Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-20 Leeward Exh E (SLU 21-056 & REZ 21-246) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 20, 2021 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of TIMOTHY JOSEPH WARD & KAY LYNN WARD (SLU 21-000056/REZ 21-000246) was called to order at 11:51 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Nancy Carr Smith, Barbara DeFranco, Max Newberg, Mark Van Pernis, and Faith "Faye"Yates ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Clement"CJ" Kanuha III ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Dalilah Schlueter, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Jeffrey Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), Christian Kay (Planner), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Alex Roy (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), and Noriko Sauer(Leeward Planning Commission Secretary) APPLICANTS: TIMOTHY JOSEPH WARD & KAY LYNN WARD (SLU 21-000056) Application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 3.992 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4350 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 300 feet south of its intersection with Ka`iminani Drive, Kalaoa 4h, O`oma I", North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-3-005:015. APPLICANTS: TIMOTHY JOSEPH WARD & KAY LYNN WARD (REZ 21-000246) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a) and Agricultural 1-acre (A-1 a) to a Single-Family Residential 22,000 square feet(RS-22) zoned district for 3.992 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4350 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 300 feet south of its intersection with Ka`iminani Drive, Kalaoa 4h, O`oma I", North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-3-005:015. VITOUSEK: We will move onto item number 3,which the—items number 3 and 4—which the Commission will discuss together. Item number 3, Applicants Timothy Joseph Ward and Kay Lynn Ward, State Land Use Boundary Amendment, SLU 21-000056, application for a state land use boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 3.992 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4350 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 3,000, no, 300 feet south of its intersection with Ka`iminani Drive, Kalaoa 4 Ahupua`a, O`oma 1 Ahupua`a, North Kona District, Hawaii Island, TMK (3) 7-3-005:015. Item number 4, the same applicants, Timothy Joseph Ward and Kay Lynn Ward, rezoning 21-000246, application for a change of zone from an Agricultural-5 acres, A-5a, and Agricultural 1-acre, A-la, to a Single-Family Residential 22,000 square feet, RS-22, zoned district for 3.992 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4350 Hawaii Belt Road, approximately 300 feet south of its intersection with Ka`iminani Drive, again, Kalaoa 4 Ahupua`a, O`oma 1 Ahupua`a, North Kona Moku, Hawaii Island, this is the same TMK, (3) 7-3-005:015. 1 EXHIBIT E Director Kern will recuse himself from this item. Staff presentation and our discussion will cover both applications, but we'll vote on them separately. Those will be recommendations to the County Council. Having had the benefit of public testimony, would the deputy director like to modify or alter the recommendation on this matter? Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Sorry, could you repeat that, Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Sure. Having had the benefit of public testimony, would the deputy director like to modify or alter the recommendation on this matter? DARROW: We can discuss it as we go forward. I know there was a lot of discussion on the archeological sites for preservation, as well as the roadway issue, and so after the staff presents and the Commission is able to ask questions, we can consider entertaining some changes, possible changes to conditions. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Okay, with that, we'll proceed with our staff presentation. County staff planner, Christian Kay, please take it away. KAY: Yes, good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Leeward Planning Commission. Lovely to see your bright shining faces again. If you give me a moment, I'll share my screen. Can everybody see it,please, thumbs up? All right, perfect. As the Chair stated, this is item 3 and 4, I will do one presentation for a state land use boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban, as well as a change of zone application from Agricultural-5 acres and Agricultural-I acre to Single-Family Residential 22,000 square feet. The subject parcel is situated in the North Kona District of Hawaii Island. For reference, on the right side of the screen the Mamalahoa Highway is running generally north-south through the slide. The subject parcel is located roughly at the location of the yellow star. For further location reference, Ka`iminani Drive is running generally east-west through the slide, and Ihumoe Street is running parallel to that, and this is just makai of the Matsuyama Food Mart. The applicant is requesting a state land use boundary amendment from Agricultura to Urban for 3.922 acres of land and a change of zone from Agricultural 5-acre and Agricultural-I acre to a Single-Family Residential 22,000-square foot zoned district for the same land area. If the requested land use entitlement changes area approved, the applicants propose to subdivide the property into six buildable lots with a minimum of 22,000 square feet each and a roadway lot. The applicants hope to secure the required State Land Use District reclassification concurrent with the county rezoning approval as soon as possible and the subdivision process would begin immediately thereafter. We have the zoning for the subject property and surrounding area. The subject property here outlined in red is Agricultural-5 acres for the majority of it and then a small 322-square foot portion of it right here toward the cul-de-sac in Ihumoe Street is Agricultural-I acre. As you can 2 EXHIBIT E see, surrounding zoning is similarly Agricultural 5-acre here above the property, Agricultural-1 acre, there's some Agricultural-3 acre, and then toward the top of the screen some Single-Family Residential zoning, 10,000- and 20,000-square foot, respectively. It should be noted that although the area here is zoned as Agricultural 5-acre, the lot sizes are more consistent with a higher density, roughly 10 to 15,000 square feet. Across Mamalahoa Highway, again, consistent with Matsuyama Stores, is some Neighborhood Commercial zoning, and then further Agricultural zoning mauka of the roadway. The State Land Use Boundary designation for the subject parcel and some of the surrounding area is Agricultural. The State Land Use designation to, above this, or to north of the subject parcel is Urban as indicated in the pink color, and the areas to the south, east, and west are also Agricultural as indicated in the green color. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map, or LUPAG Map, designates the subject parcel and the surrounding area as Low Density Urban. This designation would allow for a single-family residential development for up to six units per acre. The Kona CDP designates the subject parcel, again here outlined in red, as within the Kona Urban Area as indicated by this red line toward the right side of the screen. Within the Kona Urban Area, Kona CDP policy for rezoning allows for infill rezoning, which would allow for properties under 20 acres to be rezoned, provided that they are within developments, or between developments that are leapfrog them; that seems to be the case here. Here is an aerial photograph of the subject parcel, again, in this case outlined in blue, Mamalahoa Highway running generally north-south through the right side of the slide, with Matsuyama Store, the Kona Palisades Subdivision here along Ka`iminani Drive, and then Ihumoe Street which cul-de-sacs here at the top, or the bottom portion of the parcel. Below that is Kona Acres, or within Kona Acres Subdivision, and there's some larger parcels here. The areas to the upper side are generally residential in nature with mostly single-family dwellings, and then the areas to the south here are residential and small farms. Here is the applicants' submitted site plan. Again,just for reference, we've got