Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-16 Leeward Exh C (SMA 21-000080) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 16, 2021 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION (SMA 21-000080) was called to order at 11:01 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Barbara DeFranco, Clement"CJ" Kanuha III, Mark Van Pernis, and Faith "Faye" Yates ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Zendo Kern (Planning Director), Jeffrey Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Alex Roy (Planner), and Noriko Sauer(Leeward Planning Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: COUNTY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION (SMA 21-000080) Application for a Special Management Area(SMA) Use Permit to allow facility improvements and American with Disabilities Act(ADA) upgrades to the existing Magic Sands Beach Park, which includes demolition of the existing comfort station, construction of a new ADA compliant comfort station, construction of ADA compliant parking spaces, new showers, new accessible picnic table and grill area, new accessible walkways and ramps connecting the park to Alii Drive, utility improvements, waterline improvements, and pavement restriping. The proposed improvements will occur on the 0.43-acre Magic Sands Beach Park property as well as within the Alii Drive right-of-way fronting the subject properties. The properties are located makai of Alii Drive, approximately 538 feet north of its intersection with La`aloa Avenue, Kapala`alaea 2nd, North Kona District, Hawaii, TMK(s): (3) 7-7-008:017, 094, 107 & (3) 7-7-010:036. VITOUSEK: Moving on to new business. The item to be discussed is application by the County of Hawaii, Department of Parks and Recreation (SMA 21-000080), application for Special Management Area(SMA) Use Permit to allow facility improvements, American with Disabilities Act(ADA) upgrades to the existing Magic Sands Beach, which includes demolition of the existing comfort station, construction of new ADA compliant comfort station, construction of ADA compliant parking spaces, new showers, new accessible picnic table and grill area, new accessible walkways, ramps connecting to the park to Alii Drive, utilities improvements, waterline improvements,pavement restriping. Proposed improvements will occur on the 0.43- acre Magic Sands Beach Park property as well as within the Alii Drive right-of-way fronting the subject properties. The properties are located makai of Alii Drive approximately 538 feet north of its intersection with La`aloa Avenue, Kapala`alaea 2nd°North Kona District, Hawaii, TMK(s): (3) 7-7-008:017, 094, 107 & (3) 7-7-010:036. 1 EXHIBIT C Prior to taking up this agenda item, I would like to find out from the Commission if the standards have been met to allow for this agenda item to be discussed. Has the public notification process been complete, and the signage been posted appropriately pursuant to the SMA regulations? KERN: Mr. Chair, Zendo Kern here, I'll let Alex opine on that. However, we were asked that if we could have the testifiers view from the YouTube channel and not on the Zoom anymore as standard procedure. VITOUSEK: Yes, thank you. If any testifiers, would you please log off and watch on the YouTube so that we can maintain the bandwidth we need to run the meeting. KERN: Okay, and yes, all notices, public signs, positing, affidavit were posted and were adhered to, as well as the EA process also resulted in a lot of outreach and public testimony opportunity. VITOUSEK: Is there any verification of the signage that's in our packet? KERN: Alex? ROY: I don't know if it's in your packet, but I have created a slide that shows the copy of the letter, which I have a copy of the letter here in front of me, but I went ahead and put together a slide of all the timing of notification in my presentation if I'm allowed to give my presentation. VITOUSEK: Is there, one of the questions from the public was on posting of signage. Now, is that a requirement of this? ROY: Yep, the sign was posted in April of 2021, towards the end of April 2021. The applicant provided a letter to the Planning Department outlining the sign posting and provided a photographic evidence, which is typical for the Planning Department to accept that as the sign was posted. I was going to share that with the Commissioners. VITOUSEK: Okay, so all,just to be totally clear,just making sure that all of the requirements that, notification requirements in order to discuss this agenda item have been met. Is that correct? ROY: To my knowledge, yes. VITOUSEK: Are there any questions from Commissioners? Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: My question is to Mr. Roy. Have you personally seen the signs as posted, or are you just assumed [sic] that they were there based on the information that came into your file? ROY: I visited the site and saw the sign, and then I have the photographs from the applicant. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. 2 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Seeing that, I will, I believe that the County's demonstrated that the applicant has met the requirements for notification, and we will proceed with hearing this item today. Alex, would you please proceed with your presentation on the agenda item? ROY: Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Hopefully everybody can see that. This is for the County of Hawaii Parks and Recreation project at Magic Sands. Special Management Area Use Permit Application SMA 21-000080. I'm going to start with this slide talking about the notification. The sign was posted at the site in April 2021. The photograph is a photograph of the letter, I'm sorry I don't have, we typically don't provide pictures of pictures of signs, but here it is. The first notice to surrounding notice landowners was sent out on May 3rd, second notice to surrounding landowners was sent out May 27d', the agenda was posted in the newspaper May 27h, and the background and recommendation was posted to the Web on June 9h. Like I said, the photograph is of the photograph of the sign in front of the comfort station, which is the focus of the project, and this is in the letter that was submitted to the Planning Department. I'm going to dive right in. This is the location of the project area. You can see here the red star. So, it's approximately four miles south of Kailua-Kona