Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Black Pot Beach Park Master Plan - Community Advisory Committee Meeting 3


Published on

The third Community Advisory Committee meeting for the Black Pot Beach Park Master Plan was held at Hanalei Community Association, Hale Pohai Aloha on Wednesday, October 26, 2016.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Black Pot Beach Park Master Plan - Community Advisory Committee Meeting 3

  1. 1.     Pacific Guardian Center │ 733 Bishop Street, Makai Tower Suite 2590 │ Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813     Date: October 26, 2016        Time: 6:00 – 7:00 PM     Project Name: Black Pot Beach Park Master Plan  Location:  Hanalei Community Association,  Hale Pohai Aloha    Recorded by: Corlyn Orr  Reviewed by DPR: 11/10/2016  Reviewed by CAC members: 11/21/2016  Attendees:  see attendance record        Subject: Community Advisory Committee Meeting 3    The third Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting for the Black Pot Beach Park Master Plan  Project was held at Hanalei Community Association, Hale Pohai Aloha on Wednesday, October 26, 2016.   The meeting was scheduled from 6:00 PM to 7:30PM.  The meeting purpose was to update the CAC on  community outreach and research‐to‐date, and gather feedback on the draft preferred alternative.   Handouts included the meeting agenda, the draft preferred alternative plan, and a questionnaire form.   The draft preferred alternative plan for CAC review is included as ATTACHMENT 1.  Responses to the  questionnaire are included as ATTACHMENT 2.   PROJECT UDPATE  Johanna Ventura, meeting facilitator, called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.  Scott Ezer, Principal with  HHF Planners, reviewed the work completed since the last CAC meeting, including updates of:   (1) the Community Meeting 2 held on July 19, 2016  (2) the results of the community meeting questionnaire / on‐line survey  (3) the discussion at the October 5, 2016 County Council meeting about the county’s policy  regarding parking/driving on the beach, and   (4) the findings of the draft coastal assessment report.  DRAFT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PLAN  Scott then presented the draft preferred alternative plan (SEE ATTACHMENT 1), pointing out the  elements of the draft plan that specifically reflect the community’s input.  GROUP DISCUSSON  Comments and questions from CAC members are summarized below.    Boat Ramp   If the plan requires the County to acquire additional private property for boat ramp access,  eminent domain should be a last‐resort option.  Condemnation is not ideal for a landowner.  Parking on the Beach   Could the County Council amend the ordinance to allow parking at Black Pot Beach?  Response: The Council has the authority to change the county’s beach parking policies.  The  master plan is not developing policy; the focus of the master plan is to identify the physical  improvements desired for the park.  The Island Burial Council and cultural practitioners will be  consulted before DPR offers any recommendations to the County Council.    MEETING SUMMARY 
  2. 2. Black Pot Beach Park Master Plan Community Advisory Committee Meeting 3 | October 26, 2016 Page 2 of 9  Scott clarified that the preferred plan is inconclusive on the beach parking issue; the plan makes  no assumptions that parking on the beach is either allowed or prohibited.  The individual who  asked the question indicated personal support for continued beach access through a permit  process.  This individual also shared that he has received lots of calls from folks who want to  know why the CAC is closing the beach.  It’s obvious from this meeting that the rumors are not  true, and that the decision is being deferred to the Council.     Parking on the beach is not a new issue.  A few years ago when the County first had meetings to  discuss expanding the park, the Mayor said publicly during a meeting that he would be willing to  leave the decision up to the people.  It would be fair to let the community vote on the issue.  Circulation and Parking   In response to a question, the roundabout at the park entrance is one‐way.   Angled parking stalls and one‐directional vehicle movements in ALL parking areas is preferred.   One‐directional vehicle movements seem safer for pedestrians and kids, and minimizes conflicts  between drivers looking for parking stalls.     In response to a question, lot coverage was not considered a factor in planning the parking lot  areas.  The possibility of using permeable surfaces for the parking areas will be considered.    The draft plan does not show pedestrian paths between the mauka parking lots and the beach.  A  pathway would define where people should walk so they are not walking through the parking lot.   The draft plan does not show a barrier between the parking lots and the grassed areas.  There  should be barriers so people do not drive across the grass.   The plan should show the location of crosswalks in the parking lots.     The food concession should have access and a pad for the food truck to park on; not on the grass.   More detail on the overflow parking area is needed.  How is it managed?  Is it open only during  certain times, or is it accessible 24/7 all the time?  It was clarified that overflow would be used  when the park is busy (long weekends, special events).  It is not expected to be used on a daily  basis, so it could be fenced and opened on an as‐needed basis.    o The plan should define access control for the overflow parking area  o Why is it overflow and not regular parking?  Overflow implies temporary parking; if it will  be used regularly, then it should be paved and made more permanent.  Overflow parking  is almost self‐policing—you wouldn’t park there unless there wasn’t any other parking.    o If the overflow parking area were left open, fishermen/boaters could park there when all  the trailer parking spaces are filled.   Will walkways be concrete?  Crushed corral is difficult to maintain and messy when it rains.  RESPONSE:  It is likely, although materials have not been selected yet.  A hard surface walkway in  the shoreline setback area would need a variance permit.  Canoe Halau   Na Molokama Canoe Club would prefer to re‐use the old Hanalei Canoe Club halau building  instead of demolishing and building new.  The club has members who are contractors and could  work on the renovation.  Re‐using the existing halau would be less expensive and would avoid 