Mamalahoa Highway here, Ka`iminani Drive, coming through `Ili`ili Street and then hitting Ihumoe Street. The applicants again are proposing a six-lot subdivision. This is their initial layout that they are showing; again, each of the six habitable parcels would be 22,000 square feet in size as a minimum, with a proposed non-dedicable roadway here that would further cul-de-sac out at the end and some flag lots toward the back of the property. It should be noted that this area on proposed lot 5 is the general location of the two archaeological sites that have been a topic of discussion. What this shows here again is the general location because the metes and bounds survey that was required by the preservation plan has yet to be conducted, so this just gives you a visual idea of where it could be. Also, this shows just the 10-foot permanent buffer around those sites and not the 20-foot temporary buffer that is required by the preservation plan. We had some concerns when we looked at the application that if you add the extra 10 feet, it might make development of the subdivision somewhat difficult, so there's some discussion back and forth with the applicant on how they intend to deal with that. And then one of the things I want to point out here is an easement P-1, which is a no-access planting screen that was added to this parcel as a condition of the subdivision that created the lot. This would ensure that there will be 3 EXHIBIT E no access directly to the state highway from the property, and that would be carried through in this proposed subdivision. Okay, actually, I wanted to step back pardon me to the, to this aerial photograph, and this is what some of the testifiers were speaking about. This is the current driveway that serves these three lots adjacent to the parcel, and the applicants' proposed driveway would be roughly in this area here. So that's, that's the concern in terms of the parallel location of the driveways and the concerns over safety in exiting out onto Ihumoe Street. Here is a view of the subject parcel looking makai form Mamalahoa Highway. Some concern in the testimony about the sign falling down, the applicants did, once they were made aware of that, did go out and put the sign back up. And then here is a view on the bottom right, of the subject parcel looking mauka from Ihumoe Street. Again, this is generally showing the parcel being largely vegetated and overgrown, and this will be the general location of that proposed roadway coming off of the cul-de-sac. And here's some views of Ihumoe Street, looking makai, the top left looking down Ihumoe Street from the top of the cul-de-sac, and then here is a view of Ihumoe Street looking mauka toward the cul-de-sac, and again, this is the subject parcel here and the general area of the proposed driveway. The deputy planning director is recommending a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for both the state land use boundary amendment, as well as the associated rezone with conditions. With that, once the applicants had a chance to make their presentation, I'll be happy to take any questions the commission may have. VITOUSEK: Would you mind stop sharing your screen? KAY: Oh, for sure, I'm sorry about that. VITOUSEK: Thank you. KAY: Yeah. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you very much. Now, I'd like to have a presentation from the applicant. PIPAN: Chair, did you want to swear us in or shall we proceed? VITOUSEK: Oh, sure, let's do that. Please raise your right hand. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Planning Commission? PIPAN: I do. VITOUSEK: Okay,please introduce yourself, your name and town you live in. 4 EXHIBIT E PIPAN: Aloha, my name is John Pipan. I live just outside of Honoka`a. Also today joining us is Aaron Baribeau, the property manager for the Wards. The Wards are with Aaron as well. They are here to basically answer any questions Commission may have for them directly. Aloha, Chair Vitousek, Planning Commissioners. Thank you for your service to your community, dedication to this process. Thank you to the Planning Department staff, Deputy Director Darrow. We really appreciate the favorable recommendations and respectfully request your consideration to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council. First and foremost, I want to address the testimony of Ms. Funakoshi characterizing our call as bullying or bribing. The Funakoshis were requesting a concession from the applicants in form of the fence and the stop sign and convex mirror, and this is above and beyond any county conditions or requirements and comes with that an expense. So my discussion was simply to request her support in exchange for a commitment for her requested improvements. So in general, I struggle with social anxiety, I always have, and the community relation aspects are particularly difficult for me, and I'm learning through this process to communicate myself better and not as frequently put my foot in my own mouth. So apologize to Ms. Funakoshi for any uncomfortability resulting from our talks. I apologized to her on that call and multiple times since then. So I didn't intend for it to come off as bullying. I don't want her to compromise her morals or principles, and I promise to strive to do better in my communications. So onto the applications at hand, the intent of these applications is to provide additional housing options for Kona, which is in very high demand. You couple that with a limited supply, and you get the drastic increases in housing costs we've been seeing in the past couple decades. So the proposed development would help the situation, creating six additional lots. While that's a small fraction of what would be required to affect prices, it's a step in the right direction. This parcel is designated for urban use by the General Plan and the Kona CDP, and the proposed state land use boundary amendment would bring the state designation into conformance with the character of the area and the county community plans. So the parcel is surrounded by developed properties, and in that respect it's a perfect candidate for infill, which is supported by the Kona CDP. And fair share contributions from the developers would contribute to county parks, police, fire, solid waste facilities, and road and traffic infrastructure. So the contention that we are just asking for favors and not giving back to the community is kind of unfounded. People have to live somewhere. If this isn't the good place, then where is that? If the answer is no growth, period, for the island, we'll see more of the same and increases in property taxes and pricing locals out of the housing market. So that's said, there have been some concerns raised by the community members, and they fall into humane categories the preservation of farmland, water quality impacts, archaeological sites. I'll address preservation of farmland first. The proposed rezoning still permits farming, and conditions of the state land use boundary amendment protect surrounding agricultural uses. So this parcel is not classified as Important Ag Land and has a Land Study Bureau soils rating of E, which is the lowest. You couple that with steep, steeper slopes found on this parcel, and you get an increased chance of erosion and sedimentation from agricultural pursuits on a property like this. And this feeds right into the potential water quality impacts. 