Flying or boating along the Big Island’s North Kohala coast, it is difficult not to notice the Mediterranean-style house of George and Shirley Isaacs alongside Puakea Bay. More than a house, it is a compound, really, consisting of three large, free-standing, red-tile-roofed structures (main house with porte cochere, guest house, and garage), a swimming pool, a tennis court, a kennel, three walkways, and a “lookout/sunning pad with spotlights” built on the edge of a sea cliff.
The house and other improvements on an adjoining lot have generated a stir in the North Kohala area. A group called Citizens for Protection of the North Kohala Coastline, responding to the complaints by fishermen of difficult access to the inlet where they have traditionally fished, undertook an investigation into what had happened on the property. As a result of that investigation, based on a review of documents in the public record as well as on what can be seen from the public path, the group released a report, disclosing a number of apparent violations by Isaacs of the county and state permits he has obtained for the property.
George Isaacs has responded to the group’s accusations in three ways: first, by denying several of their allegations outright; second, by seeking after-the-fact approval for some “discrepancies” between construction plans and as-built improvements; third, by attempting to reduce the group’s community support by threatening to withhold contributions to philanthropic organizations that in any way, directly or indirectly, support the opposition, as a whole or through its individual members, or otherwise help its cause.
‘An Honest Mistake’
In November 1991, agents for George and Shirley Isaacs and for the Puakea Bay Ranch Owners Association made two after-the-fact Conservation District Use Applications covering much of the unauthorized work as well as additional construction. According to a covering letter from Joe Vierra of Belt Collins & Associates, “the Isaacs recognize that they made an honest mistake in making, which can be best described as minor, improvements on their property.” In the application itself covering unauthorized amenities on the residential lot, the statement is made: “because of a complaint filed by a community group regarding propriety of the construction and use of their residence within the Conservation District, the applicants discovered that there were certain discrepancies between the permits issued and the improvements made.”
The Isaacs’ six-acre lot and the 13-acre shoreline lot, over which access to the Isaacs’ lot is gained and which is held by the Puakea Bay Ranch Owners’ Association, are both in the Conservation District, where improvements must be authorized by the state Board of Land and Natural Resources. In some respects, both the park and the Isaacs’ house also are part of the Puakea Bay Ranch subdivision, even though neither the park nor the house was a part of the original subdivision plan approved by the Hawai`i County Planning Commission in December 1983.
Subdivide and Conquer
George Isaacs was without question the driving force behind the Puakea Bay Ranch subdivision. He purchased the land from Parker Ranch in the early 1980s. He set up the Puakea Bay Ranch Partnership that applied first for the change in county zoning (from 20-acre lots to 10-acre lots) and which then sought county approval of the Puakea Bay Ranch subdivision. In his Special Management Area Use Permit petition for the subdivision, Isaacs, identified as a general partner of the Puakea Bay Ranch Partnership, made the following statements: “A remnant 18-acre area of the proposed subdivision located along the shoreline and in he Conservation District will be established as an open space parcel.” And, “Future development or use of the individual lots by the lot owners will be more than 300 feet from the shoreline and above an area regulated for conservation use by the state DLNR” — the Department of Land and Natural Resources.
On December 21, 1983, the county Planning Commission voted to award Isaacs a Special Management Area Use Permit for the subdivision. According to the letter of December 29, 1983, that the Planning Commission sent to Glen Koyama of Belt Collins, “The purpose of the subject request is to allow the development of forty 10-acre sized agricultural parcels as well as an 18-acre area, located along the shoreline and in the Conservation District, as an open space parcel.”
County Conditions
The Planning Commission letter made explicit other expectations of the development to be allowed under SMA Use Permit No. 202. With regard to shoreline access, it stated: “The proposed development is not expected to have any significant adverse effects on the coastal resources, nor adversely affect any access to the shoreline. In fact, approval of the proposed development, along with the recommended conditions of approval, will vastly improve the latter situation. The proposed conditions require that an 8-foot wide, lateral public pedestrian access path be provided. There presently is no such legally established access available through the subject property. Such a proposal, therefore, will be an improvement from the existing situation as it will increase the legal accessibility to the shoreline.”
