Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-19 Leeward Exh A - Kohanaiki LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 19, 2012 KOHANAIKI SHORES, LLC (SMA-12-50) A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of was called to order at 9:45 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Vice Chair Lani Bowman presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Lani Bowman, Brandi Beaudet, Thomas Hickcox, Wayne Iokepa and Thomas Whittemore ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Geraldine Giffin and Richard Nelson, III ALSO PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Kiran Emler (Department of Public Works, Engineering Division), and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately twelve people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: KOHANAIKI SHORES, LLC (SMA-12-50) Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of a frontage road along the makai side of the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway from the Huliko‘a Drive intersection at the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway to Kohanaiki Way, Kohanaiki, North Kona, TMK: 7-3-009: portions of 16 and 18. BOWMAN: So we will move on to our second agenda item that is Kohanaiki Shores, LLC, SMA Permit 12-50. It’s a special management area use permit to allow the development of a frontage road along the makai side of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway from the Huliko‘a Drive intersection at the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway to Kohanaiki Way, Kohanaiki, North Kona. Thank you. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and also good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. Welcome. If I can direct your attention to our presentation this morning. Our first applicant is Kohanaiki Shores, LLC. They are requesting a special management area use permit. The area of this application is located within the North Kona District of Hawai‘i. More specifically, we are looking in the Kohanaiki area. You might be familiar with the industrial area located on the lower portion of the map; this is where Costco is located, as well as others. Hina Lani Street runs in an east-west direction, or mauka-makai. More specifically, we have Huliko‘a Street and the industrial area located on the mauka side of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, which is running in a north-south direction along the middle portion of the map. The properties identified with this application are outlined in black. You will notice the different colors on the map, which represent the different types of zoning. This is a closer-up view of the area for the application. Again, the subject properties are identified with the black outline. We have Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway running in a north-south direction, and we have Huliko‘a Road running in an east-west direction, or mauka-makai. We have the Kohanaiki project just makai of the project site. More specifically, you’ll see a red outline, that’s the actual project area, so it only is touching a portion of each of these two properties. This particular zoning is the County zoning layer, which identifies both 1 EXHIBIT A properties as being Open zoning. The different other colors on the map: You have Resort zoning, which is the purple, Single Family Residential, we have some Multiple Family Residential and some Industrial and also Village Commercial in the area. This is an aerial photo. It shows you the progress that is being made on the project to the makai side, and it shows you the structures that are located in the industrial area along Huliko‘a Road. And again, we show the particular area that is undeveloped that is part of this application. This is the State Land Use Boundary Map. The two colors that are represented represent Urban Development, which is the pink color, as well as Conservation, which is the blue. So in this particular area, Parcel 18 is actually identified in Conservation. As a result of this, the applicant was required to do an environmental assessment for this project, which was completed. This is the General Plan LUPAG Map for the area. It identifies the property mainly as Urban Expansion. This is the Kona Community Development Plan Map, which shows the two Transient Oriented Development areas located just mauka of the project. It also identifies the proposed frontage road, or what they call a secondary road, which runs parallel with Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway. This is the Concurrency Map, which is located within the Kona Community Development Plan. The project site is within Concurrency Zone A, and within that zone it identifies a road that is requested to be improved in this area; it is identified as Road 4A, and in the Plan it states that “Queen Ka‘ahumanu Frontage Road and provide adequate access to Queen Ka‘ahumanu Frontage Road.” So this is the proposed road for improvements being done within Concurrency Zone A. This particular project is implementing a portion of this road and complying with the requirements of the concurrency zone. It says, “The Kona CDP calls for a frontage road makai (west) of, and parallel to, Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway from the Kona International Airport at Keāhole to Honokōhau Harbor (Kona CDP Policy TRAN-1.5). The Kona CDP envisions this frontage road to serve as a secondary transit route to ‘enable the consolidation of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway vehicular access points for the developments makai of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway’ (Kona CDP Policy TRAN-1.5). As a secondary transit route, eventually the frontage road will also