happen if the county gained control of the beachfront property – tear it down, according to the articles Carroll read out loud.
"I have no pity for the landowner," Arakawa, then chairman of the council’s Land Use Committee, told Don Gronning of the Haleakala Times in 2001.
"We shouldn’t be settling this anywhere short of getting the buildings removed," said then-Council Member Arakawa.
Parsons, who has recently been lobbying to keep the huge house, was not quite so definite in an interview with Valerie Monson of The Maui News in 2001, but by implication he, too, was for tearing down the house that was already near completion.
Then speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, Parsons called former Planning Director John Min’s actions allowing the construction "cavalier disregard for our laws and the greater good of the public."
At that time, the public’s greater good was evidently to leave the 5.7-acre site open – it was designated for open space and park in the Paia-Haiku Community Plan, a fact that Parsons cited to the 2001 council.
A month ago, though, Parsons revealed a change of heart. In a Viewpoint written for the Opinion page of The Maui News, he wrote that the "clouded history" of Montana Beach may be "overshadowing the bright possibilities for the future" – as an environmental center.
He wasn’t at Tuesday’s council meeting, but he was reminded of the two news stories. He agreed that back then, he was for removing the structure.
"In my role as conservation chair of the Sierra Club, it looked like I was siding with that," he said.
Now he distinguishes between then, when it looked as if there might be three luxury homes on the beach, and now, when there is just one.
That one, he says, could serve a public use.
He says it is not known what it would cost to demolish or move the building. Even if the house is eventually removed, he says now, it would be a good idea to make use of it in the interim.
Having it occupied would discourage vandals, he said.
There are footings and foundations on the other two lots that were created as part of the condominium. Those structures were never finished, because the Arakawa administration reversed a prior determination that the project did not need a special management area review in order to get building permits.
That came after a protest by Christina Hemming, who argued strenuously that the shoreline land needed to be kept in open space for the youth of Paia. She spent her own money battling developer Kurt Ulmer and the people to whom he sold the condominium units (legally, "apartments" because the land was condominiumized not subdivided).
The county has yet to gain control of the middle lot ("Apartment B") because there still is no settlement agreement with that owner. An arbitration session is to be held today.
That was why Deputy Corporation Counsel Madelyn D’Enbeau came to the Committee of the Whole Tuesday. She was not requesting any action, just bringing the council up to date in a closed session.
Carroll took the occasion to quote the news stories, in deadpan style, and he had no comment to make, nor did other members of the panel ask any questions about the old news
But Kane, running for mayor against both Arakawa and James "Kimo" Apana, the former mayor on whose watch the Montana Beach crisis unfolded, was obviously amused. So was Mateo.
Council Member Charmaine Tavares, also running for mayor, was poker-faced.
She did ask, once the executive session closed and the open meeting resumed, whether D’Enbeau was clear about how the council was "leaning" in regards to the final piece of the settlement.
"Not really," said D’Enbeau, hinting that she thinks the council is not unanimous.
Council Members Carroll and Michelle Anderson have been saying since April that they think the house should be removed and the land returned to open space.
Carroll said he read the old news stories "just to make it clear what the original intent was. It was to be returned to its original condition."
Jim Fosbinder, a lawyer who represented the builders of the Montana Beach house, although not at the time of the settlement with the county, said he’s printing up bumper stickers "with the European symbol for ’no’ (the red circle crossed by a red bar).
"I haven’t decided whether it’s going to say Apakawa or Arapana," he said, "but they equally deserve to be retired to another position."

Arakawa could not be reached for comment.

Maui Lani: Height Violations by Mayor Arakawa

2006-06-19T20:17:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
Viewpoint
June 18, 2006

"Editorial supported administration’s Maui Lani action contrary to the facts"

VIEWPOINT by MICHELLE A. ANDERSON

I very much appreciate reporter Valerie Monson bringing the plight of the residents adjacent to the new Maui Lani subdivisions into the public eye (The Maui News, June 12).
I found it interesting and a bit unfair, however, that you would use the information presented in the article about the homes on Nakoa Drive to formulate an editorial the
very next day (June 13) endorsing the mayor’s “administrative decision” and cautioning the County Council not to use the situation “as political ammunition.”
Please note that Ms. Monson reported only comments by the mayor and that she was unable to get responses from the planning director or our corporation counsel. I think some fact-finding was in order before presenting an editorial opinion about the merits of a situation that has caused such distress to longtime kamaaina families.
The Maui Lani project was not approved 25 years ago. A search of the public record shows it received Project District zoning and Phase I approval on June 20, 1990 (Chapter 19.78 of the Maui County Code). That’s 16 years ago. Project District zoning and Phase I approvals only address permitted uses and general densities. They do not address or approve site elevations (Chapter 19.48 of the Maui County Code).
The subdivision being developed adjacent to Nakoa Drive received its preliminary subdivision approval Oct. 18, 2003 (Subdivision file No. 3.2067). On Dec. 14, 2004, the planning director sent a memo to the Public Works Department rescinding his previous recommendation for final subdivision approval, stating:
“Issues have arisen regarding the current grading and the future compliance with building height restrictions. The subdivider is required to submit documentation that all of the regraded lots can accommodate a dwelling or structure not exceeding 30 feet in height as measured from original or finish grade, whichever is lower.”
On Dec. 22, 2005, the mayor issued a letter to the planning director stating that “certain circumstances” created a conflict and to resolve it, he “made an administrative decision to allow the project to proceed with building heights determined from finished grade.”
The public and the homeowners adversely affected by the excessive fill being used on these projects deserve to have all the facts on the table before there is any public endorsement of an “administrative decision” that contradicts the County Code. Documents supporting this decision should be disclosed to everyone concerned.
As the legislative branch of government, it is the responsibility of the County Council to serve as a check and balance to the executive branch. Council Member Charmaine Tavares is bringing this issue forward again in the Council’s Planning Committee at 1:30 p.m. Monday in order to do just that.
Please allow all the facts to come forward, including the rule of law, before condemning longtime kamaaina families to the considerable loss of the rightful enjoyment of their homes.

Michelle A. Anderson holds the South Maui residency seat on the Maui County Council.

MAYOR ALAN ARAKAWA VS. MICHELLE ANDERSON

2006-06-19T19:59:00.000-07:00

The Maui News
Letters
Monday, June 19, 2006

"Cut through rhetoric, debate the purchase of One Main Plaza"

I challenge Mayor Alan Arakawa to debate our intelligent Council Member Michelle Anderson on his proposal to purchase One Main Plaza. I watched and listened to her as she laid out facts instead of political rhetoric as the mayor does.

According to Anderson, the mayor proposed purchasing a leasehold, not the land. The building is currently about 60 percent occupied by tenants with long-term leases and the mayor failed to provide the council with the important appraisal report nor the engineering survey until four days before scheduled decision-making began.

Anderson also said that the building was corroding, leaking and not ADA compliant. She also said that the Feb. 2, 2005, appraisal report of the building did not consider the engineering reports issued two days later.

I doubt the mayor would debate Council Member Anderson as she made him look inept in an Upcountry discussion on water issues. While I’m inclined to vote for a Bush-Republican in Charmaine Tavares, I wish Council Member Anderson would run for mayor. Anybody but Arakawa.

Fred M. Guzman
Kahului