Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-15 Leeward Exh C (Amend USE 05-001) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 15, 2021 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of PARKER SCHOOL (Amend USE 05-001) was called to order at 11:28 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Shani Armbruster, Barbara DeFranco, 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), Zendo Kern (Planning Director), Jeffrey Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), and Noriko Sauer(Leeward Planning Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: PARKER SCHOOL (Amend USE 05-001) Application to amend Condition No. 11 (Roadway Improvements) of Use Permit No. 05-001, to remove the requirement to complete roadway improvements prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the gymnasium. Use Permit No. 05-001 allows the establishment of an elementary school (grades K-6) and expansion of the Parker School complex on 14.32 acres of land situated within the Agricultural-1 acre (A-la) and Single Family Residential -7,500 square feet(RS-7.5) zoned district. The subject properties are located between Kapi`olani Road and Waikoloa Stream, Waimea, South Kohala, Hawaii TMK: (3) 6-5-004:025, 026, 028 and 063. VITOUSEK: Item 1 in our new business, the applicant is Parker School, application to amend condition number 11, roadway improvements, of Use Permit number 05-001, to remove the requirement to complete roadway improvements prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the gymnasium. Use Permit number 05-001 allows the establishment of an elementary school, grades K through 6, and expansion of the Parker School complex on 14.32 acres of land situated within the Agricultural-1 acre and Single Family Residential-7,500 square feet zoned district. The subject properties are located between Kapi`olani Road and Waikoloa Stream, Waimea, South Kona [sic], Hawaii, TMK (3) 6-5-004: parcels 025, 026, 028 and 063. The staff presentation will be by Tracie Camero. Go ahead, Tracie. CAMERO: Thank you, Chair Vitousek. Let me get my screen up. Can you all see my presentation? You can just give me a thumbs-up. Okay, the first item on the agenda is a request from Parker School to amend their Use Permit 05-001. 1 EXHIBIT C This is the location map showing the subject property as indicated by the red pointer. The property is located within the South Kohala District in the Waimea town center. You can see Lindsey Road running in a north-south direction on the left side of the slide and Kapi`olam Road, which is just off of Lindsey Road, fronting the property, which is on the north side. This slide is to provide the commission with a little history on Use Permit 05-001. Use Permit 05-001 was issued on December 7, 2005, to allow for the establishment of an elementary school on approximately two acres in a portion of TMK 6-5-4:25. Construction of the elementary school was completed in 2007. In 2010 the Use Permit was amended by the Planning Commission to allow for the expansion of the Parker School complex to include new athletic fields, a new gymnasium, renovation of two residences and warehouse, and an elementary school addition and new middle school on the remainder of TMK 6-5-4:25 and TMKs 6-5-4: 26, 28 and 63. Just last year the Leeward Planning Commission voted to allow Parker School a time extension in order to complete construction of the school complex. The applicant is currently requesting to defer the improvements to Kapi`olam Road to be built prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the future middle school, rather than prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the gymnasium, which has been funded and is ready for construction. The requested amendment will amend condition 11 to read, "Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the middle school, the applicant shall provide the following improvements meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, at no cost to the County," and it goes into, "a. Provide pavement widening, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, and incidental drainage improvements along the south side of Kapi`olam Road from Lindsey Road to the middle school entrance and along the east side of Lindsey Road from Kapi`olam Street to the existing sidewalk at the edge of the school's property," and, %. They shall install streetlights along the south side of Kapi`olam Road from Lindsey Road to the middle school and any necessary signs and markings." The applicant's stated reasons for the request are: Due to COVID-19, the school is currently struggling to maintain their present enrollment, and thus may not be able to complete construction of the middle school as anticipated in their current master plan; however, the school has secured funding for the gymnasium through private donations, some which are contingent on completing construction within a certain timeframe. As such, the off-site pedestrian improvements along Kapi`olam Road are required to accommodate a significant increase in enrollment. With no growth in the current enrollment, the