Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-26 TRoyal_Alii PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT May 26, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was ROYAL ALII LLC (SMA 05-007) called to order at 11:09 a.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred GaldonesRene€ Siracusa Bill Graham Andrew Iwashita AllenSalavea Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 26 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: ROYAL ALII LLC (SMA 05-007) Continuation on the application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 19-unit single family residential development and related uses. The property is located on the east (mauka) side of Alii Drive, across from the Alohi Kai Subdivision and Kamoa Point, Kaumalumalu, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-7-4:57 and 58. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, there is a 2A, if you€ll notice in your agenda packet: Unfinished Business, Applicant: Royal Ali i LLC (SMA 05-007). This is a continuation on the application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a 19- unit single family residential development and related uses. And the property is located on the east (mauka) side of Ali i Drive, across from Alohi Kai Subdivision and Kamoa Point, Kaumalumalu, North Kona, Hawai i. Mr. Hayashi, whenever you€re ready. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to refresh the Commissioners€ memory, on th February 24 of this year, this matter was brought before the Planning Commission. The subject propertyisindicatedbythisbluedot.ItissituatedalongthemaukasideofAli iDrive.Thisis the Kamoa Point area. The Applicant had proposed tobuild a 19-unit single-family residential development consisting of2,000to10,000squarefootsizedlots.Thehouseswouldbeapproximately1,500to2,400 square feet in size, one- to two-story buildings. The Applicant also intends to provide two parkingspacesperunitorperlot.Undergroundutilitieswouldbeprovidedandaprivate roadway would be with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. At the prior Commission meeting, the Commission decided todefer action on this particular request and indicated they would like the Applicant to go back to look at four items, basically, fouritems. And, basically, one was a discussion of the property within the context of the Kaumalumalu ahupua a and also the relationship to theKeolonahihi and Keakealani Wahine Complex. The other was the identification of any past or ongoing traditional and customary practices on the property. The third was the description of how the Judd Trail appears on the subject property and assessment of the ownership of trail and recommendations concerning potential public access. And the fourth item that the Commission wanted the Applicant to review was the development of the ethnographic evidence concerning the project area. The Applicant had done these things, investigated the things that the Planning Commission wanted. And they had submitted this cultural impact assessment which all of you have a copy th of. That was submitted to us on May 11 and was circulated to the Planning Commission, along with it our recommendations and their discussionsrelative to the items that the Commissioners wanted addressed. Along with the cultural impact assessment, the Applicant also submitted a traffic impact assessment report that was done by Phillip Rowell and Associates. So at this time if there are any questions relative to the report, perhaps that could be directed, questions could be directed to the Applicant or its representative. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Seeing none, will the Applicant or its representative please come forward? HAYASHI:While the applicant is coming forward, we did circulate another yellow th sheet, it€s dated May 25, and these are the conditions that were presented and amended at the th February 24 meeting which both the party and the Planning Director had basically agreed upon. And there also was, we just circulated another condition. This is anew proposed Condition No. 13; and in looking at the transcript, thiswas also agreed upon by the Applicant and the Planning Director. I don€t believe the Applicant received a copy of that. This is a new Condition 13 and I€ll read that into the record, A metes and bounds survey of the Judd Trail shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor to identify the extent to which the Judd Trail is located within the subject property. A public access shall be provided over that portion of the Judd Trail.‚ Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Seeing none, please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell thetruthnowbeforetheHawai iCountyPlanningCommission? LAU:Ido. MOORE:Ido. ALAMEDA:Thankyou.Couldyoupleasestateyournameandaddressfortherecord? LAU:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Christopher Lau. I am the president of Towne Development of Hawai i, the managing member of the Royal Ali i LLC. To 2EXHIBIT C my right is Jim Moore from the firm of ArchaeologicalConsultants of the Pacific. He€s a senior supervisor with that firm. He has been intimately involved in the archaeological work as well as the cultural assessment that was prepared for this property; and he€s here as am I to answer any questions the Commission may have. ALAMEDA:Thank you. I noticed you€ve done all the work to meet some of our requests, appreciate that. Fellow Commissioners, do you have any questions for the Applicants? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:First, I want to confess to a big mistake on my part in that I didn€t realize you folks were on the agenda for today so I got the information you sent and I got it filed and I haven€t gone over through this as I should. But I very much remember our last meeting and what went on there and what my concerns were and Commissioner Springer€s concerns and all. I was certainly hoping for a lot more as far as the Judd Trail and the public access issue than whatIjustseewrittenonthisthingherethatyouwill,infact,identifyandallowaccessover whatever portion of the Judd Trail is on your property. Can you fill me in a little more? Is what I read here, is that it? That€s ƒ? LAU:Well, certainly. What you see on the yellow sheet would be a condition that we would agree to with respect to the Judd Trail. In the cultural impact assessment, the firm that prepared it interviewed knowledgeable people and also did some research with the State. Perhaps Mr. Moore could address what they did with respect to the Judd Trail and their recommendations with it. ALAMEDA:Mr. Moore? MOORE:We consulted with Na Ala Hele as well as five members of the community; and we did determine that the Trail is owned in its entirety by the State. The TMK Map shows that there€s a 10-foot easement on the south side of Parcel 58 that runs the entire length of Parcel 58. The property itself is combined Parcels 57 and 58, 58 being the southern parcel. So there€s a 10-foot easement that runs along that that is owned by the State. Now, the Trail itself, the State does not follow the easement exactly. It is partially within the subject property based on a detailed mapping we did in association with the preservation plan. Most of the Trail had been impacted by bulldozing as early as 1980. And currently only about 35 meters at the makai end of the property is still present, and that is in a relatively deteriorated condition. So the northern wall of the two parallel walls that bound the Trail itself is also a part of Site 8028, which is recommended for preservation, and the buffer zone for that site extends over the edge of the Judd Trail itself. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Unfortunately, I don€t know this situation on the ground there and I appreciate your speaking to that. My hope that I expressed at the last meeting was that even though the Judd Trail had, in my view, suffered a lot over, you know, prior years and prior decisions and all that, you know, is it feasible that somehow the Judd Trail can be brought back to usable, a usable situation to where it€s an asset to the people in this public ownership. Are you 3EXHIBIT C folks in a position where you could do some work on thatTrail where it abuts or crosses your property so that you can further that hope on my part? MOORE:At this point, Na Ala Hele recommended that signage be put up describing the Trail but also limiting access because it isn€t traversible at this point. They recommend due to liability concerns that they do not provide public access at this point. GRAHAM:And, so, therefore, in the future if things could get improved elsewhere on the Trail so that public access could be, we€re still stuck with the problem that the Trail is not in a good, you know, it€s not in good enough condition to service public access in that portion which is adjacent to you folks property or on your property, is that right? MOORE:Correct. It would need substantial stabilization, reconstruction to have public access. You know, again, there€s only about 30 meters, 100 feet or so, but it would need allthevegetationcleared,there€dhavetobesomestabilization.Thewalls,portionsofthewalls are crumbled. There€s a little gully on the southern side where the stones have fallen into the gully, so it€s not in good shape right now. LAU:Commissioner Graham, you can see on the map on the wall on the right hand side in the preservation area which is the lighter-shaded area, at the very bottom, there€s an area which contains the Judd Trail. So that would be the 35 meters or so of the Trail that€s in the preservation area. GRAHAM:Right. But the bottom line of where I was coming from and all was you folks are not prepared to do any work on the Judd Trail, even though it€s not passable at this time? At some point in the future if it would get passable, it seems like we would already wish that this part was cleaned up. MOORE:Correct. Certainly, you know, getting the right personnel available, it could be stabilized and interpreted, reconstructed and signage put up that would give the public something, some coherent information. GRAHAM:Right. And far as the work on the ground, the stabilizing the Trail and all, is there some other party other than you folks that are more appropriate to do that work other than ƒ? MOORE:We€ve done that work but we usually sub-contract out with people that are more familiar with rock work. You know, we don€t have somebody on staff, but we€ve done reconstructive work on similar jobs in the past. GRAHAM: And would it be, do you believe it would be inappropriate for you folks to do that kind of work on this segment of the Trail in this situation? MOORE:Well, as a private consulting firm, there€d be a choice of, by the landowner just choose whoever he would like. But certainly our company would be qualified to do that as well. 4EXHIBIT C LAU:Commissioner Graham, the concern thatIhave is that if we do the reconstruction work, there€s only a 35 meter section of the Trail that would be reconstructed. And we€re talking about a Trail that presumably went many miles, so I don€t know the, what the real benefit would be to, for us to reconstruct 35 meters. GRAHAM:I understand. ALAMEDA:Other questions? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Just to follow-up on Commissioner Graham€s concern. And, you know, as a regular part of these kind of applications when it comes to roads, it€s a standard kind of a requirement to have a project improve the road in front of the project. And so I€m thinking that, as part of this application, that in order to allow this project to go forward that it would seem reasonable to me to require the improvement or the restoration of the Judd Trail as it goes the entirelengthofyourproperty,whichismorethan100feet.Right?Inotherwords,fromAlii Drive up to the mauka boundary, to improve your half of the Judd Trail or, you know, to, so that it€s basically a similar requirement as our highway kind of requirements or roadway requirements. Would that be something the developer would consider? LAU:Well, Commissioner Iwashita, yes, we would consider improvements to the Trail. I think what we have to do is really discuss to what level of improvements. When you talk about developers improving roadways adjacent to their property, you know, generally, those are roadways that are in use. The Judd Trail, to our understanding, is really not in use. But we would be amenable to doing some improvements so that the portion of the Judd Trail on our property could be used as an example of what the Judd Trail was at one time. IWASHITA:The portion of the Judd Trail that, I guess that brings up another point. Maybe I can qualify that. ALAMEDA:Yes. IWASHITA:On Condition 13, the metes and bounds survey of the Judd Trail, that would include the physical aspect, the walls and so forth, that currently exists. And, as I understand it, portions of the Trail are actually within the property involved in this development and then, I guess, portions of it are out within the easement area, the area actually owned by the State. Is that correct? MOORE:Presumably what would have been there no longer exists. There has been bulldozing that occurred as early as 1980. Previous archaeological studies that covered a wider range back in €78-€79 and published in 1980 documented that there was no longer present at that time. So the actual path it took at that time is unknown. You know, based on that map and what we€ve seen on the ground, it appears that would have extended south of the property and through the easement, yes. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Is there not other documentation or historical record that establishes the location of the Trail? I mean that€s the whole basis of the State owning it, right? 5EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Who are you asking? IWASHITA:I don€t know. Whoever knows the answer? YUEN:We had a letter in the file from the State that, where the State claims ownership and fee of the Judd Trail by virtue of the Highways Act of 1892. What they€re saying is there are portions of the Judd Trail that are physically in existence on the ground and can be verified. There are maps that show the Judd Trail without enough detail to physically locate it on the ground. And what they€re saying is there are portions where it has been obliterated, where the physical description of it has been obliterated; and I believe there is no legal description of it. We would be able to say that somewhere on mauka properties in an approximate location there was a Judd Trail, but that you actually can€t show it on the ground in certain locations. In this portion of the property, very close to Alii Drive, though, you can. IWASHITA:Well, you know, my concern is about the extent of this survey. Because in mymindwhattheyshouldsay,andIdon€tknowifitdoes,isthatthemetesandboundssurvey should include the portion of the Judd Trail from Alii Drive to the mauka boundary of this property, wherever it may be located, whether on this property or adjoining, you know. But it should follow, you know, the surveyor should be able to determine to the extent physically possible; and by agreement with the owners in the end if, you know, there€s no real physical evidence to establish the location -. But there should be a clear understanding of the developer in this case that, in fact, at the end of this process, there€s going to be a survey of metes and bounds, legal description of the Judd Trail from Alii Drive to the mauka boundary of this property. And if that€s not the case then ƒ. MOORE:Presumably it extends off the property into the easement, you know, right at the point where you see the walls ending on that map ƒ. IWASHITA:I€m not presuming to do the surveyor€s job. The surveyor€s job is to locate the, is to locate the Judd Trail. Because title to the Judd Trail is not disputed, right? The State owns the Judd Trail. Is that, on that point, is there an agreement? MOORE:Oh, yeah. LAU:Yes. IWASHITA:Okay. Nobody is disputing the title. This is a classic example of an unlocated, in this case, right-of-way, a trail, right, an old road, roadway. And so the only issue that needs to be addressed in this application to me is to make it real clear that what the surveyor is doing is not surveying a hundred feet of wall that he can find but to place on the ground, right, the extension of the Trail up to the mauka boundary of this property. I just want to make sure that that€s the clear understanding of what€s going to be done here. LAU:May I make a suggestion? IWASHITA:I€d like an answer to that question first. 