Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-18 Leeward Exh B (SMA 15-062 & SSV 15-010) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 18, 2016 STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of NATURAL RESOURCES (SMA 15-062/SSV 15-010) was called to order at 9:40 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Vice Chairman Thomas Whittemore presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Thomas Whittemore, Collin Kaholo, Sonny Shimaoka and Keith Unger ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Brandi Beaudet, Scott Church and Barbara Nobriga ALSO PRESENT: Danny Patel (Counsel for the Commission), Bobby Command (Deputy Planning Director), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And seven people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (SMA 15-062/SSV 15-010) Applications for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit and a Shoreline Setback Variance to allow facility improvements at the Kekaha Kai State Park (Phase II), that will include minor repair and safety improvements to park access roadways and parking, a stairway to replace a dilapidated ramp, new storage and water tank building to provide water for facility cleaning and maintenance, two showers, several new or refurbished accessible picnic tables and BBQ pits, and other miscellaneous features and improvements. These improvements will be focused on a 3-acre portion of the 1,642-acre Kekaha Kai State Park situated at both Manini‘ōwali Beach and Mahai‘ula Beach locations, including improvements within a 0.5-acre area situated within the 40- foot wide shoreline setback area. The affected properties are located makai of the Queen nd Kaʻahumanu Highway and includes the area adjacent to Kua Bay, Manini‘ōwali, Kukio 2 and Mahai‘ula, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMKs: 7-2-004:003,009,017 & 019; 7-2-005:002,003,007 & 7-3-043:portion of 001. WHITTEMORE: Okay, our second agenda item is State Department of Land and Natural Resources; this is applications for a Special Management Area Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance Setbacks \[Setback Variance\] to allow for improvements at Kekaha Kai State Park. Will the applicant or the representatives please come forward, or, excuse me, staff. This is my first meeting as Chair, so I apologize to everybody, just enjoy. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could direct your attention to our next presentation. As mentioned, the applicant is the State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of State Parks. They are requesting a Special Management Area Use Permit, as well as a Shoreline Setback Variance. 1 EXHIBIT B The location of this subject application is within the North Kona District of Hawai‘i. More specifically, we are looking in the area of the Kona Airport, which is identified at the lower portion of the map, as well as Kūki‘o Manini‘ōwali, as well as Kaʻūpūlehu subdivisions, which are located at the top right hand portion of the map. For reference, running through the middle of the map is the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, and the subject properties are identified with black outlines. Mainly, we are looking at improvements to the Mahai‘ula area, as well as Manini‘ōwali, or Kua Bay. This is, the County zoning, as well as, is identified, the dark green is Open zoning for the County, the lighter green is Agricultural, the gray color is Industrial zoning and you have different colors for the Resort and Project District zonings that are located up in the resort area of Kaʻūpūlehu. Our next map identifies the State Land Use Boundary designations for the subject properties and surrounding areas. The subject properties are identified in blue, which is Conservation. The pink is Urban zonings and the green represents Agricultural type zone. This is our General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map. And the subject properties are identified with Conservation as well as Open, which is the lighter green and the darker green. This is an aerial photo mainly of the Manini‘ōwali area; for reference we have again the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, our access road is in this general area, there is a full channelized intersection now, which takes you to the Kua Bay area, and we’ll zoom into that after. This is a close-up view; again, this is the access road, you have parking for approximately 50-plus cars, you have a turnaround area, showers, picnic facilities, and you have the actual bay area. This is an aerial photo of the channelized intersection that was part of the original Phase One project, which received a Special Management Area Use Permit back in 2003. This is an aerial photo of the Mahai‘ula area; again, for reference we have Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway on the right side of the map, and we have the access road down to the beach area, this is mainly unpaved two-lane road, there is some improvements near the highway. And again we are going to zoom in closer here; we have the section that we are looking at for this SMA Permit, as well as Shoreline Setback Variance, we have parking areas identified in these general areas. There is another area that people access that’s further to the north, but that’s not part of the improvements for this particular application, that would be this general area. This is an aerial photo of the intersection coming into the Mahai‘ula area. The applicant is requesting a Special Management Area Use Permit and a Shoreline Setback Variance