5 EXHIBIT E So this site is zone X, outside of any floodways; flooding is not anticipated. Department of Public Works grubbing permit has been closed, and any further land disturbance will conform to Chapter 10, Grubbing and Grading. And the drainage pattern of lots will have to be maintained. All the residences will be serviced by Department of Health permitted and approved individual wastewater systems, so that will largely mitigate any potential water quality impacts. As for the archaeological sites, yes, the previous landowner did some unpermitted work. As I understand, it was an excavator-mounted mulching attachment, so not a bulldozer as contended by some of the testimony. And if you look at the definition of grubbing as opposed to grading, grubbing is removal of vegetation that actually disturbs the soil. So I think the previous owner was trying to follow that path, but they didn't account for the ground disturbance that was going to be caused by the excavator itself. So, that's water under the bridge. Haun & Associates in 2013 prepared an AIS, an inventory survey, for the property, and this was accepted by the State Historic Preservation Division in 2016. And the plan at that point in the AIS was for data recovery for the two sites, the lava tube and the terrace. So the previous owner, instead of pursuing data recovery, and presumably to save some money, opted to preserve the sites in place, and that preservation plan that resulted from that was approved by the SHPD in October of 2016. So with all of that background in mind, we propose to adhere to the proposed conditions of the rezone and the state land use boundary amendment. There are a few changes that we would like to request or suggest. I can go over those now or we can take questions at this point. Thank you very much. VITOUSEK: Yes, please go over the revisions you would like to request. PIPAN: The first is a minor typographical, Condition C reads, "the application"—of the rezone—so the second, or, sorry, third to last line of C, it says, "the application shall be responsible; I think that should read "the applicants" should be, shall be responsible, so "application" into "applicants." That was one. Also, Condition N, stemming from a Planning Committee of the County Council meeting on Tuesday, Councilman Inaba had requested conditions in the standard language be changed to remove the word"unlikely,"just to make it more general, not presuming the finding of subsurface or surface historic resources be unlikely, so we would be fine with that changed, too. And the last change to the conditions that we would request to be considered would be Condition J, and this one is pertaining to additional dwellings on any of the lots. So generally, this is tied to water availability and traffic impacts. And in this case, the lot has seven available water units, so we would request that one of the lots would be allowed to do an `ohana dwelling according to the regular practice and procedure of the Planning Department. So the amended language with that one, "with exception of the proposed lot" I think it would be 6 or 5, we can go over that specifically, but—"with exception of one proposed lot" and then the "restrictive covenants in the deeds" all the rest will be the same. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you for your recommendations. At this point I'd like to open the floor to the planning commissioners to ask questions of the staff and of the applicant, with each commissioner up to 10 minutes to ask questions and get answers to any questions they have. 6 EXHIBIT E Each one will have a block, and then we'll move that way; once you'd yield out your time, we won't be circling back. Okay, are there any questions? Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Yes, I believe there—can you hear me? VITOUSEK: Yes. VAN PERNIS: There is one question that I've forwarded out that you, Chair Vitousek, have, but I have one other one, which is VIOTUSEK: Sure, I'll read VAN PERNIS: before reading that, let me ask this question. What lot, as proposed lot that you've shown in your application, are you proposing to have two water commitments versus one? PIPAN: Thank you for your question, Commissioner Van Pernis. It makes sense to my eye to allow it on the topmost lot, which would be the largest when you are taking into consideration the potential archaeological preserve sites on Lot 5, so the lot that's closest to the highway. That would be my suggestion. VAN PERNIS: Well, I'm looking for a commitment, rather than a suggestion. Can you make it a commitment? PIPAN: I'll defer to the Wards and Aaron Baribeau on if they would commit to that lot being the one to use the extra water commitment. Aaron, are you available,please? BARIBEAU: Yes, available. For the record, Aaron Baribeau, live in Kailua-Kona here in town. So VITOUSEK: Would you mind turning on your camera so I can swear you in? BARIBEAU: Yep. VITOUSEK: Thank youI see you've raised your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Leeward Planning Commission? BARIBEAU: I do. VITOUSEK: Okay,please proceed. BARIBEAU: Yeah, as was stated, the most-likely lots are Lot 5 and 6, but which one of those becomes, we are, would not at this time commit to which number it becomes of those two, but assuming that the rest of the conditions as laid out in the recommendation are carried forward, we would be going to commit that it would be either 5 or 6. So we would, as long as the other conditions carry forward, we would commit to it being 5 or 6 and not 1 through 4. If that helps. 7 EXHIBIT E VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis, would you like me to read the question that you have right now? VAN PERNIS: Please. VITOUSEK: Okay, "Do you acknowledge that there will be no access to Mamalahoa Highway from the property or any lot thereof when and after they are subdivided?" BARIBEAU: Yes. PIPAN: (Raises hand in the affirmative) VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis, do you have any further questions? VAN PERNIS: Nothing further in questions. BARIBEAU: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay, we'll yield the time to another commissioner. Commissioner Yates. YATES: My question is, you know, I'm just looking at the plan that Christian showed, about the road. I mean, you know, the people already have their road that go up to the property and then this new subdivision coming in, I'm sure they are going to need a road going up to the different lots. Is that going to be something that is going to be a concern later where they have to do some zone not zone changes, but—any changes to be able for them to do that? Because it looks like a lot of roads going all the way up, especially the top, very top lot. PIPAN: Yes, thank you, Commissioner Yates, for the question. So we've planned that road as a 20-foot right-of-way with a 16-foot pavement along the southern boundary for efficiency to access all of the proposed lots. This just so happens to coincide with an access easement that's used for the three properties to the south. There is a buffer in between the pavement for the easement of the neighbors and the proposed pavement for the driveway serving these proposed lots. There is landscaping there, there are power poles there, so we believe that that provides a good buffer. And the, some of the applicants, or pardon me the testimony form the neighbors indicated that there are issues with blind spots, so, that further supports that vegetated buffer, and I'm sure we would be willing to provide any concessions that may be necessary to ensure the safety of these access as they join the cul-de-sac below. Does that answer your question? YATES: (Nods in the affirmative) PIPAN: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Commissioners, are there any other questions? Commissioner Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: I'm a little confused; I thought John said that the applicant was with Aaron, is that true? 8 EXHIBIT E PIPAN: (Nods in the affirmative) CARR SMITH: So, is the applicant part of this conversation and planning to be sworn in and speak, or what? PIPAN: Yes, thank you, Carr Smith, Commissioner Carr Smith. We didn't ask them to prepare any testimony of their own, so they are here to answer questions about potential commitments that they would make regarding layout and development and so forth. If you do have questions for them, I believe they are to be sworn in and answer those questions. Thanks. BARIBEAU: Just to add, that is correct, they are here with me in the room, so if there are questions, they can totally be sworn in. CARR SMITH: So, Mike, are we, we are doing our 10 minutes of questions now VITOUSEK: Yep. CARR SMITH: or we are waiting for a motion and then having that discussion now? VITOUSEK: No, giving everybody 10 minutes to answer questions, to ask questions of the applicants, Planning Department, and then once everyone is satisfied with the information that they have, then we can make a motion and we can have a discussion on the item. CARR SMITH: Okay. Can I go ahead with my questions then? VITOUSEK: Yes, yep. CARR SMITH: Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to get a little more clarity about