Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-18 Leeward Exh A (SPP 19-205) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 18, 2019 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of KONA DISTILLING COMPANY, LLC (SPP 19-000205) was called to order at 9:32 a.m. in the West Hawaii Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Keith F. Unger presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Keith F. Unger, Nancy Carr Smith, Sonny Shimaoka, Michael Vitousek and Faye Yates ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Scott Church and Perry Kealoha ALSO PRESENT: J Yoshimoto, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), Jeff Darrow(Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: KONA DISTILLING COMPANY, LLC (SPP 19-000205) Application for a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a micro-distillery, visitor's center (including a tasting component) and related facilities on an approximately 7.5-acre portion of 70.977 acres of land in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The subject property is located at 75-6099 Kuakini Highway, along the northeast side of Kuakini Highway, directly mauka(east) of Kona Sea Villas, Kahului 1st, North Kona, Hawaii TMK: (3) 7-5-017:002 (por.). UNGER: First item on the agenda, Applicant Kona Distilling Company, LLC, SPP 19-000205, application for a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a micro-distillery, visitor's center, including a tasting component, and related facilities on an approximately 7.5-acre portion of a 70.977 acres of land in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The subject property is located at 75-6099 Kuakini Highway, along the northeast side of Kuakini Highway, directly mauka of Kona Sea Villas, Kahului 1st, North Kona, Hawaii. TMK(3) 7-5-017:a portion of Parcel 2. We'll start with a staff presentation. Thank you. KAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, good morning. Good morning, Members of the Leeward Planning Commission. It's nice to see you again after a few months off. If I can turn your attention to the screen. It's a Special Permit application for Kona Distilling Company. The subject seven, pardon me, 70.977-acre parcel is located in the North Kona District of Hawaii County in the Kahului area. For reference we've got Kuakini Highway running generally north-south through the slide on the makai side, and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway on the mauka side of the subject property. We've got the Kona Hillcrest Subdivision here to the north and across Kuakini Highway is the Kona Sea Villas Condominium project. 1 EXHIBIT A The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to convert an existing warehouse and associated development into a micro-distillery, visitor's center, retail area, and agricultural production on an approximately 7.5-acre portion of 7.977 [70.977] acres of land. The proposed development will include the following: Conversion of the existing 10,000-square foot warehouse structure for the proposed distilling operation, which will include: A 1,000-square foot are to store and process ti root and other agricultural products; a 2,200-square foot area for distilling of agricultural products; a 1,300-square foot area for barrel storage and aging of the distilled spirits; an 800-square foot area for bottling beverages; a 920-square foot storage area for bottled beverages; a 1,000-square foot office area; and a 256-square foot restroom area. In addition to the distillery, the applicant proposes to develop a 2,200-square foot visitor center, tasting room for proce- for product tasting, a small retail area, and a small certified kitchen within the exiting warehouse structure. The visitor center would allow visitors to taste the distilled spirit products and have light snacks, pupu-s, and will be capable of accommodating 25 to 30 people. The retail area will sell the applicant's products and other value-added Hawaii-produced agricultural products and merchandise, such as T-shirts, caps, glassware, that are related to the distillery. They're also proposing construction of 14 paved parking stalls that includes two ADA accessible parking spots, as well as the creation of two loading zones to support facility operations. And, conversion of an existing dwelling on the property for employee and/or caretaker housing. The applicant is requesting the proposed, to basically produce these distilled spirits at full capacity. The applicant expects the distillery to produce about 11,000 nine-liter cases per year to be distributed to various markets both locally and abroad. They also feel that the visitor center would be consistent with the principles of ag tourism, providing a business venture that's linked to the agricultural crops grown on or off this, the parcel. It's the applicant's objective to promote the farm to bottle concept while promoting local ag crops, education related to the production of distilled spirits, and providing a retail area for local products. They're proposing hours of operation for the distillery portion Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to approximately 6 p.m., and the visitor center will be open seven days a week by appointment from 9 a.m. until sunset. The applicant's, the project is expected to directly create approximately ten full-time and five part-time jobs. Some of these will be for crop cultivation and the balance would staff the processing and visitor center components. The applicant proposes to offer the distillery, distillery