proper. And it's Magic Sands Beach Park, it's labeled on the map. I asked the Department of Parks and Rec to provide me with a kind of outline of the Magic Sands and La`aloa Beach Park because there, there's some confusion and I just want to make sure everything's clear. That the project area is on Magic Sands Beach Park in those subsequent TMKs that are outlined. Of course, Alii Drive, La`aloa Beach Park, the work that's on Parcel 36 within that is very minor and would be at kind of the top left-hand corner of the TMK Parcel 36, kind of in this area there's just a little bit of work that's happening. So, the remainder of this project is going to happen over here on the Magic Sands side, and La`aloa will be left alone. At this time the Department of Parks and Rec is hoping to conduct facility improvements which include Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)upgrades to the existing Magic Sands Beach Park comfort station, which has been in existence on this beach since 1975. It includes the demolition of the existing comfort station and reconstruction of an ADA compliant comfort station, moved mauka, out of the VE flood zone, into the X flood zone. Construction of ADA compliant parking spaces, new showers, accessible picnic table and grill area, a new accessible walkway and ramp connecting the park to Alii Drive for safe access from Alii Drive down to the beach park, and then additional work includes some utility improvements, water line improvements, and pavement restriping. The County zoning of the park and project area is Open, except for a small portion of parcel 36, which is in the resort node, or V-1.25. The surrounding area, you can see is Single-Family Residential; there's a large subdivision, RS-7.5, and then Resort node surrounds this beach park with a sliver of agricultural land, and that's A-5a, so the 5-acre, Agricultural 5-acre, and then Multi-Family Residential, the RM-3.5, there's a small bit mauka of the project area. So, in essence the entire project area's surrounded by the resort node zoning. State Land Use is Urban, except for the Ag lot, Parcel 31 located there. LUPAG has the entire project area and surrounding mauka areas across Alii Drive as Open. There is Medium Density Urban and Low 3 EXHIBIT C Density Urban, which kind of encompasses the subdivision. And this is an Urban Expansion area that's located kind of at the top right-hand corner of the photo—of the map. Here's an aerial photograph of the project area. There's going to be, like I said, within Parcel 36, this area is going to be also worked on, but the majority of the work will be within this red- dashed bounded area. No work will occur on the beach area or down, down the beach at all. I pulled out and here's, kind of pulled out the aerial photograph to give you a broader view of La`aloa, the parking area, Magic Sands Beach Park, you have of course the large condominiums, and then the extensive subdivision located mauka of, of Alii Drive. Here's a site plan. There's a lot going on but what you can see is that the work area is kind of, is here, and there's that area within Parcel 36 that's going to be impacted. That's typically just the repaving and restriping of existing pavement, and then connecting the driveway improvements. Here's the ramp, and then the new comfort station which has been moved mauka to help further mitigate any impacts to the coastline. Here's kind of a zoomed-in site plan with the area of potential effect outlined completely. Again, new comfort station, ADA picnic table, walkways, ramp, striping, parking for handicapped persons. I included the landscape plan to show trees or stumps to be removed so the commissioners could get a better understanding. So, we have a coconut palm stump to be removed, there are other trees, a coconut palm stump, another existing coconut palm to be removed, and then there's an existing ficus tree to be removed, and then a, there's java plums which will remain. But here you can see there's three or four stumps that will be removed and a few trees that will be removed in order to accommodate those ADA improvements. I also included a copy of the burial treatment plan. Please note that the red dashed area is the approximate parking project area, so all work will be contained within that APE. No work will be outside of that. So, these are the sites that are in close proximity to the project area. I just wanted to make sure the Commission understood where that was in relation to the project area. Here's a site photograph. This was a, like a Tuesday afternoon. I visited the site and you could see it was pretty heavily, you know, pretty busy that day. Not too bad. Parking was full up on the street. Lots of people around. Here's closer to the comfort station. You can see in the center of the photograph, and some of the rocky kind of coastline. But again, this is kind of outside the project area. The project area will be much further mauka. This is the comfort station from the side. This is the best picture I could get; there were a number of people using the showers that I felt uncomfortable taking photographs of them, so this is the best I could do with the amount of people that were down there. And there were a number of people coming in and out of the bathroom. I didn't want to be a person taking pictures of people coming out of the bathroom. Here you can see the entrance to, that'll be worked on. 4 EXHIBIT C This is the fishing shrine, so this is makai of the project area. I wanted to show the Commissioners that is nearby, but again is outside of the APE, or Area of Potential Effect. Here's Alii Drive, view south. So, at the entrance that's going to be improved. This is looking south along Alii Drive. And then looking the other direction, the view north along Alii Drive, again, the entrance to the park you can see there on the left-hand side of the picture. At this time the Director has recommended approval of SMA 21-000080, approval with stated conditions. VITOUSEK: Thank you. I just wanna clarify again that the Director, Director's recommendation has that changed after public testimony? KERN: Thank you, Mr. Chair, no, our recommendation with the conditions remain. VITOUSEK: Okay. Thank you. I will go into the applicant presentation next, and then we can give each commissioner the opportunity to ask questions of either the applicant or the Planning Department staff. Would the applicant please come forward? On our list I've got Kevin Sakai, James Komata, both with County of Hawaii Parks and Rec. Charles Jury. I'm not sure, who are you representing? JURY: Hi, Charles Jury, I'm the engineer of record. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. Ron Terry, Geometrician Associates, Lokelani Brandt, archaeologist, and Robert Bob Rechtman, who's an archaeologist. Would all of you please raise your right hand so I can swear you in? [All raise hands.] And hey, James and Kevin, you guys are upside down. KOMATA: Yeah, we're bringing someone in to fix that right now. VITOUSEK: Okay, right on. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Planning Commission? KOMATA, SAKAI, JURY, TERRY. BRANDT: I do. VITOUSEK: Okay, [inaudible]. Would you all please state your name and the town you live in? Starting with Kevin and James. KOMATA: So, James Komata, Park Planner for Parks and Recreation. SAKAI: Kevin Sakai, Parks Project Manager, Hilo, Hawaii. VITOUSEK: Charles. JURY: Charles Jury, Okahara and Associates, the prime engineering consultant. 5 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Thank you. TERRY: Ron Terry, Geometrician Associates, prepared the SMA and the Environmental Assessment. VITOUSEK: Lokelani. BRANDT: Lokelani Brandt with ASM Affiliates, I prepared the cultural packets [indecipherable]. VITOUSEK: And Bob? BRANDT: He's not on right now. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. To the applicant, have you received the background and recommendation reports from the Planning Department? KOMATA: Yes, we have. VITOUSEK: Do you agree with the Planning Director's recommendation including proposed conditions? KOMATA: Sorry, hold on, let me just run through it real quick. VITOUSEK: Is this the first you've read them? KOMATA: No, we've read them. I just want to make sure that we, if we have a comment I can identify the number of the item. Yeah, no, we agree with it. VITOUSEK: Okay. Please go ahead with your presentation. KOMATA: We're still trying to fix our video so apologies for that. SAKAI: There we go. VITOUSEK: There we go. KOMATA: Okay. VITOUSEK: Please proceed. You're good. KOMATA: Alright, so, this project here, as stated both in the EA and our SMA Use Permit application is validation that we have to the Americans with Disabilities Act for compliance under transition plan. We're obligated to get this done as quickly as possible. Everything, I believe, in this project is directly related to accessibility influence. The reason we are 6 EXHIBIT C reconstructing the comfort station, not only for accessibility but we do also have a lot of condition issues with this facility that's over, what, 45 years old now. So, both underground utilities as well as the above ground structure are in dire need of replacement. So, the improvement extends off-site. We are connecting the accessible route to the bus stop that's located just outside La`aloa property, beach park property. Extends to the crosswalk across the driveway and then accessible ramp into the park site. Currently, I think everyone walks down the driveway to the park to get to the beach. So, this is improvements that will affect everyone, it's not just for disabled persons. I did want to address a couple of issues about the comfort station. You know, I just wanted to point out to everyone that the information's available in our application or in the EA as well. The existing comfort station is approximately 530 square feet. The proposed comfort station is 314 square feet, a reduction of 216 square feet, or 41 percent reduction. Roof area is around 941 square feet currently, the proposed building will have a square footage of 448; that's a reduction of 493 square feet, or 52 percent. The existing structure is approximately 16 feet tall. The proposed comfort station is about 13 feet 7. So, it's a reduction of 3 feet 5 inches, or 15 percent reduction. Doesn't sound like much, but we are relocating the comfort station about a foot further away from the coastline. I guess every little bit helps but, I just wanted to point out that we weren't encroaching further towards the coastline. As Alex pointed out, you know, we did submit our affidavit of the posting of the sign, the SMA notice on-site. The affidavit was submitted May 3, the sign was posted same day, I think, we got the letter notifying us that they had received the application and instructing us to do so. We do have photo documentation from the date of posting. I also checked yesterday with our maintenance district supervisor. I got a photo from him that the sign is still posted as of yesterday at about 3:15, and no word on whether on that sign had ever been taken down or vandalized and had to be replaced. It still [inaudible]. But that's, that's—one other thing I wanted to address, you know, there are comments about, there were comments about relocating the comfort station to mauka side of Alii Drive, the property that's commonly referred to as the Kipapa Park site, but what we want to point out is this is an accessibility compliance project. Relocating the comfort station to the opposite side of Alii Drive exacerbates our ability to comply with the ADA; we'd have to cross the street, send everyone across the street to use the restroom. It's not practical. We've seen this in other, in other park sites, beach parks especially where, you know, we've had to move comfort stations outside of flood zones. Coastal flood, coastal flood areas, and we end up with problems with people using the bathroom where it's convenient for them and not walking towards where we did locate the bathroom. That's, we've had that situation in several places. What we ended up doing is having to put in portable toilets and nobody wants to see those, especially here. So, I wanted to impress again that we are cognizant of sightlines of vistas, we are reducing the size and the impact of the comfort station, its footprint is within the existing comfort station's footprint. So, we've tried our best to, to again, mitigate or minimize the adverse impacts or any impacts for beachgoers and park users within the future. That's all I have. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Commissioners, I'd like to give each commissioner the ten minutes to ask questions for fact-finding purposes only, as the memo from Corporation Counsel indicates, 7 EXHIBIT C please don't state opinions or engage in substantive discussion. Again, this ten minutes is for fact-finding only. Commissioner Van Pernis, you have ten minutes. Please proceed. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. VITOUSEK: You're on mute, Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Can you hear me now? VITOUSEK: I can. Go ahead. VAN PERNIS: I'll ask this of the Planning Department and/or the applicants. It would go a long way toward satisfying the public if you could save trees, or if they gotta go, replace them elsewhere with keiki trees. Is that possible? KERN: Zendo Kern from the Planning Department here. That's not a request that we would opine on. That would be a request [inaudible] respond to. VAN PERNIS: Ok. KERN: Excuse me, the applicant, Parks and Rec. VITOUSEK: Yep. Would the applicant please respond to the commissioner's question? KOMATA: Sorry, could you restate the question? VITOUSEK: He's asking if you'd be willing to, if you can avoid cutting down the trees. If that's a possibility, and if you cannot, would you be willing to plant new trees, keiki trees, to replace them? The ones that were cut down. KOMATA: Yes. There, a couple of trees that we can't avoid removing, but we would be open to the idea of planting new trees. I did want to point out that the trees that we're removing are not along, are not the closest to the ocean on the property. They're pretty much the furthest inland from the coastline. So, I did want to point that out as Alex's presentation showed. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis. It's off mute. We can, we can hear you. You're on mute now, Commissioner Van Pernis. I see you, Charles. Hold on one second. I'll stop you there. Charles, please go ahead if you've got anything to add to that question. JURY: Yeah,just a follow up to the question on the trees. The current plan that Roy had up on his screen in his presentation, there's currently three milo trees that are proposed to be replaced and installed because of the displacement of those existing trees. VITOUSEK: Milo trees? JURY: Milo trees. Yes, sorry. 8 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner Van Pernis. You can speak; you're not on mute now. We can hear you. VAN PERNIS: Is that statement mean that there will be new trees planted as for each live tree removed? Is the milo trees to replace, or replace the live trees that are to be removed? KOMATA: Yes, the reason we are putting back, or installing milo trees with the project is to offset the impact of the trees that are being removed. So, the plans currently call for three milo trees, 25-gallon containers, 6-to 8-foot height, 2-inch caliper. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. VITOUSEK: You have any further questions, Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: No. VITOUSEK: Any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Yates, please proceed. You got ten minutes and you're on mute right now. YATES: Okay. Just some questions I had. Why are you going smaller; how long is this project going to take; and what is the traffic impact? And right now, I notice that in the photo that the parking area was closed off, is there a reason why that area is closed off? And, are you, well, you'll be adding more parking spaces to what's proposed? I mean, I, I'm guessing based on the picture I saw. And you said stumps of the trees to be taken out; are there trees or stumps that need to go? I agree, the stumps need to go, the stumps need to go. And in that area there, is that a cesspool or is that septic? Those are my questions. KOMATA: That's a lot of questions. I don't know if I'll be able to hit them all, but— YATES: utYATES: [Laughs.] KOMATA: So, the removal, the project does call for removal of stumps from trees that either previously were taken down or fallen. But we're also removing, I think it was at least two trees, two either Ficus macrocarpa, Chinese banyan trees, to make way for the accessible ramp that connects to Alii Drive and two of the accessible amenities the picnic table and the barbeque grill that we're putting in. And we're, again, we're planting back three sizable milo trees in their place. Construction, we would anticipate somewhere between six to eight months, maybe quicker, but that's, that's our thought right now. There will be impacts to, some impacts to traffic on Alii Drive because the work that's going to occur at the entrance to the park, along the shoulder of Alii Drive. But that won't be for the duration of the project. It might be for a limited point of time. The bathroom, or the comfort station is connected to the municipal sewer system currently. It was connected in our, the County's island-wide large capacity cesspool conversion efforts back between 2005 and 2010. Somewhere in that timeframe. So, you know, yeah, there's been comments about cesspools and sewage on-site that hasn't been an issue since we connected to the sewer line over 10, 12 years ago. 9 EXHIBIT C The reason we're going smaller is, again, to reduce the, the impact, the visual impact of the comfort station and it shouldn't be a focus of the park, shouldn't be a visual focus of the park. We try to maximize the area for people to utilize and that's the minimum facilities we feel we need to be able to support the ongoing use at the park and maintaining a sanitary way. The parking lot in the background that you referred to that is closed, that's the parking lot that was constructed to serve La`aloa Beach Park area. It continues to be closed. We have a separate project, construction project that's proposed to address some issues that we're obligated to, to our Historic Preservation procedures there. We're looking to reduce the size of that parking lot as it applies to the heiau and some of the other cultural resources that are on that property. So, that won't be affected. This probably doesn't extend on to that site beyond some of the driveway improvements. YATES: So, you're saying the reason why the parking area is closed off is because it impacts historic or cultural sites back there? KOMATA: There are obligations we have that are separate from this proposed project to a preservation plan that relates to cultural resources on that site. YATES: So, isn't that a, like a waste of, you know, to have it there and not be able to use it? And are you going to add more spaces to the front, where people canI mean, based on how congested it is in that area there to have spaces that