Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-16 TKAWAIHAE LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 16, 2010 KAWAIHAE RESTAURANT, LLC A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (SMA 10-39) was called to order at 10:08 a.m. in the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, AliÒi III Room, 69-275 Waikoloa Drive, Waikoloa, HawaiÒi, with Chairman Frederic Housel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frederic Housel, Brandi Beaudet, Lani Bowman, Geraldine Giffin, Wayne Iokepa and Richard Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner). And approximately 30 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: KAWAIHAE RESTAURANT, LLC (SMA 10-39) Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the establishment of a restaurant and commercial/recreational facilities and uses and related activities. The property is located immediately north of the Kawaihae Canoe Club facilities, on the southwest (makai) side of Akoni-Pule Highway (Highway 270), Kawaihae, South Kohala, HawaiÒi, TMK: 6-1-3:15. HOUSEL: Could the Leeward Planning Commission please come back in to order here. We hope we have our sound problems resolved, and so we can proceed. The next application on the agenda today is Kawaihae Restaurant, SMA 10-39. This is a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the establishment of a restaurant and commercial/recreational activities and uses in Kawaihae. So, Maija, would you like to give us presentation? COTTLE: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The subject property is located in Kawaihae in the South Kohala District, just north of Kawaihae Harbor. ItÓs shown on the slide outlined in red. ItÓs located just west of the Akoni-Pule Highway, and currently zoned Industrial-Commercial Mixed. The areas in dark green surrounding the property are zoned Open, and most of the properties to the east and the south are zoned General Industrial Î those are shown in gray. The General Plan designation for the property is Industrial, which is shown in gray. There is a strip of Open designation along the shoreline, which is on the property makai of the subject property. This is an aerial photo of the site. The subject property is located in this general area here. Y have the sandy beach thatÓs the location of the Kawaihae Canoe C owns this land and a strip of land along the shoreline here, makai of the subject property. The applicant is proposing to develop a high-quality oceanfront open-air dining areas. They are also requesting to develop a two-story building containing commercial and recreational facilities, uses and activities. Other related improvements would 1 EXHIBIT A include parking, landscaping, rock walls, a package sewer treatment plant, and possibly a shallow well or desalination plant to provide water for landscaping. This is a site plan that shows the proposed restaurant in this location here and the proposed commercial/recreational building here. You also see parking as well as access off of Akoni-Pule Highway. The subject property is outlined in red. And you can see there is State property located makai of that, and then the shoreline is shown at the very bottom of the slide here. This is a conceptual rendering of the proposed restaurant and commercial building. The restaurant would be located in this area and then the two-story commercial building in the back here. You can see access off of the highway, which runs at the top of the slide. And these are elevations. This is the two-story commercial building. You can see the highway here. It drops down to a parking area, the two-story building, and then the State property makai of that, and the water. And this is the restaurant building here. Again, you have Akoni-Pule Highway, the parking area, and the State property between the subject property and the shoreline. The Planning Department is recommending approval of the SMA Permit with conditions. You also should have received some testimony from the Kawaihae Canoe Club and National Park Service, as well as the applicantÓs response to comments from the National Park Service. Are there any questions? HOUSEL: Thank you, Maija. I had a couple of questions. Could you go back a couple of slides to the layout? There. Where is actually the shoreline? COTTLE: The shoreline, the approximate shoreline is shown at the bottom of the slide here Î itÓs this line here. HOUSEL: So is that the high-water mark? COTTLE: This is the approximate shoreline; itÓs not a certified shoreline. Since this is not a shoreline property, a certified shoreline survey was not required. HOUSEL: I see, okay. And do you know what the approximate distance is in the land which borders this property along the shoreline? COTTLE: The shortest distance from this approximate shoreline to this boundary here is 65 feet, and itÓs a greater distance here and here. Let me see if I have -. HOUSEL: So itÓs outside of the setback then. COTTLE: ItÓs outside of the shoreline setback; the standard shoreline setback would be 40 feet. HOUSEL: Okay. Do you know the approximate square-footage of the restaurant and the commercial building? 2 EXHIBIT A COTTLE: Yes Î letÓs see here Î the restaurant would be approximately 5,590 for the upper level, and they are estimating 844 lower level storage area. HOUSEL: And the commercial building also? COTTLE: The commercial building would be approximately 5,000 square feet. HOUSEL: So roughly 10,000 square feet total. COTTLE: Yes. TheyÓre also proposing an approximately 600 square-foot even pavilion, and that is shown right about here. HOUSEL: Is that an enclosed building? COTTLE: The applicant didnÓt state whether it was open or enclosed, as far as I know, so you may want to ask them. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions? NELSON: Maija, can you go back to the recommendation by the Planning Director? On our paperwork itÓs showing SMA 09-32 and you have 10-39. COTTLE: ThatÓs incorrect. ItÓs actually supposed to be 10-39. NELSON: Okay, thank you. HOUSEL: Any other questions, comments? Okay. We do have four people signed up to testify. So IÓm going to go ahead and call the applicant up, if you would like to come up. Could you please raise your right hand, using the microphone, and provide your name and address? B. MOORE: My name is Bill Moore. My address is 159 HlaÒi Street, H-A-L-A-I, Hilo, HawaiÒi 96720. ACREE: And my name is Bob Acree. My address is 59-916 Kohala Ranch Road, Kamuela. HOUSEL: Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the County Planning Commission? ACREE: I do. B. MOORE: I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. Would you like to make comments on your app 3 EXHIBIT A B. MOORE: Yes, I would, just very briefly, just a couple of things. I would also like to introduce, although he hasnÓt been sworn in yet, Kevin Moore who is the HawaiÒi District Land Manager for the Department of Land and Natural Resources Land Management Division. And they are the landlords for this property. So we have the rights to a lease, and that lease is subject to the Special Management Area Use Permit. Just a real brief history and overview just as some background. This property was acquired by the State in 1959 as part of the harbor expansion, Kawaihae Harbor, and was never included in any of the harbor master plans. So it was actually acquired from Parker Ranch. It was their former cattle holding area, and was also used during World War II as a campsite for the solders stationed in this area. Because it was never part of the harbor plans, it stayed with the Land Management Division, and it has been part of their inventory. This area was zoned Industrial. And IÓm not sure the exact dates, but they set aside most of this property for recreational use including the portion of industrial lands, and those lands were then executive-ordered to the County and licensed to Kawaihae Canoe Club. So Kawaihae Canoe Club is effectively our neighbor, and weÓve been working with them from day one; even before we went out to public auction, we were talking with Kawaihae Canoe Club and just making sure that they were happy with our concepts before we expended any effort on this. Just as background, this area, their initial surveys, archaeological survey, was done in 2004 as part of an environmental assessment that was prepared by the State to prepare this property for auction. The initial zoning was Industrial. They did not want to have industrial uses here, so then in 2006, or 2005, they rezoned this property to Mixed Commercial-Industrial to allow a restaurant use, which was restaurant and other commercial uses, which was what their prime goal was. Just as background, the archaeological study was approved by Historic Preservation Division in 2004. There was a botanical survey done in 2004, which we updated at a request of Fish and Wildlife Service two moths ago. And again, there are n resources, and effectively no native plants on this property; itÓs overgrown with fountain grass, or buffelgrass, kiawe and ironwood. The auction was done in 2008, and again, we got, we obtained the rights to the lease. So we are still working under a right of entry, and are trying to finalize that. Just for your background, the hatched line is the 50-foot buffer to the flood zone; so there is a high velocity flood zone that is on the outside edge, makai edge of the cross-hatched area. And the County, a year or two ago, adopted