Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-15 tkawananakoa PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT February 15, 2007 ABIGAIL K.K. KAWANANAKOA A regularly advertised hearing on the application of FOUNDATION (USE PERMIT NO. 152) was called to order at 9:18 a.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred Galdones Rene’ Siracusa William Graham Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 18 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: ABIGAIL K.K. KAWANANAKOA FOUNDATION (USE PERMIT NO. 152) Time extension to comply with Condition No. 5 (complete construction) of Use Permit No. 152, which allowed the construction of a Sanctuary – Kekaha O ‘Iolani Luahine and related improvements on 2.06 acres of land situated within the Single-Family Residential – 15,000 square feet (RS-15) zoned district. The property is located along the makai side of Puuhonua st Road, approximately 600 feet mauka of Napoopoo Beach Park, Kahauloa 1, South Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 8-2-6:8. GRAHAM: All right. The first item on our agenda is a time extension to comply with Condition 5 of a Use Permit No. 152. This is related to improvements on 2 acres of land within the Single-Family Residential District. It is located on the makai side of Puuhonua Road, 600 feet mauka of Napoopoo Beach Park. Jeff, when you are ready. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good Morning, members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to the location map, the area of this Application is within the South Kona District of Hawaii. More specifically we are looking at the Kealakekua Bay, Napoopoo area. Access to this area is from Mamalahoa Highway. We are looking at Napoopoo Road down to Middle Keei Road. The area of the Application is identified in an orange dot. This is on Puuhonua Road. The Applicant in this case is Abigail K.K. Kawananakoa Foundation. In February of 1997, they received a Special Management Area Use EXHIBIT A 1 Permit and a Use Permit to allow the construction of a sanctuary called Kekaha O Iolani Luahine. Looking at the site plan, we have Puuhonua Road identified on the right side of the map. We have an existing dwelling located on the property at this time, and the proposed structure – this will be the area that is identified for the sanctuary. The project will consist of a two-story structure, approximately 2,400 square feet in size. The first floor will consist mainly of bathroom facilities, shower facilities, store rooms, janitor closet – that type of area. The second floor will consist of a kitchen, library/study, as well as an area for displays, gatherings, dance instructions and lectures. There is a parking area identified in this area on the map. And there are particular historical features that are identified; they are old rock walls and sites, which have been taken care of previously in the SMA Permit. The Applicant is requesting a time extension of 5 years to be able to comply with Condition 5 to complete construction of the proposed structure. The Applicant has received Final Plan Approval as of October of 2003. The Applicant has had difficulty in retaining a contractor; especially with the recent earthquake there has been difficulty in retaining contractors because they keep getting called out to do all kinds of repairs for the earthquake damage. Since the Application was distributed to the Planning Commissioners, we have received several correspondence: One is a comment letter from the Department of Land and Natural Resources; we’ve also received a letter of opposition from Mary Keonaona Richardson Sueoka; this morning we have received additionally a letter from the representative for the Applicant, Herb Kane. The Conditions to mention: We have added and made some changes to some conditions. We’ve added Condition No. 7, which requires the Applicant to submit a Solid Waste Management Plan, and this is based on comments received from the Department of Environmental Management. We’ve also added our standard condition that the Applicant will comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements. And additionally, on Condition 9 – the administrative time extension condition – we’ve deleted that based on the fact that the Applicant has previously received an administrative time extension; and if further time extensions are required, they will need to come before the Planning Commission for approval. The Planning Director is recommending that the time extension request be approved by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Jeff, the only thing I noticed: You did say that they received Final Plan Approval, but there is one that has reference to securing Final Plan Approval in our Condition No. 5. Is that an issue at all – “Prior to the start of construction, Final Plan Approval for the proposed improvements shall be secured”? DARROW: Good point. I guess what we can do – maybe we can delete the -. It’s just our standard condition that we placed in there, so basically he has complied with that. GRAHAM: Sure. So perhaps we can just leave it and consider it complied with already. Okay, thank you. I have one public testifier and we’ll get to you shortly. At the moment, would the Applicant or the Applicant’s representative please come forward to the table? EXHIBIT A 2 Thank you. Could you raise your right hand, and I’ll swear you in first? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today on this matter before the Planning Commission? KANE: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. At this time you can make a presentation and give us a statement or explain your Application to the Planning Commission. And when you start, just please speak your name and your address, so that will be recorded on the record. KANE: My name is Herb Kane. This morning my testimony was distributed to each of the Commissioners, and I know you probably haven’t had time to read it. But if you have and if you have any questions, or if you would prefer that I read it at this moment, whatever you prefer, I’ll go with. GRAHAM: Okay. We do have it. And I think we also got something from you before on our background material. Do any Commissioners have any questions, or would you like him to read or – what’s your pleasure? Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’ve got your letter. Thank you for submitting it, and we all had a chance to – well, I had a chance to read it. I think it’s well articulated. I appreciate your written testimony on the matter. So I wouldn’t need for you to read it again. KANE: Thank you. ALAMEDA: But I would be open, if any other Commissioners have questions or -. GRAHAM: Anything from the other Commissioners? IWASHITA: Mr. Chair. GRAHAM: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Good Morning, Mr. Kane. KANE: Good Morning. IWASHITA: I’ve read your written submittal today, and then I’ve also read Mary Sueoka’s letter. And I don’t know if you’ve – I couldn’t tell – I guess your written submission talks about getting – did you get a call from Mary Sueoka? I can’t really tell. KANE: No, I did not. IWASHITA: Oh, okay. So do you have any response to what Mary Sueoka has written? KANE: Actually a copy of her letter has just been placed in my hands, and I have not had a moment to read it yet. EXHIBIT A 3 IWASHITA: Okay. Well, I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond ’cause I didn’t get the sense from reading your submittal that you had seen this. So my sense was right, I guess. So if you can take a moment, and let us know what your response would be. GRAHAM: Maybe this time will be good for us to take our public testimony, and then Mr. Kane can respond to both the letter and the public testimony, if you’d like thereafter. KANE: Yes, thanks. GRAHAM: Good. And you can stay seated, if you’d like. KANE: Okay, thank you. GRAHAM: I have signed up Delma Kay. Could you come forward, please, and take one of the other seats there, Ms. Kay? Could you first just raise your right hand, and let me swear you in? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission on this matter? KAY: Yes, I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. And you may go ahead and give your testimony. Please start with your name and your address, and then speak to the Commission. KAY: Aloha Kakahiaka. My name is Delma Kahikilani Kay. My address is Puuhonua, Honaunau. Actually I’m originally from Keei Beach. Is that all you need? Is that it? GRAHAM: Go right ahead. Sure. KAY: Okay. Well, actually I wasn’t really prepared to come up here and say anything. But I did write a letter of support to the Commission, and I thought I wanted to share that with you: I’ve been Caretaker of Kekaha O Iolani at Napoopoo for over 10 plus years. Keei Beach is my ‘aina hanau of my ohana, which is my ancestors, go back to Keei Beach in that vicinity. I was raised in the old ways to respect our kupuna to listen to carry on their teachings and values, but most of all to cherish and respect our ‘aina. My voice may be a small one, but nevertheless I hope that I can humbly convey to all who may have concerns regarding this project that I’m also sensitive to any change that may have an impact on my lifestyle and that of the community. During these ten years as Caretaker of Kekaha O Iolani, I grew to love this place, and understood the mission of the Kawananakoa Foundation to perpetuate the memory and fulfill the hopes and dreams of Iolani Luahine. Iolani Luahine envisioned a peaceful retreat here at her home in Napoopoo – a place for our ho‘opiopio, our kupuna, kamaaina and malahini to come and share to educate, to perpetuate, and to be immersed in our rich heritage. Careful consideration was made as to the design of the hale, as well as the surrounding area, in hopes of bringing back the ambience of the way it was when Iolani lived there. Presently we have two or three groups per year that use the facilities. Each group consists of no more than ten individuals. This is a memorial to Iolani and her wish to preserve and share our culture, history, hula, chants with the community, organizations and those who have heard so much about Kekaha O Iolani, but never had the opportunity to come and visit – free of charge. There is no charge for any of the groups that use the facilities. It’s through the efforts of Ms. Kawananakoa that Iolani’s vision EXHIBIT A 4 for a cultural center here at Napoopoo can and should be fulfilled. I am humbled by the trust the Foundation has in me to care for this most inspirational place in Napoopoo. This project has my sincere and full support. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Ms. Kay. KAY: Should I go back? GRAHAM: Do we have any questions from the Commissioners first for Ms. Kay? You can go back then. Thank you. Mr. Kane, did you want to speak to Commissioner Iwashita’s question? KANE: Yes. The testimony of opposition suggests that this will be a commercial activity. Obviously that is not the case. This is a – people will be welcome down the property by invitation only, just as people would to a private home. The whole thrust of the purpose of this place will be to provide an opportunity for retreats by small groups for intensive study. This is a place for a private study, and not a place for a public performance. And I think this is what concerns the writer of the opposition letter that this will become a commercial activity. She also speaks to – she bases her argument on twelve parking spaces being designed into it. Actually that’s a prudent thing in designing something because one never knows what future will bring, and it’s all a good idea to try to design ahead of what will happen. Also she says there is no need to enhance the historic nature of Napoopoo. There I disagree with her. There is always a need to preserve the historic nature of a place, and I think one way to preserve it is to bring to the place the elements of culture that at one time distinguished it. Certainly Napoopoo is going through change – has been going through change – but I feel that this facility will enhance the cultural nature and historic nature of South Kona. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you. We do have two other folks who have signed up to testify. And we have at least three chairs up there, so maybe I’ll call those other folks forward at this time: Pam Solkach and Ann Frazer. You may be seated. Could you both just raise your right hands first, so I can swear you in? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today on this matter? TESTIFIERS: Yes, sir. GRAHAM: Thank you. So I’ll just ask you to go ahead and give your testimony. And begin with your name and address, please, and use the microphone. FRAZER: I’m Ann Frazer. I live at 82-6292 Puuhonua Road, which is opposite the plan that’s being presented today. GRAHAM: You can go ahead, Ann, with your testimony; and when Pam starts, you can do the same. FRAZER: Initially I came here because I was worried about the traffic conditions. The road is very small; it only allows passage of a single car. In front of my house there is a small pullout, which is very necessary; it’s used constantly. However, when people need to park to get access to the beach, they sometimes use the pullout in front of the house, which does EXHIBIT A 5 create a traffic problem. Believe it or not, I’ve seen a six-car standoff in front of my house where they are all revving their engines and no one knows where to go. I think that was prudent to plan the ten parking spaces. I didn’t understand initially that the groups would be as limited as they are. If I heard Delma’s testimony right, there would only be ten people in each group, only two or three times a year. That seems to me to be very reasonable. If there was going to be bigger groups or maybe a non-invitational situation, I would probably be more worried. But I think it’s important that we understand the roads are at a crisis here, and our road is at a crisis too. GRAHAM: Thank you. Do we have any questions of the testifier from the Planning Commission? Thanks. All right. Pam, go ahead. SOLKACH: Okay. I’m Pam Solkach. I live at 82-6286 Puuhonua, directly across the street from the project to be. And my concern is also with the traffic. I feel great support for the purpose and the cause of the project, but the road is substandard; it’s in really poor shape. We also have a pullout; two cars can pull out at once if they squeeze. Very often I have to go beyond my driveway and turn around in order to get back to my driveway ’cause the cars that are pulled out block my driveway. So to imagine twelve vehicles – possibly vans that might carry eight to twelve people – that’s my concern, is the high density in a very quaint village that has traffic problems already. If it’s the case that there is going to be large groups, I think it would be fair to request that somebody direct traffic, or I feel like we are putting the cart before the horse in that the road is not being addressed prior to the building. I would like the road to be addressed, as an immediate neighbor in the village. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you for your comment. Any questions from the Commissioners? GALDONES: Mr. Chair. GRAHAM: Yes. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Thank you. In consideration regarding the two testifiers and the traffic conditions, I would like to call upon Ki, if he could address that for us. GRAHAM: Fine. Thank you. Mr. Emler, could you give us a few words on how you see the traffic situation and whether our conditions are adequate? Thank you. EMLER: It’s true that if you ever go down to that area – the Keei and Napoopoo area – there is a very narrow road between the pier at Napoopoo – the end of the Napoopoo Road – and where this project is going in. It is one lane. There are several places where you can pull up, people’s driveways and so forth, as being witnessed here or testified to here. And, yes, there is more and more traffic going down there to seek recreational amenities down there, so I can see where they would have a problem with that. The County does maintain the road. It is probably not in the best of shape, but I think it has been resurfaced in some areas. But it is one lane and substandard, and there are no plans at the present time to improve it, so -. Are there any other questions? GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? EXHIBIT A 6 WATANABE: Yeah, Ki, I’ve got a question. You know, if you are going to improve it and it’s already substandard meaning it’s too narrow, one lane, do we have the entitlements to someday in the future make those improvements, or would you recommend that we -? You know, ’cause sometimes we do put a condition in your way, you have like a five or ten-foot future road widening condition. Would that help? EMLER: I’m sure it would be advisable to put a road-widening setback requirement on the permit, if the Planning Director is so willing to do that in his recommendation. But, yes, the recommendation for this Application was made by my predecessor years ago, and I didn’t make any changes; I didn’t put any recommendation in for changes, so -. Perhaps I should have, but -. WATANABE: Okay. Then my next question is if we were to consider a road-widening condition, is it five feet, ten feet? And I realize it’s probably not going to occur in the immediate foreseeable future but what in general what is your -. EMLER: Well, I would see this as perhaps in the future being as much as – but probably not more than – a 50-foot right-of-way, so I would just recommend half the difference between the existing roadway and a 50-foot right-of-way. So they would be providing a setback for a half of the widening on their side. I don’t know what the width is in the frontage of their property to be able to state a particular width. WATANABE: Okay, that sounds rather significant, though. Although this is 2.1 acres, yeah? Isn’t it? YUEN: Before we get that far down this line of thought, you know, looking at the site plan and my recollection of the site, there are stonewalls lining this property, which – whether they qualify as historic site, they are certainly part of the historic ambience of the area. There are stonewalls lining much of the road in the whole area. And I think that I wouldn’t be part of any initiative by the County to tear down those stonewalls to widen the Puuhonua Road. I just would not – I’d say forget it. I mean, live with the traffic, you know, institute some kind of controls. But to tear down the existing stonewalls that line the road, I just can’t see doing that. So and that’s what would be involved in any kind of road widening on this side of property. GRAHAM: Thank you. EMLER: I think that was somewhat behind my not making any further recommendations on this Application because the area is sensitive, so -. Thank you. GRAHAM: I thank you, Mr. Yuen and Mr. Emler. Commissioner Watanabe, do you have a follow-up? WATANABE: Yeah, I’ve got a follow-up for the Director. And I didn’t notice stonewalls and I agree with you; if they’re historical, we probably shouldn’t be looking at tearing them down. On the other hand, some other way of addressing the condition suitable for the testifiers here might be to limit the scope somewhat of what this project can do. We’ve done that in the past where we’ve said no more than X amount of people at any given time, and I’m wondering if that might work to their satisfaction where we limit it to, you know, 20 people or something like EXHIBIT A 7 that. And that would still give the cultural project some leeway, ’cause I don’t expect them to have 20 people at all times – not based on the testimony they provided. And I’m wondering if we could craft something like that, and that would work to the satisfaction of the people that are currently testifying. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: The only thing that I would suggest -. Let me look at the existing Conditions just a minute, and the proposed -. You know, what I was going to say is a condition that says that they shall not have any functions that require off-street parking. And the reason is that – I think it’s reasonable that they would – what they have already proposed is a pretty low- key project. The one issue that could cause a problem would be some kind of special event where you would attract a lot of people, and there is no place for people to park for that kind of event, and I’d ask the Applicant on this. But I don’t see something that really quite says that, so that’s what I would say. And as far as people coming back and forth, you know, we are talking about a project that is pretty limited in scope. There are hundreds of people going in and out every day of the area; people go to see Kealakekua Bay, they go to the heiau. We are looking at a project that is trying to preserve a very important part of the cultural heritage of the area, and adding very, very limited traffic flow as far as I can see. So I don’t know that there is really much that we need to do. I’d like to look at the Conditions, and see if there is something more specific about off-site parking. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Thank you, Mr. Emler. I think you folks may go back now, and we’ll call up the Applicant again, if he has any comments to make on what we’ve heard. Mr. Kane, if you’d like to come forward and you can just respond to what you’ve heard since you went back, as you wish. KANE: I foresee no situation in which the property itself could not handle the cars of visitors to the property. So I see no need for any road-side parking.There is a state parking area at the landing, which is just very short walk away from the subject property. And that is open to the public; it’s public parking. GRAHAM: Good. Thank you. I know the Planning Director suggested that one alternative would be to make a condition saying you wouldn’t have any functions there that require any off-street parking.Would that be an acceptable condition to you in regard to this? KANE: Okay, now by “off-street parking”, do you mean parking along the side of the road? GRAHAM: I think that’s what it means, where you are not parking in the designated state place or the -. Any of your own parking plots -. KANE: Oh, yes. We are talking about a 2-acre property. We foresee no situation in which the 2 acres could not handle a special event properly of our parking. EXHIBIT A 8 GRAHAM: All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Kane? Well, thank you very much then. KANE: Thank you. GRAHAM: Fellow Commissioners, I think we’ve heard from the Applicant, we’ve heard from testifiers, and what’s your wishes on this Application? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I just want some clarification on the Conditions. Earlier you had mentioned something about – I think we were referring to Condition 5 – and are we eliminating all of Condition 5 or just portions of Condition 5? GRAHAM: My understanding at the time was that we could probably leave Condition 5 as it is, but in the implementation of this we consider fulfilled already – that portion of it refers to the Final Plan Approval. WATANABE: Okay. Then my follow-up question would be to the Director. Do you feel – I’m comfortable with the scope, and I’m just wondering if you feel that, as things change, that maybe we should put any condition as you have suggested about off-street parking. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: I’m comfortable without it. It’s really up to the Commission; if the Commission wants to do something, we could put a condition that says that all parking for activities shall be done on site. But I’m comfortable with leaving it as it stands. GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it’s unnecessary to add that condition, given the scope of the project and the presentation by the Applicant, also by the surrounding areas of parking – the public parking – as noted kind of a little ways down. So I feel comfortable with the Conditions as is. But if other Commissioners – you know, if that’s what’s going to make you approve this Application, then I would go along with that particular condition. But if not, I think it’s unnecessary. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I’m not mistaken, I heard Mr. Kane mentioned that visitation to the project is by invitation. So if that being the case, then they would be able to control the flow of traffic and the number of people going through there. And he knowing the concern of the neighborhood, then I’m sure they want to be a good neighbor also. So I would feel comfortable based on the Conditions that we have before us that it won’t be necessary for us to address anything else except for the extension of the time frame, which is Condition No. 5. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Galdones. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: I’m ready to make a motion, if, Fellow Commissioners, it’s okay with you – no objections. All right. I move that the Use Permit 152 be approved. EXHIBIT A 9 WATANABE: Second. GRAHAM: All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Alameda, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe for approval. I presume you mean -. ALAMEDA: The five-year time extension, that’s what I mean. GRAHAM: Okay. And the Conditions as we see them here? ALAMEDA: The Conditions as we see them here. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any comments/discussion from the Commissioners? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I just want to indicate that I’ll be supporting the motion, and I believe what Mr. Kane and the Foundation are doing is essential for a continuation in the growth of our culture and preserving the Hawaiian culture. So I’ll be happy to support this motion. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. If we have no further discussion, I think we are ready for our roll call vote, Jeff, if you’d like to do that. DARROW: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes for to allow the time extension, six to zero. EXHIBIT A 10 GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. And we will notify the Applicant in writing of our decision today. The discussion ended at 9:54 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 11