are not usable kind of seems unproductive. KOMATA: Yeah, so, like I said we have a separate project to address the La`aloa Beach Park. There are obligations there. But at this time, the commitment was made that the parking lot would not be utilized by the public until we could make the necessary renovations. As far as, you know, providing parking for La`aloa, I'm sorry, for Magic Sands itself, that Kipapa property across the street, and I think there's a right-a-way stub that's paved; people used to, to park and access Magic Sands. You know, that was done under previous administrations, so there's a significant amount of parking that's allowed there,provided there. Whether people use it in conjunction with the beach park itself, that's not really what we enforce or require, but as far as, again, La`aloa, that's something that's outside the scope of this project. YATES: And, I, I didn't hear, but how many bath, how many bathrooms in the comfort station? One? KOMATA: Well, I think we have two, two unisex accessible bathrooms, separate bathrooms. YATES: Okay. Thank you. KOMATA: You're welcome. VITOUSEK: Commissioner DeFranco? 10 EXHIBIT C DEFRANCO: Yes, I'm just wondering, the existing parking that is closed off, are you going to be able to use that space for your trucks so they're not going to be on Alii Drive as this project is going on? KOMATA: The means and methods for construction is, would be up to the contractor, but what we would make available to the contractor is the area of site that, the area of the site that they're impacting for construction itself, we, we're looking into the possibility of using a portion of the existing parking lot on the adjoining property as a staging area, but that hasn't been decided yet. As far as affecting Alii Drive, the contractor would not be allowed to park or stage along Alii Drive except for directly relating to the work that's being done on Alii Drive. DEFRANCO: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Commissioners, any other questions? [None.] Okay, I'll take my questions, and I'll do my best to keep within my ten minutes. The first, first question is for commissioners. Were the commissioners able to find and review the Environmental Assessment in our packet? There was a link to a website, but it wasn't clear, we weren't provided with the Environmental, a copy of the Environmental Assessment in our packet. So, I just wondered if the Commissioners had the opportunity to review the EA for this proj ect. Commissioner Van Pernis? [Nods.] You did. Commissioner Yates? [Shakes head.] No. Commissioner Kanuha? [Shakes head.] No. Commissioner DeFranco? [Shakes head.] No. To me, that's a concern in that it wasn't readily available, and the commissioners didn't, didn't necessarily have the opportunity to review that. And the second question is, I'm just wondering why the preservation plan that affects these sites wasn't included in our packet? Anybody? ROY: Are you talking, I'm sorry, Chair. Are you asking about the burial treatment plan? VITOUSEK: Well, that also would be helpful to include in the packet, but there is a second preservation plan that deals with site 21220 and 21219, which are both referenced in the conditions of this project, but there's no reference, there's limited reference in the EA but no reference in the background and recommendation about an existing preservation plan that exists on those sites, and whether or not this project is in compliance with the conditions that are already established in the preservation plan. ROY: Yeah, I, I am not sure how to answer that as it was outside of the project area. Maybe the applicant can attest to that. But the conditions, I just want to note, that the conditions that relate to those sites were put forth by the applicant as a good faith measure to ensure access to the shrine and other areas. VITOUSEK: So, I mean, you know, when we're dealing with the area of potential effect, you can, you can draw your project area however you want, right, and say this is our project area and this is the area of potential effect. It looks like you're taking into account the area of direct effect, 11 EXHIBIT C meaning ground disturbance, but obviously effect can extend beyond ground disturbance by introducing elements that are outside that can alter the aesthetic of a property. So, I would argue that although the direct effect is limited to the project area, was there consideration of a larger area of potential effect for indirect effects? ROY: Yes, we take into account impacts to the surrounding area and not just the areas where direct ground impacts will occur because of the sites being outside of the project area behind a wall, ahupua`a wall, we had determined that there would be limited impact or potential impact to those sites. The applicant may be able to address more specifically their preservation measures during construction. VITOUSEK: Alex, were you aware of the preservation plan that exists for these sites? ROY: Not necessarily, no. Only what was presented in the EA and the SMA application. VITOUSEK: Yeah, the EA mentions the fact that there is a preservation plan for these sites, but it doesn't identify what the preservation measures are for each of the sites. And I don't have a copy of that. I know we've got Mr. Rechtman, oh, he's not, he's not here now, but Lokelani Brandt from Rechtman's office, I know they prepared the preservation plan circa 2006. Would anybody like to comment on what preservation measures exist for site 21220 and 21219? BRANDT: As far as site 21219, the 21219, the spring well furo, and the ku`ula, I don't have that right now, but I can, give me a minute and I can go and track that stuff down. With respect to site 21218, the ahupua`a boundary wall, that iwi `aina that's on the south side of the bathroom, is part of the preservation measures that's part of the La`aloa Beach Park preservation plan, that wall is supposed to be realigned as part of the La`aloa site project. But it's not being included in this project itself. VITOUSEK: My understanding was that it was included in this project that that wall would be relocated as part of this project. Is that correct? BRANDT: From my understanding it's the relocation of the wall to the proper boundary is going to take place with the implementation of the preservation plan for the La`aloa Park site. Not with this one. TERRY: Chairman Vitousek, I wanted to