|
MATSUMOTO: It was just identifying that there wasn't any improvements.
<br /> VITOUSEK: So it identified a lack of improvements, but it didn't make specific
<br /> recommendations for what improvements needed to be done, based on the proposed growth of
<br /> Parker School?
<br /> MATSUMOTO: No, it says the applicant should be required to provide proper pedestrian
<br /> facilities and other necessary street improvements meeting with the approval of DPW at no cost
<br /> to the county for the life of the subject permit. So we didn't specifically say to make the
<br /> sidewalk but just proper pedestrian facility.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. Okay, so, you know, so we've gotten a lot of public testimony from folks
<br /> who live on the road, who are not only opposed to the, who are saying they support the deferral,
<br /> but they were, they want to remove the entire condition 11, which would remove the requirement
<br /> to construct these off-site improvements on, in this area. And, you know, for us who are in this
<br /> position now where we are reviewing something. Is this a time where we look at whether that
<br /> makes sense from a logical standpoint based on the information that we have? So, do the traffic,
<br /> in opinion of the Department of Public Works, does, the traffic conditions that are there, or that
<br /> will be there, with the addition of the gym and the middle school, does that necessitate the
<br /> pedestrian improvements that we are proposing in this, I mean
<br /> MATSUMOTO: Chair Vitousek, I think if you, you know, you split up the two things like you
<br /> have the construction of the gymnasium, which isn't adding any additional student count, you
<br /> know, that for us doesn't feel like it warrants doing this, the off-site improvements. But once
<br /> you add in the middle school where now there are more students arriving to the area, then we
<br /> would think that would warrant it. But you would also have to look at a new traffic study at the
<br /> time, because I believe the last one was done inactually, there's one done in 2020 but, like
<br /> Mr. Dunn said, they are not at that student body count. I also want to be clear that—you know,
<br /> those hedges are beautiful, right, we all, we all can say that—I'm speaking from the mindset of
<br /> an engineer, those are considered encroachments into the county right-of-way, so if we were to
<br /> get a complaint at this time, we would go and investigate and we would have to cite the owners
<br /> to have to remove it.
<br /> VITOUSEK: So my question on that is that Item 1.6 of the South Kohala Community
<br /> Development Plan says that significant trees and other plants along roadsides that serve as
<br /> windbreakers are to be preserved, is that something that would have to be reviewed by the
<br /> county's Arborist Advisory Council [Committee] before determining whether this hedge can be
<br /> removed?
<br /> KAY: I can speak to that, Mr. Chair. This is, this is Christian, sorry. Arborist Advisory
<br /> Commission [Committee] has authority over what we call exceptional trees, which are set up as a
<br /> resolution from the county council. Furthermore, there hasn't been a seated Arborist Advisory
<br /> Committee since 2000, I think, the year 2000maybeeight, as the Arborist Advisory
<br /> Committee is co-terminus with the administration, and so under the last three administrations
<br /> there has not been a revival of that commission. So, to, the short answer to your question is no,
<br /> removal of this wouldn't be under the purview of the Arborist Advisory Committee.
<br /> 8
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />
|