school would like to build the gymnasium complex for the use by their existing student body and defer the off-site pedestrian improvements to a later date. That later date is, should the middle school be constructed to accommodate a significant increase in enrollment, the conditions for improvements to Kapi`olam Road would still 2 EXHIBIT C apply. And pedestrian access to the new gymnasium facility will be through the applicant's existing campus via the existing pedestrian pathways and not along Kapi`olam Road. This is the current zoning of the subject property. The subject property is zoned Agricultural-1A, that's Agricultural with a minimum building site of 1 acre, which is indicated by the light green color, and RS-7.5, which is Single-Family Residential with a minimum building site area of 7,500 square feet as indicated by the yellow color. Properties to the north of Parker School are also zoned Agricultural-1A and properties to the west of Lindsey Road are also zoned Single-Family Residential. The State Land Use designation for the property, as well as much of the surrounding area is Urban as indicated by the pink color shown on your screen. The General Plan designation for the property is Medium-Density Urban, which is indicated by the orange color. Medium-Density Urban allows for village and neighborhood commercial and single-family, multi-family residential, and other related functions. Schools are a permitted use within the Medium-Density Urban designations. This is an aerial view of the site. You can see Lindsey Road to the left of the subject property, and Kapi`olam Road is on the north side of the slide. Kapi`olam Road is a county-owned and maintained roadway within an approximately 18- to 20-foot pavement in good condition and includes a 2- to 4-foot-wide grass shoulder within the 40-foot right-of-way. Connection from Parker School's existing Kahilu campus, which is accessed from Lindsey Road to the proposed expanded campus is via an 8-foot-wide asphalt walking path near Waikoloa Stream. Across from Waikoloa Stream into the south of the subject properties, you have the Parker Ranch Center. The photo on the bottom-right of your screen shows the walkway that connects the elementary school campus to the existing high school and middle school campus that goes along the Waikoloa Stream. Parker School has been diligently working on completing an MOU, memorandum of understanding, as required in condition number 24 of the Use Permit with the Department of Parks and Recreation for creating an easement access for the Waimea Trail and Greenway projects. This is the master plan that was provided in 2010. No significant changes to this plan have been proposed by the applicant at this time. You have Lindsey Road on the left side of your slide. You can see the existing campus that was built in 1975. You have Kapi`olam Road running to the top edge of the slide. This is the elementary school that was built in 2007, and just east of that you have the future gymnasium and the athletic play fields. The future middle school is proposed to be located between the gymnasium and Kapi`olam Road, and then the existing warehouse that will be renovated for use is on the far east end of the property. There is the original campus that includes the high school and the middle school, as well as the parking lot that gets access off of Lindsey 3 EXHIBIT C Road. The existing elementary school, which is permitted under Use Permit 05-001, is in this area. So in the master plan Parker School requested to expand the parking lot, add a gymnasium and add a future middle school building, and then the students from the existing middle school would transfer over to the new building. The original campus would be devoted mostly to the high school use. This is a site photo of Kapi`olam Road facing the rest and overlooking the intersection of Kapi`olam Road with Lindsey Road. You are looking towards the park area, and you can see that it's a two-lane road with some grass shoulders. And this is a site photo of Kapi`olam Road facing the east. The existing campus is located to the right of your screen. Let me share a pointer with you,just to show you where we are talking about. So this is the access to the current elementary school, which is located right in this area. There are single-family residential lots, and beyond this is the warehouse along Kapi`olam Road; so these are the single-family residential lots, and the warehouse is further down this road, and this is the warehouse that Parker School has plans on converting for educational purposes. The planning director is recommending approval of the amendment to Use Permit 05-001. And with that, that concludes my presentation, and I can turn the floor over back to the Chair. VITOUSEK: Thank you, Tracie. We are going to hold off on questions for now and proceeding with the applicant, and then at the end of that we'll give each commissioner the opportunity to do some fact finding. Applicant, would you—it looks like I have to swear you in again, so you will be extra sworn in. Please raise your right hand so I can swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Planning Commission? MOOERS: I do. DUNN: I do. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Please state your name and the town you live in. MOOERS: My name is Greg Mooers, and I live in Waimea. With me is Steven Dunn, the head of school. DUNN: Also reside in Waimea. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Have you read the, have you received the background and recommendation reports from the Planning Department? 4 EXHIBIT C MOOERS: I have, and we agree with the conditions as proposed. VITOUSEK: Okay. Please go ahead with your presentation. MOOERS: Yeah, I think Tracie did a very good job of explaining what the situation is. There are a couple of things that I would like to emphasize and also address some issues that were raised by the public testimony. When the Use Permit was applied for and granted, it was in anticipation of a pretty dramatic increasement in enrollment, which is not realized, and in fact we are trying to maintain our current enrollment, as are all private schools under the current environment. We are in a situation where we had been fortunate enough to raise funds to construct the gym, but some of those funds will be lost, if we don't construct the gym within a certain timeframe. So we would hate to lose those funds. But the gym is really for the existing student body; it's not causing or as a result of any increase in enrollment this time, which is why we asked to defer the roadway improvements until such a time as an enrollment increase from the middle school would be required. One of the things that I want to make sure it's understood is that we are not asking to eliminate this condition; we are asking to modify the condition, and it's a timing issue. We are not saying that we are not going to do the roadway improvements. We want to do the roadway improvements at the time that the impact will be caused by increase in enrollment. The other thing I want to emphasize is that the private agreement that Margaret Wille referred to, is in effect. We are not asking the Planning Commission to in any way invalidate that or amend the condition, because you have no authority; that's a private agreement between Parker School and the appellants in that case. There is, as I will point out, though, a condition in that agreement that allows us to apply for amendments and allows them to either oppose or agree with these amendments. And as I think you'll indicate, or you'll all know, that Ms. Wille indicated she was not opposing this proposal, all right? So I don't think that—there was being implied maybe by some of the questions and answers that we were in some way looking to invalidate that agreement, that is not the case, all right? I think that's all I'd like to say at this time, and we will be prepared to answer any questions that commissioners may have. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions for the applicant or for the county? And we'll give each commissioner up to 10 minutes for fact finding purposes, and then move on to motion. Commissioner DeFranco. 5 EXHIBIT C DEFRANCO: Yeah, I was just wondering, what is the timeframe for the building of the gymnasium? MOOERS: Well, we'd like to be able to construct it as soon as possible. We have construction drawings for the gym, but they are going to have to be modified somewhat. So I would think within the next 12 months we will break ground and possibly 18 months to construct. DEFRANCO: Okay. And, so you said the funding was time-sensitive, so you have to MOOERS: That's correct, some of the, some of the funding. DEFRANCO: Can you speak to that, what, what your timeframe is? MOOERS: I don't believe that II would like to introduce you know, the people that, I think it might be a violation of privacy to talk about DEFRANCO: Okay MOOERS: what people wanted, things built in a certain timeframe. DEFRANCO: All right. So, the other, the other thing I want to understand, so, the new gymnasium will not be rented out or used commercially or by community for community uses, it's just going to be for the middle school, for the existing campus? MOOERS: That's correct. It is going to be a school gym. It's not going to be rented out as a community facility. At the time our Use Permit was granted, there was no district park that they have now by the airport. So there is another gym in town that's available for community use. DEFRANCO: Okay. MOOERS: It's primarily for our school use. And I will indicate that there is a condition in the permit that allows the seating capacity of only 250 seats, so it's not a large venue. DEFRANCO: Thank you. And I just have one more question. When I was, at the presentation, looking at the entrance to the middle school, I mean, to the, yeah, the grammar school, whatever the, it looked like a small little driveway. Is that the driveway that would go to the gym, too? MOOERS: Yes, but I think that the pictures, I don't know, it seems somewhat outdated; that didn't show the paved parking lot that's there. But, yes, that will be the access to the gym, for vehicular access. 