tours and tastings at the proposed visitor center by appointment. A standard tour and tasting should take about 90 minutes. Visitors would be arriving either as a group in small vans or by individual vehicles. On a day limited only to van groups there would be a maximum of four tours. During the time that van groups, van or group tours, their individual appointments would not be taken. For non-group type of visitors, the applicant anticipates a maximum of six to seven appointments a day. The applicant intends to secure its liquor license and prepare interior renovation, construction plans immediate, immediately upon approval of the Special Permit request and the construction timetable is estimated at six to ten months with a planned mid-2020 opening. The estimated construction equipment costs associated with the project is about 2.5 million dollars. County zoning for the subject parcel and areas to the east across Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway is Agricultural-5 Acres. There's some Agricultural-1 Acre further northeast. Directly adjacent to, 2 EXHIBIT A to the west is some Multi-Family Residential zoning. To the north is Single-Family Residential zoning, and across Kuakini Highway is generally Multi-Family and some Neighborhood Commercial zoning. The subject parcel and the area to the east is Agricultural as indicated in the green color areas, makai, or to the west, are Urban, also to the north and south of the subject parcel are Urban as indicated in the red color. The General Plan designation for the subject parcel is split between Medium Density Urban and Urban Expansion, as is indicated by, the majority of the area is indicated by the, the thatched color. And the Kona CDP designates the area within the Kona Urban Area and mostly within the Kahului-Puapua`a Village Neighborhood TOD area. Here's the applicant's site plan. On the left, little bit zoomed out, is the entire parcel; again, we've got Kuakini Highway generally running north-south through the left side of the slide. On the right hand side image you see it a little bit more blown up. It's approximately 7.5 acres. There's the exiting dwelling on the parcel, the existing warehouse, and then outside of the, outside of the Special Permit area but intended to be associated with the distillery operation are two shade house structures that will be utilized to grow some of the ag products, as well as the area to the south of the driveway would be utilized to grow agricultural products as well. Also, you can see there are two drainageways associated with the Wai`aha Drainage facility; the subject 7.5 acre Special Permit area is going to be outside of those drainageways. On the left hand side we'll see, we see the applicants proposed floor plan. Sorry it's a little bit difficult to read at this scale, but the majority of the back office operations will take place toward the back of the existing warehouse, with the tasting room area here, in the distillery here, and on the right hand side of the slide is just the, the parking, proposed parking for the subject distillery. Here are two aerial photographs of the area. On the left hand side we've got the entire parcel, and zoomed in on the right is generally what is going to be the, the Special Permit area, with the existing dwelling here, the existing warehouse here, and some of the shade houses adjacent to the Special Permit area, again Kuakini Highway here on the left and paved access from Kuakini Highway. Here are views of the existing warehouse—pardon me—and parking area in the upper left. Here's a view of the driveway access from across Kuakini Highway here on the upper right. A view from the inside of the warehouse as it is currently situated, and then a view of one of the shade house structures behind the warehouse area. And, finally, we've got some views of Kuakini Highway looking north with the subject property on the right hand side, and then views of Kuakini Highway looking south with the subject property on the left hand side, and these were taken from the driveway access. The Planning Director is recommending approval of this Special Permit application with conditions. 3 EXHIBIT A The applicant submitted a question to us, I didn't make it as part of our packet, but he just wanted to indicate that also as part of the distilling operation there may be a roasting of coffee on the premises within the warehouse area. We indicated back that would be outright permitted under the Agricultural zoning on the property, so it wasn't necessary to add it in as a condition of approval or anything like that. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have on this project. UNGER: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? CARR SMITH: I did have one. Am I on, Noriko? UNGER: You're on. CARR SMITH: Okay. I was just curious about the growing area that's outside of the Special Permit area. Is that typical to have something outside of the area that's a part of the Special Permit? KAY: It's, the growing area is agriculturally related and it will be outright permitted on the State Land Use Agricultural designation and the zoning. They are just letting us know kind of that that will be part of the component. So they wouldn't need a Special Permit for growing there. This is an old, I believe, orchid growing operation, so they're just utilizing the existing infrastructure for growing crops for the distillery. CARR SMITH: Okay, that's what I thought. Just wanted to confirm. Thank you. KAY: Okay, thank you. YATES: This is, you said, off