for its facility improvements at Kekaha Kai State Park, Phase Two. This will be a three-acre portion of the 1,642-acre area along the coast in Kona on the Island of Hawai‘i. The applicant is requesting the Shoreline Setback Variance for five minor, freestanding facilities located within the shoreline setback area that are approximately 0.5 acre of land; these include the replacement of a dilapidated and hazardous ramp with a new, safe stairway at Manini‘ōwali and installation of one new accessible barbecue pit and refurbishment of three existing barbecue pits at Mahai‘ula. 2 EXHIBIT B The improvements at Kua Bay consist of: Repairs to the existing comfort station; two freestanding outdoor showers; two secured accessible picnic tables; concrete walkway and steps; and three speed humps on the access road. So this is the site plan that was submitted along with the Final Environmental Assessment, as well as the SMA application. For reference on the left side of the map, which shows the overall site plan, you’ll see the areas identified where the speed bumps will be located on the access road. We are going to zoom into this particular area over on the right side of the map, and this shows where the improvements will occur in this particular area; again, it identifies the improvements as the walkway, the shower and picnic tables, as well as the barbecue area, oh, and including the existing comfort station improvements. This is an aerial photo again identifying the area of where the improvements will take place; the comfort station as well as the additional showers and the walkway and barbecue pit. This is a site photo of the area; we have an existing shower on the right side. This is the area where the improvements to the ramp will be. This is the improvements at Mahai‘ula, which will consist of: Spot repairs along the existing access road; parking area improvements; new storage and water tank building; walkway handrail repair; refurbishment of the existing barbecue pits. As in the last slide similar we have the overall site plan on the left side. So there will be improvements upon to the access road where there is damage. Then again we’ll zoom into the main area on the right side of the map, and this will show the existing improvements that will happen; you’ll see these three existing barbecue pits that will be refurbished, you are going to have the new storage and water tank building right next to the vault restrooms, the handrail repair and also improvements to the parking area. This again is a zoomed-in site photo of the particular areas where the improvements will occur. These are the existing restroom facilities at Mahai‘ula. This is one of the picnic tables. And this is some of the damage that you see along the access road. And one of the existing barbecue pits. The Planning Director is recommending approval of both the SMA Use Permit and the Shoreline Setback application. We have submitted recommendations for both with conditions connected to each permit. Since the background and recommendations were submitted to the Planning Commission, we have received one letter, and this was sent to the Planning Commission yesterday th via email from Erway, or from Marjorie Erway, and this was dated February 17. She brings up concerns regarding the showers, as well as the access road to Mahai‘ula. She requests that the fishery at Kaʻūpūlehu be expanded to include the reef at Manini‘ōwali. And so that’s also been accepted. With that, that concludes our presentation. Thank you. WHITTEMORE: Okay. Commissioners, any questions of staff? UNGER: I had a question. WHITTEMORE: Yes. UNGER: Mr. Darrow, can you clarify the flood zone designations in this area? The SMA Permit calls out three, Flood Zone “X,” the 500-year, “VE,” the coastal wave, and then “AE,” the 100-year flood plain, and in your background report you just talk about “X” and “VE.” Was there a reason why you omitted the “AE?” 3 EXHIBIT B DARROW: Well, when we look at our comment letter that have been received from the Department of Public Works, they basically had referenced Zone “X.” So it was surprising that they were saying that all improvements – let me just reference that, I’m getting confused with the EA’s submittals – okay, this would be Exhibit 4 — UNGER: Four, yeah, and they do just pull out Zone “X” there, too — DARROW: Yeah, right. And, but — UNGER: So that was your reference — DARROW: — again, there are areas where as we see the shoreline certification and the shifting of the areas, it was called out in the permit, or in the assessment of these flood zones that were identified, and so we wanted to be clear that they have to comply with Chapter 27, if that’s applicable in regards to improvements in the flood zones. UNGER: Okay, I’ll continue the questioning with the State personnel — DARROW: Okay — UNGER: — for clarification there. DARROW: — yeah. WHITTEMORE: Any other questions of staff, Commissioners? DARROW: Thank you. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. Will the applicant or representatives of those signed in please, or the applicant or the representatives please step forward. Good morning. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? REPRESENTATIVES: I do. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. And we’ll start over on the far right. TAM SING: My name is Tracy Tam Sing, and I’m the archaeologist for State Parks for Hawai‘i Island. KUMABE: Aloha. I am Russell Kumabe and I’m the Chief of the Planning and Development Branch with State Parks. 