a 50-foot buffer where itÓs effectively you have to comply with the rules of that flood zone. So we are not in any Federal FEMA designated flood zone, but we are in, a portion of the property is within the 50-foot buffer of that flood zone. So that gives you some perspective on the shoreline and the layouts. Again, the shoreline is conceptual but, you know, again, itÓs, whereas the survey and the topo is accurate, so -. And to give you some perspective, if you look at that building to the right of the corner, there is a little building there; if you are familiar with Kawaihae Canoe Club, thatÓs their green, covered canoe storage area, so just to give you some perspective of how this property is situated with respect to the beach. We are looking -. And just for your information, Kawaihae Restaurant -. Let me introduce Bob Acree. Bob is president of Kawaihae Restaurant, LLC and the principal owner of the company, 4 EXHIBIT A but also of Bruce Brothers, which is a restaurateur in Alaska, and he and his partner have a couple of restaurants there. So we are coming in with some background. BobÓs partner is an incredibly experienced restaurateur with a lot of experience in Restaurant is a holding name; thatÓs not going to be the name of the restaurant. So I just want to assure you we are not generic. But when we started this process, we had to have something. And so we are still looking for names and how we are going to call this. The building site we are talking about is 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. What we are doing as we go along at planning is we are reducing more and more of the covered area and looking at more and more open space. So our footprint will probably be in that area. We are really trying to minimize the amount of roof, and have this be as open as possible. People want to see the stars at night, and just that opening and with the ocean breezes it really is cool enough. The commercial building on the other side is something conceptual. We wanted to have full disclosure; we are not sure if weÓre going to do it. We are thinking about some possibilities there. There has been interest in art gallery. We donÓt know of any specific use, but for full disclosure we wanted to just let people know what we are thinking about in terms of the project. In terms of the restaurant concept, you know, one of the things, and we were not sure if we can do it, but the concept is -. This area is overgrown with kiawe, you couldnÓt see anything in there, and what we want the feel of the restaurant is somebody hacked through the kiawe and found this really cool, old building that has now been turned into a restaurant; so thatÓs the feel that we want to create Î something that feels like itÓs been there forever. And we are not sure if weÓre going to accomplish it, but thatÓs our starting goal in planning. We want to do fresh seafood, as we describe it, local seafood for the tourists and Alaskan seafood for the locals. Trying to make it really comfortable for the Canoe Club and for the fishermen that are in the Kawaihae area to be part of this, so we know we need to keep prices down to attract that crowd. And at the same time we want to have really some high-quality specials and the like. So we are really trying to make this a high-quality but comfortable, local-tourist mix. And aga and the fishermen are comfortable coming in here and, you know, really what we are trying to do here. Just a couple of things in terms of our requirements with the State. Our State lease, if we sign it, requires us to spend $3,000,000, and we donÓt foresee a problem, amount. So it is something that we are anxious to move ahead on and, you know -. Really in a sense itÓs a good time in this economy; in a sense itÓs a scary time because we are not sure where the market is. Our projections are in the range of about 75 employees both full and part time. So we really see this as an opportunity to intercept some of the employees within the homestead community; weÓve been meeting with them as well as North Kohala and the like, so Î creating an opportunity where we can actually intercept people having to drive further south for work. That really is the overview. I know that thereÓs some issues that have come up regarding access and IÓd like to reserve commenting on that until weÓve heard those comments because some of that, we have, I have not seen some of the comments coming in ye With that, we have reviewed the recommendation, the background a conditions of approval, and have no objections to any of them at this point. 5 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Thank you. One of the things that -. Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Do you? Okay, Commissioner Bowman, when you are ready. BOWMAN: I apologize because I havenÓt reviewed the harbor master plan in a long time. And I assume that you have. My question is, when you looked commercial endeavors, how did this relate to other commercial endeavors that are planned for the area? B. MOORE: In discussing -. One of the things that we have the benefit of is that there was a change of zone that was granted by the, or recommended for approval, by the Commission Î not you guys but the old Commission Î and approved by the County, and as part of that there were findings and the findings are, and we believe it, that this is part of the commercial core of Kawaihae area, which really extends from Blue Dragon or so Î was where you really start that Î up through this property. So we are within that commercial core. We are not on the Kawaihae Road where most of them are, where you do have some traffic congestion issues with the trucks going into the harbor, which I know the harbor is trying to resolve that as part of their master plan. So the harbor master plan really ends at the small boat harbor; there is no harbor plans beyond that. In terms of the County plans, this is part of the commercial core. The Community Develop Plan, as I understand it, talked about this is part of the Kawaihae commercial core. But what we see this is as building up some additional activity, you know, thereÓs a number of restaurants down there, and itÓs kind of turning into a restaurant row, and then weÓre going to be a component of that. And we think that there will be some competition, thatÓs good, but also opportunity; people have different ones and they can go around and look and decide whether they want music and go to Blue Dragon or Mexican and go to Tres Hombres or come for something a little different and find our restaurant. So you know, we do see fitting into that and being part of that commercial core. BOWMAN: I just have one comment. I realize the area is developed, but as far as no adverse effect on natural resources, I personally, any near shore development, and with parking lots and the runoff, always concerns me for water quality, and I just need to say that. B. MOORE: Just let me comment briefly. The requirements are getting stricter and stricter. The parking areas are mauka of the buildings. One of the reasons that we talked about the landscaping, IÓm sorry, the desalinization, is Î we are not sure about the concept Î but one of that is we are either going to have a fairly green area in which case we need the desalinization for excess water because there are some limits with the County; if not, we are looking at some kind of sand area. And so the parking areas will be mauka of all of between the parking areas and the ocean. And again, the requirements are you cannot generate any more water than whatÓs already there, so we have to intercept that and take care of the runoff from our impervious surfaces, roofs and parking areas. So I share your concerns, I mean, you know, at the same time we are trying to be sensitive in how we lay out this, and the good news is a logical layout is also, I think, the environmentally right layout. BOWMAN: Thank you. 6 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Any other Commissioners? I had one question. This application was originally, and the Environmental Assessment, produced in 2004. B. MOORE: Yes. HOUSEL: And at that time, the Department of Transportation suggested that, because Akoni- Pule is a fairly heavily traveled highway, that a traffic impact analysis report may need to be done. Have you done that traffic impact analysis report? B. MOORE: Yes, we have. The traffic is really a -. We have a condition on the zoning. WeÓre anticipating that -. The property has a condition on the zoning that all access improvements need to meet, comply with the Department of Transportation. One of our real concerns in the feasibility of this project is whether intersection improvements are going to be required. So weÓve been working with them for almost a year and a half on those improvements. We have completed a traffic impact analysis report, we have submitted it discussions with them. As of this morning we actually have a preliminary response from them saying that no improvements are required. But our traffic impact analysis found that at build-out of the improvements we are going to operate, the intersection on Akoni-Pule Highway will operate at Level of Service A. And this is an A to F, so from a school teacherÓs standpoint, itÓs a good thing. So you know, we are confident that there will not be traffic impacts. A couple of reasons, just for, just as background: One is that we are not operating in the morning; we are not planning to serve breakfast. We donÓt compete with the morning A.M. peak traffic. The P.M. peak traffic is an early traffic in this area; itÓs really 3:15 to 4:15 or so. And the dinner-after- work crowd restaurant actions are after that. So the activities of the restaurant donÓt compete with the peak hour traffic activities in this area. Traffic is fairly low. Speed limits are low. And just for the information, when we did our traffic analysis, we used a 200-seat restaurant and 5,000 square feet of commercial area, and right now we are looking at a 175-seat restaurant based on our water. And we are possibly looking at actually smaller than that. So we are downsizing. Our traffic analysis was based on much more, less conservative amount of, again, higher amount of traffic than we believe we are going to generate. HOUSEL: When was the TIAR done? B. MOORE: It was done, we submitted in February of this year to the Department of Transportation. HOUSEL: Have you provided a copy to the Planning Department? B. MOORE: No, we have not. We can do that. But you know, again, we have the preliminary results from our traffic engineer at the time saying that there would not be any impact, so thatÓs what we disclosed in our background report. HOUSEL: Okay, because I did not see any copy of that in the background information. Commissioners, any further questions of the applicant? 