of Kuakini Highway? KAY: Correct. YATES: And what's across the street from it? KAY: That would be the Kona Sea Villas Condominium. YATES: So, would this impact traffic in that area? KAY: So there is a discussion of traffic in the application in our, in our analysis. Most of the traffic would be controlled through, what was represented is most of the traffic would be off peak hours and would be controlled through setting the appointments for the tours. Other traffic associated would be with the distillery operation and some of the agricultural operations. I did check with Public Works because they had a comment letter about access conforming and site distance issues and things like that. There is an existing permitted commercial driveway access to the property. So the clarification with Public Works is any additional accesses would need to 4 EXHIBIT A do that site study issue. So they didn't seem to have heartburn over, over the, the amount of traffic and the facility that's there. YATES: Okay, because you know how congested Kuakini Highway KAY: Yeah. YATES: —can get in that area. KAY: The other thing to point out, and it may not be easy to see here, but the entryway to the condominiums is on this side whereas the driveway for the subject property is on this side, so they're not in close proximity to one another. But also maybe the applicant can address that as well. YATES: Thank you. UNGER: I didn't have a project question, I had more a procedural question. KAY: Yes. YATES: There's a Use Permit on the property now, and the applicant has requested that we nullify that? Is that supposed to be part of our motion and our process if we get there? KAY: No, so basically when we amended the Planning Commission Rules last year, the Planning Commission provided authority for revocation of permits outside of SMA permits to the Planning Director. So we didn't want to revoke that until there was an action on this request, but once that happens, that'll be something that we do administratively. UNGER: Okay, thanks for the clarification. Thank you. Would the applicant or their representative come forward please? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? FUKE: Yes, I do. WHITE: Yes. UNGER: Thank you. Please state your name and area of residence. FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant, here assisting this application and the applicant. My address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii. UNGER: Noriko, is our—we're having trouble hearing in the back—is the microphone on? Can you repeat that,please? 5 EXHIBIT A FUKE: Sure. Good morning. Can you hear me? Good morning, again, my name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant and I'm here assisting the applicant Kona Distilling Company, LLC. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii. UNGER: Great, thank you. And your name and WHITE: My name is Richard White and my address is 78-6858 Kuhinanui Street and that's Kailua-Kona. UNGER: Aloha. Thank you. So you can begin your presentation, and part of your presentation if you can mention that if you are okay or and not okay with the conditions as presented by the Planning Department. FUKE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Mr. White is the project manager for this project. I'd like to also acknowledge the presence of the owner and, if the project goes, if the permit is approved, the actual developer, Mr. Mark Hall; he's sitting in the back. They're here basically to answer any questions that I can't and, you know, specifically related to the operation. But both of them have had a chance to review the staff s report and the, and the proposed recommendation and conditions, and found them to be acceptable. I think the background report that your staff had given is, covers pretty much like all what I was going to say, so makes my job little bit easier. However, there are like, I just kind of wanted to answer some of the questions that were raised. First in relation to Ms. Carr Smith's question, you know, about the agricultural operation. This is pretty much similar to like about a couple months ago you, the Commission, had reviewed and acted favorably on Kuleana Rum out in North Kohala. In that situation they had like about 20-somewhat acres of land and they were going to use about 14 or 15 acres for sugarcane to use as a source for their distillery facility. It's no different in concept than that particular project. Just by way of background too, the, what the applicant wants to do is pretty much similar to the Kuleana Rum one; they kind of want to integrate the agricultural activities and eventually come up with a product that expands or enhances the agricultural activity. So they got this property, and this property,just for those of you who may be familiar, or not familiar, with this area, the historical use of the property, the two large sheds were used agriculturally a number of years ago. They had like a tomato, they had like cucumbers, and subsequent to that they, it was converted into like an orchid, orchid farm. And that's the reason why you see a large warehouse building that's consist of, what, 10,000 square feet. So from the applicant's standpoint, this property was almost like a natural, you know, for their own operation, because you already had existing facility, there's an existing single family residence on the property, and that dwelling would be used for either employee or for security purposes. Much of the land has been in the past cultivated into agricultural activity; that would