Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-24 TRoyal_ALII_SMA05007 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT February 24, 2006 ROYAL ALII LLC (SMA 05-007) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 11:36 a.m. at the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, 69-275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii with Vice-Chairman William R. Graham presiding. PRESENT:ABSENT & EXCUSED: Allen Salavea C. Kimo Alameda Hannah Springer Andrew Iwashita Fred Galdones Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner JeffDarrow, Staff Planner Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: ROYAL ALII LLC (SMA 05-007) Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 19-unit single family residential development and related uses. The property is located on the east (mauka) side of Alii Drive, across from the Alohi Kai Subdivision and Kamoa Point, Kaumalumalu, North Kona, Hawaii,TMK:7-7-4:57and58. GRAHAM:OurnextitembeforeustodayisaSpecialManagementUsePermit, Special Management Area Use Permit, SMA 05-007. The applicant is Royal Alii LLC. The application is to allow the development of a 19-unit single family residential development and related uses. The property is located on the east, mauka side of Alii Drive, across fromthe Alohi Kai Subdivision and Kamoa Point, Kaumalumalu, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-7-4:57 and 58. Norman are you ready for a presentation? HAYASHI:Yes. Thank you Mr. Chair. Directing your attention to the overall location map. The subject property is indicated by this blue dot. It is situated along the mauka side of Alii Drive and this would be heading in towards Kailua-Kona and this would be towards Keauhou. Across of the subject property is the Alohi Kai subdivision. It€s a private residential subdivision. The White Sands Beach is located at this particular location. It is approximately .3 miles from south of the subject property. The Royal Poinciana Drive where you enter to go to the school is located here and as far as the colors on the map they represent the various zoning districts. The subject property is zoned for single family single family residential 7,500 square EXHIBIT 1 feet. Across of the property are lands that are zoned for resort 1.25. It also includes the vacant Kamoa Point site owned by the State. Along the length of Alii Drive there are lands that are zoned for multiple residential use and these are indicated by these brown shaded areas. The green areas are lands that are zoned for Agricultural 5 acres. The applicant intends to develop a 19 lot residential subdivision consisting of 5,000 to 10,000+ square foot lots. And within the lots, on the lots the applicant proposes to construct two 1 or 2 story structures with heights of approximately 19 feet to 27 feet. The house sizes will be approximately 1500 square feet to 2,400 square feet. Parking will be provided for each of the units 2 per lot. And the project will consist of underground utilities. There will also be a private roadway coming off of Alii Drive at this particular junction leading into the subdivision. And that roadway will be constructed with curb gutters and sidewalk. Now if you look at this particular map which is the applicant€s site map this is Alii Drive. The area between Alii Drive approximately 120 to 180 feet and that€s this particular area here. That particular area would be left as an archaeological easement. According to our applicant basically there will no improvements in that area and there will be handclearingofthatarchaeologicaleasement.TherealsowasconcernaboutwhethertheJudd Trail was located on the property. Basically the Judd Trail if you look at the map is generally in this location. It€s still questionable as to whether a portion of the Judd Trail traverses through the southern corner of the property. And that€s still undetermined. That determination will be made by or should be made by the Department of Land and Natural Resources who is the owner of the Judd Trail. Since the project would be, some of the lots will be less than 7,500 square feet in size, the applicant has submitted a Planned Unit Development permit to allow the lesser lot sizes. And that particular request is a administrative request so that will be processed upon issuance of the SMA permit should the Commission so grant it. The general plan designation for this area is again density Urban and the zonings are indicated is single family residential 7,500 square feet. Based on the current density of the property the applicant could technically sub- create 31 lots based on the current zoning. The property is currently vacant and the surrounding areas are generally single-family residential. The lots within the, some of the areas are basically used for single family residential purposes. Now the archaeological preservation plan and the archaeological monitoring plans were done by the applicant€s consultant were accepted by the State Historic Preservation Office. On the property within the proposed archaeological easement are two burials. One would be at the northern portion of the property at this general location and the other would be at this location further towards the south side of the property. The Hawaii Island Burial Council did review the burial sites and their determination was to preserve these sites burials in place. Again access would be from Alii Drive. Water is available to the property. The project will be hooked up to the County€s sewer system. We did receive a letter form Robert Ward expressing some concerns regarding improvements to Alii Drive. The provision of bike lanes and pedestrian lanes on both sides and no parking within the right-of-way. He also recommended the protection of the Judd Trail and that the internal roadway should be extended to the north boundary. The Planning Director is recommending approval. We submitted all of the conditions and we all submitted to you the amended conditions to conditions 3, 4 and 7 as a result of further review of those conditions by the Department of Public Works. There are some slight changes we would like to make to condition 3. Other than that what€s submitted to you in the yellow sheet. And if you look at the last portion of Condition 3 the second to the, the last 2 sentences. It says that the applicant shall provide a widened shoulder along the Alii Drive frontage extending to the right-of-way property line. And we would like to include if required by and meeting with the approval of Department of Public Works. Then the last sentence would EXHIBIT 2 read, provide pavement widening, transition, signs and markings, drainage improvements and relocation of utilities as required by the Department of Public Works. And also on Condition 7 because the applicant intends to bond the project meaning to grant final, to receive final subdivision approval this particular condition should be changed to state and this would be the last sentence. A drainage study shall be prepared prior to the issuance of any construction permit and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to final subdivision construction approval or dwelling occupancy. So those are the proposed conditions as amended. Are there any questions? GRAHAM:Any questions from the Commissioners? Yes Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah. The architectural easement is that, that property will be owned by the property owners and, is that how it works or is it dedicated to the? HAYASHI:Ithinkthatquestionshouldbedirected,wouldbebetterdirectedtothe applicant as to the ownership and whether it€s going to be owned by the association or by the applicant. MCCALL:Okay I€ll hold that. Thanks. GRAHAM:Any other questions for staff at this time? Could the applicant or his representative come forward please? YUEN:While they€re coming up I think we should change Condition 13 slightly. That€s one of the preservation conditions. The first sentence says, it would say the archaeological features on the western or makai portion of project site, as identified in the approved preservation plan, shall be preserved and made a part of the project€s open space buffer from the Alii Highway. This and it should be open space buffer from Alii Drive. And this is to make it clear that there are, that all the feature zone have to be preserved there. The preservation, the approved preservation plan has certain areas that have to be preserved but not the entire, not all the features which I think would actually make access impossible on Alii Drive. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Yuen. Since I have the applicant and representative before me could you please raise your right hand and swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? APPLICANT/ REPRESENTATIVE:Yes. GRAHAM:Thank you. If you can state your name, residence address and proceed with your testimony as you wish the two of you. LAU:Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Christopher Lau. I€m the President of Town Development of Hawaii, one of the members of the Royal Alii LLC. My EXHIBIT 3 address is 3764 Old Pali Road, Honolulu, 96817. To my left is Larry Smith who is also a member of the Royal Alii LLC. Larry will state his address for you. SMITH:77-6393 Alii Drive, Kailua-Kona. GRAHAM:Thank you. Go ahead. If you€d like to make some presentation to the Commission about your project. LAU:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Really after listening to Mr. Hayashi€s presentation we concur with all of the items that he has presented to the Commission. I would like to add that Mr. Smith is the owner of 2 of the adjacent properties. On the south side Mr. Smith has his primary residence and on the mauka side he has his, he has another piece of property so he certainly supports our application. With respect to the changes to the conditions that Mr. Hayashi mentioned earlier we do concur with the changes in number 3. With respect to thechangesinnumber7,IjustwanttoclarifyperhapsI,Ididn€thearcorrectlybutwhatI thought we would, you were doing is in the last line, we€re going to strike the words final subdivision approval or‚. So the last phrase would be, prior to dwelling occupancy‚. HAYASHI:Basically the, I discussed it with the, Mr. Emler, Department of Public Works representative and he basically stated that we should, instead of doing that we should just add the word construction after final subdivision. So, what the sentence, last portion of the sentence would read would be, prior to final subdivision construction approval or dwelling occupancy‚ and I think that would serve your purposes as far as your intent to bond the property and get final subdivision approval. But before you can, before we do our final construction approval of the subdivision and all of the improvements are done that you would have to provide this drainage system if its required. So basically I think that€s the same thing that you were discussing. LAU:So as I understand it, so long as we construct the improvements we can obtain occupancy? HAYASHI:Yes. LAU:Yes, okay then we€re fine with that. YUEN:Can I? GRAHAM:Director Yuen? YUEN:Is the right term inspection of construction improvement of subdivision improvements? Because it says a drainage study, did we rewrite this again from what€s in yellow here? HAYASHI:Yes. YUEN:Okay would you, would you read that again for me? EXHIBIT 4 HAYASHI:Okay, that would be Condition 7 and we€re amending the area that is underscored and it will read, A drainage study shall be prepared prior to the issuance of any construction permit and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting with the approval of the DepartmentofPublic Works prior to final subdivision construction approval or dwelling occupancy‚. So weadded the word construction after subdivision, between subdivision and approval. So basically you can grant the final subdivision approval, bond improvement but before we issue final construction approval that the drainage system has to be installed. YUEN:Yeah, when you say final construction approval you mean that the improvements, that the improvements have been inspected. Built and inspected. That€s what I€m- HAYASHI:Inspected as approved by Department of Public Works. YUEN:Right,Ki€s,whatdowecallthat? EMLER:Finalsubdivisionconstructionapproval. YUEN:Thatistherightlanguage?Okay. EMLER:That€swhatIwoulduse. YUEN:Okay thank you. HAYASHI:Yeah I got the words from Ki. GRAHAM:Do we have any more from the applicant? LAU:No that€s it. Nothing more Mr. Chairman. GRAHAM:Okay and Mr. Smith you have no particular testimony at this moment? SMITH:No. I€d like to say, the last time I was here in front of the council it was about 7 years ago and Chris and I were on the opposite ends of the table, I was stopping his development because I wanted to park in Keauhou area. So it€s kind of ironic that 7 years later we€re here together. But, I bought this property and brought Chris in as my partner. This is, I own the 6 acres behind and the 5 acres on the one side and it€s a family. This is my family that lives there, my son and my daughter and myself. So, I bought the property to protect our family and I want something nice there that works in the area cause I€ve lived here. You know I was here when they only had one stop light and a lot has changed since then and I know there€s a lot of problems with traffic and development and I feel for you guys cause I know where you€re going through with all of this cause it takes me an hour now to get from Keauhou to the airport where it used to take a few minutes so. I€m concerned as much as you guys are in development. I don€t feel that this, this small project has a, has a major impact in the area so that€s why I€m going through with it this way. And we€ve cut down the, you know it was zoned for 31-units EXHIBIT 5 and we€re only going to, we only want to put 19 in. And it€s going to be set back 100 feet from the street and I think it€ll be an improvement for the area that€s there right now. GRAHAM:Thank you. Do we have any questions from any of the commissioners? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:My question was on the preservation of the archaeological features. Is that going to be held like in by the association ownership or how would that? LAU:Correct. MCCALL:Okay. LAU:Yes. MCCALL:So they would (inaudible) that along with the road lot? LAU:Correct. MCCALL:Okay thank you. GRAHAM:Any other questions? Mr. Smith I had a question I think that€s probably easiest to address to you. We were given by the County earlier this year a sort of a geographic information system to where we can look at TMK€s and things on the island for our own background information. And I think when I looked in this area there€s what is I believe a delineation of the Judd Trail appears like one long skinny TMK and I think your name is on the TMK. But Norman said earlier that it€s owned by the DLNR. And I also believe that some number of years ago when the mauka properties where I guess you have your residence went before the State Land Use Commission there was some kind of issue. And maybe Mr. Yuen was on the, not the State Land Use Commission the DLNR Land Board maybe Mr. Yuen was sitting at that time that it was going to be relocated and diverted in some ways. So, I wonder if you can give me your understanding of how the Judd trail exists both physically and legally right now? SMITH:Yes. The Judd Trail runs from Alii Drive it runs right along parallel with my property my 5 acres and then it runs parallel with the 6 acres behind me. And, when I built on those 2 pieces of property the stipulation was that that has to be there€s a 10 foot buffer that had to be fenced off and it couldn€t be touched it was part of the conditions of my building permit. So and it, and that has been in effect. There€s been, we€ve put fences up that 10 foot area on the Judd trail and it runs from Alii Drive on my property it runs all the way up through Ho€omalu which is the subdivision behind my property. And there€s been 2 different groups from the County there. I went with them and we walked it and I showed them everything. And about the first hundred feet it has the cattle, it has everything there, it hasn€t been touched. And then the back 6-acres it was bulldozed but it was bulldozed before I even bought the property. So, yes that, the Judd Trail runs through there. GRAHAM:So it runs straight mauka from Alii Drive through there? EXHIBIT 6 SMITH:Yes. GRAHAM:And it is owned by the DLNR as far as you know? SMITH:I€m not sure who owns it but its there and its where, it€s straight, it hasn€t been moved. GRAHAM:Okay and then I believe that Judd Trail was like 15 miles long or something so it should continue up to Kuakini Highway at least. Are you aware whether that continuation is in place? SMITH:It€s in place through my 5-acres and my 6-acres and then I believe Ho€omalu was developed by Mr. Gomes and I€m not sure they were 5 acre Ag parcels above me andIbelievethattheyhadthesamerequirementsthatIdidbecauseIalsoboughtapieceup there. And I know that the people