7 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Bill. In the backgr some of the historic findings starting on Page 27, I realize that, you know, these were not significant, huge findings. But as a native Hawaiian, I am sensitive to these sites and I wondered if there was going to be any special consideration for these findings. B. MOORE: Let me -. The archaeological sites were really limited to walls, which are cattle related. Most of them, one of our archaeological sites is a chassis of a truck that was left there by the military. So, no, I donÓt anticipate weÓre going to have -. sites are tent pegs, angle iron tent pegs that were left by the military, and they actually constructed a small retaining wall front in the tent area. And thereÓs another small enclosure, which the archaeologist felt was more related to the military being there than anything else. So, no, we are not planning -. There were no sites related to Hawaiian occupation that we were aware of; they were all related to post contact. And so we are not planning any special treatment of these sites. GIFFIN: So even Feature A, the wall? B. MOORE: Again, if you, the wall was discussed in there as part of the tent; it was actually built right along the line of tent stakes. So the archaeologist felt that was more related to the armyÓs occupation there in building some kind of a barrier boundary with respect to the camping site. GIFFIN: I appreciate your explanation. And just on the record I wanted to congratulate you for including Kep MalyÓs report, which I find very, very interesting in terms of the history of the village. BOWMAN: I have one more comment. I think thereÓre people who are a little older than I am but, you know, there is recent historical significance of the area, the cattle ranching, and I would love to see you somehow document some of that. I think it would be good for the local and the tourists, yeah, the value of that in that area because that, you know, for us that grew up here that was kind of a special area, if any of you remember the cattle go B. MOORE: IÓm glad you brought -. We actually have, IÓd like to introduce Mark de Reus. HeÓs our architect and he drew that pretty picture of the rendering. WeÓve been talking to him about that concept about trying to incorporate some of the history, the cattle activities Î you know, the military, you know, itÓs still part of the history there. But itÓs part of what we were looking at, BobÓs partner and then Bob have been, you know, so we have been talking about this. And thereÓre ways to incorporate it Î use some of the theme, use some of the story, as part of the restaurant. So, no, so we are, absolutely thatÓs something that we are looking at. GIFFIN: The richness of the area. B. MOORE: Yes, yes. BOWMAN: Thank you. 8 EXHIBIT A LEITHEAD TODD: I wanted to mention my mom and dad lived in Kawaihae around 1935 because he was the teacher at the village school located in Kawaihae. So if you are interested, I believe we have photos of some of the cattle operations that were conducted in that area in our family album, and I am more than willing to have you take a look at them and see if Î unfortunately, brownie ate, so you know, I donÓt know about the quality Î but if theyÓre any interest to you that you might want to incorporate later, IÓm more than willing to make those available. B. MOORE: That would be great. Also, IÓd like to point out that, you know, we have, Monty Richards is here and weÓve been, you know, we have resources that we can reach into as we pursue this. But it is a story that is wonderful, and we are looking for ways to tell it as part of the restaurant and activities on the site. HOUSEL: Do we have any other questions of the applicants? Okay. Thank you very much. B. MOORE: So again, (inaudible). HOUSEL: Please use the microphone. B. MOORE: If, I know that there are some other discussions; IÓd like to reserve the right to come up to respond to other questions that do come up. HOUSEL: Sure, we can do that. B. MOORE: Thank you very much. HOUSEL: Next, IÓm going to invite the people signed up to testify, and so we may well call you back to help us understand things. Could the following people pup to the front table: I believe itÓs Manny Veincent, Aric Arakaki, Barbara Schaefer and David Kahanu. Maija, is there just one microphone at that table? COTTLE: Yes. HOUSEL: Okay, so weÓre going to have to share the microphone. Could you please raise your right hand, and one by one, using the microphone, please state your name and address? KAHANU: My name is David Kahanu. IÓm at P. O. Box 44394, Kawaihae. And IÓm representing Kailapa Community Association. HOUSEL: IÓm sorry, I missed something. Could you please raise your right hand again? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission? KAHANU: I do. 9 EXHIBIT A VEINCENT: Manny Veincent, 64-225 White Road, Kamuela. IÓm the president of the Kawaihae Canoe Club. HOUSEL: Thank you. Did I swear everybody in? I guess weÓll do this one by one. Okay, IÓll tell you what. Everybody, raise the right hand. WeÓll do this all one time. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? Thank you. SCHAEFER: My name is Barbara Schaefer. My address, Post Office Box 6110, Kamuela, HawaiÒi. IÓm a board member of E Mau Na Ala Hele and a member of the Kawaihae Canoe Club. Today I represent myself and E Mau Na Ala Hele. ARAKAKI: My name is Aric Arakaki. IÓm the superintendent for t Historic Trail, National Park Service. My address is 73-4786 Kanalani Street, No. 14, Kailua- Kona. HOUSEL: Thank you. Please let the record show that all the testifiers were sworn in, just point on record. I guess weÓll start -. Mr. Arakaki, would you like to start first? ARAKAKI: Mahalo. Good morning, Members of the Commission and Director Leithead Todd. Mahalo for giving us this opportunity to present to you today. IÓm going to give you some background information, and then IÓm getting to the salient matt In 2000, the Congress and the President, recognizing the significance of the history of HawaiÒi Island, the culture and practices of the native Hawaiians, and physical manifestations of the ancient culture in terms of what still appears on the cultural landscape and the connections that still exists amongst families with ancient and historic ties to this landscape, designated a 175- mile corridor along the entire western shoreline of HawaiÒi Island and into Volcanoes National Park as a National Historic Trail. As such, the people of the United States deem this corridor and the connections that present day native Hawaiians and others have to the shoreline and trails to be a national treasure for all to experience, appreciate and learn from. In March of 2009, after years of planning with communities within the corridor and throughout the island, the Ala Kahakai Comprehensive Management Plan was ad policy prescribes the management to be conducted by ahupuaÒa com Hawaiian descendants and others with deep historic ties to the land and calls for the creation of partnerships in the public and private sectors to support and implement community-based management plans for each segment of the trail. The plan also has an ÐahupuaÒa community-based, economic developmentÑ component that will generate the revenues necessary to fund livelihoods and resources to effectively manage trail segments and related cultural and natural resources. A major purpose of this is to allow for the reallocation of now scarce State and County funds and resources from parks and trails to other service delivery systems such as health, education and welfare. 