continue. The whole idea is to have as much of the product, if they can, to be farmed on the property, and whatever that can't be, then they would have it like kind of sourced in. The thought was to have like ti plant so that they can generate `okolehao. The question I had asked the staff was that one of the first phases perhaps that they would like to produce would be like the, going into a coffee liqueur. And so, to do that, they would have to bring in in the beginning like the coffee, do the roasting, and then from there do the distilling operation. Sugarcane is also like one of the thing that he has in mind, and so that would convert into like rum. 6 EXHIBIT A There was also the question as far as like the traffic, and I think that's very, very pertinent in, especially, dealing in the Kona area. So they were very mindful of that. And, you know, the heavy traffic generator obviously would be by the visitors, you know, because you have like ten to 15 employees that would be staggered along, you know, throughout the day. And for the most part like the visitor component is not going to be like a walk-in basis; they're going to be all by appointment. And so if it's by appointment you have like a 60 minute or 90 minute kind of situation, then it's kind of staggered throughout the course of the day. The operation would be, the visitors would be coming in anywhere from 9 o'clock and would terminate at sunset, approximately like 6:00 p.m. Aside from that I've, because the staff covered everything, I really don't have much more to add, but if there are questions that the Commissioners may have, be more than willing to go into them. UNGER: Great, thank you. Commissioners any questions? [None.] This is a big piece of property, 70 acres, and the permit will cover 7.5 plus the nursery. Are there any plans for the balance of the property at this time? FUKE: No, at this point in time it's primarily like, the balance of the property would be used agriculturally. And the structural areas are pretty much limited because as the staff had indicated the north and south end of the properties are in the flood zone, Zone AE zone, so it pretty much limits what you can do on, you know, from a structural standpoint. One thing I also kind of wanted to mention, and it was kind of pointed out in the staff s background report, that there's not going to be any substantial expansion to what they have there. But over the course of time they may find a need to kind of tweak the existing building just to make it little bit more efficient. Because right now all they're doing is taking an existing structure and just trying to partition that off, but during the course of the operation then they may find a need to maybe knock off a portion and then expand a certain area. But at any rate, the whole idea is to kind of keep it within the 10,000-square foot operation. UNGER: Commissioners, any more questions? [None.] Thank you. You may be seated. FUKE: Thank you. WHITE: Thank you. UNGER: At this time we'd like to open up the hearing to public testimony. Would Joe Niemer and Sharon Willeford come forward, please? I show one extra person who is JONES: This is Patrick Jones. UNGER: Patrick JONES: Patrick Jones. 7 EXHIBIT A LINGER: Oh, Patrick Jones. Okay, very good. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. LINGER: Thank you. Please state your name and area of residence. We could start here. WILLEFORD: This is on Item 1? LINGER: This is Item 1. WILLIFORD: Thank you. My name is Sharon Willeford. I wasn't familiar with this but I am familiar with a lot of the projects going on around Kona, so I like to continue my role as a kia`i, protector, of the area and keep an eye on what's going on. And I have a few thoughts, questions about the project. Number one, the traffic on that road is stopped almost 24/7 these days. And perhaps it was an older permit or whenever they, someone said it's okay, we're, you're not going to be a problem for us, but we need to look at that date and see when someone made that decision and have someone do a traffic study because it is stopped most of the time when I go in and out of the—you all know how the traffic is right now. I was wondering what products are going to be used, and has this been studied? Have you guys looked at what it is? He mentioned casually, well, it might be sugar cane, it might be . I'm not sure what, I didn't hear anything really else mentioned. We want to be sure we're not putting in GMO products that are going to pollute the area. We want to know if the growing procedures if they're using pesticides and things like that because we must be very aware now. We're poisoning our children, we're poisoning our land. We need to wake up and take command of everything. So I just want us to really take a look at what they're proposing and have the no . There's a lot of neighbors; I wondered if they've been given a chance to be informed of what's going to happen. Thank you. JONES: Aloha, my name is Patrick Jones. I'm a resident and a board member at Kona Sea Villas, the property on the opposite side of Kuakini Highway. My main concern were the speed on Kuakini Highway. Right now, it's 45 miles an hour and changes to 35 miles an hour right at our gate, which is directly, oh, north of the subject property on the opposite side of the street. Traffic is pretty fast there and coming around the turn it presents some blind spots. There's also an issue on a floodplain and a rock wall that's deteriorating that consistently sends water down on our property, and Joe, I believe, can