behind me that they had the same stipulations but I€m not sure if its enforced now or not. I know, I know nothings been, no bulldozing or no building has been done all the way up to Kuakini, yes. GRAHAM:Thank you very much for your testimony on that. SMITH:Thank you. GRAHAM:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Good morning. I have a few questions. Could you tell me if Keolanahihi is across of Alii Drive from your property? The State Historic Park? SMITH:No, it€s. No, it€s not across the street fromthe property. SPRINGER:Thank you. YUEN:Keolanahihi is a little bit north just alittle bit north of the property there. Their property is more toward the south end of the point on the other baby on, not Holualoa Bay but the next Bay south. SPRINGER:Thank you. Is it true then that the arch sites but for Alii Drive are not contiguous or part of the Keolanahihi and Keakealaniwahine complexes? It€s not clear from the archaeological report. LAU:I don€t know but I think that most of those sites that you refer to are further north. SPRINGER:Okay thank you. I have no further questions at thistime. EXHIBIT 7 GRAHAM:Thank you. Any other Commissioners? Mr. Emler did you have something you could show us? EMLER:Just a-. I have a question for the Planning Director. I thinkI€d like to have some clarification and some, on the issue here of whether the PUD, Planned Unit Development as shown in the exhibit is something that is being accepted here by this procedure or if it€s, it still has to go through the PUD process and the subdivision process? YUEN:It still has to go through the PUD and subdivision process. EMLER:So we can defer some of our comments on some issues. One issue I have, one issue or one concern I have is what€s the long term plan for this area? In other words, I noticed on the zoning map that this is, it€s zoned RS-7.5 and the area surrounding it are Ag-5. What€s the long term zoning plan for this area and what would be the long-term plan for access fromupmaukaofthisareabetweenAliiDriveandAliiHighway?AndIhavethisconcern because I want to know how those lots mauka of this area if they are planned for urban zoning are going to get access? And whether it would be needed to take access off Alii Highway which we are trying to restrict? GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Emler. Mr. Yuen? YUEN:Well the, this does have to still have to go through PUD and subdivision. EMLER:Thank you so we can still consider connections then and so forth? YUEN:Right. EMLER:Thanks. GRAHAM:Do we have any other? Yes, Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I guess I€m looking at the-, and I understand SMA does not usually say it doesn€t include traffic concerns. But Mr. Emler€s comment and the Kona Traffic Safety Committee€s comments talk about SMA process having to be compliant with the General Plan and the reference to the General Plan€s specific provisions that safe and efficient transportation be considered or be part of the what they€re building in the overall planning for this County. I just need a clarification I guess is that these concerns and I share the concerns about traffic circulation and how this and the surrounding properties you know 20, 30 years down the road are going to be all connected. That those concerns and issues will be addressed in the PUD/subdivision approval process? Is that correct? YUEN:To an extent. Just on the question of traffic, it€s not that traffic can absolutely not be considered on an SMA permit. It€s that if, to consider a traffic issue you have to determine that it€s of a degree that affects some other interest protected by the SMA law. For example, it is to the point where it affects the use of a highway that€s the public access to the ocean. That it becomes so congested that people can€t or are discouraged from going to the EXHIBIT 8 ocean for recreational use. Another example would be that where we could consider access would be if the access is so bad it affected the ability to evacuate people from the site. So we have some ability to consider traffic but not just traffic per say, as we would in a you know, rezoning. IWASHITA:Thank you. As a follow up then. Again looking at the long range perspective on safety and evacuation and those kinds of concerns that as this area develops and the area around it behind the mauka of it develops you€ll see that you know the access issues evacuation routes and all of those kind of issues would be impacted by how this parcel is developed. And I guess a suggestion that consideration be given to long-term looking at using part of the access to this property to get mauka and provide access and possible evacuation routes for mauka properties. Or actually for this property and the people who live here in the tsunami kind of scenario in the future where Alii Drive is totally built out and not necessarily the safest way to go especially if there€s a locally generated tsunami you would want an immediate evacuationroutethatwouldtakeyoustraightmaukafromthisproperty.Iwould.IfIhavehalf an hour to get out of where I am because of the locally generated tsunami you don€t want to be stuck on Alii Drive with a 20-foot wall of water coming down on you. So, I think that these traffic, those kind of concerns seems to me, you know should be properly addressed in this proceeding. GRAHAM:All right Commissioner, excuse me Director Yuen? YUEN:Yeah I just wanted, the long term, the long term access plan to the area as far as mauka-makai access would be down where, the extension of Lako Street, which would intersect with Alii Drive a little bit to the north about, probably about a half a mile to the north of this. That, that is the project that the Department of Public Works is actively pursuing. GRAHAM:We€re also, I gotta remind you that we€re on the part of questioning the applicants not working on all of the issues that we need to work out at this point in time. So, I€d like to keep it at that and then we can move on and get testimony from the public and all. So do we have any further questions for the applicant? IWASHITA:I want to direct this? GRAHAM:Fine. IWASHITA:I would like the applicant, you know your thoughts now about you know these long term kind of issues which I, personally I think come directly into play. And considering this permit approval of this (inaudible) because I think if you talk to Harry Kim based on his civil defense background that you know it is not an unlikely scenario that you know we have a locally generated tsunami where we won€t have hours to respond that it€ll be minutes. It€ll be less than an hour and it can be a rather devastating, you know we€ve never seen one recently. The most recently is like Hanape which you know didn€t generate a real large tsunami but in that scenario I don€t think you know we can ignore that potentiality and if there are no provisions today in the long term for a mauka-makai access and evacuation routes that you know frankly. Today on Alii drive I think if you had a locally generated tsunami many people would EXHIBIT 9 not be able to get out today. High enough, with a large, you know with a large enough wave being generated by a local geological event. So, I€d like your comments on whether you would consider, you know your considerations about making some provision now in your development for that. GRAHAM:Mr. Smith go ahead. SMITH:Yes. On the 5 acres south of this property is Ho€omalu and Ho€omalu has access all the way up to the future Alii Parkway. GRAHAM:So Ho-? SMITH:Which is, which is right next door. GRAHAM:CouldyoutelluswhatHo€omaluis? SMITH:Ho€omaluisasubdivisiontothesouthofmyproperty.SoAlii,Royal Alii, I don€t know if someone could show you on the map. Royal Alii it€s, and then I have 5 acres to the south and then right next to that is Ho€omalu, which is a subdivision and there€s-. GRAHAM:Would that maybe be that little yellow finger that€s sticking into the green there on the map on the left? SMITH:I can€t see. GRAHAM:Okay. I can€t see too good either. SMITH:But anyway it€s within, within 300 yards of the proposed property that will give access for a tsunami. And you know I€m just throwing this out but you know they€ve built hundreds of condos down Alii Drive. I ride my bike every night down there. I€ve been hit twice on Alii Drive okay so I know the traffic problem and I know that. But you know they built all these condos, there was no access for those condos and anyway you can see my frustration so I gotta stop talking. But you know within 300 feet we have access for a tsunami to evacuate people. GRAHAM:Good thank you. Mr. Lau? LAU:Mr. Iwashita. There is also another emergency access or another access on the south side approximately 3/8 of a mile south of the Royal Alii property is Laaloa Avenue. And there are 2 things that are happening with respect to Laaloa. Number one there is presently a emergency access through the Keauhou View Estates and Alii Heights subdivision. But there is also work being done by the County with respect to planning an extension of Laaloa Avenue that would include access all the way to Kuakini Highway. So two things number 1 presently there is emergency access to Kuakini and then number 2 there is a regular access being planned. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Lau. EXHIBIT 10 YUEN:Yeah just a comment. We know the situation is bad on Alii Drive. You can as Chris Lau said, you can drive if you want to get out of here you can drive up Laaloa, which is roughly a half mile south. And if you were just going to get out of the tsunami inundation area you can get up to a subdivision road that€s out of the inundation are. And the County is working on a regular access, making Laaloa connect to Kuakini and being a regular way out of, a full mauka-makai from Kuakini to Alii Drive. And then the second one would be the Lako Street extension, which is just to the north of that purple point there at Holualoa Bay, which is also is a project that the County is actively pursuing and has done an EIS for. I€m sorry an EA for in front of that of that project. So we are looking on ways to get people out. Finally well this is, there€s a private subdivision road that€s immediately adjacent to this. Just to the south of this property. It serves the Ho€omalu Subdivision, which is a subdivision of 5 acre lots. That€s gated you wouldn€t be able to drive it. I€m not sure if the police or the first responders have a way of getting through there. It would probably be a good idea if they did but somebody wanting to walk or run out of in case of a locally generated tsunami will be able to go up that privateroad. GRAHAM:ThankyouCommissionerIwashita? IWASHITA:Youknowtodayis,whatwehavetodayandmyconcernisnotsomuch you know what there is today and what there is going to be in the next 5 years or what€s already planned you know in place as it is. I think the concern is you know if we were looking as been suggested earlier right and that yours is but you know the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg in that large green area we€re looking on the map that€s ultimately going to be developed right? And you know then there€ll be thousands of people now in this area that some consideration has to be in. I know Mr. Smith that you know yours is relatively speaking not a large development but again to echo Mr. Emler€s concerns in the long run you know it, I think it€s legitimate to look at how this area is going to really be built out. And if in considering that there€s going to be thousands of people along Alii Drive right? Hundreds if not thousands of people, then mauka- makai access has to be considered in each development. You know in a total big picture sense so that you know we don€t run into or we don€t create actually problems you know when we know. It€s just a question of time. It€s not if it€s going to happen it€s when it€s going to happen. So, you know we live on a very dynamic island and we need to be very cognizant of that. LAU:Yeah Commissioner Iwashita I believe that when the other properties come in for-. GRAHAM:Could you speak a little more closely in the mike. LAU:Oh I€m sorry yeah. When the other properties come in for their Land Use Boundary amendments as well as rezoning. I think that at that point in time it would be a proper subject of inquiry of the Planning Commission as well as the County Council to ensure that there are other mauka-makai roadways. But I believe that our position today is that we believe that with the existing roadway network there is adequate emergency access. EXHIBIT 11 GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Lau. If we don€t have further questions for the applicants maybe I could ask you all to step back now and we could take our public testimony? Oh excuse me Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you Commissioner Graham. Sirs I€m wondering if you are satisfied with the archaeological work that was done for you? As I€m reviewing it there€s an absence of ethnographic information in it that I really look to to give me the most complete data set to do analysis of these resources. And so I€m just wondering if you have any other supplemental information or if you€re satisfied with the work? LAU:We don€t have any other supplemental information. In talking with the archaeologist who prepared the various reports and discussing items like (inaudible) I was satisfied with what he had prepared. SPRINGER:Okay. GRAHAM:CommissionerSpringerfollowup? SPRINGER:Thankyou.Justinthesamewaythatwe€relookingatthebigpicturewith regard to the evacuation routes. I€m looking for the big picture of the not only the archaeological but cultural context in which these sites occur. So that€s the reason for my question. Thank you for your comments. GRAHAM:Thank you. Commissioner Iwashita you had another question of the applicant? IWASHITA:I need a clarification. I don€t know what Commissioner Springer is talking about? GRAHAM:Did, I don€t think we need that at the moment or do we need that at the moment? IWASHITA:Oh no at some point I€ll need that. GRAHAM:Yes we€ll get that. We€ll have discussion amongst us about all these issues that have come forth. Thank you very much both of you. I only have one public testifier signed up at the moment which is Joel Gimpel. If you could come forward Mr. Gimpel and if anyone else is here. All right anyone else here please come forward and we can take your testimony even though you didn€t sign up. Thank you Mr. Gimpel I did swear you in before so I don€t think I need to do that again. So you can go forward-. GIMPEL:I promise to tell the truth that€s okay. GRAHAM:Do tell the truth please. EXHIBIT 12 GIMPEL:Thank you and good afternoon Mr. Chairman. The Kona Traffic Safety Committee€s comments to Mr. Yuen regarding this application I believe are part of your record so I€ll summarize them here without taking too much of your time. And although we understand that, the Planning Department doesn€t consider traffic-related concerns in conjunction with SMA applications unless shoreline access is affected, which doesn€t seem to be the case here, we believe that the Hawai€i Revised Statutes warrant somewhat broader interpretation. Those statute dictate that the development be consistent not only with the County General Plan and zoning but that the, and our General Plan is quite specific about providing safe and efficient transportation and I believe Mr. Ward€s letter to you outlines some concerns that are more specific. In any event because of that we€ve looked closely at this proposed development. First, the applicant€s site plan shows only one access point which is a gated entry on Alii Drive, which could pose a danger to residents if its blocked and must provide adequate space for vehicles waiting for the gate to open in order to avoid blocking Alii Drive. We urge, therefore, that occupancy be conditioned on County approval of the design and position of the access point and gated entry to assure that adequate sight lines exist and that there is waiting space in order to make entrance to the subdivision. Now although the size of this development doesn€t warrant a second access to Alii Drive, we believe that the need for potential connectivity dictates that changes in the proposed site plan should be required. The internal road appears to extend to the south boundary, which would provide pedestrian access to the Judd Trail. The internal road, however, stops short of the north boundary, which is adjacent to raw land that is destined for urban expansion. Accordingly, we recommend that the internal road be extended to the north subdivision boundary as well to allow for a future second access route. Second, we note that although the application states that a TIAR was prepared, it wasn€t included in the materials furnished us for review. We assume, however, that 19 residences will generate between 150 and 160 trips per day, which will add significantly to the traffic on Alii Drive. Now although we don€t support the expansion of Alii Drive with additional vehicle lanes, we recommend that it be improved adjacent to the development and beyond using some of the fair share contributions, and even further if the developer would be willing to enhance the safety of the committee, community excuse me, by providing at least 5-foot bike lanes and a 5-foot pedestrian ways on both sides of Alii Drive and no parking within the road right-of-way. I note that the that one of the developers has indicated he€s already been in a couple of bike/car accidents on Alii Drive. We don€t want him to be in a third. Finally, we not that the historic Judd Trail, which has a long history of abuse and neglect, lies between this property and property owned by Mr. Smith, one of two members of the applicant. This trail must be preserved and restored to promote pedestrian access to the shoreline which indeed is within your purview to look at in an SMA application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I€ll be happy to answer any questions. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Gimpel. Do we have some questions from the Commissioners? I guess not, thank you again. GIMPEL:Thankyou. GRAHAM:Wouldtheapplicantanditsrepresentativeliketocomeforthagainjustin case there€s any follow up from having received our public testimony? I€d also like to just let the publichereknowthatwhenwe€refinishedwiththisitemwewillbebreakingforlunch.And since it€s like 12:30 now we€re going to be taking an hour for lunch so it€ll be probably be EXHIBIT 13 quarter to or 2 or something like that at least before we get back for our next agenda item. So, my sense at this time is if any of you are here waiting for the next agenda item be sure to be back by 2 and you€re not going to miss your opportunity. All right thanks. Mr. Lau, Mr. Smith, I€m, I guess this is your last time before us before we discuss amongst ourselves and take action so as a result of what you€ve heard or Mr. Gimpel€s testimony if you have any further remarks you€d like to make? LAU:No we have no further comments. GRAHAM:All right thank you. So you may go back and I guess we€ll go into our discussion now. Do any of the Commissioners have anything to put forth at the moment for our discussion? I guess we could wait for motion but I think we have a number of issues in there so maybe it€s good to just discuss a little bit first. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:If Commissioner Iwashita may ask his question of me now? GRAHAM:Yes, I believe the question was you wanted clarification of what Commissioner Springer meant when she made her last question to the applicant regarding ethnographic? IWASHITA:Yeah and explain it to me like I was a 6 year old. SPRINGER:Okay. GRAHAM:All right thank you. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:We have before us an archaeological report which discusses in very clinical fashion the physical remains that are on the subject property. An ethnographic report would draw upon archival including written and cartographic materials and then also include interviews with local informants, kamaaina of the region in which the subject property is situated. In general in order to have an understanding of the cultural context in which a site occurs the archaeology may not be sufficient to provide that context and when I look at our rules regarding the SMA there€s a discussion about identifying the scope of valued cultural, historical or natural resources in the petitioned area including the extent to which traditional and custom native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the petitioned area and there€s not a discussion of that but that I was able to find. My interest is in particular peaked because of the presence of the Keolanahihi and Keakealaniwahine complexes in very close proximity to this subject property. And but for recent innovations and developments including Alii Drive I have reason to believe that this site may have at one time been contiguous with those complexes but I have no discussion of that before me. Also the presence of the Judd Trail peaks my interest because althoughwecallittheJuddTrailduringthelatteryearsofthereignofKamehamehatheIII, Judd was commissioned to go and build a highway from the West side to the East side. And that hechosethislocationtoconductthisworkpeaksmyinterest.Andagainthere€snodiscussionof it except for the physical remains of it in this brief area where it traverses the subject property. Andtherecertainlyisa,aninterestingproposalforarchaeologicalpreservationthatissubmitted as part of the application. I just don€t find the discussion as deep as it might be with regard to EXHIBIT 14 again the cultural context. And although the State Historic Preservation Officer has accepted the report I€m looking at the logo for Joseph Kennedy€s company and it says mea ike hana lima o ke au i hala‚ and I was hoping he€d be here so he could translate that for us because I€m not sure what it means and I€m not sure if I agree with the statement contained there. But without him to be here I cannot ask him about that. GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita does that satisfy your question? IWASHITA:I think I have a better understanding of. So the Commission is concerned that or is the Commissioner concerned enough so that you would ask that, eth-, what is it ethno? SPRINGER:Ethnographic. IWASHITA:Ethnographic component or work be done before we take further consideration of this application. GRAHAM:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I guess I would look to the Director to join us in this conversation at this time because clearly the State Historic Preservation Office has accepted this material. They apparently do find it sufficient and have, have submitted correspondence to that effect. Mr. Director does the application stand as it is or could we ask for more information despite the Historic Preservation Office having given their approval? YUEN:I know that often times they do actually ask for backgrounds, historical ethnographic background information along with the archaeological report. I don€t know why they didn€t in this case. But if, I mean I stand by our recommendation they have approved the site preservation plan. Most, and you see that there, there was some, reading the letters there was some concern about it and because it-. If you look at, probably the best thing to look at is in the archaeological book; there€s figure 4 site location map. You notice that practically the whole frontage of Alii Drive is comprised of archaeological sites. There€s another map that shows that a couple of these are burials. And if there€s a letter to the effect that was very difficult to find a way to get into this property. They also, they I€m familiar with the area because this, this is just south of the Blasman property that was a contested SMA permit. There€s one property in between which is owned by Pukopo. I have looked at actually the archaeological reports for Pukopo that also has a lot of archaeological sites. I€m not sure that there€s a way in from the north even and so SHPDA did agree to that access corridor, it€s sort of in the middle of the property at site 8025. I think no doubt that they regarded these sites as significant. No doubt that, no doubt they are. And we have preservation requirements which essentially preserve the frontage of the site except for a 50-foot wide access way through one of these sites. GRAHAM:Could I just personally throw my, as a Commissioner my concerns in the samedirectionforwardandIthinkmaybeIevenamgoingatleastasbroadoralittlebroader which is we do see on our site location map you know what looked like a fairly intense communityhereinthepast.Andthentheapplicantisgoingtopreservemajorsectionsofthat community but in breach the community with his entryway and as we see on our map to the right EXHIBIT 15 up there. And I guess my concern; my interest or concern is what is the State Historic Preservation Division trying to do. Where do we aim? What are we aiming for when we do these set-asides? Are we aiming kind of in a museum way to just put certain stuff that will stay there that people can come and examine it in the future and so we€re not losing some history that€s already there? Or are we trying to do anything more than that? Are we trying to maintain any integrity of this community? Are we trying to look forward to some use that doesn€t much seem to be going on now but may go on in the future? I really have never seen written down really well or spoken really well just what it is we€re trying to do. Maybe the Planning Director can offer up a few of his thoughts. YUEN:Yeah