6 EXHIBIT C DEFRANCO: I see. MOOERS: Pedestrian access to the gym for our students through the day will be through our existing campus. DEFRANCO: And are there any—excuse me (feedback noise)—are there any streetlights or anything there? MOOERS: No, there is nothing along that sideways. Our students would—you know, the gym, the gymnasium as anticipated during the day will be used for physical education and for school programs, whatever, and that will be all pedestrian access. Typically, the types of games at nighttime, people don't walk to the gym; they would, you know, teams and busses from other schools, typically, a van would come in with the students into the parking lot that will provide the access. Currently, that access, we have mapped where all our students live and how to get to school, and fewer than 10 students walk to school along Kapi`olani, you know, to the lower school. It's, it's not a, not a heavy traffic roadway. DEFRANCO: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Is that it for your time, Commissioner DeFranco? (No audible response) okay. Commissioner Yates, please proceed. YATES: My question regarding your gym, or, yeah, your gymnasium, do you not have any functions where, like May Day or things like that, where more cars or parents or visitors will be coming? DUNN: Thank you for the question. We certainly have, we certainly have events throughout the year. We have some parent visitation that largely to support the events that are, that are planned for students, not, not large parent events. We also have parking off of Lindsey Road and Kawaihae Road that we would use for, we currently use for that parking. We don't expect that there will be a big surge, a big surge in traffic along that street, certainly not any greater than our morning drop-offs or pick-ups at the lower school currently. YATES: But if you are having a function, then more than likely people would have to park to get to the gym, I mean, you know, like forI use May Day because I know a lot of parents like to come and watch their children, you know, grandparents do as well. So my concern was the, you know, since you all haven't done the road widening or whatever, whatever it is that was on this that was supposed to have been done more than 15, 10, 15 years ago, and I'm sure that, you know, you have people who come and go, and it looks awful small, you know, for people to get by, or even if you had a function 7 EXHIBIT C and people had to park. Do you have enough, would you be using street parking? And so I'm concerned about the parking, and I'm concerned about the roads as well, because I know that, you know, where kids are concerned, you know, it's important, so this is my reason for asking the question. MOOERS: There are parking requirements, and all of those have to be complied with as part of Plan Approval, so all of the parking for the gym will be on our campus; there will be no roadway parking, okay, so all of the parking that is required will be on-site, okay? And as far as the requirements, these requirements were not triggered 15 years ago, they haven't been triggered at all. You know, the trigger for the roadway, the sidewalk improvements, was to accommodate the growth in enrollment, which has not occurred. So what we are asking for is to build the gym for the current enrollment, you know, prior to making those improvements, and the improvements will be made at the time there will be an increase in enrollment, if there ever is an increase in enrollment. Some schools never grow. But as far as parking, all parking will be accommodated on-site for all events. And I will point out again that the size for the gym is a 250-person capacity, so this is not a large gymnasium. YATES: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay, are there any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Armbruster. ARMBRUSTER: Hi there. So I just had a couple of questions for, for you all. I know you mentioned that you weren't planning on increasing enrollment with this. But are there currently facilities on your campus that are meeting all the needs this gym will meet, or no? DUNN: We don't have any indoor athletic facilities. All we have is an outdoor sport court that are, there are teams who use it. Actually, quite a significant issue this year with lots of local and community resources being closed down for COVID that our students have no access to gymnasium. So, we don't, we don't currently have this type of facility on our campus. ARMBRUSTER: But if there was like MOOERS: (Indiscernible — simultaneous speech) have to use the county parks. ARMBRUSTER: But if there was like a basketball game or something that and you are playing a different team, and right now that doesn't happen on campus? DUNN: We would use the public county facilities for those, for the competition, that's what we do now. 8 EXHIBIT C ARMBRUSTER: Okay. And then the sidewalk that's being proposed, is there a sidewalk along Lindsey Road that would connect to or is it just going to nothing right now? DUNN: There is, there is not a sidewalk that connects to Lindsey Road. ARMBRUSTER: Okay, so it would just be along Kapi`olani, like a portion of Kapi`olam would be the only sidewalk MOOERS: Part of the condition would be we would then have to connect, connect another sidewalk along Lindsey Road. ARMBRUSTER: Okay. Okay, thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay, any other commissioners? Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: I just wanted to ask, the sidewalk, you are proposing to put a sidewalk in or are you not putting a sidewalk MOOERS: Not at this time. That will be, that will be deferred until the time that we put in the middle school. VITOUSEK: Any other commissioners? DEFRANCO: I,just one comment, would you be amiable to the idea of putting a sidewalk in now? MOOERS: Well, one of the problems with the sidewalk right now is that all the residents along Kapi`olam have built hedges out onto the county right-of-way, and so it's going to take a major effort to remove everybody's hedges and relocate them and then put in a curb, gutter, sidewalk and lights. We are looking, I think our estimate cost for these improvements is about two million dollars. DEFRANCO: So that would happen when you expand the school. Is that right? MOOERS: That is correct. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates, follow-up? YATES: Forgot to ask earlier. What is your enrollment? MOOERS: (To Mr. Dunn) Three twenty-five? 9 EXHIBIT C DUNN: Our enrollment? Yeah, that's in the, we are still, the deposits are being submitted for the coming year, but we are in the 325 to 330 range for next year and well below the, the cap there was, in the condition in the Use Permit, are 450. YATES: So before you would have to do these improvements that was originally supposed to have been done, you would need to have an enrollment of 450 students. DUNN: That's what one of the conditions of Use Permit; it says, it says that we would need to do that when we constructed the middle school. So we would—we actually don't have the physical facilities to get to 450 before we build it, before we build the middle school, so it will be the construction of the middle school, I mean in order to get a certificate of occupancy for that building, not that our enrollment would get to 450. But we are well within, well within the constraints of our current campus. YATES: So you currently don't have any plans to do any kind of improvements as far as sidewalks or anything like that MOOERS: (Indiscernible — simultaneous speech) YATES: because I know that you said something, you did mention about the neighbors having their hedges all the way out, you know, where it shouldn't be. Because if you had to the sidewalk, that's a major production, but if it's something that's required by the county, it should be each individual property owners to take care of that, so I'm a little bit confused about that. So I want to understand how all that would work, should the time come and you had to do that. It just seems like a big undertaking, and maybe when the time comes, there will be another reason as to why it can't be done or how it has to be done or, you know, all of those questions come into play, so that's why I'm asking. MOOERS: Well, my understanding is, if all the improvements would be within the county right-of-way, is that the county can require us to make the improvements. That's typical of what happens with the, anytime you come for a development or approval is that, you know, the county will ask you to bring up what is in fact county infrastructure, road, sidewalk, etcetera, bring them up to a certain standard, all right? If the property was already zoned appropriately, if it wasn't a Use Permit, then typically, the county would make those improvements, but that's not the case here, you know. I mean, I will point out that, I mean Parker School is a small nonprofit, and like every other independent school we lose money out of every student we educate, all right, there is no profit margin here, and the more students we have the more money we lose, all right? So that's why it's not something where people try to grow a school exponentially, because it really doesn't work financially, so we have to support that. So all of the improvements as far as the sidewalks and streetlight, whatever, those all have to be funds that are raised 10 EXHIBIT C through private individuals and private donations; it's not like we can take a percentage of profit and apply to that. There is no profit. YATES: You know, education is important and, you know, you are doing, you are doing good. We, you know, we are just trying to follow some of these protocols that, you know, someone would say that how come they could do it and we don't have, you know, that kind of things they say, well, you were there, why didn't you ask? So I'm asking. MOOERS: No, I understand, but I will point out that the Department of Public Works did approve this request, and that they thought it was reasonable to defer the improvements until such a time as the middle school is built. YATES: Thank you. MOOERS: You are welcome. VITOUSEK: Anyone else? Okay, I've got a couple of questions regarding the right-of-way