clarify that. That's not part of this project. This project is restricted to the to the subject TMKs that were presented in the application. And, we did consider effects to all surrounding areas, not just historic properties, and there's no physical effects that can occur, the restroom has been downsized and made more attractive, and will present less of an issue, not more of an issue. There are no adverse impacts to those sites. VITOUSEK: So, I'll refer you to page 17 of the SMA Use Permit that states, "Department plans to realign the wall to its original location with the reconstruction stylistically matching the more mauka alignment of the same wall that still exists on the eastern side of Alii Drive." TERRY: That's absolutely true. 12 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: [Inaudible.] TERRY: That's absolutely true. It's a separate project, on a separate property. VITOUSEK: Okay. Okay. So that's not part of this one. I guess the question remaining is where, where we are with the preservation plan for the fishing shrine and whether this project meets that, and since we don't have that information, I guess we can move on to something else. My question is, is there an existing SMA for the improvements either on Magic Sands Beach Park or La`aloa Beach Park? Does anybody know if there's an existing SMA permit to allow the construction of the parking lot or the facility? ROY: Chairperson, in November 1975, the original development of the comfort station, no SMA permit was obtained as SMA rules and regulations were enacted that same year. However, an environmental assessment was conducted for the development for the comfort station. This is clearly listed in the background report. VITOUSEK: Okay, what about the parking lot in the vicinity? The-- ROY: The La`aloa Park? The applicant would have to, to discuss a different park. Sorry. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I mean, one of the, the concerns that I have is the kind of segmenting and piecemealing of this where we're looking at this as different parks, when in actuality, this is all use of one park by the public. To me, I think we should be looking at the improvements of the park collectively so that we get an idea of what the overall improvements will be. What the overall effects will be on the SMA, rather than kind of segmenting here and there. My concern being that we have a case where there is a burial treatment plan that's been identified, and we know that the applicant is not in compliance with the burial treatment plan, and so, my question being whether or not that's a condition of an existing SMA permit that they're not in compliance with. If it was a private developer in the same situation, it wouldn't be looking good for them. You know? The fact that the applicant's not in compliance with their burial treatment plan and then preventing the use of the parking for that area and then kind of segmenting it into separate projects, to me raises, raises some issues, and I just wanted to know if there's a way that we can— [alarm sounds] my timer. But if there's a way that these all can be considered together instead of segmenting them separately, the use of La`aloa and Magic Sands. KOMATA: Chair Vitousek, I would say that, you know, the two beach parks are used in different manners even though they're directly adjacent to each other. The majority of the, the park users that use Magic Sands are there to use the beach and those facilities, not necessarily what's present on the La`aloa Beach Park site. They're two different sites. The, as far as to answer to your question about the SMA for the La`aloa Beach Park site, I, I don't have that information. I can't get you that right now off the top of my head. But again, again the purpose, the reason we're here, the primary purpose we're here trying to do these improvements at La`aloa is for compliance with the federal mandate. A standing, standing condition plan 13 EXHIBIT C obligation we have to the federal court system. So, you know, if we want to push it back for, for any reason other than that, it's just something we have to take to the federal court and we just stay in non-compliance with 1990 ADA requirements that much longer. VITOUSEK: Do you have an overall master plan for the area that will guide these improvements so it's not coming off as a one-off? KOMATA: So, okay, I'm sorry, we have, sorry. For the La`aloa Beach Park project, the proposed project, we do have an SMA Use Permit application. It's a minor permit, SMM 99. SAA-20-001775. We were notified of that January 21, 2021, by the Planning Department. VITOUSEK: Okay, and do we know if we're in compliance with the conditions of that permit? KOMATA: Well we haven't implemented the project yet. VITOUSEK: Okay, so probably not. Again, I just feel, the last question repeated again, is there a overall master plan for this park that we are working towards, and does this fit within that master plan? KOMATA: Which Park are you asking about? VITOUSEK: I'm talking about the collection of the three parks. The Magic Sands Beach Park, La`aloa Beach Park, and Kipapa Park, which function, in my opinion, collectively. KOMATA: There's, there's no master plan that covers all three Parks. The project that's pending for the La`aloa Beach Park sites and the project that's currently in front of you for the Magic Sands Beach Park site can be worked on together, more or less, we have the same consultant team, same project manager, and myself working on both. So, we are working in tandem for both makai parks, park sites. The Kipapa Park site, again, that's just kind of a, that's not an official name for the site. It, it's PONC land that is utilized to some degree for parking. That's, that's all it is at this point in time. VITOUSEK: Okay. With that, I'd like to entertain a motion from the Commissioners to either accept the SMA, deny the SMA, or to defer the application. And then after we have a motion and a second, we can have a discussion. Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: I'll move to approve the application. VITOUSEK: Motion by Commissioner Van Pernis. [Ms. DeFranco raises hand.] Second by Commissioner DeFranco. Okay, discussion? Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Yeah, I, I'm sort of frustrated by the piecemeal of that park. It's one of the few beaches that we have in Kona that the public goes to. I'm totally into redoing the bathrooms. I think that's good; I think it's good that it's going to be a smaller thing, it's good that you're planting the trees. It's been a shame to watch this whole parking structure go in and not, not be in compliance with the burial treatment, is that what I'm hearing? And I, and so, you put all the 14 EXHIBIT C parking across the street so now all the people, of course have to cross the street. You know, it's a, and to be sitting there for years like this, it seems like we should have a master plan in place for this area. Anyway, that's just my comment. VITOUSEK: As far as the, the applica the vote goes, would be in favor of approving this? Or would you be more in favor of, of deferring the application? DEFRANCO: Well, I, you know, I think that they have the application in for the environmental study, the small study, and it would probably be approved, and I think we do need to change the bathroom facility, and to put it into ADA compliance. So, based on that, I, I would approve it. But I would also like to approve it with a request of looking at the bigger picture here for Kona. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates? It's on mute, Commissioner Yates. YATES: I would not be voting yes on this because I think, as you said, that we need to be more clear on what needs to be done as far as the SMA and all of theseI know, we always can use better beaches and bathrooms, of course, but it just kind of seems like we're missing something. So, for me it's a no. VITOUSEK: Personally, I feel like we don't have the information entirely in order to make a comprehensive review of this. I feel like without the preservation plan, and without knowing what the boundaries are for the sites that are there,we don't know how this application fits within the parameters of the approved preservation plan. I have a, I have concerns that the, that they are segmenting the impacts on the SMA by proposing a portion of the project here and saying that La`aloa Beach Park is a separate project even though they're completely connected and the, the same. I do understand the purpose and need of the project. The ADA compliance is a good, a good thing. I'm concerned that the location of it, I think with all the space with the, on the north side of the existing parking lot, if any of that could be utilized. Now I guess I do have another question, if I could ask the County, it says in the packet that the area south of the existing comfort station can't be utilized because of County zoning, on page 17, but the zoning is Resort? And I wondered what prevents the area on the north side of the parking lot from being developed as a, as a restroom facility. KOMATA: Sorry, Mike, what? South and north side, what are you--? VITOUSEK: So, it says on page 17 of the application, "in terms of the location of the property makai of Alii Drive, the comfort station cannot be relocated farther from the southern boundary of the property because the existing location is the only buildable area per County zoning". KOMATA: Right. VITOUSEK: Is that referring to can't be located farther north on that existing property? KOMATA: Right, you look at the, the parcels, how the parcels are set up that comprise Magic Sands Beach Park, there's three sets of parcels. I think one is owned by the County, two is owned [indecipherable] by the State and are yield to the County. So, you know, we're limited to 15 EXHIBIT C what we have as far as the County-owned parcel. We gottaa respect the property line that made clear to us by Planning Department setbacks, so on, not building across property lines. So, we look at the buildable area, we look at the impacts, the overall impacts like Ron said, and if we build within the same footprint of the existing comfort station, that's what was determined to be least impactful in totality. So, we did, we did look into building the comfort station up against Alii Drive at the mauka-most portion of the parcels that comprised Magic Sands, but again, we were dissuaded from doing so, or we weren't allowed to do so because of the existence of property lines that require--requirement to honor building setbacks. VITOUSEK: And what about locating it within the sou the north portion of the existing parking lot outside of the burial treatment plan area? Buffer area of La`aloa. KOMATA: Oh, La`aloa, we're looking to minimize any impacts beyond the areas that have already been, been impacted by parking. So, if we were to relocate the parking lot, I'm sorry the comfort station into the parking area, not only would we lose additional parking stalls, its already been said it's a waste that we're not using them. To take more away, move it to that project, that, that's not something that's desirable to us and we wouldn't think that would be desirable to anybody trying to use the park, but also, we have an accessibility issue because we'd have to be able to get someone up to that elevation, significant elevation change between the park and that parking lot. VITOUSEK: So, it's the, the grade is the issue on, on the ADA requirement? KOMATA: Well, that and the impacts to available parking. VITOUSEK: But the parking's not being used anyway. KOMATA: Right, but under the project that, the separate project that I'm talking about, which I referenced the SMA Minor permit, that allows us to proceed with the project from Planning Department's purview, we still have funding that we have to obtain and possibly other approvals from other agencies. But, that's where we stand on that; that project will go forward. VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioners, any other discussion? KANUHA: Hey Mike, aloha Commissioners. One thing to just, going back on your questions of what you're asking the County, with the burial treatment plan that was there, you know with my father, we were on Burial Council. We sat there for many things and so I know why that parking lot was, was you know, is sitting there dorI would say dormant and shut down. Certain things were done that shouldn't have been done there, especially in the plan, but moving forward with this, what I see is replacing the banyan trees, which is not a native Hawaiian tree with milo, putting in ADA compliancy, having the impact of a footprint being the same place, I see it as a good thing for our community. You know, we have a lot of kids that we do, we do many cherry things that are disabled. They have a