elaborate a little bit more on that. NIEMER: Yeah, my name is Joe Niemer. I also am a 15-year resident of Kona Sea Villas, and as —I'm also on the board of directors of the homeowners' association, so we do represent the 72 homeowners of Kona Sea Villas —and as Patrick said, we have two issues. They're both safety issues. They do not result, or have nothing to do with the use of the property, but they're safety issues. The traffic issue is, is actually quite significant. I mean the traffic going northbound on Kuakini changes from 45 to 35 directly in front of Kona Sea Villa entrance, and also the entrance egress to this property would appear to be very close to a blind curve and, unfortunately, drivers in our community to see the 45 speed limit have a tendency to go 50, 55, and faster. They do not slow down to 35 until they get closer to Pottery Terrace and Jackie Rey's. Conversely, heading southbound on Kuakini, they see the 35 speed limit changed to 45 in front of Kona Sea Villas and the speed limit, and they see it, you know, a few hundred yards 8 EXHIBIT A early, so by the time they get to Kona Sea Villas, they're, they're surpassingly faster. The second piece of it is the flood wall directly across from Kona Sea Villas on the northwest end of this property, which is an imminent status of failure. If this wall fails, which it most likely will the next, over, the following large tropical storm, it will substantially inundate and damage Kona Sea Villas. It's, as long as something is being done with this property, this wall needs to be repaired. It is repair—it doesn't need to be replaced; it needs to be repaired. So, that's our comments. Thank you for listening. UNGER: Great, thank you. You may be seated. Are there any other members of the public that wish to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none, I need a motion to close public testimony. VITOUSEK: I'll move to close public testimony on Agenda Item 1. SHIMAOKA: I'll second. UNGER: Motion by Commissioner Vitousek, second by Commissioner Shimaoka. All in favor? ALL: Aye. UNGER: Opposed? [None.] Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, at this time I'd like to entertain a motion on Agenda Item No. 1. CARR SMITH: I'd like for the applicant to address the drainage issue and the rock wall. Would that be better to be done first? UNGER: Sure, absolutely. CARR SMITH: Thank you. UNGER: Yeah. Would the applicant come forward again, please? We all heard several testimony on the, on the wall and the traffic, the products, I guess. Please respond accordingly. FUKE: Sure. UNGER: Or if you would like to clarify. FUKE: Okay, first in the area of the traffic safety and the potential, like the blind spots, I'd like to kind of like note that the staff is aware of that and, as a result, has widely recommended Condition No. 8, which reads that all new driveway connections, etcetera, and access including the provision of adequate sight distances shall meet with the approval of Department of Public Works. Although this refers to new driveway connections, I believe that if the Commission so want, then this driveway connection can also apply to the existing driveway connection. And I think it would also behoove the applicant to make sure that there is adequate sight distance related to the, you know, to the existing driveway, if they're going to use it. Condition 8, you know, relates specifically to the new driveway connections, but my only recommendation, and maybe this is subject to the owner's approval, would be to expand this condition to include 9 EXHIBIT A existing driveway connections as well. So that would pretty much address the sight distance issue. UNGER: Okay, all right. FUKE: Relative to the drainage, by, by code already the, any, any activity done on the property would have to address the drainage requirements, you know, any project-generated water would have to be contained on site. In this situation here they'd have to come in for a Plan Approval for, you know, all of the existing structures and their proposed improvements. And the propo- the plan approval process requires the submission of a Department of Public Works approved drainage plan as part of the application process, and that's got to be incorporated into it. And whatever the drainage plan calls for, it has to be implemented prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. I think that what concerns that were raised relative to drainage is really like not project-generated as much as like what the existing condition is, you know, from the mauka area just kind of flowing on both the north end and the south end of the subject property. [Speaking to Mr. White] You want to expand a little bit more? I'm not so much familiar relative to what they're talking about on the, on the wall fronting Kuakini Highway and whether that needs to be improved or what. VITOUSEK: That would be a question, if I could, I believe that is referring to the State Inventory of Historic Properties site 14089, which doesn't serve the purpose of flood mitigation. So that would be, I think, two separate issues, right, flood mitigation and, that would have to be separate from the treatment of the historic site there, 14089. FUKE: Yeah, 14089 is an existing, that's an existing wall. VITOUSEK: Yup. FUKE: And so that, based on the, the existing DLNR- or SHPD-approved archaeological plan for this area kind of called for, I guess it's just, it was just recorded; it didn't call for its physical preservation. VITOUSEK: Correct. So I just see that not, not, that