I think I€m familiar enough with what they do to say that they€re looking, they have to look at these applications as they come in. There isn€t an overall historic preservation requirement over a region so when the application comes in they have a review and comment function. They, when they have their site significance criteria in this case the sites were considered significant. One of them is believed to be a possible heiau and other burials and one site is an example of a walled compound. In other words a little, probably a house area but with a wall completely around it and they didn€t want to see the wall breached. They do feel that in making the recommendations they have to be reasonable to that. So, if they require complete preservation of the Alii Drive frontage in effect they€re blocking off the property. And then if you get from, I mean if you (inaudible) from southside then you have to cross the Judd Trail so it becomes you know all these things become very difficult. But as far as what they€re trying to accomplish they€re trying to accomplish the physical preservation of the sites that are on this property so that they are, so that they are preserved. I don€t how much interpretation, signage and the like they€re looking for on this. I don€t think there was much if anything in the preservation plan. As far as the overall context I can tell you cause we€ve looked at this area before. If you look at the page facing that to the left. The page-facing figure 4 is figure 3 location of the subject property on a TMK map. Immediately across the street on the makai side of Alii Drive you have a big area that was a subdivision that was largely bulldozed. The whole, the whole general area was a very rich and very important settlement area in Old Hawaii that is sometimes called the Holualoa Royal Center. But immediately across the street everything is pretty much gone. On the, across the street on the north side is the State Historic Park at Keolanahihi where there is still a lot of archaeological features. And then you can€t see it quite on this map but just a little bit to the north again on the mauka side of Alii Drive there€s the Blasman property that was just purchased. And the Blasman property, I think there€s another figure in the back that we can look at. If you turn back to this map figure 2 about 10 pages farther on. That shows, it says 774 in the corner, where it says 12 across the street where it says 12 and 51 and 52 those are all part of the, those are all the State Park. On the mauka side of Alii Drive where it says 26 that€s the Blasman property that€s recently been purchased by the State for a park addition. Where it says 11 is Keakealaniwahine complex which was purchased actually donated to the State several years ago and it€s a huge walled complex in there. Where it says97isthePukobopropertywhichiscurrentlyzonedAg5doeshavequiteafew archaeological sites. And where it says plat 24 is that subdivision that was, where it was bulldozed.Sothat€sthe,that€sthecontextaroundit. EXHIBIT 16 GRAHAM:Thank you very much. I know as Commissioner I€m always looking for the right since that€s where (inaudible) to, either of the Commissioners on my left side have any comments or, put into this conversation? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I guess either to the Director or the staff on page 3 of the recommendation in the narrative section. It says there is no evidence of any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site. What is the evidence for that? YUEN:I€m not sure, Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI:What page was that? SPRINGER:That€s on page 3 in the narrative section. GRAHAM:Down the next to the last paragraph this is on the orange papers Norman the recommendation. Page 3 on the recommendation. SPRINGER:It€s the last sentence of the as Commissioner Graham was saying the second to the last paragraph. HAYASHI:Well basically we took that off of the, since the archaeological report were accepted and basically we€re stating that from that report there does not seem to be any evidence. SPRINGER:May I? GRAHAM:Yes please. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:You know one of the things traditional and customary practitioners is they may conduct those practices in such a way that they are not observed. And again lacking any interviews with kamaaina or local informants to tell me that practice hasn€t been abandoned. I don€t have evidence of that because the archaeological report does not discuss that per say. Thanks. GRAHAM:Thank you. Any other comments from the Commissioners? I personally was still concerned about the Judd Trail and I think the Judd Trail is both a historical consideration and also like a public access live consideration right now. And I know on the same page in the recommendations and the same paragraph Commissioner Springer is speaking of right after the highlighted text it says there€s no public access to shoreline or mountain areas and then farther on in this, in the area. And clearly I view that Judd Trail is a important public access. And I guess I wanted to ask the Director seems like the Judd Trail has been overlooked asfarasthepublicinterestofpreservingitandbringingitbacktousethroughlandusechanges over the last number of years. Is the Judd Trail so far gone that its kind of a you know an eclecticexerciseyousitandtalkaboutusingtheJuddTrail?Orshouldwebeconcernedthat now may be the moment where its forth putting our attention on the Judd Trail to get proper meetsandboundsandtogetwhatmightbenecessarytobringtheJuddTrailbacktosome functional use or do you feel like that€s too much water over the dam already? EXHIBIT 17 YUEN:No the Judd Trail alignment is still there and is still useable in the area. The reason for not focusing on it. I thought we had determined that it was not on the property? HAYASHI:We did receive a letter from Stephen Menezes who is the applicant€s representative. And that is, no it€s a memo from Stephen Menezes. It€s a memo date February 9, 2006 and basically enclosing the, a letter from Joseph Kennedy of Archaeological Consultants of the Pacific dated February 2, 2006. And if you look at the last sentence, I believe all of you have a copy of that, it does state here that the and I€ll read it, Subsequent field checks with State DLNR personnel has determined that a portion of the trail is just within the southern boundary and is within the area approved for preservation with site 8027 and 2828 and is therefore protected by it‚. And look sincerely. But there are no maps, map attached to that. So I really don€t know the status of whether the Judd Trail is, a portion of Judd Trail is in fact in the property or its not in the property. I did do a physical check of the property and it indicated that if this were the southern end of the property there is a pin at this location. Then there seems to be a area that is lower than the elevation of the subject property. And it seems like it€s perhaps where the Judd Trail is but I€m not the expert so. You know until survey is done you know I think that was one of the responsibilities of DLNR to identify where the Judd Trail is, the exact location. YUEN:Given that we, we should probably put in a condition that says something like public access consistent with requirements of the Department of Land and Natural Resources shall be allowed over the portion over any portion of Judd Trail lying within the subject property. GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I guess I have a thought that maybe the owner can clarify this because if the legal description of the property along, that adjoins Judd Trail basically says that the calls are along the trail then it would seem clear that the trail wherever its located right? And I don€t know if there€s a modern survey or not. But if the call is along the trail then there seems to me there would have been a modern done. I don€t know maybe Mr. Smith-? GRAHAM:Mr. Smith if you and Mr. Lau would like to come forward and respond to the question that€s fine. SMITH:Yes there is pins showing property line and where the Judd Trail is. On my property from Alii Drive all the way through my property it has property pins and it has where the Judd Trail is. GRAHAM:Thankyouisthatallyouneeded? IWASHITA:No.Soit€syourunderstandingMr.Smiththatthepinswhereverthey€re located show the boundary. On one side of the pin is your property on the other side of the pin is theJuddTrailisthatyourunderstanding? EXHIBIT 18 SMITH:The Judd Trail is on my property