4 EXHIBIT B TERRY: I’m Ron Terry, and I’m, my address is 10 Hina Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i. I am the consultant for the environmental assessment, SMA and SSV for this project. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. Do you want to proceed with your presentation on this or any further comment you might have with respect to staff’s presentation? TERRY: Maybe, Russell, you can explain — WHITTEMORE: If you could speak into the mike, please. TERRY: Russell, you could explain the purpose and need of the project. KUMABE: Sure. I think Jeff had pretty much summarized the project before you very well. The intent of, I guess, what it’s called Phase Two of our project basically is to just make improvements to our existing facilities. A lot of the CIP projects in which I kind of oversee, we try to address public health and safety issues first, and then add on what else is needed at the parks that we have. In case for this project over here in both areas it was identified that the existing facilities, for example at Mahai‘ula we needed to at least provide some means to address motor roadway conditions, the entry road coming in, and we will still keep the roadway unpaved, but we need to kind of address some of the really bad deteriorated areas, which is part of this project. And also we had seen a need where there was some unsafe conditions happening kind of on the entry road as you hit, right before you hit Mahai‘ula-Makalawena Trail intersection so to say for the lack of better reference. There’s cars just parking pretty much on the sides of the road, a lot of people wanting to use these areas. So we decided to at least for safety purposes kind of expand the shoulder areas of these roadways, so at least if anything, vehicles can be stored or parked kind of away from the main corridor of the entry road, and also more so people be kept in a safe distance away from vehicles and such. As far as for the facilities at Mahai‘ula, as Jeff had noted, the new facility we would be putting in is a staff storage area. And the intent for this is just to help our staff, improve our services for the facilities we have there. A big element to that is putting in a small water tank, which would basically be used for staff; at least they’ll able to have a water supply to clean the bathrooms, clean the surrounding areas. And whatever water is not used, and it would be pretty much used, staff would be using buckets of that, would be dumped into the vault toilets, which gets pumped out. So nothing, as far as the operational side, is intended to impact any of the surrounding areas, and our staff will make note that they will follow proper operational maintenance type of procedures. The other facilities that Jeff had identified, the barbecue pits and things of that effect, that’s to provide at least additional facilities especially for those requiring accessibility requirements, and fixing up the barbecue pits that we do have, and also for the accessibility part providing an additional picnic table to at least accommodate those that can come down to the Mahai‘ula site. So as far as Mahai‘ula, basically the new stuff would be the staff structures and basically the new picnic table and the barbecue pits, fixing up the existing, and also we want to fix up the vault toilets that we have. We are not going to replace vault toilets; we are going to be keeping them, but we need to fix them up. And some of the stuff we would be doing is at least providing maybe more ambient light, replace the roofing, maybe get more light coming in, because we don’t have any power out there. So at least it becomes a more kind of safer-type, or more convenient, facility for folks to use. 5 EXHIBIT B Going up north to the Manini‘ōwali, or Kua Bay, site, same intent was to keep I guess our existing facilities and kind of buff it up. One of them is, and the new elements to be introduced that, as Jeff had noted, would be three speed humps along the entry road as you are going to the park. If we, we would love to try to improve the roadways, but we want to keep the roadways as is; the speed humps would at least allow at least a safety factor for both vehicles and people either walking and/or traveling down to the Kua Bay site. As far as for our Kua Bay facilities our existing comfort station has been a challenge for us, I mean, there is no doubt about it, and what we want to do is pretty much kind of replace the fixtures to those types that our west side staff can easily replace in case, I shouldn’t say “in case,” I guess, when they get damage and need to be replaced. And a challenge has been in the past, we did have a rinsing shower that was connected to the comfort station; the impact from that was that the sand from the rinsing was getting into our sewer pumps, and I do believe, you know, the Hawai‘i District staff had to replace the sewer pumps on two or three occasions, and we decided to go with the outdoor rinsing showers that we see in the area that Jeff had identified. Currently there is one to accommodate the use and I guess the amenities for the folks going on the Manini‘ōwali beach site, we had decided to put in two additional showers based in one consolidated pad. And also in this area, which is all connected from an accessible pathway, is picnic tables, and also a connection, Jeff had mentioned dilapidated, deteriorated, unsafe ramp, replacing the ramp with a stairway with handrails going down, and the location of the stairway is one where it’s between two protected buffer areas of cultural reserves that we have on both sides. So last note