6EXHIBIT C LAU:Yes, we will do that, Commissioner. IWASHITA:Thank you. LAU:But may I make a suggestion -? IWASHITA:Sure. LAU:With respect to the condition. Norman, if you could help me. The mauka boundary of the property, could you point that out? Okay. The Trail may not touch that mauka boundary. So the suggestion I have is that let€s take the distance from Alii Drive to that mauka boundary, whatever it is, I don€t have a scale, let€s say it€s 500 feet. Perhaps what the condition should read is that we will provide a metes and bounds description of the Trail from Alii Drive going mauka 500 feet. I think that that would meet with your concern; and I think it€ll be clearer thansayingthatwewillmaptheboundarytothemaukapointoftheproperty.Becauseifthe Trail doesn€t hit the mauka boundary, mauka section, mauka line of the property, then I think we have an ambiguity in our condition. IWASHITA:I agree with your concern. The language that I think would be acceptable would be that the survey should extend up to the mauka boundary or theextension of the mauka boundary south, some language like that. LAU:That would be fine. I agree. IWASHITA:That€s fine. As far as the -. I guess that covers it. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Watanabe, you had your hand up earlier? WATANABE: No. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Let me try to explain kind of where I€m coming from on this. I don€t have any specific objection to this SMA permit into your project. When I read my legal documents, grounds for approval of Special Management Area Use Permits, The Authority may permit the proposed development only upon finding that:‚ and No. 1 here says, The development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect except as such adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable and is clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interest.‚ So applying this to what you€re doing, the kind of adverse effects that we generally are concerned with with SMA permits are archaeological, Hawaiian cultural issues, access issues, viewplane issues, water quality issues. So I think you all, from what I remember and what I understand, are going as far as you need to go to minimize any adverse effects in this way as much as practicable. On the other hand, the second half of this says, and is clearly outweighed by public health, safety or compelling public interest.‚ So, to me, the Judd Trail is a very real public interest issue; and, so, to me, for you to do a metes and bounds survey in the future of the Judd Trail doesn€t feel like you€re going very far towards clearly outweighed by public health, safety or compelling public interest.‚ 7EXHIBIT C So I would much prefer kind of like we discussed earlier today that the metes and bounds survey be done before we approve this application. Andthen if there was any kind of reasonable work that you all could do to bring the Judd Trail towards becoming a public asset in the future, we could ask you folks to do that as your effort to clearly outweigh any adverse impacts that you€ve already minimized. So that€s where I€m coming from. LAU:Okay. Perhaps, No. 1, you know, I believe that a condition that we discussed earlier with respect to the mapping of the Judd Trail that would ensure that there is an identification of the Judd Trail, I would be amenable to preserving a portion of the Judd Trail that€s on our property so that it can be accessible to the public. Would that meet with your concern? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No.Idon€tthinkthatreachesthelevelofinvolvementthatIwashoping to see. I do understand from your consultant that if, in fact, all it says is that the Judd Trail is not suitable for use now, for you to do a whole bunch of work on it maybe feels premature. But I€m still left in the situation that, you know, I€d like to see a public interest component to your thing here; and I see no better way than the Judd Trail; and I don€t feel like a metes and bounds survey really does that. LAU:Well, can I ask you what level of improvement would you like to see? GRAHAM:That€s the problem. It seems like I was hoping when we put this out for deferral before that we would come back and we€d have a metes and bounds survey. And, so, then, with the Planning Director€s participation, you know, we could sort of say, This is appropriate but this is asking too much, or whatever.‚ But we€re not in a position to do that today it seems. YUEN:If I can just jump in for just a minute here. I think that in the materials they provided in this, there€s a map of where the Judd Trail is on their property that€s pretty, seems to be pretty accurate. So from that standpoint it€s, I had the page, I€m sorry ƒ. You don€t have the cultural assessment? GRAHAM:I got a letter from -. YUEN:Okay, I€m sorry, yes. You got the map? No, not that map. There€s another map that shows the Judd Trail. It€s labeled A-1 on the bottom. So from the standpoint, this does not have a metes and bounds. The standpoint of this is it does show, you know, it does show the portion of the Judd Trail that is within their metes and bounds, not to say that it€s their property, which is the point that they€ve already conceded. And I think what you€re getting at is that you€d like to see, at some point, some private entity responsible for restoring this section of the Judd Trail, but it may be premature to do so right now. GRAHAM:Yeah, I think basically you€re characterizing it correctly. And I feel a little bit like what Commissioner Iwashita said before about, you know, when there are streets coming up to a project, you know, even though it€s not part of the project€s property, we do require improvements and things. And I don€t know if, you know, I€m certainly not looking for 8EXHIBIT C a reason to vote against this project. It just feels likeahard issue to handle here today since we don€t have the metes and bounds and it€s -. YUEN:Well,ifI could suggest, maybe Mr. Moore can help here. I believe there€s a level of work that you€d call stabilization.‚ MOORE:Yes. YUEN:And would you explain that? MOORE:That would be taking the deteriorated portions, retrieving stones that have fallen off the wall, refacing the wall, reconstructing those portions of the wall so that they€re bi- faced core filled, intact. You know, this northern wall is in good condition at this point, but we€d recreate it to look and be the same size and shape as the northern wall. There€s a dilapidated woodengatethatwouldneedtobereplacedorremoved.Thatwoodengatewasnotlikelypart of the original structure. It was probably put in after the fact, early 1900€s, to control cattle or something like that. You know, at one point they believed it was used as a chute to bring cattle down to the coast. YUEN:I think Mr. Lau has expressed his willingness to do stabilization. And this is, as a kind of archeological work, what this does is it prevents further deterioration, at least for a time. Like once the wall has started to collapse, then it€s very easy for stones to keep coming out. The difficulty here, and then we have something that they do, that they can do now. The difficulty with a full restoration is that Na Ala Hele program, there€s not a lot of point to doing 100 feet; and the Na Ala Hele program is apparently not ready to open up the Judd Trail. If this were a big development where you would, like the Mauna Lani or something where you have an entity there, that you can put a condition on that they can do it later, that€s a little easier. When you have a small development that€s going to get sold off, you€ll have a homeowner€s association; but it€s difficult to have a condition that they do something in the distant future that may never arrive. But what I would suggest -- if, you know, in where you€re going with this as far as what work could reasonably be done at this stage on the site -- would be to talk about requiring stabilization of the portion that is within their metes, within the metes and bounds of their property. LAU:We would be amenable to that. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:You were speaking before on the metes and bounds going up to the, essentially the mauka elevation of your property. Are you in a position where you could do the stabilization to the mauka elevation boundary of your property? To me, that would feel more appropriate than just what fits within the metes and bounds, as long as you€re legally capable of doing that. LAU:Well, as I stated at the previous meeting, the problem that we would have is that we would need permission from somebody else. I mean, we don€t, we cannot do work on property we don€t own. So, plus, in this area, according to Mr. Moore, the Trail has been bulldozed prior to 1980, so there€s really nothing to stabilize it in that area. 9EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Well, I mean, if the stabilizing is not going to be, then you don€t have to do anything. But you could essentially guarantee a stabilization of the Trail up to the most mauka elevation of your property. And if it€s State-owned, I guess, is it not permissible for you to do that? MOORE:It would be very difficult to recreate something that was never documented. You know, at this point, as we extended further mauka of what€s existing, we€d almost be guessing at the morphology of what was there before. You know, we don€t have documentation at this point. The bi-faced core filled walls, parallel walls, continue all the way up to Hualalai, the Trail was once 16 miles long and it reached up to the Heiau Ahu-a-Umi. It hasn€t been thoroughly described in the entire length. GRAHAM:I think Mr. Yuen certainly understands where I€m coming from. And so, youknow,ratherthanhavingyoutrytoreplicatesomethingthatexistedhistoricallywhatI€m really looking for most is that it be there for public use and in a usable fashion; and so anything that might be an impediment to that, that you folks would take care of as far as your mauka boundary. Is that workable, Chris, or is there some way you could do that? YUEN:Let me just say I want to understand this correctly. Do the parallel walls continue where it goes off your property? MOORE:As far as I know, no. There has been some documentation several thousand meters, a couple of miles, but I€m not familiar exactly with the site description from those work -. YUEN:What I mean is on this Diagram A-1 that we were looking at, it shows parallel walls within your metes and bounds. And then it, they did not attempt to map this to the property to the south, apparently, because it goes off onto what€s shown as a State easement on the tax maps. MOORE:Well, what€s shown on the map is basically what€s on the ground now. YUEN:Okay, so the parallel walls, where it goes off the metes and bounds of the property, the parallel walls stop? MOORE:Correct. YUEN:They€ve been destroyed already? MOORE:Correct. YUEN:Okay. So my suggestion, there€s nothing to stabilize past this 100-foot stretch of parallel walls. So my suggestion would be simply that they, that we have a condition that they stabilize that stretch of the Judd Trail, including the walls that line it. They would still have to actually get consent of SHPD to do this work, in any event, both from an archeological 10EXHIBIT C standpoint and from an ownership standpoint. But we could, you know, we could put a condition in that that said that they had to do that, subject to obtaining the consent of the State. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No, thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I€m really concerned about, you know, the extent of the Trail. And I guess, you know, in terms of the comment Commissioner Graham had on having the survey done ahead of time, I really agree with that because right now we€re guessing in terms of, you know, what should be done. If we had the survey done, you know, the surveyor€s job would have to include the title issues. And it seems to me that, you know, I know the State has an easementareathatrunsadjacentalongyoursouthernboundary.But,infact,onthegroundthe Trail is, you know, a portion of it is right now apparently on your property. So, as far as I€m concerned, that portion of your land you don€t own, that€s the State€s land. Because if you don€t dispute that the State owns the Judd Trail and the Judd Trail is physically on your property, then that€s State land. So, you know, the completion of the survey to me is important to determine, either based on physical and other legal documentary evidence, where the Trail is. And if to the extent that kind of evidence is insufficient, then there has to be an agreement by the relevant owners, right, as to where it€s going to be placed on the ground so that the survey can be completed. And there€s nothing to be a dispute about title, you know, to that actual on-the- ground placement of the Judd Trail. So, for those reasons, I really believe that it€s important to have the survey done ahead of time, because the survey is going to answer a lot of questions. And then we can get back to, as far as my druthers on the restoration it would be that, at a minimum, all the brush be cleared, you know, and that it be maintained in that state over the actual location of the Judd Trail. And then, you know, down the road I guess when the entire Trail is going to be restored then, you know, at least we€ve maintained that part, that portion of it, you know, in a condition that it can be maintained for the present time. But, again, I really think the survey really needs to be done in order for us to have adequate information to proceed. ALAMEDA:Response? Applicant? LAU:Mr. Chair, I believe that what the survey is going to tell us is where the Judd Trail is, because what the surveyor would do would prepare metes and bounds and show us to the best of surveyor€s knowledge where those walls are; and then there€s going to be some, it€s going to be, yes, it will determine where those walls are. I agree to stabilization, I agree to clearing the brush within the area of the Judd Trail that€s on our property. I also agree that the survey would extend to the mauka boundary of our property as it goes south. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I got a question. You also included a Conservation area. That Conservation area abuts the Judd Trail? 11EXHIBIT C LAU:It€s a preservation area that has been approved by the State. WATANABE: And it€s directly adjacent to the Judd Trail. So, with regard to Mr. -, no? LAU:Actually, we believe that the section of the Judd Trail that exists is within the preservation area. So it€s not adjacent, it€s within. WATANABE: It€s within? LAU:Yeah. WATANABE:So the concern that Mr. Iwashita had with regard to any development and maybe subsequent litigation of who actually owns the property; cause you technically don€t own the Judd Trail, is almost moot because it€s all going to be in a preservation area? LAU:Correct. WATANABE:So no development will occur over that at all? LAU:No development. WATANABE: At all? LAU:Correct. WATANABE:Not even in close proximity to the Judd Trail, right? MOORE:No. WATANABE: It extends even further than this 10-foot easement that we€re -? MOORE:There€s a buffer zone. There€s a 5-meter, 15-foot buffer zone, and it€s already scheduled to have all the non-indigenous flora removed and only indigenous flora landscaped in that area. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. LAU:And that was accepted and approved by the State. MOORE:Correct. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for the Applicants? Then we€re going, we do have one testifier, actually. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Can I just ask a question of the Planning Director for a second on this thing since we€re on this very topic. Given what the Applicant has agreed to do as far as stabilization and metes and bounds and clearing all the undergrowth, my hope with this whole thing was that somehow the Judd Trail could become useful in some way in the future. And I 12EXHIBIT C know at the last meeting I sort of brought that up and said well maybe I€m just sort of dreaming and this is way too far gone. Is there any way for the County or the State to go forward from, if we do this and the developer agrees to do this, we have the metes and bounds, is it practicable that the County or State might actually go forward from here and make a usable Judd Trail at some point in the not too distant future? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:I€m pretty sure that there is a, well, it can be done because there€s a legal right-of-way. It would take a certain amount of work to do it because you can€t just, you know, put a bunch of flagging out and say this is the Trail. Undoubtedly there are areas that would have to be cleared, there may be improvements needed to the footing to make a decent trail. So that€s just the work of it. At this point, what I think is really important is that we always make sure in this kind of application that the right-of-way is not somehow lost, that you don€t, if you takeaworstcasescenario,youapprove,weapprovethedevelopmentandhousesgetbuiltacross it. I think what€s being suggested here on the stabilization is a very good idea. But beyond that, really, you know, it is a State-owned trail. The State has a trail program. I can€t speak for them as to where they€re at with trying to actually open up the Judd Trail as a way of walking from Ali i Drive and going mauka. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I just want a clarification on my point about having the survey done first. And that is there might be an assumption being made that beyond these walls that the Judd Trail physically was still within the easement area for the State; and I guess the wall, to me, is an example of how that may not be true, you know, that the Trail is not this straight line, right, that it meanders, and so, you know, whatever the physical aspects are on the ground. And so, that€s why to me it€s important to go beyond what we see now being done as far as locating the walls, you know, the Judd Trail where it meets Ali i Drive, and go mauka and have the surveyor, you know, do all of the survey homework and properly locate the Trail physically on the ground. And if it€s within the easement area, fine; if it€s, portions of it meander back onto this Applicant€s property then that€s what it is. But, you know, that, to me, needs to be done; and in my mind it€s better if it€s done before. But I guess if it€s not going to be that way, I want to make it clear that as a condition precedent to the SMA being effective, that the survey be completed, and this work be completed and accepted before any development, any other development can go forward. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right. Why don€t we, any other comments? LAU:No other comments. ALAMEDA:Okay, we do have a testifier. While we take testimony, perhaps we could work on some, a condition or two to kind of discuss when we get into a discussion stage of the game. So let me call up testifier Curtis Tyler. You may be seated. We€ll bring you guys back. Mr. Tyler? Please have a seat. Let me swear you in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai i County Planning Commission? TYLER:I do. 13EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Thank you, sir. Please state your name and address for the record. TYLER:Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Hawai i County Planning Commission and staff. My name is Curtis Tyler. My mailing address and residence address is 73-1305 Hiolani Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawai i 96740-9344. I had no idea this item was going to be on your agenda this morning. I didn€t see it in the newspaper, I didn€t see it in the notice. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? When was this added to the agenda? This morning? ALAMEDA:Staff? HAYASHI:It was published in the newspaper about two weeks ago. TYLER:The addendum? This, it was published? HAYASHI:Yes. TYLER:My apologies. I didn€t see it. I€m sorry. ALAMEDA:You may proceed with your testimony. TYLER:Okay. Well, as I say, I didn€t see it. I came for another item; but when I heard about this and heard the testimony that was just provided to you, I had to step forward and testify on this. This is a matter that is going to have substantial impact, in effect, on the public€s use and access to the Judd Trail. And I don€t know how many of you in this room or this group have ever had a chance to go on the Judd Trail, but it is a very substantial trail. It has been in existence long before Mr. Judd worked on the Trail and improved it in approximately 1848. This Trail does not end at Ahu-a-Umi, as Mr. Moore represented. It goes to Hilo, for those of you from Hilo. It€s a very, very substantial trail. And for people to come forward here and to say that this Trail no longer, portions of it no longer exists on this property, they€re not going to allow public access, it€s not suitable for public use, and to debate the issue of public property held in trust by the State, by the State Historic Preservation Officer, Mr.Young, without anybody from the State here, it seems to me to be premature, at the very least premature. I was one of the individuals who was interviewed by Liz Gregg. I was interviewed on March th 17 regarding preparation of a cultural impact statement. She assured me that I would have a copyofmy,ofthetranscriptofmytestimonyandacopyoftheCISsoIcouldreviewit.Ihave never heard from them from that day to this. And I think any decision-making on this project todayispremature,atbest.You€vedebatedsomeconditionshereandthere,butImusttellyou that the public has a right to use this Trail. This Trail is protected, its existence and its use is protectedunderSection7oftheHawai iStateConstitution.Andtodebatewhetherornotthe Trail exists is to go and rehash what happened at Oceanside 1250 over about a 20-year period; andIthinkthecourthasbeenveryclearonthat.AndI€mnotheretospeakagainstthisproject. I€m here to speak for this Trail which belongs to all of the people of Hawai i Nei, not just Native 14EXHIBIT C Hawaiians. It€s every citizen here. And it is your obligation, under your oath of office, to support and defend the Constitution, not only of the United States but of the State of Hawai i. And this Trail, trails are being destroyed almost on a weekly basis all the time. People say they don€t exist. And the more people that say they don€t exist and the more people that don€t come forward to refute this, those of us who know this, just gives the ammunition for further destruction of this Trail. I€ve walked this Trail a number of times. I€ve walked huge sections of this Trail. I know it. And some of the representations made today are not true. And the fact that you can€t see the Trail doesn€t mean that the Trail doesn€t exist. And I€m sure that Mr. Torigoe would confirm to you that there is no adverse possession against the sovereign, in this case the State of Hawai i who is the trustee, since these are held in the ceded land trust for all people from now and into the future. I would strongly urge you to defer this item until you€ve had, all the Commissioners have had a chance to review this CIS, those of us who participated in it can have a copy to review it, to makesurethatwhatwesaidisproperlyrepresented,andthenIthinkappropriatekindsof language can be worked out. Certainly the State has to be at the table. This, as Mr. Iwashita, Commissioner Iwashita pointed out and others, this property is held in trust under the ownership of the State of Hawai i as the trustee; and I don€t see them here at the table, perhaps you have some correspondence from them. But you€re discussing issues about property over which you have no jurisdiction; and I don€t know how you can do that. Mr. Yuen has indicated to you that it would be subject to State approval, etc., etc. But certainly I think you ought to have them at the table. And I think the public ought to know that there€s a possible realignment, or change, or prohibition against the use of what is a public trail, which I believe, certainly, wouldn€t stand up in court. Anyhow, I€m here to answer any questions and to ask respectfully that you postpone this matter until, No. 1, all the Commissioners have a chance to review this; No. 2, so those of us who were interviewed have a chance to review the documentation so that we can make sure we€re properly represented. And then we can have a pro-active discussion about how to move this forward in a positive way. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Tyler, Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Mr. Tyler, as you€re probably aware, I feel largely in the direction you€re feeling. However, also, you know, the Applicant has been forthcoming here today. And I think from a devil€s advocate point of view, one could say if there€s only a small segment of the Trail that goes over the Applicant€s property and the Applicant is really willing to do what he needs to or what he could do on that portion of property in furtherance of our Judd Trail concerns, is it unfair to him in some way that we sort of hold up what he€s trying to accomplish so that we can deal with the State and deal with the larger issue of the Judd Trail? So I€d just like your comments on that. TYLER:Mr. Chairman, may I respond? ALAMEDA:Sure, go ahead. 15EXHIBIT C TYLER:Thank you, Mr. Graham. I think it€s clear that the Applicant wants to resolve this in a positive way. I€m not criticizing them for that. I think decisions are being made about somebody else€s property, really all of our property, our trustee for whom is not here to comment, or his or her representative is not here. And a number of you have talked about having a metes and bounds description, because from what I€ve heard there€s a question as to where the Trail is, vis-®-vis the subject property, that is Parcel 58, and whether or not it is entirely on this parcel or only portions of it on the parcel. And I think this needs to be resolved prior to your approval of an SMA; and I agree with some of the Commissioners who have spoken about this. My experience, long time experience, here and living here in Kona, is that these things get forgotten about. If they€re not dealt with up front, they get forgotten about. And then pretty soon when the public wants to go back and utilize its rights to go on these places, they find they€re not there. And you should, as one of your primary issues here, seek to protect this; and you should do all you can because that is your oath that you took to support and defend this. Andifyoudon€tdoit,well,youknowwhathashappenedinthepast,you€veseenit;andthere are ƒ. Well, Commissioner Graham, I think you should take care of this before you issue approval. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Mr. Graham, any follow-up? Any other questions for ƒ? YUEN:Yeah, I have just a couple of real specific on-the-ground questions. You€ve heard the description of the Judd Trail in this location as existing between a pair of parallel stonewalls that run for about 100 feet mauka of Ali i Drive and then disappear? Is that accurate? TYLER:I haven€t been on the Trail in the last year, last maybe five years actually. But I did go on the Trail; and the walls, my recollection is the double walls went quite a bit further than 100 feet from Ali i Drive where the gate is located; and then it went quite a ways. I remember Ms. Gregg telling me that the Trail had been destroyed and was not in existence; and I said that can€t possibly be because it was in existence not too many years ago. Certainly in the 80s it was in existence and then the 90s, if I recall correctly. That was I think the last time I went on that Trail. I went with a huge group of people. There were scores of people. And there were sections of it, my recollection, Mr. Yuen, is that the section of the Trail that was bulldozed was the section where the dozer had come through on the Ali i, what has been called the Ali i Highway alignment. That€s my recollection. The rest of it on the subject property or in this vicinity was intact. They were beautiful, beautiful stones, walls. And when we went further, as we got closer to Kuakini Highway, the Trail was more difficult to find; but it was certainly intact in the makai portion off of Ali i Drive, that is mauka of Ali i Drive, for quite a distance. It was remarkable how beautiful it was. And if it has been destroyed, other than the Ali i Highway right-of-way, which was a fairly wide swath, then that€s news as far as I€m concerned. I€m not aware of it and it would be, that€s a crime. I€m not saying these folks did that. I€m just saying, you know, as a matter of speech, it would be just a crime. It was beautiful. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for the testifier? Commissioner Iwashita, no? IWASHITA:Given Mr. Tyler€s testimony, it makes me more adamant that the survey should be done before we proceed and that we really need to have some solid information to see 16EXHIBIT C if, you know, Mr. Tyler€s recollection is correct and if there are, you know, what portions of the walls and so forth are still intact -. ALAMEDA:Before I ask Mr. Tyler to sit down, any other questions for him? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Tyler, for your input. I just wanted to know, well, for myself, I€m not familiar with the Judd Trail; and I would like to, I need to depend upon testimony such as yours as well as what€s provided in the report. So I would like to know if we could provide, if they provided the information in the report that they conducted, if you would be able to return to the, if we were to postpone the hearing or any action, that you could be at the hearing to help us weed through what is accuracies/inaccuracies. And that€s just because I have no information besides what we received in the packets. TYLER:MayIrespond,Mr.Chairman? ALAMEDA:Sure. TYLER:Thankyou,Mr.Salavea.Ofcourse,itwouldbemyintentiontocome back. I didn€t come here to oppose this project. I didn€t even know it was on the agenda, as I said earlier. I can€t tell you unequivocally that I would be here because I don€t know what date it would be continued to, No. 1, and No. 2, is I don€t know what my schedule is with respect to that date. But certainly it would be my intention, given a copy of this CIS and, you know, the background report, etc., to review it in great detail carefully and come back and be prepared along perhaps with some other people who have knowledge of this to present you with the factual information. ALAMEDA:Thank you, sir. TYLER:You€re welcome. SALAVEA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. You may be seated. TYLER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, 12:15. We do have to eat lunch, so I€m wondering what€s your pleasure? Do you want to discuss this item further and see kind of where we go? Yes? COMMISSIONERS:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay. Let€s continue. Would the Applicant please come forward? You€ve heard Mr. Tyler€s testimony and you€ve heard our discussion with him as well as ourselves. Do you have any responses or questions? 17EXHIBIT C LAU:Yes, I€d like to clarify two things: No. 1, we do not dispute the ownership of the State, that the State has the Judd Trail. No. 2, we are not denying public access to the Judd Trail. So contrary to what Mr. Tyler has said, I want to make those two items clear. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any further questions for the Applicants? Mr. Director? YUEN:Yeah, with all respect for Mr. Tyler, I would suggest that the Commission vote. I have a condition that would require stabilization of the Judd Trail. There€s no question then, there€s no challenge here that the Judd Trail exists as a legal right-of-way. In a portion of it where it€s physically shown by these walls, because even though that appears to be on the metes and bounds of their property as shown by a pin that€s being relied upon, it would still be State- owned. So there€s no question that we would be preserving both the physical, with the conditions of approval, be preserving both the physical stability and existence of the Trail and the legal ability or the legal right of the State to have a right-of-way through and adjacent to this propertyfortheJuddTrail. WATANABE:Mr.Chairman? ALAMEDA:CommissionerWatanabe. WATANABE:Ihaveaquestion.Youknow,wetalkedaboutthepreservationarea.And my question is how deep is that preservation area, you know, 100 feet, 200 feet? The Judd Trail was 10 feet or whatever? MOORE:Are you referring to mauka-makai? WATANABE: Yeah. MOORE:Okay. It extends from Alii Drive back to the end of the light-green zone. So it extends 15 meters past the mauka boundary of Site 8028, which the northern wall of the Judd Trail forms a southern wall of the Site 8028, which is ƒ. WATANABE: So assuming the Judd Trail was meandering through that preservation area. And the Judd Trail is presumably approximately how wide? MOORE:About 4-1/2 meters wide, so -. WATANABE: So 15 feet -. MOORE:Which is about 12 to 15 feet. WATANABE:So 12 to 15 feet. MOORE:Yeah. WATANABE: And you€re providing how many feet along there? MOORE:Uh, 15 meters, so that€s about 50 feet, buffer zone. 18EXHIBIT C WATANABE: So there€s substantial room for error? MOORE:Well, the buffer zone extends from the wall for 15 meters, so ƒ. WATANABE:Yeah, so if that, it didn€t go straight up ƒ? MOORE:It would still, right. WATANABE: You know, because it€s not delineated anymore, yeah? MOORE:Correct. WATANABE: But there€s substantial margin? MOORE:Yes. WATANABE:And development in proximity to the preservation, defined preservation areaishowclose? MOORE:Well,attheedgeofthebufferzone,thepreservationarea,there€sgoingto be a permanent buffer zone, and a temporary buffer zone for all -. WATANABE: As far as structures go? MOORE:Well, there€s a setback of 15 feet or so from the edge of the buffer zone. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want a clarification, I€m sorry. Have you actually walked this pathway? MOORE:Yes. IWASHITA:Okay. So my concern right now, given Mr. Tyler€s testimony, is that there€s a conflict between what he testified to as to the existence of the walls and the Trail when he walked it several years ago, relatively recently, and your testimony that the walls don€t exist beyond what€s shown on the map. MOORE:Right, at some point in time ƒ. IWASHITA:Well, there€s a conflict in terms of what actually exists in my mind, okay? And that€s why I really believe this should be put off, because that should be resolved by a licensed surveyor, doing a survey and, you know, locating all the physical aspects of what can be found. And because of that conflict, I don€t feel comfortable going forward. I really feel like we 19EXHIBIT C need more information; and with that information, you know, then we can make a proper decision. But until then, you know, we have this conflict; and I have really no basis to resolve it. ALAMEDA:Sure. I think if we do go forward, sounds like you would vote against it or kind of along those lines, or how would ƒ? IWASHITA:Well, I guess I was going to suggest, if it€s the consensus of the body, that, you know, we do put it off; and I don€t know if the Applicant would agree. But, you know, I really think that this survey should be done; and that we should have really hard evidence, and not conflicting testimony in going forward with this. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for the Applicants? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I€d just like to also say, while this is not so much for the Applicant, should Ijustcontinueinthesameveinwe€retalkingwith? ALAMEDA:Yeah,I€dliketohavetheApplicantssitdownsowecanmoveto discussion. Seeing no further -. You have any questions for the Applicants? IWASHITA:What€s the proper way to see if the Applicant would concur to having this survey done? ALAMEDA:I€m not sure. Let€s see. Yeah, Corp. Counsel or ƒ? TORIGOE:I€m sorry, so what is it you€re seeking at this point? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita is seeking if ƒ. IWASHITA:I want to know if the Applicant would agree to, you know, have the survey done now and provide it to us before we proceed further with this application. ALAMEDA:Is that the appropriate line of questioning or -? TORIGOE:Sure, because I think at this point you still haven€t closed the hearing. And what you€re asking for is more information that€s relevant to your decision. ALAMEDA:Yes. Okay, Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Do I need to repeat the question? LAU:No, sir. IWASHITA:Thank you. LAU:Commissioner Iwashita, we believe that a condition can be crafted in the SMA that would require us to provide the metes and bounds survey. And I believe that with legal counsel here, a condition could be crafted that would alleviate your concerns with respect 20EXHIBIT C to the metes and bounds. So with respect to the direct question, at this point, I believe that a condition would alleviate your concerns. IWASHITA:Well -. ALAMEDA:Commissioner, sure. IWASHITA:My real concern is that there is a conflict now in the evidence, right? Mr. Tyler says the walls were there just a few years ago and then there€s also evidence that they don€t exist anymore. Okay? It is a conflict to me that is sufficiently grave in terms of my proceeding further that I, whether it€s a survey or some, you know, some photographic evidence, or something, I need something to definitively tell me, you know, whether these walls exist or not and if they do where are they located. You know, because to the extent this trail may meander and not follow the easement, a substantial portion of it could still be within the boundaryline,yoursouthernboundarylinehere.Sothat€smyconcern.AndIreallyamnot comfortable with any condition. As far as having the survey done and so forth because of that, because there is this conflict -. And I don€t know what the actual extent of the condition and existence of the trail, and the walls are right now. There€s no way for me to determine that. LAU:Well, part of the testimony that we€re forgetting is that as late as 1980 there was a report by Professor Hal -. MOORE:Hammett. LAU:Hammett that said that the walls did not exist. However, perhaps the survey will tell us that there are walls; and if there are walls we€re agreeing that we will stabilize those walls and we will also clear the brush. So I believe that if we came back and said yes, the walls exists, and we€re not goingin that area, and we stabilize the walls, I believe that what you€re asking for will be satisfied. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for our applicant? Thank you. You may be seated. LAU:Thank you. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just coming from Mr. Tyler€s testimony and looking at where we€re coming from on this, the last hearing there were three of us who were concerned, it was Commissioner McCall, Commissioner Springer and myself. And Commissioner McCall is not here today, Commissioner Springer is finished and I, like Mr. Tyler, wasn€t aware it was on the agenda so I goofed in my own reading. And now we have Mr. Tyler who is willing to testify more on the cultural statement, which I always could rely a lot on Commissioner Springer€s research. So I feel on the cultural side also would really be good for us to put this off for another hearing. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, there€s a discussion about perhaps deferring this or continuing it until there€s more evidence, more information. Is there a similar view, on the left side or the right side? Commissioner Watanabe. 21EXHIBIT C WATANAB:I have a question. Seeing as it takes so long to have a survey actually conducted, would a site visit help you in deciding? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? Commissioner Graham? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Well, I suppose. But I think I would need someone with Mr. Tyler€s kind of knowledge, you know, of the area. Cause, you know, my looking at a bunch of bushes and piles of rocks, I don€t know how beneficial that would be. But, sure, I€m open to that if there€s someone knowledgeable about the Judd Trail. WATANABE:What about yourself, Mr. Graham? Cause it doesn€t appear that we have the votes to get this through today; and, at the same time, I would remind you that, you know, we also have to consider the fairness to the applicant. And, you know, with the current state of the economyandthewayit€ssodifficulttogetasurveydone,maybeacondition,awell-worded condition will be sufficient if a site visit would satisfy much of your concerns. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I€m not so concerned about, you know, the situation on the ground. I€m sure if the applicant just took some photos or something I would rest assured in their representations. So a site visit is helpful and fine; and I personally am willing to go with that as well as just -. To me we need a month€s time to go over what we have, and even some photos from the applicant would be good enough for me, but a site visit would probably be better. And I€m okay with that as opposed to waiting for an official metes and bounds. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones or Commissioner Salavea, you have anything to add to this discussion? SALAVEA:I€m inclined to postpone acting on this only because there seems to be a discrepancy, like Commissioner Iwashita had described. And a site visit, my opinion a site visit for me would not be as useful because I wouldn€t know what I was looking at. I would need to depend upon community members, people who live in the area who have family ties, who have the history, and they can relay that information relative to what the applicant was saying. And that really for me is what this boils down to. It€s what the local community members who have been born and raised in the area have and know relative to what is being represented in the application. If it doesn€t correspond or jive, then I have an issue with it. ALAMEDA:Okay. Sounds like, Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Chair. In fairness to the applicant, if the Commission is going to decide to postpone or continue this hearing, I think we should continue it for the purposes of getting information that would help us make a decision. The site visit thought, if it€s not going to satisfy Commissioner Graham€s or Commissioner Iwashita€s concerns then perhaps some other suggestions should be made so that they would get the information they€re going to need to make a decision. 22EXHIBIT C For me from what I have seen, including the proposed new Condition No. 13, I€m prepared to proceed with the decision. But considering that Commissioner Graham and Commissioner Iwashita have some concerns about this application, we will not have five votes in order to come up with some kind of action, whether it€s going to be approval or not. So it€s pretty much what would satisfy the concerns that Commissioner Iwashita and Commissioner Graham have in order that they can make this decision and move this application forward. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Galdones. Let me try and make a proposal, just from what I€m hearing. It sounds like we should continue this to the next hearing. It sounds like we should maybe draft some conditions so that we can look at them in the meantime as a prep to the next hearing. It sounds like we should get some pictures, and encourage testimony again, like Mr. Tyler so that we have that kind of evidence as well at our next hearing and maybe ask SHPD, some other entities to come forward as well to comment at that time. And perhaps then we might be ready for a decision. How does that sound? Commissioner Graham? CommissionerIwashita? IWASHITA:That€sfine. SALAVEA:I€dliketomakealsoonerecommendation,thattheintervieweesfromthe report be furnished the cultural report and made aware of when this item is on the agenda again so that we can as much as possible confirm what is in the report. I found it, for myself, just a little troubling that Mr. Tyler didn€t receive the report and wasn€t able to verify things that were reported here. Cause for myself I think this is where I am skeptical, is I trust what I read and if there are discrepancies and nobody, and it€s not ever brought to my attention, then I take it for face value. ALAMEDA:Okay. Let me ask our counsel then if the proposal be what we want to do next, how do we -? Do we need to make a motion for that or do we need to ask the applicants if they€re okay with that? TORIGOEYeah, I think both of those would be a good idea. You know, see if the applicant has any objections to this; and then if it€s agreeable then go ahead and have a motion to continue in order to achieve those objectives. ALAMEDA:You€ve heard the discussion and the proposal. Are you okay? LAU:Yes. The only item that I€d like to comment on would be getting the State involved. What I would propose is that we would write a letter to the State advising them that there is a continued hearing, and whether they choose to show up or not is their decision. And so what I€m saying is let€s invite them to the dance. If they don€t want to dance, we€ll go on without them. ALAMEDA:Okay, that sounds good, sounds good to me. Is there a motion on the table? SALAVEA:Can I make a comment? ALAMEDA:Sure, go ahead. 23EXHIBIT C SALAVEA:I think if we are, as a Commission I wouldn€t feel comfortable if were proposing conditions that were to modify the Trail in any way without having the State€s input into that, only because it€s an archaeological site and whatever happens I think the State has to be aware that it is something that€s being proposed. And as the owners, I€d like to know if somebody was messing with my driveway. WATANABE:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Yeah, our conditions would require that. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, I don€t believe that that€s what he was implying. I believe he was saying that possibly the State would not be at the next Kona meeting, present at the next Kona meeting. However, I think it€s very clear, even as Mr. Yuen had indicated, that they would have togetapprovalforwhateverworkwasdoneonthatpropertybecausetheydon€townthe property, the State owns that property. So I don€t think you€re cutting the State out of the loop. We€re just trying to make sure that there€s no undue holdup for this applicant because the State€s schedule does not meet that particular meeting date. I think that was the intent. ALAMEDA:So, again, let me just summarize the proposal, continue the hearing, maybe get some draft conditions out for us to look at, review the material prior to the hearing, get some pictures maybe -- I don€t think we need a site visit, I think the pictures and the additional information would suffice -- also encourage testimony at that time so that we can concur the written with the interviewee€s experiences. And I think that should suffice. Is that -? WATANABE:And invite the State agencies. ALAMEDA:Okay, and also invite the State agencies. Did I miss anything? GRAHAM: Only I€m thinking on Commissioner Salavea€s comment that those who participated in the cultural impact statements be given a copy and invited to come also. ALAMEDA:That€s right. Sure. APPLICANT:Mr. Chairman, for the record, I will hand Mr. Tyler a copy of the assessment right now. Mr. Tyler? TYLER:Yes, sir. APPLICANT:Here€s a copy of the assessments. We won€t have to mail it to him. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right. So can we make a motion then? WATANABE:So move. I don€t think I have to repeat it, huh? IWASHITA:Second. 24EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Motion was made by Commissioner Watanabe to continue the hearing, and seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. Discussion? IWASHITA:I€d just like to clarify that the copy of the cultural impact statements will be provided to all the witnesses, not just Mr. Tyler, and that they be given notice that this matter is going to be heard at the next West Hawaii Planning Commission meeting. ALAMEDA:So noted. Further discussion? Seeing none, staff? HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. Mr. Chair, I do have one question. ALAMEDA:Yes, sir. HAYASHI:Regarding the photos, who is expected to take photos of the wall? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I was thinking the applicant could just provide some photos that he was depicting today so that we can be rest assured that€s what is really there. LAU:We would be happy to. GRAHAM:Thank you. 25EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Thank you. LAU:For clarification, what is the date of the next hearing? rd HAYASHI:Well, we do have on the calendar June 23. However, we noticed the Director won€t be around so we€d prefer to have it at the next July meeting in Kona; and that st would be July 21. ALAMEDA:Okay. Any objections to that? LAU:No objections. YUEN:Well, I think I€ve said what I€ve got to say. I€m writing a condition now; and I€ve said what I€ve got to say. I have no problem with your scheduling it for the next Kona meeting. HAYASHI:Okay. The reason why is that we didn€t have anything scheduled for this rd agenda, on the 23 also. rd YUEN:We were not going to have a meeting at all on the 23? HAYASHI:Yes. Because we didn€t have anything set on the agenda, except now we have one. So it€s up to the Commission what you want to do. ALAMEDA:July. WATANABE:Is that okay? LAU:July is fine. ALAMEDA:July is good. Thank you. Very well, any other questions? All right. Thank you. The discussion ended at 12:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 26EXHIBIT C : 27EXHIBIT C