on one side. I have 2 pieces there and my neighbor mauka of me put up a fence and I have a fence. So there€s actually there€s a fence on both sides and there€s a 10-foot area that€s the Judd Trail that neither one of us. But I believe that it€s on my property. Okay the pins are pinned. The surveyor pinned the pin and then on their property and then there€s a 10 foot it€s kind of hard to explain but cause there€s 2 pieces of property and one€s different from the other. So on the Royal Alii side it€s on one side and then as you go up my 6 acres on the back it€s on the other side but there€s pins. The property from Alii Drive on the first 5 acres there€s pins and also the 6 acres behind it there€s pins. And it shows that right of way or whatever it is, easement, and it€s all, if anybody was to walk that property you wouldn€t have any problem seeing the Judd Trail. GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Has the trail been delineated by what appears to be rock walls on a portion of this map that I€m looking at? SMITH:It€s a- it€s a wire fence. IWASHITA:The fence doesn€t show up on this map. Is the fence inside or outside the rock wall I€m looking at? SMITH:There€s no rock wall except on Alii Drive there€s a small rock wall and then the, and then from there there€s a wire fence to keep the pigs out cause there€s a nursery there. I have a nursery and my neighbor does and so and basically a pig fence so that it will keep the pigs out. But there€s property pins put in the property right adjacent to the Judd trail. And, and the County had 3 or 4 people there at different times and we walked it and I showed them, I showed them where exactly it was cause they didn€t know. It was people from the County over in Hilo. IWASHITA:You know I know this body cannot determine title kind of questions or (inaudible) locations and all of that. So, I€m not sure what we can do I guess in terms of conditions as far as the Judd trail. And I guess it sounds like Mr. Smith is saying that it appears to him that a portion of the trail is within the property that is subject to this SMA application is that right? LAU:Commissioner Iwashita perhaps a condition that would satisfy everyone€s concern would state that the applicant will be required to have a licensed survey preparing meets and bounds, description of the Judd trail and to the extent that the Judd trail is within the subject property that there shall be public access over that portion. YUEN:Thatworksforme. IWASHITA:IguessIwouldwantthatbecausepresumablytheJuddtrailisownedby the State, that the survey be acceptable to the State also. YUEN:I think that€s a good addition. EXHIBIT 19 GRAHAM:Do we have any further questions or comments from the Commissioners? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:I guess just in discussion I am somewhat uncomfortable with the archaeological report. It seems you know I would like to get more information before I would be willing to give a favorable vote on this. I don€t know whether, I mean I€m certainly not an expert in you know in deciding where the Judd trail I mean we€ve got but I feel we need better information. I don€t really know that a site visit would really do anything you know cause I€m not an expert at this. But I feel like we, like there€s some deficiencies in their archaeological report. That a little more information I think is needed some more you know to (inaudible) my concerns about what is really there. Because there€s no going back from you know from the SMA approval. It stops with this body. LAU:Commissioner McCall if I may respond to that. It€s our position that if there are remnants of the Judd trail within our property. That those remnants are within the preservation area that has been approved by the State. So I think the, the protection that, that at least that I see is that if the trail is there it€s within the preservation area, that there will be no development. And what we are willing to offer is a mapping of the Judd trail and also public access over that portion of the Judd trail that€s on the property. With respect to the cultural aspects that Commissioner Springer raised we would also be willing to live with a, or accept a condition whereby prior to development a cultural survey be conducted to supplement the reports that were already submitted to the State. GRAHAM:Mr. Lau, just procedurally at this point I only brought you folks back to answer specific questions. So if you would refrain even though your comments were very helpful there, refrain unless there€s a direct question. LAU:Okay. GRAHAM:Thank you. Do we have anything more from the Commissioners? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Maybe to respond. That is all and good but my concerns are for the overall. I mean I think that there needs to be a little more look at the overall area and whether you know whether-. I would at the very least would like to for myself be able to talk to the archaeologist or get some more feedback on whether this is really, whether everything is here. So just at this point I don€t feel I have enough information to give a positive vote. GRAHAM:Thank you. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I have similar concerns to Commissioner Springer and Commissioner McCallandyouknowI€lljustpointoutoneIguessIdon€tknowifitssmallorbigbutit€shere in the record in the comment of the writing by Charles Rhodes it looks like. Discussing the basicallythisisPalacegroundswe€retalkingabout.Andyouknowwehavenoother information about, about that the ethnographic type of evidence that Commissioner Springer EXHIBIT 20 talked about and I concur with Commissioner McCall€s concerns and I share them and if you have any. You know I guess what I would like to know from the applicant is whether or not you€re willing to you know have this additional ethnographic information provided really before we consider the approval of this SMA application? GRAHAM:Go ahead please Mr. Lau. LAU:Thank you. Yes we are willing to have the information prepared. Perhaps the best way to handle this would be to defer any decision that you make until the next Planning Commission hearing assuming that we can get on the calendar for the next hearing. And at that time I will have our archaeologist here and hopefully by that time he will be able to give us some information to address the concerns that Commissioner Springer had. GRAHAM:Thank you Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Great, thank you, thank you for that initiative on your part. And so I€d like to make some additional comments. GRAHAM:Please. SPRINGER:And Commissioner Graham with regard to your concerns that€s one of the reasons that I would have hoped for at least a general discussion of the trail beyond the bounds of this parcel being considered. I€m not necessarily in favor of exercising authoritative muscle and requiring public access for the point of flexing that muscle. I don€t know the disposition of the trail beyond the bounds of the subject property so I, I would hope that that would be included in the discussion so that we have that bigger picture of the trail. That would be very helpful for me at least in analyzing that portion of my concerns so thank you Mr. Lau and Mr. Chair as well. GRAHAM:Do we have anything further from the Commissioners? Mr. Lau my only thought on the discussion we€ve had is that there may be more that we€re kind of asking for than what you can just pull together for the next meeting. I certainly have the Judd trail concerns as well as well as the whole site base concerns here. Mr. Torigoe I don€t run into it. It seems likely, unlikely to me that we€re going to if we voted on the application now regardless of the conditions that we would have a clear decision one way or the other. Can you give us an idea of what our options might be? I don€t want to overrun Statute of Limitations or. TORIGOE:Okay looking at your Planning Commission rule 9, (inaudible) steps of permits. Boy this is a long rule. 9-11 E speaks of the time limits basically you€re supposed to make a decision within 30 calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing. At this point the hearing is not concluded sounds like you€re planning to continue or defer it. So the clock really wouldnotbetickingatthispoint. GRAHAM:SoCommissionerSpringer? SPRINGER:Finish,I€msorry. EXHIBIT 21 GRAHAM:So I was just going to say that if we€re agreed to defer the hearing I€m sure we could do that. I mean I believe we could do that if the Commission wanted. Then it would seem to me to be incumbent upon us as Commissioners to let you know, you know what we were expecting so that at least in the meantime you can work towards what we feel we need. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I don€t know if its in order or not I would move that in the further, that this hearing be continued on this application to the next date that staff can fit this in. GRAHAM:I would suggest maybe that we do it until the applicant feels ready to continue once we€ve let him know what we€re needing to have. IWASHITA:Oh either way I guess my sense was that Mr. Lau was wanting to keep the process moving and but if it€s the sense of the body that you know that I guess further information should be considered by (inaudible) and maybe checking with your archaeologist so forth to get a better sense of what kind of time frame you€re looking at for a continuance and that€s fine too. So but I just wanted to make it clear by the motion by the statements from the applicant that the applicant agrees to the continuation of this hearing and then we do it by motion. GRAHAM:Thank you so that is a motion? IWASHITA:Yes. GRAHAM:And do we have a second? MCCALL:Second. GRAHAM:Seconded by Commissioner McCall. Should we finish the motion and then discuss what we€d like to have brought forward? Okay any discussion on the motion? IWASHITA:I€d just like to make clear on the record Mr. Lau you agree with the continuation on this hearing and so we can have these further considerations addressed? LAU:Yes we agree to the continuation. IWASHITA:Thank you. GRAHAM:My sense is procedurally that we would vote on having the continuation and then before we close the hearing on this matter that we let Mr. Lau know what it is we€re hopingtoreceivebeforewetakeitupagain.Isthatagreeable?Isthatwhatyouallunderstand over here? Mr. Watanabe? WATANABE:Might you just make Mr. Lau aware of what you want him or what you wouldexpectduringthediscussionofthis,themotionthat€salreadythere?Andthenonceyou vote on that then we€re done with this. EXHIBIT 22 GRAHAM:It€s okay with me. WATANABE:I think that might be simpler. GRAHAM:Fine. Mr. Galdones is this all okay with you? GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Chair. I haven€t said much about this because reading the background report and the recommendations I was prepared to take action on this. But because my fellow Commissioners want, they have some certain concerns that they would like to take care of I€m willing to go along with the motion that is before us. But I think along with that motion we should also include what are we looking for. So we should that include that in the motion so that we all know what we are voting and what we are expecting out of the motion. GRAHAM:Fine. So let€s do it, is that fine we€ll do it that way? IWASHITA:I will defer to initially to Commissioner Springer to set forth what that is specifically. GRAHAM:Commissioner Springer would you please? SPRINGER:I look to Mr. Torigoe cause I suspect I may be walking a fine line between testifying and making a request of the applicant. But fundamentally I would like to see a discussion of this parcel within the context of the Kaumalumalu Ahupuaa and also its relationship to, if any, to the Keolanahihi and Keakealaniwahine complexes. And also any identified traditional and customary practices whether past or ongoing. And I believe that the State Historic Preservation Officer should be able to help with this given the close proximity to the historic park situated on Kamoa Point and also the Judd Trail not only as it appears on the subject parcel but what any potential public access upon that or over it would be connecting the users to. We know that it went from the ocean until it was terminated by the 1859 Mauna Loa flow. So maybe DLNR can help with ownership issues also that we asked about. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you Commissioner Springer. Commissioner McCall did you have anything else beyond that that you wanted included? MCCALL:That certainly more than covers what I€m hoping for. GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I just want to make sure that Mr. Lau and the applicant understands everything.IhavesomesenseofitbutisthatacceptabletoyouwhatCommissionerSpringer stated? LAU:I may have to call her for the spelling of those two complexes but otherwiseIgenerallyunderstandwhatshe€slookingforandwewillcomply. EXHIBIT 23 IWASHITA:And we are talking about the ethnographic, development of the ethnographic evidence correct? SPRINGER:Yes. IWASHITA:Okay. GRAHAM:I€d also like to put in with respect to the Judd trail. I know in many of our applications like in Mr. Eby€s earlier today where we asked him to donate 5 feet of frontage to the highway corridor and stuff like that. I say that in regard to, I don€t know that just passive treatment of the Judd trail is adequate in this circumstance. So I€d like whatever you feel you could offer in the direction that we€d like to see which is that the Judd trail be restored for use in some way and whatever you think might be appropriate for you folks to do. And I€d like the Planning Department to kind of weigh in on that also as to their recommendation of what they think is appropriate and are appropriate for as to ask of an applicant in a situation where this important historic trail abuts the property on one side. LAU:May I respond Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Yes you may. LAU:With respect to the Judd trail I hope that the, that your thoughts with respect to any active work on the trail would only be on the portion of the trail that we control. You know certainly we don€t have control over other€s property and we would be willing to work on the Judd trail as it relates to our. Oh excuse me, as it is located within our property. GRAHAM:Yes I certainly understand your consideration and it sounds quite sensible to me. I don€t walk into this with firm ideas in my mind. I just want to look at the whole picture the same way Commissioner Springer does and then listen to what the Planning Department and you have to say and hopefully come out to a reasonable conclusion. Yes Mr. Smith. SMITH:Oh I€d just like to say that one of my family members have married a Judd so I€ll try to get as much information as I can. GRAHAM:That would be appreciated. SMITH:Tough family. GRAHAM:Do we have any more comments from the Commissioners? So maybe we€re ready to take action on the motion? Norman if you would like to do a roll call on our motiontocontinuethepublichearing?Continuethisapplication. HAYASHI:Justforclarificationnospecificdatehasbeengiven? GRAHAM:That€scorrectisthatacceptabletotheapplicant? EXHIBIT 24 LAU:The question that I would have is how do we get back on the calendar? GRAHAM:Norman could you help us with that? HAYASHI:Well you know it all depends whether the Commission wants a report done or do they do it orally at a meeting? GRAHAM:I think our sense of the Commission is that when the applicant is prepared to respond to the concerns we€ve put forth then you would get them on the next possible agenda. And maybe you could let him know how much advance notice for each agenda you need to get him. HAYASHI:Okay as far as this, this is a continued hearing at least 6 calendar days prior to the meeting. GRAHAM:So if he wanted to have it on the meeting he€d have to be sure to let you know at least 6 calendar days ahead. HAYASHI:Well it€s going to be a little more than that because we have to put it into the paper and normally it€s about 5 days prior to the actual publication date. GRAHAM:So Mr. Lau is that acceptable to you or would you rather that we schedule it for some hearing? LAU:So Norman, excuse me Mr. Hayashi excuse me what you€re saying is 5 days prior to the 6 days? HAYASHI:Yes. LAU:So 11 days prior to the hearing? Why don€t we leave it that way. GRAHAM:Fine. LAU:So 11 days prior to a hearing we will ask the Planning Department to put us on the calendar. GRAHAM:Fine. So I think we€re ready for the roll call. HAYASHI:Okay with that. GRAHAM:Forthemotiontocontinue. HAYASHI:CommissionerIwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. EXHIBIT 25 HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:I€m sorry. I guess my stomach is calling. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Thank you. Motion to continue passes. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Lau and Mr. Smith for long hearing here. This discussion ended at 1:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Marushige, West Hawai€i Secretary EXHIBIT 26