10 EXHIBIT A We also pledge to seek federal and private funds that the NPS is eligible to apply for to assist with both State and County programs that meet our joint mission In February of this year a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the State of HawaiÒi Î Lieutenant Governor Aiona and a director person, Theilan, of DLNR were present Î HawaiÒi County Î MayorÓs representative Wally Lau was there Î as well as the Deputy Regional Director for the Park Service. We all gathered at the Spencer Park less than a month ago, and signed the Memorandum of Understanding to implement our Comprehensive Management Plan. So thatÓs some background. Regarding this current application, as it is our mission to preserve and protect ancient and historic alignments and to administer the management of a continuous public access system of routes within the Ala Kahakai corridor Î following the footsteps of the ancestors Î we are an affected party to any proposed development within the trail corridor. Our objective here is to assure the preservation of the shoreline routes that will connect communities, north and south, via a safe and well managed footpaths to cultural sites, recreational, educational and commercial activities in the town and surrounding areas of Kawaihae thus promoting and encouraging, particularly to the youth and elderly, healthy lifestyles, connections to the past, and less reliance on fossil fuels. We also know that the shoreline is frequented often and that without a doubt shoreline trails existed in ancient and historic times. In 2002, I walked this segment of the shoreline, and revisited the site yesterday accompanied by our staff archaeologist who is in the audience with us today, Rick Gmirkin, and a member of the Hawaiian Homelands community north of the area. And I just want, this is not written in my testimony, but we were not consulted with on any of the applications regarding this development. The lateral shoreline trail we walked on is within the subject property boundary stakes, and it is obvious that any trail alignment makai or seaside of these stakes would place anyone laterally accessing the shoreline in harms way. The area, that the applicant has indicated is adequate for access, is boulder strewn, particularly in the north part of the property, severely uneven, slippery, and subject to waves during high tide. We also noted that the shoreline is experiencing erosion and severe erosion along the northern section of the propertyÓs shoreline. As such, it is recommended that a permit condition be made that will require the lessee to provide for safe and appropriate lateral access within the property boundaries as appropriate, and that this setback will accommodate future shoreline erosion. Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail and our partners in the community offer our assistance to the applicant to meet this recommended permit condition. It is our hope that all of our needs both the applicant, the State, County and the public are met. Mahalo. HOUSEL: Any questions from Commissioners? 11 EXHIBIT A BOWMAN: I have a question. And maybe, Maija, if we could, could we put the slide on that shows the site, so I have a visual -? IÓm a very visual person. Okay. So basically, you walk from the Kawaihae Canoe Club beach -. ARAKAKI: ThatÓs correct. BOWMAN: Up, and -. Thank you. Just so I get a visual -. ARAKAKI: Okay, so we entered through here and walked along -. There is a path that goes through here, which I actually walked on as well in 2002. So we walked kind of like inside this area and came this way right along the edge here. BOWMAN: Okay, and thatÓs where the boulders are. ARAKAKI: And the boulders are all down here. BOWMAN: Okay, because I, werenÓt a bunch of boulders pushed down that way a while ago to prevent people from going down? I guess itÓs more mauka. ARAKAKI: IÓm not sure about that. BOWMAN: All right, thank you for the visual. ARAKAKI: YouÓre welcome. HOUSEL: I want to clarify. Is there evidence of the trail through this property? ARAKAKI: There is a footpath that goes through the property. And obviously, you know, this area was highly populated in both, more in ancient times than historic times. So obviously, there had to have been a shoreline trail. The ones that appear on the maps basically follow the alignment of Akoni-Pule. And of course, what we are looking at, though, is a system of trails that goes throughout the property. We also found one trail that went up mauka where the driveway comes down, and it appears to continue going up mauka. And again, we would need to do more research, being that we came on very late into this proc HOUSEL: Looking at the proposed development, does any of the buildings cover the trail that you see? ARAKAKI: Well, I canÓt, itÓs hard to tell, hard to tell, because itÓs all about scales and, you know -. HOUSEL: Okay. Just so IÓm clear, looking at this photo, it looks like the north end is very rocky -. ARAKAKI: Correct. 12 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: A lot of boulders. That doesnÓt really look very passable, does it? Is it -. ARAKAKI: Unless you stay, like, within the kiawe trees mauka along the shoreline Î thatÓs a basically passable area. But when you get to the northern section, it gets pretty sketchy right there. HOUSEL: So, is your recommendation to maintain the trail on the mauka portion? ARAKAKI: Yes. And our recommendation is to basically work with Kawaihae LLC to see how we can create safe access, you know, as appropriate, whether itÓs within the property area or in the State owned lands on makai. HOUSEL: So you would be willing to work with them to -? ARAKAKI: Absolutely. HOUSEL: Okay, that would be great, that would be great. Thank you. BOWMAN: I have one more question. I Î and maybe other testifiers Î I donÓt know how much that is actually traversed now by people because itÓs easier to go on the road. But do you feel, I mean, do you feel that this will help re-establish the Ala Kahakai, you know, if itÓs done in an appropriate way to continue? ARAKAKI: Oh, yes. This is a very, you know, every segment of the trail is very important. And to have to relegate our kupuna and our keikis onto the roadway would not be, or onto a boulder-strewn beach would not be appropriate. BOWMAN: Thank you. ARAKAKI: Thank you. NELSON: Aric, I have a question. HOUSEL: Commissioner Nelson. NELSON: Within the boundary of the work project, what IÓm hearing youÓre saying, Aric, is that you would work with LLC to provide continuity from north to south. ARAKAKI: Absolutely, yes, correct, correct. NELSON: Thank you. HOUSEL: Commissioner Bowman, excuse me, Brandi. BEAUDET: Mr. Arakaki, are you aware of any conditions that have been imposed on the Hawaiian Homes residential lots relative to continued access along the shoreline? 13 EXHIBIT A ARAKAKI: IÓm not aware of any conditions. IÓm aware, however, that the Kailapa community has been working with the department to create a shoreline passive kind of park, and we have been working with the community to look at, you know, archaeological sites and trails, and see how we can preserve those and perhaps restore them and incorporate that segment of the shoreline into the trail system. BEAUDET: So itÓs not just this small section that we are concerned about; we are looking at more of the developed landscape as we go, as we continue north. ARAKAKI: Absolutely. We are looking at connectivity, you know, north to south. BEAUDET: Thank you. ARAKAKI: Thank you. HOUSEL: Okay. Could we have our second testifier? Is it Ms. Schafer? SCHAFER: Yes. Aloha. COMMISSIONERS: Aloha. SCHAFER: As I mentioned, IÓm a board member of E Mau Na Ala Hele. This is a group thatÓs dedicated to preserving and perpetuating the ancient and historic trails of HawaiÒi. I speak today for that group and also for myself as a concerned citizen. My concern is with the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail, which crosses, or runs, near that area in question. Congress officially recognized the Ala Kahakai as a National Historic Trail in 2000. People traveling along the coast both in olden and historic times used the trail. I believe the trail should be better identified and preserved in place with public access assured for the trail. HOUSEL: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Our next testifier is, letÓs see -. VEINCENT: Aloha n. COMMISSIONERS: Aloha. HOUSEL: Go ahead. VEINCENT: Kawaihae Canoe Club fully supports the establishment of the Kawaihae Restaurant in this adjacent area. We have been there for 38 years. I personally have been in the area for 40. And I have been an old kupuna for years and years and Î they are all gone now, IÓm the last Î hopefully, somebody else come back of me, who can learn and be educated in the way I have as far as the land. The area, in Kawaihae area, we need more establishments to keep our people there. Our club has 300 members, approximately 300, halfwhich are very young people Î teenage and the age group up to the 20Ós and 30Ós. And an establishment like this is going to enhance and keep these people in the area. ItÓs something that we need. I see no 14 EXHIBIT A problem as far as infringing on the club Î none whatsoever. And we welcome the development of our adjacent properties to the north. Mahalo. HOUSEL: Thank you, Mr. Veincent. Our next testifier -. Do we have any questions of Mr. Veincent? Our next testifier is David Kahanu. KAHANU: Good morning, and I thank you very much for being here for this meeting. IÓm David Kahanu. IÓm the treasurer for the Kailapa Community Association. I want to thank Bill Moore for responding, and Ms. Todd, for responding to our letter questioning the project by our president, Diane KnealiÒi. We want to state that we are not against this project but we do have questions. I have several, which have been discussed: One was the trail. We donÓt have any maps showing it, but IÓve heard of a trail. Now, I walked with Aric yesterday and we did see a trail. So my question is, although the studies show thereÓs no trail, we still question that. Secondly, public access from the road. Presently we do use that access that was mentioned earlier to go along the beachfront. Our big question is, what is the direct benefit to residents of the Kawaihae area. Presently thereÓre five restaurants in the community. In speaking to people there, who are the workers, it seems that all of them are below capacity as far as business today. And I do frequent most of them. IÓm not an early-on resident, but IÓve been up there ten years now and IÓve seen a decline in activity at restaurants. So bringing in another restaurant, we are okay with that, but whatÓs our benefit to the community? HOUSEL: Thank you, sir. Any questions of Mr. Kahanu? Okay. I want to thank you all. We have one more person Î thank you very much, and you may be seated Î we have one more person signed up to testify. IÓd like to call Roger Harris. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth in this matter now before the Planning Commission? HARRIS: I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. Could you state your name and address, please? HARRIS: My name is Roger Harris. My address is 66-1452 Ko Uka HOUSEL: Thank you very much. HARRIS: And IÓm just speaking as an individual. HOUSEL: Would you like to go ahead and make your comment? HARRIS: Yes. IÓm a member of Kawaihae Canoe Club, pretty much a recreational paddler but frequent, and long followed the history of this commercial site that the State of HawaiÒi decided to lease out for restaurant. IÓd just like to say that itÓs a long planned use and would be compatible with the long-range operation of Kawaihae, and should be compatible with 15 EXHIBIT A restaurant. And I believe the lateral access could be worked out adequately. And the benefit I would see is jobs and fulfilling the plan. And you have to take a long-term view. Thank you very much. HOUSEL: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Harris? Mr. Harris, I have a question. You are a member of the Canoe Club? HARRIS: Yes, sir. HOUSEL: Okay. Now, looking at this picture, this photo, on the right hand side, is that the canoe storage on the beach there? HARRIS: What you are looking at is the beach, and behind that beach there is kind of a berm, and then the canoes. And the tents are beyond that where the pavement comes down to the boat ramp, which is in the harbor there. HOUSEL: Okay, itÓs in the trees then, the storage area? HARRIS: Right. HOUSEL: Is there ready access to that beach right now? HARRIS: Yeah, itÓs very popular. People come down by the boat ramp, and park all the way from there back to the other restaurants and the harbor parking around the small harbor. And people frequently walk along the beach. ItÓs pretty overgrown, so you donÓt see too many people coming up and down the coast Î I donÓt. But someday that will b HOUSEL: Okay, thatÓs good. Is there, through the canoe area, is that fenced off, or is that open? HARRIS: No, itÓs very open. ThereÓs, thank goodness, the kind spirit of the people of this area, itÓs very rare that anybody does any vandalism or steals anything at the Canoe Club. ItÓs a wonderful blessing; it would be really a drag, if it ever turned into vandalism. HOUSEL: Okay. My question is related to the trails that, weÓre talking about open trails, and so there is free movement through there, if indeed there is a trail through the property. HARRIS: Yes, itÓs just very, pretty overgrown at this point. HOUSEL: I see, okay. Thank you very much. HARRIS: Thank you. HOUSEL: Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Harris. We have one more testifier signed up. And I think itÓs Î IÓm sorry IÓll probably mispronounce it Î Jing Tanimoto, 16 EXHIBIT A please come up. Jojo, IÓm sorry. Could you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter now before the Planning Commission? TANIMOTO: I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. Could you state your name and address? TANIMOTO: My legal name is Josephine Tanimoto. P. O. Box 44337, Kawaihae. I go by Jojo. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you, Jojo. Would you like to make your com TANIMOTO: Yes, please. Actually, I like the idea of having the restaurant. And I can see that Kawaihae is now growing, so itÓs kind of exciting. But I really need to help these people that want to get into Kawaihae by improving the infrastructure. One of the things that is very dear to Hawaiian people is the trail. So that would be one. And I bring that up because IÓm happy to see that your motion says with conditions. So we are, IÓm looking forward to maybe your body helping direct and help regulate what needs to get done, so that they can move in here. The thing about looking at a picture like this is that the road, the highway, Akoni-Pule Highway, looks straight; itÓs very deceiving because if you had a van, it would give you a different perspective of what this place looks like, and that is itÓs on a bend of the road, so there is a sight-distance problem on both ends. The other thing about that is enough parking. IÓm happy to say that Kawaihae is so populated at the restaurants we donÓt have enough parking, and that is primary. So I did get to talk with the gentlemen that have my testimony and IÓm happy with what they are doing, excepting parking. Like Mr. Veincent behind me says, they have 300 or so membership. ThereÓs parking problems as is. And with the parking problems, then youÓre going to have the traffic problems, then youÓre going to have the bicycles and the motorcycles and all that along. So with your motion with conditions, IÓm hoping that you will help the community by including these concerns as well. Thank you very much. HOUSEL: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Moore and Mr. Acree, would you like to return? YouÓre still sown in. B. MOORE: Yes. A couple of things. LetÓs go on reverse order, if I can, and end up with the trails. With respect to parking, we understand that as a, is an issue. And if we are not successful in parking, we are not going to be a successful restaurant. Right now, our parking plan is about two and a half times what the minimum County requirements are. We know that there is no parking on Akoni-Pule Highway and, you know, there is no place to park there, so we need to accommodate it on site. And we have ways weÓre looking at Î again, thatÓs part of the reasons we are downsizing Î we have options to do valet parking, if we get busy, and then you can really accommodate a lot of parking that way. So itÓs something that w have to take care of. With respect to sight distance, as I said, weÓve been working with DOT for over a year and a half on this. The very first thing we did before we bid on the property, or actually during our due diligence period, we had a sight distance analysis done. And weÓre, the northern 40 percent of 17 EXHIBIT A the property has adequate sight distance Î that means all of the Department of TransportationÓs requirements Î which is where our driveway is located, which is also the best location; you are closest to the road elevation, you have less fill as opposed to the south. So there are sight distance problem over a portion of the property. But again, if be sitting here today. We tried to do some of our due diligence. With respect to Î I donÓt want to call it a trail Î there is a pathway across the property. When we first were working on this property, the State provided us with a topographic map of the property, and we figured we can work from that. The topographic map didnÓt make a lot of sense. We actually talked to the surveyor that did it, and he said the tree mass of the southern half of the property was so thick that he estimated where the ground was. Hard to plan a property that way. What we did is we went to see if we could clear the property, do some limited clearing. And what we ended up doing was hand-clearing the property. There is a guardrail along the entire frontage of the property, so we couldnÓt get into the property from Akoni-Pule Highway. Manny very graciously allowed us to access the property from the Canoe Club site. So for two weeks we had a contractor come in. He backed up his trailer right below that wooden structure, and what he did is, we were hand-clearing dead branches and small suckers basically, we didnÓt take out any live trees Î down trees we cut through. There was physically really no way to get across the property. We ended up -. IÓd laid out the initial pathway with a can of spray paint, and it was cut by one of our contractors. This other contractor came in, and one of the reasons that pathway looks so good, they were bringing out a whole bunch of material, and they tried with a wheelbarrow and it didnÓt work because of a flat tire, so they ended up piling cut branches onto a tarp and dragging the tarp along this pathway, which really spread things ou and opened it up. So that ÐtrailÑ was created as part of the hand-clearing of the property. And thereÓs a loop that goes through there because we had, everything that we cut we had to bring out to the area fronting the Canoe Club. So you know, it is a nice path; a lot of it was built a really neat trail creation technique Î drag a tarp along the ground. So I just want to lay that in terms of the trail, that is