issues on the south side of Kapi`olanior is it the yeah, the south side of Kapi`olani. Have you looked into the possibility of doing the sidewalk improvements on the north side of Kapi`olam where there is no encroachment issues and no power poles where it would be seemingly a much simpler construction, and you could do crosswalks to get through there? MOOERS: I don't, I couldn't answer that question, Commissioner, I don't know who did the design work for the improvements as requested. VITOUSEK: Yeah, to me it seems like that would be something that's worth looking at, particularly if this is being put off. It would be seemingly a much simpler construction — I don't know, pull up the picture that we had in the presentation by Tracie, looking down Kapi`olam Road. CAMERO: Okay, let me just get that up for you. VITOUSEK: I mean the CAMERO: This photo, Commissioner Vitousek, I mean Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: There was one looking east that would be better, but this one, this by itself, you know, I mean you can see the power pole and you can see the utility box there and a very small grass shoulder, and on the right, there is nothing and there is a very large grass shoulder. There is no encroachment issue. That would seemingly be a pretty big cost reduction and making it a lot simpler to put in the improvements that would have a 11 EXHIBIT C community benefit. If you could find the other one facing the other direction, that would be terrific. CAMERO: Yeah, so that one is, is here. VITOUSEK: Yeah, there. Looking at the utility poles, encroachment from the hedges, the complication of the south side of the road compared to what you have on the north Is that something that we can look into at this point? CAMERO: So I can answer that, Chair Vitousek. Can I stop sharing this screen? Is that okay for now? VITOUSEK: Yep. CAMERO: Okay. So in DPW's comments M2009 during the Use Permit, the master plan, when Parker School came in to amend their Use Permit, DPW had only required the improvements to be along the south side of Kapi`olam Road from Lindsey Road to the middle school, at that timewe didn't include DPW in this meeting, and I'm sorry about that—but, you know, should Parker School have to come in for an amendment to their Use Permit, this can possibly be discussed with DPW at that time, if they want to require the north-side improvements to Kapi`olam Road to be done. VITOUSEK: Yep. Commissioner Armbruster. ARMBRUSTER: Hi there. I actually have a little bit of insight into this. Waimea Parkside is on the other side of that, and we were approached several years ago, asking if we would be amenable to moving it over there, and I don't think there were, I think the issue that arose from that was the location of the crosswalks; I don't think that there was a crosswalk location that the Transportation folks were comfortable with going across there. But there is a five-foot road-widening easement on the backside of Waimea Parkside that does allow for some stuff to take and move that way. VITOUSEK: Okay. Yeah, you know, to me, I mean, the applicant would agree that the gym is going to add traffic into the neighborhood, correct? MOOERS: Vehicular traffic, yes, but not pedestrian traffic. VITOUSEK: Right, and I believe the intention of the pedestrian safety improvements is to protect the pedestrians in the neighborhood from the increased vehicular traffic from the school, at least in part, not, not just to provide transporta- or pedestrian access for the school itself but for the people in the neighborhood. I guess, I mean, looking at our options now where we have a request to amend the Use Permit, and we had an opportunity where we can reassess the location of the improvements to make it easier for 12 EXHIBIT C the school to improve sooner to make a better benefit for the community. And I guess that's a question for the county. JACKSON: I can try to answer that. So there is a lot of history to this project that we would have to go back and look at, you know, why Public Works wanted the sidewalks on the south side, whether or not that was partly due to community input, because I know there was a lot of community discussion around the pedestrian improvements that were partly in that agreement. So we would need to go back and look at the history and see whether it's something that Public Works would support. VITOUSEK: And as far asoh, Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: The issue here is not whether the pedestrian access should be on the north or south side of the road; the issue is whether they can defer that access wherever it may be. So I think we should vote up or down on that. VITOUSEK: Actually, Commissioner Van Pernis, I'm going to stop you there; we are in fact-finding period right now where we are not in deliberations. There is no motion on the floor VAN PERNIS: All right, I'm sorry. VITOUSEK: Just truly in terms of fact-finding, again, that would require additional time for the applicant to communicate with DPW to determine if that's appropriate. Is that something that the applicant would be willing to