2015-09-17 Leeward Exh B (SMA 15-060)

Home

across the northern section of the project site is being restricted because the majority of classroom facilities and education programs will be located in the previous footprint of the KRB,” or the KBR, I’m sorry, which refers to Keauhou Beach Resort, “and require a ‘safe school zone’ that typically extends from 500 to 1,000 feet from education facilities.” Additionally, they state on 39 a similar restriction regarding the safe school zone and the educational zone. This is an area that may be managing/restricting public access at times of educational classes in order to provide a safe environment for children in attendance at the facility. Again, we received a comment from the Cultural Resources Commission, Planning Department Exhibit 21, and we are referring again to Number 2 that they had stated, “Public access as it relates to the proposed ‘safe school zone’ should be clarified …. The concern centers around the proposed ‘Education Zone’ identified on the figure titled ‘Draft Conceptual Site Plan with Unofficial Shoreline Setback,’ which shows a broad area extending 500-1,000 feet out from primary learning areas and into the ocean to form a ‘safe school zone.’ Questions arose concerning what happens to members of the public exercising their right granted by State law to be on the shoreline or in the ocean when the ‘safe school zone’ is in effect. Concerns were that the public might be told to leave or not allowed access if there are students present on the property or in the ocean. The applicant’s representative confirmed that the public would not be denied access along the shoreline or in the ocean, but this appears to conflict with what is implied by the proposed conceptual site plan.” The applicant did respond to these concerns in Planning Department Exhibit No. 23, and just briefly I’ll reference that. It says, “KS,” or Kamehameha Schools, “does not assert any jurisdiction over the makai waters fronting its property and via this response, states that it was never its intent to claim the area in question for its sole use for education purposes or otherwise.” Additionally, they state, “The educational zone was referred to in the SMA application by stating the zone ‘typically extends from 500 to 1,000 feet from education facilities.’ This was a reference to illustrate the extent of the zone typically used in other areas. For this application, the education zone on the north side of the project area will extend out radially approximately 200 feet from the educational buildings in the north, ensuring an adequate buffer from public facilities and the public domain.” Again, referencing the shoreline setback waiver map that we referred to, this education zone is identified with this red line on the upper portion of the map, and this is basically makai of the shoreline and in the ocean; so this is what has prompted the concerns, and we want to make sure that we resolve this before we move forward. With that, the Planning Director is recommending that this hearing on this application be continued to allow the Planning Department and the applicant to work on resolutions to the issues that have been raised. With that, that concludes our presentation. Thank you. UNGER: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the Planning Department? At this time we would like to open the meeting up to public testimony. We have 15 people signed up to testify, so --. KAHOLO: Mr. Chair? UNGER: Yes. KAHOLO: Can I ask Mr. Salavea a question? UNGER: Sure. 6 EXHIBIT B