that I wanted to make is that as far as the improvements that we make, we want to keep our facilities in compliance with current regulations, be it accessibility, environmental, land use, etc. So our, you know, our goal, or what we try to do now at State Parks, is basically kind of do things in the right way. And to that extent we want to, you know, incorporate to the extent that we can as far as any additional concerns that may be raised, we need to balance it out with what we need to do and basically what we can do. A lot of stuff what we, that limits us is pretty much things like our operating budget and staffing. The staffing part, I do believe within a last year or so has improved for State Parks. Will this show immediately? No. But will this show down the road? Yeah. So, you know, I do believe that on at least for the facilities that are part of this permit applications, that, you know, from an operational standpoint once we improve the facilities, or get approval to improve the facilities, we’ll follow up with the proper operation and maintenance of the facilities that we do \[inaudible\] and improve. WHITTEMORE: Okay. Anything further on the presentation? TERRY: I’d just like to state that we’d like to be able to, I know there are some folks here to testify and they may have some points that raise issues with you, and we’d like to have the opportunity to respond, if you have any questions after that. WHITTEMORE: Okay. Commissioners, any questions? SHIMAOKA: My only question, do you guys provide signs that with, like with the picnic table that you say you want to make more accessible, I’m assuming to handicap, is that correct? So do you guys provide signs that restrict the picnic table that you are going to put up front? 6 EXHIBIT B KUMABE: I think what, we can’t really restrict people from using them, but at least we’ve got signage that basically noting that these are accessible facilities. And I guess those that would need those facilities, you know, would be able, you know, it comes down to if you get somebody using a picnic table, somebody needs it that’s on a wheelchair or something, can they kick them out, you know. I think right now the way the regulations are it’s pretty much, you know, kind of going on that kind of commonsense curtesy type; but as long as if we identify that these facilities are meant to accommodate folks that need these types of, you know, requirements, then, you know, I think that’s what we can do. Does that kind of answer your question? SHIMAOKA: Yeah. KUMABE: Yeah. WHITTEMORE: Okay. Commissioners? KAHOLO: I got a question right here. WHITTEMORE: Okay, go ahead, Collin. KAHOLO: Yeah, pertaining to this communication that was sent to the Planning Department, pertaining to the showers, there is a concern about some of the toxins, some of them goes into the ocean. Do you folks plan to do anything to alleviate that from going toward the ocean? KUMABE: I think that’s one where, you know, it’s kind of we’ll see as far as, you know, how it happens, because according to, I guess, and people may disagree, but according to the best of our knowledge and abilities that the runoff from the showers is pretty much going into an area that we do believe is contained over there and not going into the ocean. Now, I say that, if it appears that this is not the situation or what is really happening, then we’ll take every step to make sure that, you know, we do not impact coastline, shoreline waters because, I mean, we are the Department of Land and Natural Resources, so our bar is already this high, so for us to impact any coastline areas, you know, I mean, just by virtue, you know, we shouldn’t be doing that. But what I’m saying is that we need to kind of find out, and I know there will be disagreement as far as, oh, why aren’t you guys going to put them in now, why are you guys waiting, well, to our knowledge and understanding we appear that everything should be handled and settling over here. If that’s not the case, we’ll go ahead and we’ll find ways of trying to remedy that, mitigate it and reduce the impacts. KAHOLO: Thank you. WHITTEMORE: Okay. Mr. Unger. UNGER: Mahalo to the State for starting to address some of these deferred maintenance issues. Can you clarify, Mr. Terry, can you clarify the flood zone designation for this area? Is it also in the 100-year flood plain hazard? 7 EXHIBIT B TERRY: Yes. Much of the park site is in the 100-year flood plain, the “AE” zone, as you noted there. There is a figure in here that clearly delineates where the flood zone ends and starts, and it’s the striped area in these Figures 4A and 4B. The, Manini‘ōwali is, most of it is outside the flood plain, but at Mahai‘ula most of it is inside. And the structures that are proposed there are permitted structures within the flood zone as long as they meet certain criteria. UNGER: Thank you. I recommend to the Planning Department that they adjust their background report to include the “AE” hazard zoning. Also, in regard to accessibility – and thank you for clarifying – when you mentioned accessibility, you made no reference to Americans with Disabilities Act, so good clarification. I notice, or you discussed the ramp that was going to be replaced with the stairs. I’m assuming the ramp is for ADA. Or maybe you can give some background on, was that an ADA requirement at the time and now you are taking out the ramp and rebuilding stairs? Is that going to be an issue for accessibility purposes? KUMABE: Our understanding that the ramp that was installed was a runoff ramp to handle, I guess