something that I laid out by spray paint, that somebody came in and cut, and then our contractors came in really worked over that for, they had, you know, between two and six employees working for two solid weeks going through there and hauling material out. At the same time we are very cognizant of the need for lateral access. WeÓve been working with Manny. One of my philosophies of planning is, never plan somebo same time when we were working with this Î and Kevin can, Kevin Moore can verify Î our whole understanding was that the recreational access use is, again, if there are historic sites, weÓve got to deal with them; if there are not, the trail, the area makai of us was where that was intended. In talking with Manny, that is where traditionally access was, that there was, you know, this has been overgrown now and the last few years, and what looks like a really neat trail, or pathway, was no different than areas in front that look really overgrown and hard to get through. And with a chainsaw and some work and moving some rocks, you know, that access way can be relocated. And in that regard, you know, and we are open, as I indicated in my letter to the National Park Service, we are open to a solution. Real frankly, if that pathway is the trail that we have to accommodate, our project is not feasible. We, as I indicated, we have to provide parking, we have some constrains on the property, there are some drainage ways we have to accommodate, 18 EXHIBIT A we are already downsizing. But our project becomes really unfeasible, if that trail needs to be where it is on the ground, the path needs to be where it is on the ground today. What we are open to do is to, we believe, and we were out on the site yesterday, that -. And by the way, the first half of this trail is actually on the Canoe Club property. ItÓs not on the property until you get, if you see that white spot, thatÓs actually some sand that was thrown out, so behind that is the point of the property, until about that point you are on the Canoe Club property; you are not on this, our subject property. We believe that by clearing vegetation and moving some loose rocks, no improvements, no nothing, that we can accommodate that trail about 80 percent of the way, maybe 90 percent of the way, within the Canoe Club property. And at the same time we do acknowledge on the northern part, right as you come up to the Î and itÓs Homeland SecurityÓs property, so again, I never want to presume that, you know, that they want access over their property, itÓs actually the Coast Guard Î but as it leaves our property, there is one area where we acknowledge it as very difficult to get access up to the adjacenand we are willing to work, you know, with the appropriate people within our property to provide a pathway through that area. So basically, what we are looking at is language, and I have some draft language, which I can, IÓm willing to share, is that, you know, to the extent that improvements can be a route Î I donÓt want to call it a trail but a route Î a reasonable, safe walking route can be created on the State property through the movement of loose rocks, either removal or placement of loose rocks, and the removal of vegetation, then the trail should be there; to the extent that you donÓt have a safe route within the lands, then the route should be on our property and we would be willing to accommodate those improvements necessary for that. And so we are willing to have a condition to that ex-, in fact working with the Planning Director, with Department of Land and Natural Resources, and to me really critically, working with the Kawaihae Canoe Club; it is their property and I donÓt want to do anything that would, you know, again, so without MannyÓs permission Î and we talked briefly about this Î is not something I would even be proposing. BOWMAN: I have a question Î visual person again. You talk about the trail being in the Kawaihae Canoe ClubÓs property. Are you talking then from the parking lot, maybe we can have a little, from the parking lot across the beach and then into the kiawe. Maybe you can show me, or show us, please. B. MOORE: Again, I donÓt want to call it a trail; itÓs a route or a path -. BOWMAN: Okay, a route. Thank you. B. MOORE: So you know, again, what happens -. Actually, it may be easier if you go to the site plan where you donÓt have the trees. I can describe it a little bit. BOWMAN: Thank you. B. MOORE: So again, you see this building here. For those if you are familiar, the sandbar is out here in front of this building, and thereÓs some canoes on it and canoes stored behind. So there is a, when during non-high surf, there is a walkway, a way to traverse in front of that berm. During high surf -. Again, I donÓt want to speak for Manny; in fact, let me, you may want him up here. Because you can walk, usually that berm is pretty protected. But you enter the property basically about in here and, well, actually you enter the property about here right now on that 19 EXHIBIT A path that was cut. So the majority of that walkway was where we were hauling material back. We had our trucks parked right here when we were clearing the property. This property line is right along the tree line. So we think that we can, you know, again, with some work, and again, not major work Î we are talking about clearing vegetation. It looks horrible. ThereÓs down kiawe trees and some loose rocks on the ground, and that is what the area that we cleared looked like. So by cutting those trees, removing it, moving some of the loose rocks, we feel that we can accommodate a reasonable, safe walking hiking trail through the area. The area that there is a problem with is right in here. And again, there is an about four-, five-foot erosion wall. And we can, again, weÓre willing at that point -. And thereÓs, in this area thereÓs another maybe 150 feet of area where you are right on the boundary. And to the extent that the improvements need to be within our property, we are willing to accommodate it there. The rest of it, we feel strongly, we are willing to take the risk that it can be accommodated in the front piece. Along here, you know, if, right now the trail comes up, and really you would be, the trail guys would be shaking hands with our diners the way this is laid out. If that is the only reasonable way to accommodate it, weÓre willing, what we are looking at doing is actually, you know, thinking about we need to get an engineer on board, do some work right in here to lower some of the rock, build it up a real small retaining wall, again, within our property, that you could accommodate that pathway that gets you up to this corner, and that then gets you into the, again, the Coast Guard site. And we donÓt presume that that is an appropriate trail. I mean that the Coast Guard would have to work with that, and again -. But we feel that, and we are willing to take the risk and work with the Planning Director and DLNR. Again, our landlord has to agree to it in finding an accommodation. And I think we have some language that we are willing to go with. IÓm sorry. And I already mentioned Manny. BOWMAN: I just have a question. I know that youÓve worked on the drawings, and you mentioned that you have a lot more parking stalls than required. Would an alternative be to move the restaurant towards the road and not have those parking stalls? Just an idea. B. MOORE: Yes, itÓs in our option, but it probably is not very viable. And you know, again, itÓs one of those things everything is interrelated. We have a little drainage way that we have to accommodate, and we have to accommodate that, and that affects our, you know, how we treat this area in front of the restaurant. Handicap parking engineering drives everything. So the moment we start moving back a little bit, everything raises a little bit because we donÓt have enough room. Our fill costs a lot, retaining walls go up. So you know, there is a, itÓs not, if this were a flat piece of land and all that there was was a parking decision, then we could make a business decision on that. But what we want is as much parking as possible. But it is not a flat piece of land; we go from 30 feet above sea level in this corner to about nine feet in here. And so that has to be accommodated Î our driveway access or slopes a really difficult, which is why, as I indicated, if that pathway is where we have to keep it, it starts pushing everything up and all the numbers change Î everything changes. And I do want to mention, if I can. Kevin, can you -? I know he hasnÓt been sworn in, but -. 20 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Yeah, we do need to swear you in. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now on the matter before the Planning Commission? K MOORE: Yes, I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. Could you state your name and address, please? K. MOORE: Sure. My name is Kevin Moore. My address is 75 Aupuni Street, Room 204, thatÓs Hilo 96720. IÓm, I think Bill already mentioned, IÓm the district land agent for the Land Division within the Department of Land and Natural Resources. So we have other divisions, and one of those other divisions is the Division of Forestry and Wildlife, which I call DOFAW for short, within DOFAW is the Na Ala Hele program, which is a State trails program. You know, this concept, or project, has been under development for a number of years, and the EA was done in 2004. At that time we solicited agency comment, and there was no indication that a historic trail was located on the proposed project site. I checked with Na Ala Hele again yesterday, and they again confirmed they donÓt have a record of historic trail traversing this parcel. So I just want to put that out there. Any trail that would be agreed to by the tenant and other parties would have to also be approved by Na Ala Hele and our Land Board who is the ultimate determination on our side Î Ala Kahakai, right. This particular development parcel is, the rents generated from it, hopefully when the lease is signed and weÓre in operation, are earmarked for the recreational renaissance plan, which is the DLNRÓs program to rehabilitate its State parks and trail system. So thatÓs why this project is important to the State. LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Moore, are you related to the other Mr. Moore? B. MOORE: There is no known relation. LEITHEAD TODD: And the archaeological study was initiated and paid for by the State of HawaiÒi, and not the applicant, is that correct? K. MOORE: ThatÓs correct. LEITHEAD TODD: Okay. BOWMAN: I have a question. HOUSEL: Commissioner Bowman. GIFFIN: Go ahead. BOWMAN: Sorry, thank you. ThatÓs why IÓm not an engineer, and I figured IÓd throw that out about the parking lot. The recreational renaissance plan, itÓs a state-wide plan? K. MOORE: ThatÓs correct. 21 EXHIBIT A BOWMAN: Will the revenues Î and maybe you canÓt answer this Î will the revenues generated by this lease be spread out over the state, or would it focus more on the Big Island? K. MOORE: I canÓt answer that; thatÓs kind of a budget question and IÓm not sure. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. HOUSEL: Mr. Moore, Bill Moore. B. MOORE: Yes. HOUSEL: Obviously, we have a lot of interest to represent here and to hopefully resolve everybodyÓs concern about this trail. Would you be willing to work with the National Park Service to put a trail through there, or Î I know you donÓt like the word ÐtrailÑ Î but a route through there? B. MOORE: We are willing to work with the -. Again, in terms of the interest here, the interest that Î and if the County wants us to work with the National Park Service, weÓre willing to Î but the interest that we really see that we need to work with in terms of a trail is the Planning Department through this permit, DLNR through Land Management and Na Ala Hele, and the adjacent landowner represented by Kawaihae Canoe Club. And again, those to me are the ones that have the interest, if we are looking at some kind of mauka-makai, or a lateral access route through here. So we are willing to work on that. And you know, we actually have, again, as I said, we have some language that we are willing to offer, that I think allows us to move ahead. ItÓs some risk because it leaves decision making with the Planning Department in terms of, ultimately, the trail improvements, but it would be in consultation with the key players. LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Moore, ultimately, though, DLNR has to sign off on anything because they are the property owners, isnÓt that correct? K. MOORE: ThatÓs correct. B. MOORE: Yeah, in terms of the lease and the like, I think, thatÓs why in terms of the route, I mean the condition would be, you know, because again, the way that we understood the lease and the terms is all that access would have been on the adjacent property. So we are willing as a potential, as we see, to provide some of those improvements as necessary within the portion to the extent that they can be within the adjacent property, and to the extent that they are currently in the adjacent property, we want them in the adjacent property. So you know, again, and the improvements Î I wouldnÓt call them improvements even. What we are looking at on the adjacent property is that the route would be provided through just vegetation clearing and rock removal, which, again, is how that route currently through our property was created. And to the extent that a route needs to be improved to provide a safe pathway, the alignment would then move into our property and we would as part of our improvement cost would provide the safe pathway and including, and we know for sure that that would include this area right here in that northern corner. 22 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Okay. Commissioner Bowman, excuse me, Giffin, did you have a question? GIFFIN: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moore, the one from the State, I just want to clarify an issue. Is it true that, I understood you to say, that your information from the State does not indicate that there was any indication of an ancient Hawaiian trail that traversed this K. MOORE: ThatÓs what I understood from talking to Na Ala Hele yesterday. GIFFIN: Okay. So then, Bill Moore, would it be safe to say the of going onto the property and traversing it leased part of the parcel in question, that he in fact was on the pathway that you and your people cleared? B. MOORE: That is my understanding. And just, again, we were never on the property together. GIFFIN: I see. B. MOORE: But after we cleared the property, we did see some flagging along the route that we cleared. And so, you know, and at that point I was trying to check on, or did not follow up with Na Ala Hele because, again, it wasnÓt where they were interested in this area. But so, if that is the route, then we can confirm that but, that is the route that we had hand-cleared. So my belief and based on the correspondence and the discussions I had with Mr. Arakaki, is that the pathway that they were walking on is the pathway that we had cleared. GIFFIN: And bearing all of that in mind, and what you said that, you and the applicant, that what you are willing to do in terms of assisting and creating some sort of pathway that would go through the edge of the property, seems very generous to me. Thank you very much. HOUSEL: Mr. Arakaki, would you like to help clarify this for us where the National Park Service stands? ARAKAKI: Just to make some clarifications, our founding legislation mentions historic trails and routes. And so, you know, we can look at routes as well. The National Trail System Act also, if we cannot find a trail thatÓs with any kind of historic or ancient fabric, we can create connector trails, so that we can connect historic and/or ancient trails that are verified. And the third point is that, you know, last month, as I mentioned, that we did sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the State and the County that specifically mentions Planning Department, that specifically mentions Land Department, Na Ala Hele trails programs, State Historic Preservation Division, Parks and Rec under the County, that we will be all working together, and there is very specific kinds of provisions within the MOU that talks about us working together to implement the accomplished management plan. So IÓd absolutely like to make that very clear to Kawaihae LLC that we are definitely all together in on this. So, thank you. HOUSEL: Commissioner Giffin. 23 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Mr. Arakaki, I appreciate your comments and they are really well taken. But I do want to, I really would like you to reiterate then; I think what you are saying is that what you are proposing, or would like to see, is that there be from wherever the two points north and south of this parcel that are documented as in fact really part of the historic trail system, be connected by this pathway, which would encompass the perimeter of this property, is that correct? ARAKAKI: ThatÓs correct. GIFFIN: Okay. HOUSEL: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: I have a question. So we get to the end of the property, and it is Homeland Security, which is the Coast Guard property -. ARAKAKI: Correct. BOWMAN: And your MOU was with the State and the County? ARAKAKI: Correct. BOWMAN: So have you had success working with the Homeland Secur ARAKAKI: Yes. We consulted with the Coast Guard when we developed our comprehensive management plan, and they actually had no comments and did not have any kind of issues with the Historic Trail. BOWMAN: Cause it would be poh to have that all done and then end right there. ARAKAKI: Yeah, you know, we make sure that we covered all our bases through the planning. BOWMAN: So you feel confident that you can work with them to extend, and then with Hawaiian Homes -. ARAKAKI: Absolutely, absolutely. We are Federal partners and Federal agencies, and we can absolutely work together with them. BOWMAN: And then with Hawaiian Homes to continue it through their subdivision -. ARAKAKI: Yes, yes. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you very much. ARAKAKI: Thank you. 24 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Any other questions? Mr. Arakaki, I had one thing, and I donÓt want to try to nail anything down here; IÓd just like to get your impression. From the route that Bill Moore described and possibly doing some work to support the route on the north end of that area, do you think thatÓs feasible? ARAKAKI: Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, we are looking at creating a route that is safe, that meets our safety standards as well, and weÓd be very happy to work with the applicant to accomplish that. HOUSEL: Okay, good, good. ARAKAKI: Thank you. HOUSEL: Thank you. Unless we have any other questions, IÓll excuse everyone. Thank you very much. GIFFIN: I have a question of Mr. Moore. HOUSEL: IÓm sorry. One more question. GIFFIN: Bill, you said you were willing to provide verbiage for some sort of condition, additional condition, expressing what you had just said earlier. B. MOORE: Yes, I do have it in, you know, prepared with some scribbles on it. But I do have some language -. GIFFIN: Did you want to submit that to Maija so that we could get some sort of, I mean if weÓre going to -. B. MOORE: Sure. And this is my only copy, so, but IÓm going to HOUSEL: Thank you very much. COTTLE: Would you like me to read this statement? GIFFIN: Would you please, Maija? Thank you. COTTLE: It says, ÐIn conjunction with the occupancy of the restaurant, the applicant shall provide a lateral shoreline public access hiking trail/route extending from the Kawaihae Canoe Club area to the northern boundary of the subject property. To the extent that improvements are limited to removal of vegetation and/or removal or placement of loose rocks, the walking trail/route shall be located on the adjacent state property, identified as TMK: 6-1-03:14, which has been reserved for recreational purposes. If improvements other than the removal of vegetation and removal/placement of loose rocks are required, the trail/route shall be located within the project area and improved by the applicant. As necessary, the trail/route and 25 EXHIBIT A improvements shall meet with the approval of the Planning Director in consultation with the Kawaihae Canoe Club and the State of HawaiÒi Department of Land and Natural Resources.Ñ GIFFIN: So, Maija, if we were to include this, and I guess Bobby Jean, where would we do that in the conditions? HOUSEL: Excuse me, Commissioner Giffin, IÓd like to clarify. Mr. Bill Moore, would you confirm that Maija read that in total, correctly? B. MOORE: The Ðas necessaryÑ clause was, I think, applied to the prior sentence than the, so the improvements as necessary, because I -. And I just want to make it clear that the route that we are looking at within our property would be as close to the property line, the makai property line as possible, so it wouldnÓt meander in. But that would be basically a negotiation in terms of the cost of the improvements versus impacts on our development through that area. So we would ask that the portions within the property line be as close to the makai property line as possible. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. IÓm sorry, Commissioner Giffin, go ahead. GIFFIN: So then, what are we going to do? WeÓre going to include that as just No. 12, or is there area within the sequence of the conditions, if we do include it? HOUSEL: Well, should we make a motion first, and then discuss the amendments? GIFFIN: I donÓt know because I thought the condition would be p GONZALEZ: You can just state, if you want to make that a condition of the motion, to be placed in an appropriate section of the conditions as deemed by the Department. And they can format it in a nice way. GIFFIN: Okay. Right. ThatÓs what I was concerned about. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. GIFFIN: Then Mr. Chairman, are you asking for a motion? HOUSEL: Yes, would you like to make a motion? GIFFIN: Yes, I would like to. I would like to move Special Management Area Use Permit 10- 39 Î thatÓs the correct number, right, Maija? COTTLE: Yes, thatÓs correct. GIFFIN: Be approved along with the conditions as recommended by our Planning Director, and to be included within the list of conditions the condition that was proposed by Bill Moore, and to 26 EXHIBIT A be placed in the sequence as deemed correct by the Planning Department. Did I cover everything, Brandon? HOUSEL: I think you did, yes. I have one request for an additional condition -. GIFFIN: ShouldnÓt we have a second first, though? HOUSEL: That IÓd like to state as part of your motion, if thatÓs okay with you. GIFFIN: I donÓt know; IÓve got to hear it. HOUSEL: Okay. IÓm concerned about the Traffic Impact Analysis you are telling us, but I would like to get confirmation from the Department of Transportation on their approval of the TIAR. So IÓd like to add the approval of this conditional on the DOTÓs confirmation of their approval. GIFFIN: So we are speaking of two additional conditions. HOUSEL: Yes, right, right. GONZALEZ: If you are okay with it, then you just make that part of your motion and someone can second it. GIFFIN: I agree. So we need a second, right? HOUSEL: So we are talking about two additional conditions. GIFFIN: Correct. HOUSEL: Okay. Maija, is there a standard condition for TIAR? COTTLE: There is. We have one related to with approval of DPW, but we could just substitute it for Department of Transportation. B. MOORE: You know, if I can, if itÓs possible, can I speak? HOUSEL: Sure, please. B. MOORE: With respect to the TIAR, there is a condition that the intersection improvements must meet with the Department of Transportation approval. In order to get their approval, we have to have submitted a TIAR. So it is built in into the zonin comply with. We donÓt have any objections to something specific, but the condition is there indirectly, and which is why we submitted it because we will not get our intersection improved unless we submit and have our TIAR approved before we start design of the intersection. And without the intersection design we donÓt have our project. So again, so we donÓt have a problem but itÓs already built in there. 27 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Okay. GIFFIN: So it might be redundant. Is that what you are saying? B. MOORE: ItÓs not specific, but it is, I believe itÓs redundant. The requirements are built in into the zoning condition, which requires that any access be approved by the Department of Transportation. And again, their requirements are that we have to have TIAR approval. HOUSEL: Commissioner Nelson. NELSON: Before we vote, Giffin, could you please repeat slowly n? I heard a lot of conditions in there. Just for clarity. GIFFIN: Okay, but what we are discussing right now, if I undersnd this situation correctly, is whether or not weÓre going to include what the Chairman wanted to have included as an additional condition, correct? HOUSEL: Yes, thatÓs correct. GIFFIN: So what is your take on that, Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: I would like to, even though it may be redundant, I would like to include it just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. LEITHEAD TODD: Perhaps we could use the language thatÓs already in the zoning condition, so there is no conflict with the zoning condition Î the same language that requires them to have all intersection improvements meet with the approval of DOT, which requires them to submit the TIAR. COTTLE: May I go ahead and read that? HOUSEL: Yes. COTTLE: The current zoning condition? HOUSEL: Yes, please. COTTLE: ItÓs Condition E of Exhibit 2, and it says, ÐAll driveway connections to the Akoni- Pule Highway shall conform to the requirements of the State Department of Transportation Highways Division.Ñ HOUSEL: Including a TIAR? COTTLE: It does not specifically mention a TIAR but, as the applicant mentioned, they have to have an approved TIAR in order to meet the requirements of DOT. 28 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Right. Okay. B. MOORE: And for the record, weÓve already submitted the TIAR HOUSEL: I guess my Î and I understand that Î my concern is that they have definitely approved it. B. MOORE: We would not have objections to adding, including the TIAR as an addendum to that condition. HOUSEL: Would that be possible, Maija? COTTLE: Sure. So would you like to use the condition that was in the ordinance and add language that an approved TIAR be submitted and -. HOUSEL: Yes, if we can add, can we add that specific language? COTTLE: Approved by DOT. HOUSEL: That would be great. GIFFIN: So we are still speaking of two additional conditions. HOUSEL: Right. GIFFIN: So you are happy with that, Fred? HOUSEL: IÓm satisfied, yes. GIFFIN: Okay. And I am with what BillÓs wording is for the other proposed condition. So we need a second. HOUSEL: Maija, can you help us maybe read the motion again? COTTLE: Yes. So the motion will be to approve the permit with the proposed condition by the applicant Î and would you like me to read that again, or -? No? Okay Î and the condition proposed by the Chairman regarding adding the condition that was in the ordinance and language that the TIAR be approved by Department of Transportation. HOUSEL: Thank you. Do we have a second for this motion? BEAUDET: Second. HOUSEL: Seconded by Commissioner Beaudet. Do we have any discussion? Okay. Maija, would you like to take the vote? 29 EXHIBIT A COTTLE: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: Aye. COTTLE: The motion passes, six-zero, to approve. B. MOORE: Thank you very much. We hope that Roger will be happy within a couple of years when we have the restaurant open, so -. Thank you very much. HOUSEL: Congratulations. B. MOORE: We are willing to, weÓre going to move aggressively on this. We want to have this done as soon as we can. So thank you very much. HOUSEL: Yeah, the Planning Department will send you the complete written approval. Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 11:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 30 EXHIBIT A