include bus transit stations along its path to facilitate the expansion of Kona’s bus transportation system.” The applicant is requesting a special management area use permit for the construction of a frontage road from Huliko‘a Drive intersection at Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway to Kohanaiki Way. The project involves the construction of the first portion of the frontage road envisioned by the Kona Community Development Plan, and includes the extension of Huliko‘a Drive makai of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, from the makai highway right-of-way to a newer intersection with the new frontage road, the creation of a new intersection makai of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway connecting the makai portion of Huliko‘a Drive to the frontage road, and lastly, the construction of the frontage road from the new intersection to the existing Kohanaiki Way to the north. This is the applicant’s site plan. Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway is on the upper portion of the map. This shows the extension of Huliko‘a Drive to the new intersection, and then from the intersection frontage road, the new frontage road portion up to Kohanaiki Way. This is an aerial again zoomed in. We have Huliko‘a Drive on the lower right-hand portion of the map. This extension would come down to this particular area, and then come across creating the new frontage road and then hooking up with Kohanaiki Way. The Planning Department is recommending approval of this request with conditions. I have a few items to bring to your attention. No. 1, this morning and yesterday the Planning Department had received a comment letter from Kaloko-Honokōhau National Park Service. This is dated July 19, 2012, and it’s been handed out to the Commissioners. Basically, they are concerned, they are respectfully requesting that “appropriate mitigation measures to protect cultural and biological aquatic resources from roadway-associated nonpoint source pollution” be added in the conditions. 2 EXHIBIT A “These mitigation measures must include structural best management practices engineered to detain and filter pollutant-carrying first-flush stormwater or spills (examples of filtering technology include Stormceptor, Bio Clean, and Contech).” Additionally, we’d like to make one correction on the record. This is Page 3 of the background report, No. 10; the whole point of this application is that the project is located in the special management area, but unfortunately, we had stated that it is not in the special management area, so we’d like to remove the word “not” – apologize for that. There will be some conversation regarding possible changes to conditions, and we’ll defer that to when the applicant comes up. That concludes our presentation. Are there any questions? BOWMAN: No questions, Commissioners? DARROW: Thank you. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. Will the applicant and/or their representative please come forward? Okay, I need to swear you in. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawai‘i Leeward Planning Commission? APPLICANTS: I do. BOWMAN: Thank you. If, all those who are providing testimony, if you could give your name, please. LIM: Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Planning Commission. I’m Steven Lim with Carlsmith Ball representing the applicant, Kohanaiki Shores, LLC. To my right is Mr. Joe Root who is our project manager, and to the further right is Mr. Roy Takemoto, our project planner from PBR Hawai‘i. BOWMAN: Thank you. LIM: We’ve received the background report, and subject to the corrections that Mr. Darrow mentioned and a couple of conditions that we would like to propose for the Commission’s consideration, we agree with the background and recommendation. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. Would you like to elaborate on your -? LIM: Okay, we can do that, or you can take the public testimony. I think that some people are signed up. BOWMAN: Maybe we should hear the public testimony first. Okay, thank you, you may be seated. So all those who are providing testimony, would you – if there are enough chairs, let’s see – I have Guye H. Lee, Burke Matsuyama and Jeff Zimpfer, if you could come up to the chairs, and I will swear you in. Thank you. If you could raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Leeward Hawai‘i Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. 3 EXHIBIT A BOWMAN: Okay. Why don’t we go from this side. And if you could please state your name and then your testimony. Thank you. ZIMPFER: My name is Jeff Zimpfer -. BOWMAN: Please speak into the mike. ZIMPFER: My name is Jeff Zimpfer, and I’m an environmental protection specialist for Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park. And I’m here today on behalf of Kathy Billings, the Superintendent of Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park. (Mr. Zimpfer read a comment letter dated July 19, 2012, signed by Kathy Billings – SEE ATTACHMENT TO EXHIBIT A.) BOWMAN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the testifier? Any additional testifying? That’s good? Okay, thank you. Would you state your name, please, for the record and speak into the mike. MATSUYAMA: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Burke Matsuyama, and I’m the president of the Kohanaiki Business Park Association. We are an organization comprised of over 50 landowners and businesses with over 500 employees and thousands of patrons who use the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Huliko‘a intersection on a daily basis. I’m here on their behalf, also the Kohanaiki ‘ohana, and would like to voice my support and urge the Commission to swiftly pass