that type of conditions versus mobile accessibility. So the, actually, the slope and the construction of the particular ramp is not made anywhere close to any of the accessibility standards that we currently have. TERRY: Let me add, yeah, the ramp is, that’s a euphemism maybe for the cement structure that’s there. People use it because it accesses the south end of the beach, but it’s unsafe to use for any individual at this point. But it does, it’s in the right spot for keeping people off the cultural resources on both sides, so if you simply close it, they’ll crawl around that and go into the cultural resources, and that’s not a good idea. The stairway won’t be accessible, but it will allow people to get to that end of the beach in a safe manner. It’s also, the foot of the stairway, although it’s in the shoreline setback, is 14 feet above sea level; it’s well out of the normal zone of coastal processes there. And it’s the same place as the existing ramp is. WHITTEMORE: Okay. Any further questions? Okay, thank you. PATEL: Mr. Chair, if I can. WHITTEMORE: Yes. PATEL: Sorry, just to confirm for the record. Did you receive the Planning Director’s background and recommendation reports for both the SMA and the Shoreline Setback Variance? KUMABE: Yes, we did. PATEL: And do you agree with the proposed conditions? KUMABE: Yes, we do. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. Okay. We have some testifiers who would like to speak to this request. Could I have Janice Palma-Glennie and Bobby Camara please step forward? Is Mr. Camara here also? 8 EXHIBIT B CAMARA: He’s here. WHITTEMORE: Oh, okay. Thank you. Could I ask you to please raise your right hand? Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. I do. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. Could I ask each of you to introduce yourselves and give your address for the record, please? And we’ll start with you, Janice. PALMA-GLENNIE: Yes. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Janice Palma-Glennie, and I live in Kailua-Kona, P. O. Box 4849, Kailua-Kona. WHITTEMORE: It’s on, I think, is it? CAMARA: Bobby Cam— WHITTEMORE: It’s on. CAMARA: It’s on. Bobby Camara, P. O. Box 485, Volcano 96785. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. If I could begin with your testimony here, please, Janice. PALMA-GLENNIE: Okay, thank you very much. Aloha and good morning, Commissioners. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify regarding land that is of special significance and dear to our community’s heart. That includes the group I’m representing today, which is the Kona Kai Ea chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. I personally took part in all phases of the public process leading to the formation of the park including representing the Sierra Club on the park’s Advisory Task Force. It was heartening to have the opportunity to talk with Russell Kumabe this week regarding details of the requested SMA Permit. From that discussion, it seems that the State is following the community vision and park tenets born of collaboration from a vast section of stakeholders, particularly understanding the community’s mandate to keep proposed park improvements as minimal as possible, including keeping the road two-wheel drive passable but unpaved at Mahai‘ula section in an attempt to maintain the wilderness experience and to limit the overload of visitors, which now plagues the Manini‘ōwali section of the park. To elaborate upon this vision, consultants Group 70 International’s DEIS cover page states in its “Summary of Proposed Actions” that, “The Park will be a ‘wilderness’ park as opposed to an ‘urban’ or ‘improved’ park. The natural setting is emphasized. Modern amenities, facilities and conveniences are downplayed …. Uses are more passive or related to natural resources than active uses associated with organized sports. Landscape improvements are minimal.” New picnic tables and barbeque facilities will be welcomed by many, as will upgrades to existing 9 EXHIBIT B toilet blocs that can definitely use better lighting and ventilation. Any additional sheds or storage facilities should be designed to fit with the natural ambiance of the area and not look industrial. Regarding additional showers at Manini‘ōwali, Section 6-1 of the DEIS states that “there was general consensus among Task Force members to limit the availability of water in the park. The scarcity of water is a quality of the land that people must see as a base reality. As people of old said Kekaha wai ‘ole (Waterless Kekaha). Part of the identity of this park is the scarcity and wise use of water …. The water plan should emphasize capture and wise use of existing sources.” It goes on to state that, “shower water will be from brackish sources and that wind and solar energy should be used to power any equipment that may be needed for the system …. Where shower water is provided, it will be from brackish water sources.” Our group supports following the stated guidelines. We feel that it’s clear from recent scientific studies and our own experience that sunscreens are causing extreme damage to nearshore reefs, and, if you’ve been to Mahai‘ula or Kua Bay on a weekend, you’ll know how much of it is being used. Therefore, we feel that having no showers is the best way to protect fragile nearshore waters. Short of that, it’s germane for this body to require so-called “shower gardens” or a similarly designed capture and purification system for proposed as well as existing showers, if they are allowed. To the best of our knowledge, these