2018-08-16 Leeward Exh B (AMEND REZ 1049)

Home

directly stated in the conditions; it’s indirectly tied Condition G, which we’re not going to get rid of, requires us to provide the mitigation measures, those mitigation measures are in the TIAR. UNGER: As referred to in the, okay, got it, got it. SMITH: Chair Unger, maybe I can just add also that we have those three roads that are identified there under design. And I think the plans are going to end up in Public Works next week. UNGER: Okay. Did we want to shift our discussion to landscape plan. I know we went back and forth as early as five minutes ago with more language, and I know we were going back and forth on that. Can you open up the discussion with – if I recall correctly, there was discussion about the landscape plan and using the data of the landscape plan and some issues there. Can you talk a little about that? MOORE: Yes, sure. Just as some background, the going through the State Land Use Commission process was very involved. The National Park Service was a contested, was an intervening party, so we dealt with the National Park Service during the Land Use Commission. So those conditions probably run 20 pages of mitigation requirements from all kinds of safety and health; it limits some of the uses that we can do both in the Heavy Industrial and the MCX areas. As part of that they wanted to continue what really Kaloko Industrial has, which is a 50-foot landscaping setback. So that is the genesis of that condition. There is also some interior landscaping requirements. So as part of the, both the zoning condition and the state land use condition we had to do a landscaping plan. Our concern was twofold with the proposed changes: One, the original language proposed by the – and again, we did not propose any amendments to this condition – the Planning Department proposed to say that we had to comply with the landscaping plan as of a certain date; what that means, if we ever amended that plan, then we would have to come back to the Council to amend the zoning condition because we have to comply with an old plan. So we just want the flexibility in that, you know, the language we suggested was just that we have to comply with the approved plan. We have no objections to the Planning Director’s proposed changes, which he says “plan or as may be amended.” But the key was to not lock us in to a specific plan of a specific date. You know, and again, part of this is the County is trying to extend a wastewater reuse plan, and if that water becomes available, it could change the landscaping requirements or opportunities, and, you know, so we just wanted to have the flexibility. We saw subject to the approval of the Planning Director. The other thing we pointed out is the County has a Rule 17 on landscaping, and this kind of brings them a little bit to the review of the West Hawai‘i Business Park landscaping plan, and we just wanted to make sure, you guys want to do this, we have no objections to you doing it, but do you want to do it. But, so, we have no objections to the condition as proposed by the Planning Director. UNGER: Okay, good. Good clarification, because I know that went back and forth for a little bit. And then of course we have to talk about the traffic impact study, and I know we were going back and forth with that. I think I saw the latest comment, which was just passed out to the Commissioners. If you all would look at, there is handwriting on this sheet right here, yeah. 9 EXHIBIT B