this application. In a sense, I’m not only here to speak for my members, as well as the ‘ohana and fellow landowners, but the whole Kona community who have sacrificed their time and resources in adopting the Kona Community Development Plan, which identifies the need for the frontage road in its plans and policies. The Plan’s endorsement should make the Commissioners understand that this proposed roadway was put under many hours of public scrutiny and discussion and ultimately gained the support and adoption of the people of Kona. This alone should make it clear to the Commissioners that this road is needed, and that the Kona community fully supports its implementation. However, no matter how important a CDP is as a planning tool for policy makers such as yourself, it cannot fully reflect the human scale of the importance of the roadway improvement. I’m here to fill in that human face for all of you. I would like the Commissioners to understand that the human face that looks upon the present traffic situation that exists in our area is filled with fear and apprehension. At present the intersection that services our subdivision and makai property is at times inadequate and dangerous. We need to quickly upgrade into a signalized format in order to allow safe passage of both mauka and makai properties. On a daily basis our members are faced with long wait time for turning left southbound on Queen Ka‘ahumanu, and the danger only increases due to the blind spot for the same left turning vehicle, created by right entering vehicles, which block the view of through-passing traffic. The condition is very dangerous and there have been accidents at our intersection. The situation for makai motorists leaving the Shores of Kohanaiki is even worse. The State DOT has adopted a policy of no left turns for all vehicles either entering or leaving the property and forcing motorists to make U-turns at our intersection and at the Natural Energy Lab. I would like to emphasize to the Commissioners that Huliko‘a was not designed to accommodate U-turns. The present situation is dangerous and accident waiting to happen. Please do not allow the human tragedy to occur. I urge the Commissioners to heed the desires of the Kona people and quickly ratify the application before you. Mahalo. BOWMAN: Thank you, Mr. Matsuyama. Any questions from the Commissioners? No? Hearing none, we will move to the next testifier, please. Please state your name. 4 EXHIBIT A LEE: My name is Guye Lee. Aloha mai kākou to the Planning Commission. The reason why I am here is because my family is associated with Huliko‘a; we are the descendants of Huliko‘a. And the property, the ahupua‘a of Kohanaiki, okay, was previously owned by us, you know, we owned quite a bit of the property here, there. We have a small portion here, Parcel 13 and 14. And, you know, our concern mainly is, we are not opposing the construction of this bypass or this extra roadway, this frontage road, but what we are concerned about, though, is, being indigenous ancestors of this area, we have a duty, we have a responsibility that any development for this area is done with thoughtful consideration. And hearing the testimony that has come out previous, you know, we are for it; however, we also have ideas for our portion in which, you know, we want to preserve and make sure that we are not restricted from our original rights. I’m here today, again, to introduce ourselves because, you know, we have been sitting back for a number of years now in order for this area to expand and develop. But again, my purpose, or our purpose with the trust, is that we develop our area so that future generations of the Kona community will benefit, not just the individuals within our area. Thank you. BOWMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lee. Any questions from Commissioners? I have -. So are you saying – I don’t know if there is another picture that we can see the exact, their parcels, your parcels, Mr. Lee. Maybe you can -. LEE: Our parcel is mauka of -. ARAI: Microphone, please. BOWMAN: There is a pointer. LEE: Our portion of land at the moment consists of this area here, 144 acres, to the north on the mauka side, as well as 11.7 acres here on the makai side. So we, again, our family still owns this portion, and would like to develop this portion. If you are planning on moving this access way at Kohanaiki Way and bringing in over to Huliko‘a Drive, we are not sure how that will affect our portion here on Parcel 13 to have direct access to Queen K. At the moment there is an easement on Huliko‘a Drive at this point here, but we are not sure if this easement will be able to accommodate all of the traffic that would be happening on this road. We understand that there will be a so-called Middle Road up here, which we are encouraged by and which we hopefully would be able to connect to. But if an access for us to, you know, from the top down to Queen K is direct, then it makes it so much easier for us to get on to Queen K. LEITHEAD TODD: I was -. Chair? BOWMAN: Please. LEITHEAD TODD: I was going to say that that really isn’t within the control -. LEE: Right, I understand. LEITHEAD TODD: Of the Planning Commission or even the County, because since Queen Ka‘ahumanu is a state highway, access to the highway and where fully channelized and four-way intersections occur is really under State control. And so I would suggest that your family have some conversations with State Highways about that, and also explore exactly what your easement 5 EXHIBIT A gives you in terms of the Huliko‘a use from your property, because my understanding is that the State wants to limit direct access. You might be allowed to get a right-in/right-out, but you wouldn’t get a full four-way intersection there, because they want to limit a number of intersections. So if you have long range plans, you probably need to be looking at what the timelines are for other development in the area, where -. I’m not sure where the County is on the Mid Level Road, because we don’t have funding for the next section. But you need to be coordinating primarily with State DOT because the access to Queen K is going to be your big issue. LEE: Thank you. BOWMAN: Thank you, Director. Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? If there are none, you may be seated, thank you. Is there anyone else who came in that would like to testify for Agenda Item No. 2, Kohanaiki Shores? Hearing none, would the applicants like to return? Thank you. LIM: Thank you, Madam Chair. What we will do now is to have Roy Takemoto pick up on some of the finer details of the project and the project issues and, hopefully, respond to the concerns of the National Park Service. Thank you. BOWMAN: Thank you. TAKEMOTO: Okay, I’ll be discussing three points. First, maybe, since the testimony is fresh, let me just respond first to the testimony. So regarding the Lee property, we are required by Condition No. 5 to extend Huliko‘a to the northern boundary. Jeff, you’ve got your pointer thing? DARROW: Sure. TAKEMOTO: Thank you. So what that means is we’ll be providing an easement that will connect to this boundary here that would extend Huliko‘a to enable it to continue on. And this is the Lee property here. As an easement, should the Lee property not like where it’s stubbing out to their property based on their future master planning, that easement would allow them to relocate it to the location that best suits them. So there will be an easement created that could be re-locatable. So that’s point No. 1 that I’d like to bring up. Point No. 2, on the response to the National Park Service, and we have a proposed condition where in fact we would accept their point that there needs to be further mitigation. And the condition that we would like to propose reads as follows: Implement best management practices engineered to detain and filter pollutant-carrying first-flush stormwater or spills to supplement drywells, for example, bioswales or similar measures, and that these measures be appropriate to the potential impact to anchialine ponds and the level of traffic, meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works. So if this is acceptable, this is a condition that we would like to propose as an addition to what’s in the staff report. BOWMAN: You have that in writing for our staff? TAKEMOTO: Yeah, uh huh. BOWMAN: Thank you. 6 EXHIBIT A TAKEMOTO: And then the last point I’d like to bring up is the right-of-way here, and it’s regarding Condition No. 3. In Condition No. 3, our proposal was, this is an 80-foot right-of-way at the intersection, and Condition No. 3 requires it to be expanded to 90 feet. We thought 80 feet was enough to provide for the reasonable long term, and 90 feet would be to accommodate what would be almost like the worst case; if a scale of development like what was proposed at ‘O‘oma became approved in the future, then maybe the 90-foot right-of-way would be required. But until then 80-foot would suffice for very long term. But if the County wants to take the full 90 feet now, even if it may not be needed, there is no objection from the applicant to do that. And I’ll leave it at that. BOWMAN: Do you have any comments from staff on this? ARAI: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Regarding – let me address them one at a time – the condition that spoke to the use of possible bioswales, we reviewed the proposed language with the Department of Public Works as well, and we have no objection to incorporating the condition as stated by the applicant’s representative into our recommendation of proposed conditions of approval. So – where did I put that – and I would like to, again, let me re-read it again; the condition that they are offering is, “Implement best management practices engineered to detain and filter pollutant-carrying first-flush stormwater or spills to supplement drywells, for example, bioswales or similar measures appropriate to the potential impact to anchialine ponds and the level of traffic, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works.” So we could include that as a new condition. I just haven’t decided where best to put it, but we would recommend incorporating the language into your recommendation. Regarding the proposed amendment to Condition No. 3, again, we spoke to Public Works just now. And at this point in time they would be willing to accept the full 90 feet; so that being said, we would like to recommend the Condition No. 3 not be modified and kept as is, as recommended by the Planning Director. BOWMAN: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? Mr. Whittemore. WHITTEMORE: I have just -. BOWMAN: Can you use the mike, please? Thanks. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. Just a couple of questions just out of curiosity. Roy, you indicated up here that this lateral, the access for the Lee property, could be moved, that easement. It could vary, it could come down to the lower point, or wherever they felt it most desirable for their property? TAKEMOTO: Yeah. Of course, it will be subject to traffic engineering and Public Works reviewing approval -. WHITTEMORE: It seems like it would really defeat the purpose of the frontage road having a clear flow of traffic, if it has to take jogs and turns and stops and things like that. TAKEMOTO: Yeah, that would be the least desirable, but it happens. 