types of systems are currently being used successfully on Oahu and Maui, and better management of runoff from all public and private facilities is timely and logical considering the recent effort to protect fisheries at adjacent Kaʻūpūlehu. Reroofing and provisions for a water tank for bathroom cleaning seem appropriate. As with showers, though, there should be a mandated requirement to include a system for catchment and purification of that gray water before it reaches and harms adjacent anchialine ponds, which drain to and from the sea. Though the State plans for the water to be disposed of in existing toilets, there may be a tendency for workers to take the easy route, which would be to dump the water outside the toilet bloc. And it’s better to plan for that possibility. We also ask that any grading done at Mahai‘ula to create additional parking be done in a way that honors the integrity of the culturally significant and aesthetically awesome lava fields. We suggest that the SMA Permit, if granted, will require that grading be minimal and not allow to result in creation of unsightly piles of rubble, which already exist in some areas, or unnecessary decimation of pāhoehoe, and that work done not harm currently available opportunities to walk on or across the lava in those areas, as that experience is one that provides yet another opportunity to better understand the singularity of the Kekaha lands and is often the first stop for visitors to the park, who whip out their cameras to capture their amazement of this land. There has been much said and done to protect these lands including the creation of a noncommercial, public, wilderness park. In response to commercial activity in the past, a quickie petition in 1998 garnered 1,000 signatures asking that the park remain off-limits to commercial activity. More recently, a similarly supported petition asked that a drag strip/motorsport complex not be built mauka of or adjacent to the park. Our group strongly supports those efforts and agrees with the former in that “the area retain and 10 EXHIBIT B celebrate the beauty and ambience of Hawai‘i by preservation of its existing pristine nature while allowing the historic and traditional uses of the area to thrive and survive.” In conclusion, our group’s vision and goal, as was stated in Group 70s’ planning documents, is that Kekaha Kai State Park, in all of its sections, be preserved “as a pristine, public wilderness area for future generations to enjoy.” We appreciate the State’s support of that vision and ask that this Commission work with them to add the strongest language to an SMA Permit to insure the fullest protection of Kekaha Kai State Park as the unique entity it is. Mahalo. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. Can I ask, before we go onto our next testifier, if Commissioners have any questions at this time regarding this testimony? None? Okay. Mr. Camara? CAMARA: Good morning. I apologize for not having written testimony. I, let’s see, I first went to Manini‘ōwali in 1972, just after the then new Keāhole Airport was open. And I doubt that there is anyone on this island who knows that place better than I do. I’ve spent countless days there. I’ve participated an archaeological studies with Bishop Museum and Tom Dye and Associates. I’ve worked with State Parks and other planning groups in getting facilities built or redone in some cases. So my relationship with Kekaha Kai State Park lands is maybe different than a lot of other people’s might be. Following up on what Janice said about Kekaha wai ‘ole, the area not having any water, that is in fact a hallmark of that park. You know, backpacking in there in the old days when I was a lot younger and more nimble, we carried in our own water, and if we ran out, we tried to get to Kona Village and their brackish water spigots and, you know, drink really foul tasting water over there. But we were pretty independent. My fears at Manini‘ōwali, and this is something Mr. Kumabe touched on a little bit, State Parks seems to be very lacking in operational budgets and staffing. Money is there for CIP projects to build things, but once things are built, it seems almost impossible to get them to be maintained properly, and this includes, you know, not only State Parks facilities but, you know, something even like the State Capitol Building on O‘ahu. What I would like to see at Manini‘ōwali, you know, if asked, take out the showers. While it’s possible to fix problems after they occur, I think it’s a lot easier to make it so that they don’t occur in the first place. If you go down to Manini‘ōwali now, the one shower toward the shoreline last I saw had a big pile of sand and wetland vegetation growing on it, so they are, you know, creating wetlands; there is hardly any drainage right there, so sand is piling up. The original showers at the comfort station did not work because they were poorly designed. We recommended years and years ago that a vault toilet be also built at Manini‘ōwali, and I wasn’t part of the discussions, but it turned out that the adjacent developer, W. B. Manini‘ōwali and Kūki‘o, has a sewage treatment facility mauka of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, and so what’s being done now is that the waste from the restrooms and the flush toilets at Manini‘ōwali are being pumped mauka of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway for processing. From a sustainability viewpoint, from a cost viewpoint, from any number of viewpoints, I think having a vault toilet at Manini‘ōwali just like