the arch sites on Lot number 5. It seems like they are significant—my word, not a technical word. And I'm having a hard time, number one, imagining how you are going to get two houses on Lot number 5 as that even being an option, with those sites and with the setbacks that were talked about previously. I wondered if the 20-foot road that you just spoke about, John, is affected by the setbacks of those sites. Maybe you can answer those first. PIPAN: So, yes, thank you, Commissioner Carr Smith. The sites we have mapped currently are based on information from the archaeological inventory survey, and those were mapped using hand-held GPS devices that are generally only accurate to about 15 feet, plus or minus. They state in the AIS that they use various mapping technics to refine that accuracy into about a five-foot range,plus or minus, but there is still some uncertainty in the exact position. So the proposed roadway is drawn to avoid the approximate location of those sites, but should the actual metes and bounds survey of the preservation area require revision of the subdivision layout, we would make those revisions at the proper permitting process, or prior to getting final subdivision approval. But, conceptually, this layout makes sense for six lots; none of them are smaller than 22,000 square feet, and it looks like the access is feasible and reasonable to be provided to all lots. Does that answer your question? 9 EXHIBIT E CARR SMITH: I think so. Christian, is the information that they've provided regarding those sites sufficient to you folks at this stage of the game? KAY: Thanks for your question, Commissioner Carr Smith. So, as I stated in my presentation, we had some concern over the proposed layout,just given that the 0.12-acre preserve area has not been surveyed yet, as Mr. Pipan stated. So, looking at that and adding another 10 feet for the temporary buffer that is per the preservation plan supposed to be kept in place through the duration of the development of not only the subdivision but the development of the parcels as well, we had some concerns that they might not be able to effectively develop the property. So based on that, I shared that information with the applicants, and then I called State Historic Preservation Division and asked if the previously accepted data recovery process would still be viable even though there is an approved preservation plan; according to SHPD staff, they said yes, either option would be okay. Further conversation with SHPD, staff also said that their preference would be preservation in place, and that they would be willing to work with the applicants in order to amend the preservation plan to lessen the temporary buffer in order to help facilitate the development of the subdivision while still maintaining the arch sites on site. So that's why we put in the recommendation kind of conditions that allow for either-or option. The applicants have been pretty consistent from the beginning that their preference is to maintain the sites on the property but appreciate the flexibility in case, when the survey is done, there are some problems with that. So that's kind of where we are at right now, that's the trail of the conversations we've had around the arch sites. CARR SMITH: Okay. And then a little more clarity, if you willI'm not sure if that's for you, Christian, or for you, John but there was testimony that the previous owner, Mr. Stewart, may have had obligations, and I, I'm sorry, I just wasn't clear who the obligations were with, and I wasn't clear whether they had been satisfied. KAY: So, in terms of the preservation plan, that was approved. One of the conditions, one of the immediate conditions, was to conduct a metes and bounds survey to identify the location of the 0.12-acre preservation area on the property, and that it will be recorded against the deed of the property with the intention of it carried through during the subdivision process. So that's, that has not been done to date, hence the kind of the general location, that Mr. Pipan talked about, of the preserve area on the proposed site plan. CARR SMITH: Okay, so even though that was supposedly something that was supposed be done before the property was sold, that wasn't done, and the buyers bought the property, maybe willingly or knowingly or not knowingly. But it's now their kuleana, I assume KAY: That's correct. CARR SMITH: to complete that. Okay. KAY: The preservation plan says original owner or any subsequent owners are responsible. CARR SMITH: Okay. My last item that needs some clarity,please, is the settlement and release agreement, I was a little confused, that's between Mr. Stewart and the Ikedas? And that 10 EXHIBIT E evidently is in the deed as well and carries forward to the current owner. So if I can get a little clarity about that and what the status is. KAY: Probably appropriate for the applicants to respond to that. CARR SMITH: Thank you. PIPAN: Me, too, thank you for the question. We submitted by letter our plans for the subdivision to the Ikedas, neighbors to the west; we received nothing in response. The agreed settlement adjustment of the lot lines is shown on the proposed subdivision map, and it's accounted for in the metes and bounds for both the rezone and the state land use boundary amendment. So we are assuming that they are going to be satisfied by those inclusions. Also, they were on call when I had the Zoom meeting with Ms. Funakoshi and several other community members, and they didn't provide any comments or concerns. CARR SMITH: Okay, but they are aware of what's going on. PIPAN: Yes, ma'am. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. I think I'm good, Mike, thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. Any other commissioners, questions for staff or applicant? (No audible response) Jeff, Deputy Director Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Chair. I'll just touch upon some of the issues that came up through the discussion. Number one, as far as items number 1 and 2 on Condition C "applicant,"that was a typo, so it should be "applicant" in Condition C. Condition N "unlikely,"that was something staff was going to bring up as well; moving forward Council has asked that we remove the word "unlikely" in that condition so that it would say, "in the event." The last request from the applicants' representative, we had a similar change of zone in Waimea, this was some time ago, and it was a similar request, although it was Agricultural zoning, but it applies in this matter being that it has to do with a second dwelling. What happened was the applicant was requesting that the Planning Commission remove the condition of the restrictive covenants for the second dwelling. And so the commission placed in a condition that took out the restrictive covenants but said that the applicant just pull it up here, that the, that, I'll just read it, in this case back then it was additional farm dwellings but we'll use `ohana dwellings in this case `ohana dwellings, "if approved by the Planning Department, shall be serviced by individual water meters as approved by the Department of Water Supply." In this particular case, there is only one additional water meter available, so it would only apply to one of the lots. There is an allowance to be able to have an `ohana dwelling, if your area has sufficient rainfall; unfortunately, this particular area does not meet that requirement, and so this condition, if changed in the ordinance, would just apply to that additional unit that it's available. So that's something for consideration by the commission. I did,just one I touch upon the matters that were brought up again by the testifiers, specifically, this issue of whether or not to allow the applicant the ability to preserve or to do data recovery. And so, you know, there is a lot 11 EXHIBIT E VITOUSEK: Actually, can I stop you there DARROW: Sure. VITOUSEK: on that one? I'd like to take my time to DARROW: No problem. VITOUSEK: —ask the questions, if that's okay. DARROW: Thank you. VITOUSEK: And then after I get that, you are welcome to jump in, but I really would like to just add my time. Okay, my first question is of the Planning Department staff. What alternative zoning options are considered for this parcel besides RS-22? Are we looking at, I mean, is there DARROW: BecauseI can answer that—this is kind of driven by the amount of water units available. That's kind of what's driving this. You could, this is only a three-acre, 3.9-acre parcel. You know, again, when we go through a change of zone, we have certain layers that we have to look at and meet. The primary layer is the General Plan, and this particular area, you are looking at Low Density Urban, so they are looking for a residential type zoning in this area. The second would be the Community Development Plan; in this particular area you are in the Kona Urban Area, they want to see a residential type zoning. This happens to even go further that it's a type of infill rezone. It's adding six additional lots to the area, we are in a housing crisis, there was talk about the agricultural potential of the land, but this really is poor soils, it's not prime ag land, and again, it's, the long-range plan for this area is to promote residential uses. So as far as what we looked at was the availability of water. There is a zoning that we have, RS-22, which seems to meet that particular area, that particular limit of water for the units that were available. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. My next question is in regards to the SHPD letter dated April 19, 2017, that is essentially the completion of the 6E review process for this change of zone application. And I just want to make sure that the county acknowledges that the condition of the—so the overall determination for this project for 6E is effect with proposed mitigation commitments; that's one of the few determination criteria that can be used to end historic preservation review. The mitigation commitments that are referred to in this letter are established in the preservation plan approved by SHPD, January 2016, or, sorry, Haun and Henry, 2016. And so, that establishes the preservation measures for the archaeological sites, 29789 and 29794. So, in essence, I just want to make sure that the county agrees that SHPD's review of this project is tied to the fact that these sites will be preserved. KAY: If I may, Mr. Chair? VITOUSEK: Yep. 12 EXHIBIT E KAY: So the, I think the wrinkle here, although this is where it ended up, initially when SHPD accepted the archaeological inventory survey, they agreed with the findings of that survey, which recommended archaeological data recovery; it was only after Mr. Stewart got that letter that he determined that preservation was his choice over archaeological data recovery, at which point SHPD agreed that that would be also an appropriate treatment and went through VITOUSEK: Yep KAY: the preservation plan. So I think that VITOUSEK: Yeah, I understand, I understand that completely. That's the initial treatment recommendation for data recovery, and that's base for a historic preservation review, but the mitigation commitment is preservation. So initial treatment recommendation in this case is different from the mitigation commitment that is tied to the effect with the agreed-upon mitigation commitments for this project. KAY: Okay. VITOUSEK: This project is conditioned upon preservation of these two sites under the conditions established in the preservation plan. Do you guys agree with that? KAY: I think, logically, yes. And I'll defer to your experience and expertise on this. VITOUSEK: Thank you, yeah, yeah, so basically, in order for data recovery to be a mitigation commitment for this project, it would have to go back to historic preservation in its entirety where they would review the effect of the project on whether it can be data recovered or not. So at this point we cannot offer data recovery as a mitigation commitment because SHPD has already established preservation as the mitigation commitment for the approval of this project. Is that, is that something that the county would be willing to move forward? DARROW: Well, that was the discussion, and that's where I, I thought we'd end up being with your background and expertise. That's why it would be good to talk with the applicants and get their view on that and see if they oppose that. But if they are on board, we can amend the condition to make it clear that they preserve in place. Hopefully, as Christian mentioned in his presentation, that if there is some issues with the buffer that they might have the ability to do a little bit of adjustment through the preservation plan, at least that gives them some ability to fix some problems that they might run into. VITOUSEK: Yeah, so the permanent preservation buffer, that's the 10 feet, that's the only aspect that's subject to the metes and bounds and the preparation of restrictive covenant in the deed restriction. The additional interim buffer is a temporary buffer and is not intended to permanently block the access. And revising the preservation plan is a simple as a letter to allow the boundary to come in a little bit and allow for access through the temporary buffer, because the assumption is the area within the temporary buffer can be impacted after the permanent preservation measures are created, so that's a simple solution. But data recovery basically brings the whole project back to square one in my opinion. 13 EXHIBIT E DARROW: Agree. VITOUSEK: Okay. My next question is to the applicant. You've heard from the community, from the folks who live here and the folks living around, that they have concerns about the development, about safety in the neighborhood, about impacts of residential coming into an agricultural area. Are you willing to include the mitigation measures that have been suggested for traffic safety, such as the wall, the planting screen, the stop sign and speed bump, as well as a mirror, as conditions of approval, or conditions of CARR SMITH: Mike, point of order. VITOUSEK: Yes. CARR SMITH: Could you swear in the applicants, please? Thank you. VITOUSEK: Sure. The applicants? K. WARD: Aloha. T. WARD: Aloha. VITOUSEK: Welcome to the Leeward Planning Commission. Would you please raise your right hand? Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Planning Commission? K. WARD: I do. T. WARD: I do. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Will you please introduce yourselves and your name and where you live? K. WARD: Sure. I'm Kay Ward. We currently live in Omaha, and we are planning to move to Kailua-Kona first part of next year. T. WARD: Hello, I'm Tim Ward, and currently live in Omaha, Nebraska, and we are in the process of moving to Kona, Kailua, hopefully early next year. VITOUSEK: Thank you. So the question was for applicant, and it's up to you to answer or your consultant, but, are you willing to commit to mitigation measures that would lessen the impact of the development on the surrounding community? T. WARD: Yes. K. WARD: Yes. It was always our intention to maintain those as long as that flag lot road— (low-volume private conversation with Mr. Ward)—oh, the stop sign, I'm sorry, yes, the fence and the stop sign, yes, we are completely 14 EXHIBIT E T. WARD: And the mirror. K. WARD: —and the mirror, completely agreeable to that. T. WARD: Oh yes. K. WARD: We want to be good neighbors and good stewards. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add, John? PIPAN: Yes, thank you, Chair. The commitments we've discussed so far with neighbors are a fence at the southern property boundary, a stop sign at the new access to the cul-de-sac on Ihumoe, and the convex mirror. Planting screen wasn't a part of that nor a wall, so it's a fence, a stop sign, and a convex mirror, and, yes, we'll agree to those commitments. VITOUSEK: Then what about a speed bump at the bottom of the driveway? There was some testimony requesting that as well. PIPAN: So I consulted with DOT Highways about their standards for the stop sign, and they gave me their standards. We didn't discuss the speed bump, as that hadn't come up at that point; that was only brought up in the past day or two as a proposed mitigation. I would imagine, and the Wards can speak to this directly, that a speed bump would be acceptable to them. VITOUSEK: Okay, that concludes my 10 minutes. With that, I'd like to—Jeff, if you'd like to continue to address the (inaudible–phone ringing) Christian, go ahead. KAY: I just had a question about that. Would these be added as a condition of approval, Mr. Chair? VITOUSEK: That will be up to the commission on whether they amend the ordinance and what they vote for it. KAY: Okay, thank you. VITOUSEK: Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Yeah, I was unclear whether the Wards committed to the speed bump orI know John did, but. K. WARD: Yes, we'll commit to the speed bump T. WARD: Yes. K. WARD: —yes. VITOUSEK: Deputy Director Darrow. 