While public access had been established in principle by court order in 1981, legal perpetual easement — a metes-and-bounds description of the easement duly recorded with proper state agencies — had not been accomplished at the time of subdivision approval.
Conditions of approval attached to the SMA Use Permit thus included the requirement that “a public shoreline access plan shall be submitted to the Hawai`i County Planning Department within one year from the effective date of the SMA permit.” The plan was to include a metes-and-bounds description of the path, to be recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances. If necessary, the petitioner, Puakea Bay Ranch Partnership, would be expected to obtain a Conservation District Use Permit for shoreline access improvements needed to execute the access plan.
Enter the State
Within three months of obtaining the SMA permit for the Puakea Bay Ranch subdivision, agents for Isaacs applied for two Conservation District permits, both proposing improvements on the 18-acre coastal area that the county Planning Commission had been told would remain in open space.
One application sought approval to build a house for the Isaacs of approximately 3,500 square feet (including a below-ground garage), a guest cottage of 1,500 square feet, and other amenities (including a corral) on the southern third of the area (called henceforth Lot C-1). The other application sought approval for developments on the northern 12 or so acres — Lot C. Among the actions proposed for approval were rerouting of the public’s lateral shoreline access about 500 feet inland for a distance of more than half a mile along the coast (that is, it would move from the seaward boundary of lots C and C-1 to the inland boundary). Also, Isaacs’ agents requested permission to develop a “garden park” on Lot C and to obtain a utility and access easement over that lot leading to Lot C-1.
During the processing of those permits, construction of the “garden park” was dropped from the plans after the DLNR notified Isaacs on May 2, 1984, that the park was of “a commercial nature” and so would require a public hearing. On May 25, 1984, Koyama of Belt Collins requested that the park proposal be withdrawn. “The owner of the property has given the project much thought,” Koyama wrote, “and has concluded that the project is premature at this time. Consequently the lot will be left in its natural condition as an open space amenity.” Koyama requested, however, that the now amended application “be retained for review and processing” of other elements proposed — the inland detour of the public shoreline access and an easement for access to the Isaacs’ residential lot.
The Hawai`i County Planning Department, which was invited to comment on the CDUAs, was critical of the proposals. First, it disputed the claim that the 18-acre site consisted of two separate lots. Second, it noted that approval of SMA Use Permit No. 202 “is based upon the use of the land in the Conservation District as ‘an open space parcel.’ The use of the land… for residential purposes including a guest house, swimming pool, a kennel and a corral was not part of the SMA application.” It noted, moreover, that “the public shoreline access plan,” a condition of SMA approval, “has not been submitted or approved by the Planning Department.”
Concern over the legal distinction between lots C and C-1 was voiced also by the state’s Division of Land Management within the Department of Land and Natural Resources, which suggested “that the applications be amended to include subdivision of conservation land.” A memorandum from the Department of Attorney General to the chairman of the Board of Land and Natural Resources explained in great detail why the land should be regarded legally as one undivided parcel.
The Division of Land Management noted further that the most recent shoreline certification occurred in 1981 and recommended the applicant be required to update the shoreline boundary certification — which has not yet been done.
Shoreline Excess
The staff submittals to the Land Board prepared by Gordon Soh, then the director of the DLNR’s planning office, dismissed these concerns. In August and September of 1984 respectively, the Land Board approved the amended application for the shoreline access and easement (on Lot C) and the Isaacs’ residence (Lot C-1).
When final house plans were submitted (as required under the terms of the permit) for approval by the Land Board chairman, the design had grown to the point it included now an 11,000-square foot main house, a separate bedroom wing of 4,800 square feet, and a large, free-standing garage (including groundskeepers’ quarters). Although this was more than triple the living area contained in the plans accompanying the permit application, then-Board Chairman Susumu Ono put his stamp of approval on the blueprints in July of 1985.
Actual construction went beyond what was approved by Ono. A swimming pool (approved in the permit process but not included in the plans), a kennel (again, approved in the permit but not in the plans), and the tennis court, walkways, and the “overlook/sunning pad with spotlights” (none included either in the permit or in the final plans) were built without anyone at the Department of Land and Natural Resources being put on notice.