wall is not a flood mitigation wall FUKE: It's not, no VITOUSEK: —right there, no. FUKE: No, it's not a, it was just a boundary wall. VITOUSEK: Correct, yup. FUKE: So I need to have a little bit more understanding as far as what the specific issue is, and what, if anything the applicant can do to address that. 10 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: I mean that, for me looking at it, I see that all of the development is taking place outside of the floodway zone. FUKE: That's correct. VITOUSEK: So there's, there's no impact on what's existing now on the floodway. I think that it's something that you guys will probably be working with the neighbors on to address together as a need arises. FUKE: It'll have to be addressed largely because, you know, if in fact flooding does occur, then it'll also affect this property, so VITOUSEK: Yes, absolutely. FUKE: it becomes more like a community effort in terms of VITOUSEK: Yup. FUKE: And you are correct, Commissioner Vitousek, in a sense that the area of the Special Permit is totally outside of all of this floodway area, and yet the focus is primarily on just utilizing existing structures and existing improvements on the property. CARR SMITH: Kuakini is a County road, correct? FUKE: Correct. This section, yes. CARR SMITH: So the, the wall is not in the setback, the County road maintenance, or is it on the property? FUKE: I, 1- CARR SMITH: You're not sure. FUKE: I don't have the answer to that question. VITOUSEK: According to the map it's on the subject property CARR SMITH: Yeah. VITOUSEK: not on the County roadway. CARR SMITH: Okay. UNGER: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. NIEMER[from the audience]: Do we get to retort? That is in fact a flood retention wall 11 EXHIBIT A UNGER: Sure, hold on, yeah, let me, let me go ahead and—[to the applicant] go ahead, you may be seated—and then we'll hear one more, if you'd like to come forward again and have a response to this for clarification. NIEMER: The wall in question is in fact a flood retention wall. It's ten feet at the base at the south end of it, it's two feet at the base at the north end of it. It has been there since our property has been there. It has been damaged substantially and prevented numerous floods. It has not prevented a flood down Kuakini the, about three years ago. But if it goes away, it will in fact flood our property. There, there are cattle walls to the south of that, which obviously are not flood mitigation, but this wall is. VITOUSEK: Okay NIEMER: It is in a flood zone. VITOUSEK: And, is it, to you knowledge, on this subject property? NIEMER: I cannot attest to the boundary lines of the property. VITOUSEK: Got you. The only maps that we have of the subject property shows the cattle wall NIEMER: I would suggest you look at the property before making those statements then. UNGER: Are you done? NIEMER: Yeah. UNGER: Thank you. So, Commissioners, we're back to entertaining a motion. VITOUSEK: I move that the application for a Special Permit, Docket No. 19-205, be approved based on the Planning Director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. CARR SMITH: Second. UNGER: We have a motion by Commissioner Vitousek, second by, seconded by Carr Smith. The floor is open, Commissioners, for discussion. Well, what I would like to propose—we're just having a discussion now—I like the idea of adding to Condition 8, "All new driveway connections to Kuakini Highway and work within ," "All new connections and existing connections to Kuakini Highway and work within the County road [right-of-way] will [shall] conform to Chapter 22 ...." So I would like to see that added to the motion; however, Commissioner Vitousek, that's your, this is your motion. VITOUSEK: Sure, yeah, we can add the language to Condition 8 that all new driveway and existing connections to Kuakini Highway and work within the County right-of-way shall conform to Chapter 22, County Streets, of the Hawaii County Code. 12 EXHIBIT A LINGER: Okay, so I would need a second on that motion as well. CARR SMITH: Second. LINGER: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Vitousek, second by Carr Smith, and with that addition. So that's the discussion at this point. CARR SMITH: I'm trying to find in the background report if there's any comments from DPW. KAY: Yes, there are—let me find it here—Exhibit 3. CARR SMITH: Where about? KAY: That's toward the, after the AIS are the other, the agency comment letters, so toward the back of the background packet. YEE: Christian, we never heard from Traffic, though, we only got it from Engineering? KAY: That's correct. We submitted to Engineering. I did have a question to the engineer, Natalie Whitworth, here because the way that the condition, or the way that their comment letter read was all driveway connections to Kuakini Highway and work within the County right of way shall conform so on and so forth. I clarified with her that we—we did some research and found that there was an existing permitted commercial driveway there—so I wanted to clarify; did she want the applicant to come in and do a line of sight analysis and do those improvements? And she said no, any new access. So because there is an existing commercial access, permitted commercial access there, she didn't seem to have a desire to have the, have them come back in and do a line of sight analysis. The permit was approved back in the early 2000's, so there may be different conditions here. So I think it's an appropriate addition to update that. [Speaking to