  3. 3. Black Pot Beach Park Master Plan Community Advisory Committee Meeting 3 | October 26, 2016 Page 3 of 9 the permitting requirements of a new building (e.g., environmental assessment, special  management area permit, etc.).     If the Plan recommends re‐use of the old Hanalei Canoe Club halau building, the County and Na  Molokama Canoe Club could start discussing a lease agreement now before the plan is finalized.   There is no longer beach in front of Na Molokama’s site so people are constantly walking  through.  Security and privacy are major concerns.  The draft plan does not show fencing around  the canoe halau, and it looks like it is open to the public.  Fencing or barriers to keep people out  of the halau and away from equipment is important.   Pavilions   The draft plan shows 16 pavilions.  Scott stated that the number of pavilions is mostly illustrative  for planning purposes; there could be more pavilions built, depending on available budget.     Pavilions on the Hodge property make the space usable and help to integrate this area into the  park.  It was clarified that the fencing along the Hodge parcel would be removed.     Is there a mechanism for public groups that want to volunteer to build pavilions or raise funds for  improvements?  Partnerships for improvements are a good way to support implementation.    Pier Access Road   The draft plan does not show what is planned for beach access near the pier.  This should be  clearly defined on the plan.   Has there been any further discussion about the County acquiring the pier access road?  In  conversation with DLNR staff, a CAC member learned that the State does not to transfer the pier  access road to the County because the County does not want to assume liability for the pier.   RESPONSE: The Plan assumes that the County’s long‐term goal is acquire the pier access road.    Camping and Permitted Activities   Camping is only permitted on Friday, Saturday nights and holidays.  Enforcement is needed to  stop illegal camping activities during weekdays.   Respect residents who live on Weke Road.  Keep camping where it is now and close to the river.   The Plan should clearly define where people can camp.  Report narrative should include  discussion about camping protocols (e.g., camping sites, # of permits, when camping allowed).   (NOTE: There was an error on the draft plan shared with the CAC: the CAMPING label mauka of  Weke Ramp was washed out by the DRAFT watermark.)   Narrative that goes with the final plan will include    Will there be permits issued for special events on the Hodge Parcel?  RESPONSE: Most likely.   Implementation    The project timeline was shared.  The community meeting to present the preferred plan is  targeted for early December.  The draft report for public review would follow in early 2017,  followed by a County Council presentation.  The final report is targeted for 2nd  quarter 2017.    How long before construction can take place?  RESPONSE:  It could be three or four years before construction because permits will need to be  completed/approved first.  Permits include an environmental assessment (EA), a special 
  4. 4. Black Pot Beach Park Master Plan Community Advisory Committee Meeting 3 | October 26, 2016 Page 4 of 9 management area use permit (SMA permit), certified shoreline, shoreline setback variance, and  flood hazard variance.  EA and SMA typically take 15‐18 months.  Design could take 6‐9 months.   DPR is seeking funds in the next budget cycle for permitting/design.     New bathrooms will need a flood variance.  Base flood elevation where the bathrooms are sited  is 12 feet, which requires a raised building height of 6 feet.  Haena Beach Park bathhouse was  constructed with a flood variance.      The report will identify permitting requirements, implementation phasing and construction cost  estimates.  A very preliminary, rough estimate of $5 million includes permitting and construction  (it does not include costs to acquire the triangle‐parcel near the existing boat ramp).    Hanalei River Mouth    Correspondence from the US Army Corps of Engineers indicates no records on file for the  rockwall/revetment running from the river mouth to Weke Ramp and mauka up the river (see  ATTACHMENT 3 for documentation submitted by a CAC member).    Community Meeting    Suggestions for the next community meeting were shared.  Do not schedule the meeting close to  Thanksgiving.  Let people talk.  People have a short attention span, presenters need to talk faster.   Give speakers more than 2‐3 minutes to talk, people do not like being rushed.  Keep control of  the meeting, stay on point.  ADJOURNMENT  The meeting was adjourned at roughly 7:25 pm.  ATTENDANCE RECORD  1. Adam Roversi  2. Billy Kinney  3. Charlie Cowden  4. Dave Stewart  5. Hanalei Hermosura  6. Hobey Beck  7. Jim Braman  8. Kaiulani Sodaro  9. Keola Sheehan  10. Nathan Teixeira   Nancy McMahon, Dept. of Parks and Recreation  Scott Ezer, HHF Planners  Corlyn Orr, HHF Planners  Johanna Ventura, Community Outreach   
  5. 5. ATTACHMENT 1