15 EXHIBIT E DARROW: Thanks, Chair Vitousek. So kind of wrapping things up and working on the conditions that we could provide for the commission, I've been kind of texting with Christian. As far as the preservation, it appears that if we just remove Condition Mis it, Christian? KAY: (Nods in the affirmative) DARROW: which was the option for data recovery, then it would be back to Condition L, which would be focusing on the preservation. You may have to reword that a little bit in the beginning where it says, "Should the applicants choose"; so at this point there is no more choice. The other condition that I mentioned earlier that would basically replace Condition J, which states simply, "`Ohana dwellings, if approved by the Planning Department, shall be serviced by individual water meters as approved by the Department of Water Supply"; so that would take over, that would remove Condition J and then be added. And again, we are aware that they are limited to one additional water unit from the Department of Water Supply, so that basically would be where they are at. Now, again, keeping in mind that in the future if more water comes into the area, then they have the ability to add additional dwellings. Then we had talked about the simple minor changes on Condition C, "application"to "applicant," and Condition N to remove "unlikely." If Christian can reword Condition M, maybe what we can do is take out the one and add in the roadway condition requirements that you are asking for. And then we, it sounds like we should be close. VITOUSEK: Okay, yeah, I'm really, I think that's great, and at this point I would like to move towards a motion and then these can be discussed. Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Yes, I believe that the applicant has agreed to limit the possibility of`ohana, so did the Planning Department, to Lots 5 and 6, and that should be stated in what the Planning Department has talked about. VITOUSEK: Okay, I think we are getting into discussion, and I would really like to have a main motion on the floor before we get into discussion on the revisions of the conditions. So, would someone like to make a motion to recommend favorable or unfavorable? KAY: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, before you get started, we have two items on the agenda; I don't know if you want to take the state land use boundary amendment first and then get into the rezone, which seems to be the meat of the condition changes. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I agree, I think that we should move with the amendment to the state land use boundary first, get a motion on that. KAY: Barbara has her hand raised. VITOUSEK: Commissioner DeFranco. 16 EXHIBIT E DEFRANCO: (Inaudible–microphone on mute) KAY: Please unmute. VITOUSEK: Unmute. DEFRANCO: There it is, okay. Applicant Timothy Joseph Ward and Kay Lynn Ward, favorable recommendation, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application of the state land use boundary amendment application, docket number SLU 21-000[0]56, based on the deputy planning director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Is there a second? CARR SMITH: (Raises hand to second the motion) VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner Carr Smith. Any discussion on this item? Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: There is no question that this subdivision will add traffic to Mamalahoa and Ka`iminani. There is a certain time of the day there is no question that the traffic on those two roads is terrible and dangerous, and there have been fatalities. Now, why is that? That's partly because the Planning Department,partly because the Planning Commission, have approved up to 25 years delay over the bypass road that goes, that Palamanui is supposed to build and was supposed to build by 2005, which would alleviate VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis, Commissioner Van Pernis, that's not a topic of this agenda item VAN PERNIS: It is on this agenda item. I'm just pointing out that we, the Planning Commission and the Planning Department, approved delays in the bypass road, and that that's why we have these traffic problems. And the Planning Department and the Planning Commission need to look at— DEFRANCO: tDEFRANCO: This is a point of order. He is asking and answering his own question, sorry. VAN PERNIS: Let me finish. VITOUSEK: I'll give you a warning, verbal warning VAN PERNIS: All right— VITOUSEK: ightVITOUSEK: (Indiscernible–simultaneous speech) VAN PERNIS: —let me point out that all of the 17 EXHIBIT E VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis, hold on VAN PERNIS: traffic mitigation VITOUSEK: Okay, I'm going to call a recess, a short recess, and I'll have a discussion with Commissioner Van Pernis. Thank you, everybody, please resume in five minutes. (Chairman Vitousek called a short recess at 12:52 p.m. He called the hearing back to order at 12:55 p.m.) VITOUSEK: We are going to be coming back to order. VAN PERNIS: There is no question that this project will generate traffic on Ka`iminani and on Mamalahoa. That's why I think all the amendments to the application, which have been referred to—stop sign, mirror, speed bump, as well as the limitation of`ohana and the water commitment to Lot 5 and 6—are all appropriate. And I would say that those conditions need to be added to the approval. I will vote for it, but I'll be holding my nose while I do it. VITOUSEK: Would you like to make amendments? Would you like to offer a secondary motion requesting amendments to the VAN PERNIS: I'm not clear on what amendments have already been made or have already been included by the Planning Department. If there are none, then I would make that motion to amend. VITOUSEK: So far, there have been no formal amendments that have been made. There are several suggested amendments. But we've got a motion on the floor to advance a favorable recommendation. At this point we are not even discussing conditions of the zoning ordinance because this is the state land use boundary amendment. So once we are taking up the item of the rezoning, we can do clarifications on conditions. VAN PERNIS: I will hold off on moving to amend until the next motion. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. So, are there any other concerns relating to the state land use boundary amendment? (No audible response) Okay, seeing none, we'll proceed with roll call. KAY: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. This is for approval as recommended by the deputy planning director. Commissioner DeFranco pardon me, a favorable recommendation as recommended by the deputy planning director—Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Newberg? 18 EXHIBIT E NEWBERG: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: (Holds his nose) Aye. KAY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: I'm a little confused with all of this discussion. What are we voting on? KAY: Okay, this is for the state land use boundary amendment. This is going to change the state land use designation of the property form Agricultural to Urban, so this is the first step, and then the rezone will be heard next. YATES: Okay. Aye. KAY: Okay. And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair, motion carries, six-nothing. VITOUSEK: Okay, I'd like to entertain a motion on Item 4, change of zone. Need a motion so that we can have a discussion on the item. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: I'm going to move for a favorable recommendation. I move a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for change of zone, docket number REZ 21-000246, based on the deputy planning director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Is there a second? CARR SMITH: (Raises hand to second the motion) VITOUSEK: Commissioner Carr Smith second. Okay, discussion, so—Christian. KAY: And this may come in a subsequent discussion, but there were several amendments proposed, and the motion was to approve as recommended, so I don't know if you want to change the motion or not. DEFRANCO: Yes, I would like to change it to include the amendments. But I couldn't have stated all of those amendments that Jeff did, so VITOUSEK: So the idea is that we will be making secondary motions to amend the main motion. 