No plans at all were submitted for the activities approved in the permit granted for Lot C. Although the application included a request for approval of an easement to Lot C-1, it did not mention any grading, fencing or paving of that access, all of which have been done. Nor was there any request to use the land for grazing of livestock.
Despite the withdrawal of the park proposal, the park was developed in a manner that again exceeded the original design. According to the after-the-fact CDUA submitted in November 1991, the “passive park” occupies 2.2 acres. (On the original permit, it was proposed to occupy 1.5 acres.) Improvements include “a whale statue, McArthur palms, hedge, shrubs (bougainvillea), two concrete tables with benches, two hitching posts, a flagpole, an interpretive sign, property signs, a concrete walkway, walkway lights, gas torches, wooden fence, paved driveway, barbed wire fence, rock wall edging and an irrigation water line.”
“The applicant is also requesting approval for additional improvements to the park,” the CDUA states, “which would include the installation of an electronic gate at the park entrance and a 200-foot cable fence along the cliff top, makai of the Honoipu landing” — a spot where cargo from ships used to be hoisted up the cliffs by means of a huge winch. The rusted remains of the engine that drove the winch are all that remain of the landing today.
The new Conservation District Use Application for the residential lot seeks after-the-fact approval of several of the unauthorized improvements (tennis court, “lookout/sunning pad”) on the residential lot, several other proposed activities (including construction of a barbed-wire fence between the Isaacs’ lot and the shoreline access path, “intended to keep cattle out of their property”), and rerouting of the public access along a path other than that approved in principle by the Land Board in 1984.
All About Access
Perhaps no aspect of the Isaacs’ development has generated more controversy than the relocation of required “shoreline” access to a path running more than 500 or more feet inland. As mentioned earlier, in 1981, Richard Smart and the state signed a court-ordered agreement, binding on future owners of the land, providing permanent public shoreline access. According to that agreement, the public was to enjoy “a five-foot wide pedestrian right-of-way situated along the seaward (westerly) boundary.” However, the agreement went on to allow Smart or succeeding owners to “at any time relocate pedestrian access … subject only to the consent of the state.”
When the original Conservation District Use Applications were made in 1984, the justification given for the inland rerouting of the “shoreline” access path was public safety — to protect the public from the danger of falling down the sea cliffs along part of the Conservation District area. Still, the Division of State Parks commented at the time: “The proposed public ‘shoreline access’ route provides a public detour from the shoreline through the applicant’s property negating the purpose of shoreline access for over half a mile of coastline. We do not recommend giving the required state consent for this public access route.”
Over the Parks Division’s objection, the Land Board approved the detour, going along with the staff’s endorsement of Isaacs’ concerns for public safety.1
But the actual path, approval for which is now being sought in the after-the-fact CDUAs, is even further inland than what was proposed to the Board in 1984. According to the after-the-fact CDUA, the existing access trail, “including a barbed wire fence along its makai border, is not located entirely within the boundaries of the easement designated on the maps filed with BLNR and the County of Hawai`i.” It was relocated, the CDUA states, “to provide a safer and more traversable route and to avoid an archaeological site.”
Evidently, too, it was relocated to avoid the Isaacs’ tennis court, part of which crosses the legal public access easement.
The ability of the Land Board even to approve this relocation is questionable, inasmuch as some parts of the path lie outside the Conservation District boundary.
Following release of the report by the Citizens for Protection of the North Kohala Coastline, some improvements have been made to the trail. Boulders have obviously been removed. The top-most board on a fence over which one must climb to gain access to the path from the Coast Guard Loran station has been lowered by several inches. The “Kapu – Private Park” sign has been removed.
Still, signage is confusing, especially where the path crosses over the subdivision road leading to the Isaacs’ driveway. There, a sign would seem to tell the traveler to turn left, heading mauka along the roadway, while in fact, the trail goes straight along the well manicured lawn of the drive.