the one at Mahai‘ula, well, maybe not just like the one at Mahai‘ula, which is quite elaborate, would work really well. And, you know, when the park was envisioned, as Janice said earlier, there was 11 EXHIBIT B envisioned as a wilderness park; it is far from that today, and maybe that designation needs to be rethought. But the levels of use especially at Manini‘ōwali, which just came out on TripAdvisor th as a 14 most visited beach in the country, the use there by our public needs to be addressed and managed in ways that accommodate the public use, but not overuse our resources. You know, if it was me and I went to the beach and there was no shower, I deal with it, you know, you dust the sand off of your shoes and do whatever you need to do. If there is not a flush toilet and there is a vault toilet, use the vault toilet. You know, you are saving water costs, you are saving electric pumping costs, you are saving all sorts of money. And I’m starting to rumble. WHITTEMORE: We are going to need you to wrap up here real quick. CAMARA: Okay. WHITTEMORE: Yeah. CAMARA: One concern at Manini‘ōwali that I have is at the stairs that are going to be built need to be of materials that are pretty bombproof and maintenance free. I’m hoping that will be cement with maybe stainless steel railings to, you know, for people to hold onto, because, again, maintenance, maintenance is a very large problem. And I think I’m done. WHITTEMORE: Okay, thank you. CAMARA: You’re welcome. WHITTEMORE: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Camara? Okay, thank you. Do we have any other testifiers here today that have not yet signed up? Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any further questions that you want to raise at this time to either the applicant or to the testifiers? SHIMAOKA: Yeah, I had one. I know that – for the State Parks people, yeah, please – I know one of the questions was, and you stated that you guys have the bar so high as far as protecting shoreline, that those kinds of considerations that were mentioned have been taken, I mean, considered and you guys have those things in place. I noticed when he was suggesting the type of rail, that you were saying that we were already doing that; so I’m assuming that’s what the nodding of your head was. KUMABE: Yeah, Bobby had, you know, recommended that the stairway be made of durable materials. Yes, it will be concrete, and, yes, it will be stainless-steel handrails. WHITTEMORE: Any other questions? Bobby. COMMAND: Just for context, it says in your presentation here, or in the documents here, that there is about a quarter of a million visitors to Mahai‘ula, that area, every year. What are the numbers at a place like Hāpuna or your other State parks on the island? Just for context. 12 EXHIBIT B KUMABE: You know, I think context, I do believe it should be higher at Hāpuna. And what was interesting in 2000 and, I do believe, 2007, Hawai‘i Tourism Authority did a survey, and it kind of popped our eyes open when they said Kekaha Kai had a higher visitation than Hāpuna. But, you know, I think it was just a matter of how they took the numbers. But I think, as we all know, you know, looking at it intuitively Kekaha Kai visitation has increased, and as Janice and Bobby had stated, Manini‘ōwali has increased. So it’s just a nature of I guess folks coming now and seeking I guess those types of recreational venues. We feel that statewide in all of our parks where visitation to certain areas that provide especially a lot of the beach, coastal, those type of activities has increased. So, to put in context, the visitation, I do believe, to Hāpuna, we feel, is, should be higher. As far as to let it go down in either places, no, I don’t think so, because people are still looking for, you know, those types of recreational venues; whether we provide the access or facilities to that, people are still going to find ways. So I think we see it as, since it’s really hard for us, or even difficult from a legal standpoint, to keep people out once you open the gate, then, okay, how do we try to mitigate the impacts of these folks, and that’s something that we are wrestling right now. And I don’t think only us, I think our county counterparts statewide are wrestling with this. So just a matter of balancing out, you know, how we can, you know, mitigate, I guess, our existing facilities with this increased interest in usage, but yet still balance it out with our responsibilities of protecting the resources, still balancing out with how do we still protect our respect to cultural and historic areas. So that’s where we at State Parks, you know, it’ll be a continuous challenge, which we welcome and which we should be doing from here on to balance these things out. But it does get challenging, especially, Bobby had said, you know, operating budgets, that’s something, if we had the druthers, we would ask for ten, twenty times amount of money. Then we would have adequate staffing. But it is what it is as far as what we get, and I do believe our staff makes the best use of its gang all that it can. Janice had mentioned, well, we should put some things into place just in case staff, there may be staff that may not be as responsible as others. That, what we can do is basically just hone in and we’ve just got to educate our staff; you guys, because of these areas and because of these conditions, you know, we cannot do stuff like this, we cannot cut corners. So the best we can do is what we have, and I do believe at least from an operational standpoint the Hawai‘i District