Commissioner Carr Smith] Were you able to find the CARR SMITH: Yes. KAY: Okay. CARR SMITH: Yes, I did, thank you. So, how do we just be sure that when a drainage study is prepared by a licensed civil engineer and submitted to the Public Works prior to the issuance of a construction permit, that that wall is considered? KAY: So I'm not sure the location of the wall relative to the Special Permit area. So the, the drainage study would be done related to project's specific flooding or drainage issues, right? So it wouldn't be for the entire parcel. So if the wall is outside of this area, then they wouldn't consider that. So I need to know where the wall is relative to the Special Permit area. And so any mitigation for that the drainage study calls out for as required by Department of Public Works would be required prior to operation, prior to occupancy, right, but it may or may not, this project may or may not have an impact on that. I can say that any, any project-related additional draina- or floodwaters or anything would have to be handled on site, but if it's, this wall is off 13 EXHIBIT A site and drainage, that's a drainage way anyway and that's where water comes, I'm not sure that that's something that this particular condition would address. CARR SMITH: Understood. So perhaps it's an opportunity for a friendly good neighbor to talk to Department of Public Works about any drainage in the big picture of that area. UNGER: Yeah, at some point I defer to Public Works, Planning, Applicant, neighbors, you know, going through these issues, especially if the proposed project is outside of the drainage area and the conditions are already existing. CARR SMITH: I'll be supporting the motion, obviously, I seconded it, but I think it's responsible improvement for an ag parcel. VITOUSEK: Agreed. I think that, you know, agricultural processing areas and destinations for agricultural goods are a huge need in the community to encourage agriculture more broadly. UNGER: I agree also. I'll be supporting the motion. I think we all, as Commissioners, we all have these concerns about traffic, drainage, flooding, but in general I like the project where it's located. It is in the urban expansion area, so we could be talking a completely different project and we're not. So I'm also in favor. SHIMAOKA: Yeah, my only comment is that this has been an ongoing issue for years as far as the threat of flooding and all of that, and so will the project cause it to get worse? It doesn't seem like it to me. So I guess, something like Commissioner Carr Smith said, that I guess maybe all the parties involved need to collaborate on how they can, you know, prevent any kind of problem here on this property. KAY: Mr. Chair? UNGER: Yes. KAY: If I may. I'm sorry, if there's other comments. The proposed language for Condition 8 just saying "all existing and new" and then leaving it as is, doesn't really provide guidance to the applicant on the, kind of the timing of all of this. So I do have some language that I kind of just jotted down. I don't know if it's appropriate for me to introduce that or UNGER: Please share. KAY: Okay. It can say, "All existing and new driveway connections," and keep it there, at some point the language that I have is, "Prior to issuance of Final Plan Approval the applicant shall submit a sight distance analysis for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. Any improvements required by the Department of Public Works related to that shall be constructed prior to Certificate of Occupancy." It just points out that, you know, if the intent of the condition is to have them do a sight distance study now, the way that it would have been written probably wouldn't have guided that and directed that. So I just wanted to bring that up for consideration. 14 EXHIBIT A UNGER: Okay. KAY: Yeah. UNGER: Any comments? I like the clarification. VITOUSEK: Just to check with the applicant to see if that's agreeable. FUKE: Yes, I think the bottom line you end up at the same place, so, and it's clearer, so it's fine. UNGER: Okay. FUKE: Can I make just one comment on the drainage issue? I think that the way it was described earlier, it would seem very unusual for the property owner to make all of the extensive improvements that would, you know, kind of address properties on the makai side. So, I'm just kind of speculating, but I would think that that's more like an improvement made within the government right-of-way, but, nevertheless, I think it was pointed out, I think it behooves all of the affected property owners, which includes the applicant, to do that research and, and if it falls within the government right-of-way, to have that conversation with the Public Works Department to see what kind of added mitigation could be done. UNGER: Thank you. Motion is on the table. Seeing no further comments, hea inoa, roll call. KAY: And I just want to confirm that that includes the language that I recommended. VITOUSEK: Confirmed. KAY: Okay. VITOUSEK: Confirmed on my motion. KAY: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Yup. KAY: All right. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. 15 EXHIBIT A KAY: Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. KAY: And Chair Unger? UNGER: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion carries, five-nothing. UNGER: Thank you. Applicants, you'll be notified in writing of the decision by the Planning Commission. Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:17 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 16 EXHIBIT A