hard time getting down to the beach, and you know, that hill is, is a big footprint. It'd be nice to see the County put together a big, a plan and not piece things together like how you said, but for me, I would love to see La`aloa, you know, La`aloa come into a beautiful space that everyone can enjoy and have a, have an easier time. But I'm 16 EXHIBIT C with you Mike, on what you said. There's many things that have been done and pieced together. We're not looking at La`aloa right now, obviously it is part of the whole plan. We're looking at Magic Sands Beach Park, which is in that TMK, and I'm for it. I, for me, I approve that moving forward. VITOUSEK: Okay. I, I would like tooh, Maija, go ahead. JACKSON: Thank you, Chair. So, I've been doing some research on SMA permitting for the site while the discussion has been going on, and I do see that the Department issued an SMA exemption determination to Parks and Rec January of this year. And this was for implementation of the preservation plan and burial treatment plan. And basically, the Planning Department determined that that work, the, the preservation work was covered under SMA Minor Permit 99. So, we did grant them approval to proceed with that preservation and burial treatment plan work. VITOUSEK: Thank you. JACKSON: You're welcome. VITOUSEK: I would, I would like to make a motion to amend the main motion. I'd like to request, number one, that Condition 8 be altered to state, "The applicant shall," insert, "adhere to the conditions of the SHPD approved preservation plan and establish a reasonable buffer,"the rest remains the same, "which will remain in place until construction is completed." So, Condition 8 would be referring to the preservation plan for the site. I would also like to add a condition that the Department of Parks and Rec create an overall master plan for the use of Magic Sands, La`aloa, and Kipapa Park so that future improvements can be in guideli- in line with the overall master plan for the area. YATES: I second. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Any discussion? ROY: I'm sorry, Chair, there's just a point of order. There's an open motion to approve so VITOUSEK: That's correct, so we made a motion to amend the motion. This is a secondary motion that once we take this motion, that would be either applied to the existing motion on the floor or not, depending on the vote. Yep. To Department of Parks and Rec, is there any, are those changes okay with you? KOMATA: Question on your master plan requirement. That would be a prerequisite to commencing construction of this project? VITOUSEK: No. I think we would set a mutually agreeable timeframe. What do you think is an appropriate time frame to prepare an overall master plan for the use of this resource? 17 EXHIBIT C KOMATA: Well, our typical master planning process takes anywhere from one to two years once funding is identified and made available to us through the Administration. So, subject to availability of funds, we have to work with Planning, and Finance, and the mayor, and Council. So, it's quite an undertaking to add a project like that to our inventory. So, if we can do like the five-year period like the, so it matches the time frame of the SMA, that would be ideal, but— VITOUSEK: utVITOUSEK: I would be okay, yeah, I'd be okay with the, with the plan period matching the period of time that's identified for construction period. KOMATA: Yeah, we're okay with that and the insertion of that preservation plan, what exactly are you intending there? Or how are you interpreting, I don't know how to interpret that insertion. VITOUSEK: If the, if there's a preservation plan that's in effect that covers the Ku`ula Shrine, then according to State law, you have to follow the conditions that are already established for that preservation plan. So, if the, and since we don't have that preservation plan, we can't say exactly where it is, but if the preservation plan says the buffer is 30-feet, then you can't come in and set a buffer at 20-feet, because you'd be in violation of the preservation plan. All it says is you have to follow the conditions for that site that have already been established, which would be standard. KOMATA: Yeah, if it's speaking to the buffer size and location, then we have no objection to that. The VITOUSEK: It would be [unintelligible cross talk] you'd have to follow the existing approvals that you already have. KOMATA: Yep. VITOUSEK: Okay, with no objection from the applicant, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of amending the motion on the floor? [Raise of hands by DeFranco, Kanuha, Van Pernis, Yates, and Vitousek] Carries five to nothing. Are there any further amendments or discussion on the agenda item? JACKSON: Chair Vitousek, can we do a roll call vote on both motions? VITOUSEK: Yes, let's do a roll call vote on the motion to amend. ROY: Okay, this is the motion to amend the conditions. Sorry. SCHLUETER: Just to clarify, this is a motion to amend the main motion that's on the floor. VITOUSEK: Yep. To insert amendment to insert conditions. ROY: Okay. Commissioner Vitousek, oh, Chair Vitousek? 18 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Aye. ROY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. ROY: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. ROY: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. ROY: And Commissioner Van Pernis? VITOUSEK: It's on mute. VAN PERNIS: Aye. VITOUSEK: Thank you. ROY: Okay, motion to amend passes five to zero. VITOUSEK: Okay, moving on to the main motion, as amended. Any further discussion? Seeing none, let's do a roll call vote. ROY: Commissioner Van Pernis? VITOUSEK: It's on mute. VAN PERNIS: Can you hear me? Aye. VITOUSEK: Yes. Thank you. ROY: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. ROY: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. ROY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. 19 EXHIBIT C ROY: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: I still have reservations, but aye. ROY: Motion to approve with amendments passes five to zero. VITOUSEK: Okay. Thank you to the applicant and the consultants that are here today. Appreciate your time. You will be notified of the decision in writing. KOMATA: Thank you, Chair. The public testimony ended at 12:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kim Tanaka Secretary to Boards and Commissions 20 EXHIBIT C