State Parks staff, I think, is kind of up in its bar and trying to, you know, improve the way it services our facilities. Is it going to happen overnight? No. Will it show in a long run? We hope so. But you’ve got to start somewhere. And as long as there is a buy-in and as long as there is support that we continuously can do, then, you know, we hope that we reach to the quality or to the, I guess, state of operating that basically, you know, is unnoticeable, because when you guys go to the park, if you guys don’t notice the bathroom and stuff like that, that’s great because you get to enjoy the park itself. Once you start noticing, oh, the bathroom and stuff like that, then, you know, you are not supposed to be doing that; you are supposed to be enjoying the place or recreating at the place or exploring the place to the extent that is legal, of course, but, you know. But, you know, basically from an operational standpoint we, have we reached there? No. Are we going to? I think we take every stride, but as it is right now, it can’t be in great leaps, so it would have to be in small steps just because of the funding and the funding realities, funding and staffing realities that we have. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. Anything else, Commissioners? I want to, I want to commend DLNR for recognizing the value of these assets here in west Hawai‘i and making effort to make it 13 EXHIBIT B more available and accessible to more of our community. I am curious, though, you know, some of the questions or issues that were raised here with respect, by our testifiers, I assume those are not new issues, and that somehow when you put together this plan for the park, that you sought the information either in a public hearing or them directly? KUMABE: That’s correct. As far as the master plan that Janice had referred to – and we want to acknowledge and commend both Janice and Bobby for all these year and, you know, having the interest and taking the time out to, you know, pretty much be involved in our park areas – but in areas, yes, we, we have the Kekaha Kai Master Plan and my former boss then quit, when we, when I, when we started to broach in premises of Kekaha Kai, first thing he said, look at the master plan, make sure you guys kind of do, don’t go outside of what was discussed, and I said, why then, why, because, this is before my times, he said, well, we had a lot of good community public input imbedding what should be or what is appropriate as far as for the future development of Kekaha Kai and we want to keep in with that. I want to make a clarification with the facilities we have at Manini‘ōwali Kua Bay; basically, Kūki‘o, the Kūki‘o development pretty much built, they built facilities you see over there. I know there was talk as far as putting in a different kind of facilities, but I think pursuant to I think County and State entitlements, Kūki‘o had had the requirement of putting in these facilities. We weren’t really consulted as far as a type of facility put in, but we welcome it and say thank you, Kūki‘o, you know, for the bathroom and stuff and the other areas. But now since we have that, now it’s our responsibilities, okay, how, how do we, I guess, address any concerns or impacts that may come from that. The concerns raised about the showers, you know, we defer to the Planning Commission, you know; our proposal was to put in two additional showers, which we felt was appropriate and can be mitigated, but if the Planning Commission decides that perhaps we shouldn’t, then we defer to the County. But the point we are trying to make is that we want to put in what is appropriate, and what we had proposed so far is what we believe is appropriate within the intent and spirit of the master plan, then again balancing out our responsibilities of public health and safety. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. No further questions, Commissioners? Can I call for a motion? SHIMAOKA: Yeah, I move that the application for Special Management Area Use Permit, Docket Number SMA 15-062, be approved pursuant to the Planning Director’s recommendation, findings, and proposed conditions, which shall be adopted. KAHOLO: Second. WHITTEMORE: Second? It’s been moved by Commissioner Shimaoka and seconded by Commissioner Kaholo. Can I ask staff to call for the vote? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve the Special Management Area Use Permit. With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. 14 EXHIBIT B DARROW: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Unger? UNGER: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WHITTEMORE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, four to zero. Now, we have the — WHITTEMORE: Okay, we have a second item here, it’s with respect to the Shoreline Setback Variance. UNGER: I’d like to make a motion. WHITTEMORE: Go ahead. UNGER: I move that the application for a Shoreline Setback Variance, Docket Number SSV 15-010, be approved pursuant to the Planning Department’s recommendations, findings and proposed conditions, which shall be adopted. SHIMAOKA: I second. WHITTEMORE: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Shimaoka. And, staff, call for a vote? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Unger? UNGER: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WHITTEMORE: Aye. 15 EXHIBIT B DARROW: The motion passes, four to zero. WHITTEMORE: Thank you. KUMABE: Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:34 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 16 EXHIBIT B