Rebuttal and Retribution
George Isaacs responded to the Citizens’ critical report with a lengthy rebuttal letter to the group’s steering committee chairperson, Toni Withington. He has made that letter, dated October 15, 1991, and an item-by-item answer to the group’s claims a part of the DLNR file on his after-the-fact CDUAs. He states that the claims are unfounded — that the group has relied “on parties that are unfortunately malcontents.” He denies ever complaining about “people who disregard the boundaries of the access trail and go across our private property.” “If your intention was for me to restrict access to the narrow limits of the law,” he states, “to the detriment of people who really use this access, you are well on your way to achieving that goal.”
Isaacs accuses Withington of making “false statements and innuendos.” “If you do not promptly take affirmative steps to correct the record and retract your false statements, we will take steps to pursue our legal remedies against you and those who are acting in concert with you,” he wrote. He concludes: “I am more than prepared to take you and your group to the wall, and will, if necessary.”
By the end of December, Isaacs had not taken any legal action against the Citizens for Protection of the North Kohala Coastline. He has forwarded to Withington copies of letters he has mailed to several charitable organizations in the North Kohala area. In a letter to the Kohala PTSA Scholarship Committee dated October 16, 1991, Isaacs notifies that body that “a small group of people have begun spreading lies and causing trouble for my family and the Ranch.” “Unfortunately,” the letter continues, “these same people benefit from our contributions to the community. Although we have supported your programs in the past, we do not want to give additional support to the people who are attacking us. Therefore, we are redirecting our charitable giving elsewhere, and we will urge our neighbors to do likewise.”
The next day saw Isaacs writing Dr. Sharon Vitousek of North Hawai`i Community Hospital, Inc. “In the past eight years, my family and I have given several hundred thousand dollars to support various charities in North Kohala and Waimea. Collectively, the owners at the Ranch have contributed over five hundred thousand dollars to these good causes… Despite our efforts to be good neighbors, a few self-righteous zealots have continuously spread false accusations and innuendos against us. Unfortunately, these same people are also benefiting from our contributions to community programs. We have tried to be patient with these people but we are now fed up with their lies and groundless attacks. Enough is enough.
“In the future, my family will not make any additional contributions to local charities and community programs unless we are assured that the beneficiaries of the programs will never, under any circumstances, include the groups and people who have been attacking us and our development… Also, we will urge our neighbors to do likewise.”
Copies of the letter to Vitousek were mailed to Hawai`i Preparatory Academy, the Kohala High School principal, North Kohala Fire Department, North Kohala Police Department, the Leeward Hawai`i Planning Conference, and Withington.
Other Concerns
Norman Hayashi, Hawai`i County planning director, sent Isaacs a notice of violations found at Puakea Bay Ranch in June of 1991. According to Hayashi, inspectors at the site on June 6, 1991, found: white sand had been deposited at the bottom of a gully near the shoreline, forming an artificial beach; the tennis court had been built near the Honoipu Rock Gardens, a historic site; and the public easement is “further mauka than what was approved.” Notice was taken as well of the public park. “[W]e have determined that the activities which have occurred on the subject property constitutes ‘development’ and is in violation of … the Planning Commission’s Rules and Regulations.”
As to the beach, Isaacs has called it a “sandbox,” and has stated that the sand was brought to the shoreline “when the undersign’s [sic] grandchildren came in from Chicago for a month.” The day after the sand was dumped, complaints were made. “We decided to go for a permit approximately a day or two later,” he has said, but found that people were “directing traffic to what they call ‘New Beach’ near Hawi…. The ensuing weekend we experienced motorcycles, 3-wheelers and 4-wheelers trespassing all over the conservation parcel.” The next Sunday, Isaacs says, he had the sand removed.
With regard to other allegations of violations made by the county Planning Department, Isaacs is proposing to submit after-the-fact Special Management Area use permit applications. A review of county records in late December disclosed no such applications on file yet.
1 Concerns for safety evidently have not kept Isaacs from developing private access to the shoreline. To mitigate the danger, approval is now being sought for the proposed cable fencing along the private park walkway. His own “lookout/sunning pad,” which is built halfway down the sea cliff, has stone walls built up on either side of the walkway down.
Volume 2, Number 7 January 1992