19 EXHIBIT E DEFRANCO: Okay, okay. VITOUSEK: So we've got a motion and a second to approve. We can have a discussion now. So, personally, I feel like this project is reasonable, but even then, will have an effect on the community, and I feel like we've identified several mitigation measures that we can impose as conditions that will lessen the impact of the project on the community. Because, clearly, the community, the folks who are living here have a lot of concerns about that, and we have to take that under heavy consideration while we are doing this. I feel like the issue with preservation sites is a simple one; we need to remove any reference to data recovery because that's not part of the approval of the mitigation commitment that has been agreed to as part of this project. I feel like the applicants offered to do neighborhood mitigation, like the fence and speed bump and convex mirror will help. I also believe that the limitation on `ohana dwellings will lessen the impact on this subdivision and the surrounding agricultural properties where, you know, you've got 10,000-square foot lots on Ka`iminani and then we'll have 22,000-square foot lots at this subdivision and then making kind of a buffer into the one-acre lots in Kona Acres. So I feel like in this case where the community has come on force and said we want to do whatever we can to limit the effects of the project on neighborhood, having the reduction of the `ohana units in this is appropriate, and it will lessen traffic, it will lessen neighborhood impacts, and maintain a buffer between the neighboring properties and the Kona Acres. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: I agree with you, Commissioner Vitousek. I am very concerned about, you know, the archaeological sites there and the buffer zones, and hearing what the community had to say and their reactions, because we are part of the community, and we now, that everything that we do is going to impact us. But I also want to mention that it saddened me to hear what the previous owner had done, had gone in there and tried to sort of smooth over some of the sites and desecrated them, that was a shame. And I'm hoping, after meeting the Wards online, that their commitment seems to be doing it in a way that's respectful to Hawaii and to what is there, and in doing the development that is respectful to the nature of the ag lands, to our water systems, and runoffs, and everything that going forward we all need to participate in that, in that idea, and not just the idea that the implementation of it. But I also, I'm looking at the layout, and it, like the infill, it looks like it fits in the area; you know,you have Matsuyama Store right across the street, you know, we do need more housing here in Hawaii, and it looks like, you know, those people, too, could plant some mango trees and have some ag development on their land. I didn't see from the overheads anybody that was actually a farmer farming. Maybe they have extra food that they take someplace every now and then, but it didn't look like there was orchards, you know, big orchards or some kind of farming development going on in those neighborhoods. But every, every fruit tree counts, and it takes care of our `ohana-s, it takes care of our communities. And so hopefully, they will keep that in mind as they lay out this development that, you know, they respect their neighbors and who lives there now. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: As Chair Vitousek said this community, or this application, proposed development affects the surrounding entire community, and Ms. DeFranco said basically the same thing regarding the archaeology. My concern right now is the traffic that this will generate. As I said, I'll be voting for it, with my nose held, but I think as far as this application, for more intensive development and every application in the area, we have to address traffic. And with 20 EXHIBIT E that in mind, I would ask the Planning Department to state the amendments that have been proposed, including limiting the `ohana to Lot 5 or 6, and then I would make a motion to include those amendments in the recommendation. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis, do you believe that if we leave Condition J as stated where we are restricting the use of a second dwelling to the entire subdivision, that would have a bigger impact on traffic? So we are not letting them do any additional `ohana dwellings. VAN PERNIS: I would agree with no additional `ohana or dwellings altogether, if that's what the stated conditions are. VITOUSEK: That's the current stated condition, is no, no `ohana dwellings at all. VAN PERNIS: All right, well, then where does the seventh water commitment go? Does that get turned back to the Water Department? VITOUSEK: Does the county have an answer to that? DARROW: It would, it's allotted for that particular property, so it's available to them whether or not they'll be able to utilize it. That goes without—doesn't appear so if we are going to be limiting the amount of dwellings that they can have on the overall development. I'm not sure if they would be able to sell that unit to an adjoining neighbor or something; they may be able to do that, but that's something that we would have to discuss with the Department of Water Supply. VAN PERNIS: I'm agreeable to the condition J of no `ohana-s, but the other amendments, the traffic improvements would have to be stated. VITOUSEK: Okay, would someone like to make a motion to amend the primary motion to include the revisions that have been VAN PERNIS: I'll make that motion. VITOUSEK: Okay, motion by Commissioner Van Pernis. CARR SMITH: I'm sorry, that, what does that mean? Can we be more specific? VITOUSEK: Sure. Ideally, we'll be making a motion to include with the language that has been suggested, and I need to clarify what that is, I mean clarify what the changes to the conditions will be. Commissioner Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: Can I go ahead and do that? VITOUSEK: Sure, yeah. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. So I make a motion to amend the recommendation, or amend the motion that's on the floor; so in the conditions,paragraph C, line nine, we are changing the word "application"to "applicant" 21 EXHIBIT E VITOUSEK: Hold on, Christian, Christian has a question. KAY: I'm sorry,just for,just for consistency. The other conditions represent"applicants" as there are two applicants, so would that be okay to add the "s?" CARR SMITH: Okay. KAY: Okay, thank you. CARR SMITH: Sure, "applicants." Moving through the conditions, we are not going to make any adjustment to J, so it stays the same. We are going to eliminate paragraph M, as in "Mom" KAY: One more—sorry to interrupt again. CARR SMITH: Yeah? KAY: Condition L has a preceding sentence that says, "Should the applicants choose to preserve the Archaeological Sites in place" CARR SMITH: Okay KAY: if we can remove that; I thought I heard the Chair want to remove that and just start with "prior to the issuance of any land alteration permits." CARR SMITH: Very good, so in paragraph L, we eliminate the first line with the exception of "prior," okay. KAY: Thank you. VITOUSEK: So, Mr. Pipan, you have something you'd like to PIPAN: Yes, thank you for the opportunity. Regarding Condition J, the prohibition of additional dwelling units, we really prefer to keep that as only additional `ohana units would be permitted on proposed lots 5 and 6 and served by Department of Water Supply meters. Reasons VITOUSEK: Thank you, your comments noted. PIPAN: Okay, thank you. VITOUSEK: Thank you. CARR SMITH: Can I continue with my motion? VITOUSEK: Yep. 22 EXHIBIT E CARR SMITH: Thank you. And then the last item for my amendment is to, for the applicants to agree to add a fence on the southern boundary, a stop sign at the bottom of their access road, and a convex mirrorI assume that's