7 EXHIBIT A WHITTEMORE: Okay, but it seems like it’s kind of cast in stone there in my opinion. Where the access you’ve got to be to be reasonable, otherwise there is another -. I can’t believe that your frontage road will realign to accommodate them; it’s going to stay the way it is. TAKEMOTO: Oh, yeah, yeah -. WHITTEMORE: Yeah, okay. TAKEMOTO: Yeah, it would mean that drivers would have to turn right or left, then -. WHITTEMORE: Right, okay, I just wanted to understand that that was, yeah. Then just from a general perspective, just so I have an understanding of the frontage road, from the airport to Honokōhau, how many access points off of the frontage road, proposed frontage road, to Queen Ka‘ahumanu are being proposed along the stretch? TAKEMOTO: From the latest that we’ve heard from DOT, the access to Queen Ka‘ahumanu would be at the airport is one, Ka‘iminani is another, and then Huliko‘a. WHITTEMORE: Okay, okay, just those three points, okay. That’s all I have. BOWMAN: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Any other, from the applicant? TAKEMOTO: No, that’s it. LIM: Thank you very much. We rest our case and ask your support. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. I would like to see if the testifiers, because their concerns were addressed, if you have any additional testimony or comments for us after the applicant sits down. If Mr. Matsuyama, Mr. Zimpfer – thank you, you may return – Mr. Zimpfer -. Thank you. ZIMPFER: I would need to go back and speak with our superintendent about the condition they proposed. We would prefer the filtration system, which they are putting along the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway that’s being widened. We currently have a draft memorandum of agreement that’s nearly about to be signed, and we worked with the Federal Highways and the Hawai‘i Department of Transportation to come up with this memorandum and come up with mitigation measures, which we felt were appropriate for the new realigned highway. So I would want to see more details on the proposed swale and get an idea of how much of the potential pollutants would be removed. BOWMAN: Staff, do you have any comments? Thank you. ARAI: I don’t know enough about these best management practices to determine at this point in time what is appropriate and what is not. As language, we are deferring to the Department of Public Works and their engineers to determine the appropriate type of devices to be installed that would address the concerns being expressed by National Park Service; now whether or not those devices have to be similar to what’s being installed by Department of Transportation on Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, I have no clue. Unless, maybe Kiran Emler who is here from Department of Public Works, if he could, if he has any information to offer if there is like a standardized type of swale or 8 EXHIBIT A drainage improvements that both DOT and the County uses. I’m not sure if such standard details even exist. Well, he indicated that such design -. LEITHEAD TODD: Ki, we did bioswales on Ane Keohokālole, so I would think that something of a similar nature could be put into the design here. If it’s a bioswale, it slows down water, it’s got plants, it helps, you know, catch anything. And if you go through the road, you see it all over the place. EMLER: Yeah, we have a best management practice bio-filter that precedes the runoff into the drywell systems on Ane Keohokālole Highway, the roadway that was just finished. It’s a little different there because what we have there is a curb and gutter system that collects the water first into a location where then is discharged in the one location; it’s just a short little bioswale preceding the drywell. So in this case we’ve got, actually, the swale that is not indicated on a typical section to be vegetated; it just says landscaped. And so I think some details will need to be worked out certainly, and I don’t know what kind of detail would come out of it. We don’t have any standards in the County of Hawai‘i for bio-filtration. Other jurisdictions have worked on them, and we certainly could refer to that to the details that might have been approved by HDOT. But I haven’t seen them, I’m not familiar with them, and it’s something we need to look at, and probably confer with HDOT on it. LEITHEAD TODD: But I’m thinking that if we had some kind of general condition in there regarding best management practices to handle the runoff, something like what Roy had been suggesting, that that would allow us the room to work with both the applicant, as well as DPW, to work on some type of mitigation measure. EMLER: Sure. BOWMAN: Did you have a comment? ZIMPFER: I’d just like -. BOWMAN: Could you please use the mike. Thank you. ZIMPFER: Yeah, you know, the Department of Public Works is focused on preventing flooding where, as opposed to the conditions that National Park Service is looking for; we are looking to prevent impairment of biological resources. And this road, the new proposed frontage road, is much closer to the coast than is the Mid Level Road; so what might be appropriate up higher may not be good enough for what’s down closer to the water. ARAI: Madam Chair, maybe I can speak to that as well. The condition, the language offered by the applicant speaks directly to practices appropriate to minimize the potential impact on anchialine ponds. So that is a clear directive to the Department of Public Works on what the SMA permit is anticipating to be accomplished by the incorporation of these best management practices. So I think it’s quite clear, it’s clear to the Department of Public Works what the intent is; that is to incorporate best management practice to minimize impacts to anchialine ponds. So, to me it’s a clear directive. EMLER: There was a system that was also put in at Kaloko Subdivision, the Light Industrial Area, where we did pre-filtrations with a separate inlet box upstream of the main drywell entry. Those contain filters. But all of that is paved swale, so it’s a different condition. As to whether we can 9 EXHIBIT A actually determine how protective any of these devices will be to the anchialine ponds, I’m not sure how we are going to be able to confirm that. So I don’t want to say that Public Works is absolutely going to be able to prevent any type of pollution from occurring. It’s just that we would have to look at what the best -. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, we don’t -. EMLER: What the best information is on, you know, whatever is available at the present time. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, we have some concerns, but we don’t actually necessarily have any documentation that even without it that pollution would occur. We are just trying to take some steps and mitigation to try and prevent and address some of the concerns in the event. So I think we just do the best that we can. But some general condition in there that says that we are going to work towards that, I think, is definitely, you know, I mean, obviously we don’t know exactly what we are going to do. We didn’t know exactly what we were going to do when we started the Mid Level Road, you know, but -. EMLER: I would think that it would have to be something that would be -. If there is a memorandum of agreement with HDOT or something that is in place already that we can refer to, that at least gives the County some cover in this issue, rather than leaving it open to the County to be liable for something happening, because, you know, we don’t have enough background research on it. BOWMAN: Thank you. Mr. Zimpfer, is there any other comment or concern? No? Okay, thank you. Mr. Matsuyama? Thank you. MATSUYAMA: All that I can urge all of you is let’s not have a replay of Queen K Phase II for this frontage road, please. We feel that we are just hostages out there trying to work with all the different agencies and government bodies to do what is commonsensically a basic need in the area. But we seem to always fall short. But, you know, there are human lives out there facing the situation on a daily basis. And I think many times you lose sight of the very important fact that our loved ones are out there, you know. And the present situation is unacceptable. We need to upgrade the situation. Let’s get it done right away. We are hearing that Queen K will start pretty soon. We want to have the frontage road on time so that it can dovetail into the improvement. Thank you. BOWMAN: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? Mr. Lee? LEE: I have to agree with Mr. Matsuyama in that, you know, it is time for us to develop that area. But again, we still have to be aware and we have to be cognizant of the facts of what we do on the land and the environment. Yes, I totally agree that we should improve the lives of the people in Kona community, or create safety. But again, you know, I come from, we are coming from a different point of view, okay. We are, like I said, the original owners of this land, and so we have a different responsibility, you know, not only to our community but to our ancestors, and that’s why we are here today, okay. We want you to make the proper decision, hear all the testimony, but yet, you know, take into consideration what we need to do to keep our existence going, okay, so that our traditional practices are still adhere to without being damaged, is what I’m saying, because of new development. 10 EXHIBIT A BOWMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Commissioners? Thank you, gentlemen, you may be seated. Any other questions, comments, Commissioners? Staff? Hearing none, are we ready for a motion? Staff, have you decided where you are going to place – maybe we should find that out first – where we are going to place the motion, and maybe hear it again? ARAI: Well, there has been no motion, but what I can do -. BOWMAN: I mean the condition, sorry. ARAI: Is kind of elaborate what the Director is recommending. Condition No. 3 regarding the 90-foot right-of-way near the intersection at Queen K and 80 feet right-of-way for the rest of the alignment, we ask that the condition be maintained as recommended by the Planning Director, and we are not supportive of the applicant’s proposed amendments. Regarding the response to the National Park Service comments, the best management practice condition as articulated by the applicant and myself, we would like to include that as a new Condition No. 8, with all other conditions thereafter renumbered accordingly. And if you would like me to read it out again, I will be more than happy to do so. BOWMAN: I don’t think so. Commissioners? No. Thank you. BEAUDET: I’ll make a motion. BOWMAN: Yes, Mr. Beaudet. BEAUDET: I move for the approval of SMA No. 12-000050, along with the conditions as stated, with the addition of new Condition No. 8 identifying best management practices as stated by staff. IOKEPA: Madam Chair, second. BOWMAN: Thank you. Any other comments? We are ready for the vote. Thank you. ARAI: Okay. For the vote, Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. ARAI: And Madam Chairwoman? 11 EXHIBIT A BOWMAN: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, motion to approve SMA Use Permit Application No. 12-50 carries with five aye votes. BOWMAN: Thank you. You will be informed in writing. LIM: On behalf of Kohanaiki Shores and Mr. Root and PBR Hawai‘i and Roy Takemoto, thank you very much. BOWMAN: Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:36 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 12 EXHIBIT A