  6. 6.       ATTACHMENT 2    Does the draft plan reflect your vision for Black Pot Beach Park?  Please explain.  1. Yes, For the most part. I think specific items need more detail however if we were able to accomplish everything presented in the plan as is I am in support. 2. I am generally pleased with the “Preferred Alternative” plan presented at the October 26, 2016 CAC meeting, subject to some of the specific plan suggestions noted below.   Does the draft plan represent a balance between protecting and enhancing the area’s natural resources,  recreational value and cultural heritage?  Please explain your answer.    1. Yes, I believe everyone is represented in the plan best as possible. 2. Yes. The Plan accommodates recreational boaters without turning the park into a “boat yard,” recognizes increased use of the park and the need for additional parking while establishing a reasonable carrying capacity and limit to how far the plan will go to satisfy what is perhaps an effectively bottomless demand for more parking, provides for new recreational green space along the river, preserves the open green space along the ocean that is the core of the present park, and importantly continues the current policy against the commercialization of the park despite the urging of some to turn the park into a staging area for commercial boating operations.   After reviewing the draft plan, should anything be changed or added?   1. Details on landscaping sizes and quantities of trees and shrubs. Maintenance plan. Timeframes. Pedestrian access plan from rear parking. Vehicle traffic flow needs to work better. 2. Per discussion at the Oct. 26 CAC meeting I recommend the following specific plan changes:  utilize angled parking stalls and one‐way traffic flow in each parking area to create defined traffic circulation, maximize useable parking areas, and increase safety.;  create defined pedestrian ways from mauka parking areas to the ocean and from mauka to makai to discourage random pedestrian traffic through the parking areas. Not discussed at last night meeting:  consider eliminating or scaling back the presumably paved pathway through the makai lawn area. Perhaps keep mauka to makai paths to direct foot traffic and eliminate the lateral pathway along the shoreline. I believe this is an unnecessary expense and design element that may not offer significant benefit;  Include bicycle and/or moped/motorcycle parking areas;  Place a picnic pavilion close to the boat ramp;  Include a designated stop for the Kaua‘i Bus and/or N. Shore Shuttle in drop‐off area.  If the plan retains an “over flow” parking area for occasional use as a parking lot (see discussion item below), I wonder what uses this grassy area could be devoted to when it is not being used as a parking area. Is it big enough to be a playing field of some sort? Should there be perimeter shade trees to make it inviting for day use? Without some beneficial non‐parking use for this area there will be pressure to use it for full‐time and not occasional overflow parking, which in my view is not the community’s intent.
  7. 7. What do you like and do not want to see changed in the draft plan? 1. I like the general area of everything presented. 2. There was mention at the Oct. 26 CAC meeting that the overflow parking area should be used for full time parking, accompanied by the statement the “more parking the better.” I disagree with this idea whole heartedly and do not believe prior community comments support it either. We must recognize that the park has a reasonable carrying capacity and should not be expected to accommodate all comers at all times. Outside of special events and perhaps holiday weekends, where overflow parking may be appropriate, the park should be considered effectively “closed” to additional vehicles once the parking area is full. This capacity limit should be enforced by disallowing any other parking either along Weke Rd.or along the shoulder of Wilikoki Rd. Were your concerns noted in the meeting discussion?  If not, what are they?  1. Yes the Canoe Club seems to be addressed positively in the plan. 2. A concern not raised at last night’s meeting is Hanalei Canoe Club’s (HCC) hope that we will remain in our current location outside of the County park in perpetuity. If, however, circumstances change and HCC were to lose its current lease/location, HCC would expect to be accommodated within the County Park just as Namolokama Canoe Club wishes to be. The possible future accommodation of HCC becomes more complex in practice if Namolokama is “given” HCC’s old clubhouse as an exclusive occupant. This would leave HCC the expense of constructing a facility from scratch – exactly what Namolokama seeks to avoid by pushing for its own use of the existing park structure. I realize these possible future disputes are likely outside the scope of the current planning process. HCC would, however, like the final Black Pot Park Plan to include a statement supporting this possible future accommodation of HCC in principle, if not as a specific planning element. HCC has approximately twice the membership of Namolokama Canoe Club and has been in existence since the 70’s. 3. Comments from a CAC member who was not able to attend the meeting:  I think it is obvious that parking on the beach is not good for the environment and should be noted very explicitly. After I stated this to anyone who asked me, they all agreed and took back their preference of beach parking also.  The 70 space parking should also be one way directional. If the parking is 2 rows, face to face, there would be one way in and one way out (a circle just as the closer parking. Also, if it was 1 way, a path could be in the middle of those 2 rows for walking toward the beach. Walk symbols marked on pavement if paved, or on signage to encourage not walking in the parking roadway.  Also, thank you for the statement about the overflow. Yes, it is not MORE but reserved only for holidays and special events in my mind.   Do you have any additional comments or thoughts to share? 1. Would be nice to have a follow up meeting once plan is presented to the County on next step actions. 2. Thanks for your hard work!  
  8. 8. ATTACHMENT 3