for that parallel driveway—and I guess a speed bump. That's the end of my amendment. KAY: May I clarify this one more thing? CARR SMITH: Yeah. KAY: Generally, with a condition there is a trigger, so prior to final subdivision approval, and then, is there some clarity as to the size of the fence, the length of the fence, those types of things,just so we are clear. CARR SMITH: Yeah, I would need help on that, I don't know. KAY: Maybe the applicant because we are not familiar with what the commitments that were VITOUSEK: Yeah, what was the commitment on the length of the fence? PIPAN: Yeah, so the southern common boundary is approximately 900 feet in length, and we'd request that that fence be five feet or less in height. But other than that, we don't have specific suggestions on its specifications. CARR SMITH: Was there a talk of what kind of a fence it is, or not? PIPAN: No, not necessarily. We are, we are responding to the concern that, you know, keiki from the neighboring lot would be playing in that area and potentially fall out or jump out onto the driveway to the north, so I'm assuming hog wire or cyclone fence would serve just,just fine. VITOUSEK: And so we are okay with the language being the entire southern boundary? PIPAN: Yes. VITOUSEK: Okay, terrific. KAY: So, if I may,just again, can we do this prior to final subdivision approval? VITOUSEK: Do you think that's the best time to condition it on, Christian? KAY: I believe so, yes. VITOUSEK: Okay, we'll go with that, if that's okay with you, Commissioner Carr Smith. Deputy Director Darrow. DARROW: Sorry,just, I'm not sure if I heard or misheard, we also had Condition N to remove the word "unlikely." 23 EXHIBIT E VITOUSEK: I don't think we are quite there yet DARROW: Okay. VITOUSEK: I think we are still doing, we are replacing the M with the new (indiscernible– simultaneous speech) DARROW: Sorry about that. VITOUSEK: we'll get to N right after this. Okay? Is that—so we've got, we have the language sufficient for the new condition M, Christian? KAY: I believe so, if I can read it back just to make sure it's agreeable to everyone? VITOUSEK: Please do. KAY: Prior to final subdivision approval the applicants shall install a five-foot high fence along the entire southern boundary of the subject property, a stop sign at the bottom of the subdivision access road, and a concave [sic] mirror—I don't know where the location of that was dedicated. VITOUSEK: I imagine that would—go ahead, Mr. Pipan. PIPAN: So at the intersection of the new proposed driveway along the southern boundary, there are markups from DOT Highways Division with their suggested location for the stop sign and convex mirror, and that has been circulated. KAY: Okay PIPAN: We would adhere to those recommendations. KAY: But just a point of order, DOT or is that DPW? PIPAN: DPW, yes KAY: Okay, all right, so I could maybe put it as "as recommended by DPW" I'm not sure what date that was indicated. VITOUSEK: I think that, yeah, I think that we, this is, we don't need to include DPW as KAY: Okay, sure. VITOUSEK: (indiscernible–simultaneous speech) no application is going to be at intersection, and that should be sufficient. KAY: Okay 24 EXHIBIT E VITOUSEK: Deputy Director Darrow. DARROW: Just to clarify, you did say speed bump or that was not added. VITOUSEK: That was included, yes. DARROW: Okay, thank you. CARR SMITH: So I was a little confused about the speed bump; so people of the six lots, on their own driveway, are providing a speed bump as they approach a stop sign. Is that what I understand? VITOUSEK: Yeah, I think the idea is so that when traffic is coming downhill towards the stop sign, they'll slow down and stop and not power right through the cul-de-sac where there could be kids playing. CARR SMITH: Okay. VITOUSEK: That was one of the requests from a neighboring landowner. I think it might mitigate some of the concerns about child safety in the neighborhood. CARR SMITH: And then the final item would be to N,paragraph N, to eliminate the third word "unlikely." Thank you, Jeff, for the reminder. KAY: Okay. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: With all this conversation, I'm somewhat confused about what my motion or Ms. Carr Smith's motion is. I'll be happy to second her motion, if you can read straight through without interruption the proposed amendments. VITOUSEK: Terrific, yeah, so far, we didn't, there was no second on your motion, yet we are still, Commissioner Carr Smith, so we moved onto Commissioner Carr Smith, Commissioner Carr Smith is in the process of forming her motion. And when it's completed, we can request to have Christian read it back to us in its entirety, we'll request a second, and then we can discuss the motion and vote on it. VAN PERNIS: Let me withdraw my motion then. VITOUSEK: Very well, thank you. Commissioner Carr Smith, are you complete with your amendments? CARR SMITH: Yes, and just to reiterate for Commissioner Van Pernis, it did not include any traffic items; it was just the safety items. VITOUSEK: Okay. Christian, would you mind reading back the motion in its entirety? 25 EXHIBIT E KAY: Sure, so the motion as I understand it is to send a favorable recommendation with the following amendments: Amendment to condition VITOUSEK: So let me stop you here. This, right now we are on a secondary motion to amend the previous motion, so motion is to amend the favorable recommendation to include the following conditions that I'd love you to read. KAY: Sure, so, to amend the favorable recommendation with the following condition changes: For Condition C, the third to last line changing the word "application"to "applicants"; we are going to retain Condition J; for Condition L, we are going to remove the first line, except for the word "prior,"we are going to start the condition with "prior" and retain the remainder; we are going to delete current Condition M, which speaks to archeological date recovery, and replace it with the following language, "Prior to final subdivision approval, the applicant shall install a five-foot high fence along the entire southern boundary of the property, a speed bump, stop sign, and concave mirror at the bottom of the subdivision access road," oh, "and a speed bump, stop sign, and concave mirror at the bottom of the subdivision pardon me—subdivision access road"; and then also removing the word "unlikely"from Condition N. VITOUSEK: Okay, is there a second? VAN PERNIS: Second. VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: I'll second it. VITOUSEK: Thank you, Commissioner Van Pernis. Second by Commissioner Van Pernis. Is this a roll call or do we do all-in-favor? KAY: I think we should maybe roll call it if that's okay. VITOUSEK: Let's do a roll call, yep. KAY: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: Aye. KAY: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Vice Chair Newberg? 26 EXHIBIT E NEWBERG: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. KAY: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair, your motion carries, six-nothing. VITOUSEK: Okay, that brings up back to the main motion on the table. We'll need to vote to send a favorable recommendation as amended. And we'll again roll call on that. KAY: And that main motion had Commissioner DeFranco as the mover and Commissioner Carr Smith as the second? VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. KAY: Vice Chair Newberg? NEWBERG: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Abstain. KAY: Okay. And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair, motion carries with five aye votes and one abstention VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. The applicants, you will be notified of the decision in writing. 27 EXHIBIT E PIPAN: May I, Chair? VITOUSEK: Sure. PIPAN: Thank you so much for your time and favorable consideration. I just wanted to share an observation I made in this process. Condition M,which was previously a subject of opposition by the community, turned into one that was benefitting the community. So data recovery turned into traffic safety, so I think that's, that's a pretty significant item. I appreciate you working through that. I know this was a tricky one. Aloha. VITOUSEK: Thank you. The hearing ended at 1:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 28 EXHIBIT E