do? MOOERS: I can't, you know, we are happy to talk to Public Works, but it was their condition, and I'm not quite sure what the history of that condition is. VITOUSEK: (Indiscernible — simultaneous speech) it seems like nobody here really has any history on why that side was selected, so we don't know whether it was selected because it seemed closer to the school and better at the time but didn't factor in all of the issues in the community, we don't know, and I would like to know that information. So, again, is that, is that something that we are willing to go back and do a little research and then come back here on? MOOERS: Are you asking us or are you asking staff? VITOUSEK: I'm asking the applicant, yeah, you. MOOERS: Yeah, I mean, we've been, we've been trying to research it, and I'm not sure, you know, what the history is. I know that Margaret Wille has pretty strong opinions on that. We have to, you know, maybe possibly renegotiate the settlement agreement, so. 13 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Yeah, okay. Commissioner Van Pernis, do you have a question? VAN PERNIS: Yes, to the applicant. VITOUSEK: Go ahead. VAN PERNIS: Would revisiting whether this access you are seeking to defer would be on left or right side of the road, would that affect the time-sensitivity of your gym contribution buildings (indiscernible –muffled) not defer this matter, because you may lose gym funding? MOOERS: That is a difficult question to answer, Commissioner. As I understand it, you are asking if deferral would impact the funds, and obviously, the question, or the answer to that question, would be how long the deferral would take. You know, in a perfect world we'd like an answer, you know, as soon as we could, so we can, you know, proceed or not with the gymnasium. I don't know how long it would take to get an answer on, from Public Works, or to renegotiate the agreement with the, Ms. Wille. DUNN: You know, I just got—David Kirk is also on the call, who is our Board Chair and has a little more history about this, the sidewalk issue, and he said to me today he investigated about moving the sidewalk to the other side and Traffic opposed, they opposed the move. MOOERS: David, do you want to comment on that? KIRK: Sure VITOUSEK: One second, would you please state your name—or actually, have you, have I sworn you in yet? KIRK: I raised my hand, but I didn't unmute. My name is David Kirk, and I reside in Waimea Parkside. VITOUSEK: Okay, then, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today? KIRK: Yes. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Please proceed. KIRK: So we, we've been working on this for some time and explored a lot of possibilities with the neighborhood, because in addition to concerns with the county and 14 EXHIBIT C the Use Permit, we also want to be good neighbors for the people who are near the school. The people on theIs that the south side?—it's not only hedges but some people have built rock walls in the right-of-way, and there are power poles and telephone poles that have to be moved. So that seems to be a difficult choice to build on that side, so we investigated doing the sidewalk on the opposite side and then created a couple of problems. One of them, that has been mentioned, is the crosswalk on Lindsey, and that the problems with the right-of-way don't end on Kapi`olani; the property on the corner of Kapi`olani and Lindsey, the actual building would have to be moved, if we put the sidewalk there, not just the hedges. And then the other place where crosswalks would have to be created are across the entry to Waimea Parkside and then across the street from the north side back to the entrance of the Parker lower school. So we looked at that, and our consultant at the time, Ken Melrose, raised that idea with the Traffic department, proposed that change. I don't, I would have to look at the correspondence to find the exact reasons, but it was related to the crosswalks and issues. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I think, you know, if we were to get a little more information on it, to get the history, and to have an opportunity for DPW to weigh in, if we could do that in, say, a month or so, would that be amenable to the timeline that you are on? MOOERS: (To Mr. Dunn) Do you want to answer that? DUNN: I mean, I think you are right, I think it could pose some problems, but, you know, I don't, I don't know if we are able to get through that back for us in a month. And, again, it's certainly, if longer than that, it's certainly problematic. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I mean, you know, we don't want to put an undue time burden on you in terms of putting an open-ended requirement to go out there and do all this work, but we do want to get a better understanding of the DPW requirements for that north side of Kapi`olani Road. Because looking at that, it seems to be a much simpler construction and a quicker path to getting that community benefit. So I definitely would appreciate that but, you know, having, every commissioner having had the opportunity to ask questions, I'd like to entertain a motion at this time to either accept, deny, or defer the application that is, that is at hand. Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: I move to accept the recommendation. VITOUSEK: Okay. Is there a second? YATES: Question. What is the recommendation? VAN PERNIS: The application of Parker School be approved. 15 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Okay, so with no second, that motion dies. Is there another motion that can be made? Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: I move that we defer, and that we wait and see if they can do a little more investigation on the placement because long term the community benefits. YATES: I second. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Discussion? Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: The application is to defer the pedestrian access wherever it may be. It sounds like a deferral would be to go against the recommendation and, instead, by a specific date hopefully, find out whether the road, or the pedestrian access, should go on one side or the other of Kapi`olam. So I still think we should vote up or down on the recommendation, not the deferral. VITOUSEK: Hear you, I, I believe that the purpose of adding pedestrian safety improvements is not necessarily for the school itself but to help protect the community against increased vehicular traffic from the school, the vehicular traffic generated by the addition of the middle school and by the addition of the gymnasium. Both of those things will cause additional vehicular traffic in the neighborhood, which would necessitate pedestrian safety improvements. I don't want to get in the way of a small nonprofit school in accomplishing their objectives and trying to get a gym in place; I think that's what something every school should have. But if we can analyze whether there is a way to accomplish both needs at the same time, I think we should pursue that. I think we can help the school save money by aligning the pedestrian safety improvements in the area that's more appropriate. We are in a stage now where we can do that. And if we go back to Department of Public Works and it doesn't work out, and we give the school, you know, a month or two to try to get that information that we need, then at that point we can come back and make the decision on whether they can move forward without these improvements for the gymnasium. And that way I think no one is worse for the wear. I think they've got time; they've got a couple of months to do that before they run out of funding. Commissioner Armbruster. ARMBRUSTER: Are we allowed to put a timeline on the deferral, like can we say we'll reassess this in a month or in two months or something so it's not an open-ended situation and they are stuck that way? VITOUSEK: Absolutely, yep. Is there a timeframe that the applicant would like us to put on the deferral? MOOERS: I mean, obviously, the sooner the better. I'd just like some clarification. I guess I'm not quite sure, you know, what the deferral is going to accomplish; Pubic 16 EXHIBIT C Works has said that they wanted on the south side. You know, we are asking for deferral of this until such a time as the middle school is built. It's not going to make any difference whether it's on the north side or the south side. VITOUSEK: I think once we have information about whether there is feasibility of building on the north side and whether that would be, would make it easier for the applicant to complete those requirements now, we can make that decision. If we come back with the same information we have now saying that, or information saying no, it's got to be on the south side, and those requirements are so stringent that we cannot move forward with them at this time, we will have information to then say hey, we agree, you've got to move forward with your building, and we can't do it under these conditions, so we move forward, in my opinion. But without that information, without exploring the option of putting in those safety improvements now in a more cost-effective manner, then I don't think we have all the information we need. Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Yeah, I'm just wondering if we can get someone from the county to weigh in on this a little bit. JACKSON: I can speak to the timing. So the Planning Department will certainly help facilitate that conversation between the applicant and Public Works and the Traffic department. It will probably take a few weeks. And then I don't know if, Chair Vitousek, you are asking for the applicant to actually determine whether they can put in engineering cost on sidewalks on the north side of the road and bring that back to the hearing. That may take a little bit longer to do, so VITOUSEK: Yeah, I wouldn't, wouldn't be asking for a full cost, but I would be asking for an analysis of whether that can be done by the applicant, whether that can be done at the same time as the gym. Mr. Kirk. KIRK: I, I don't recall the exact number, but I don't believe the cost was significantly different for where the sidewalk is; the difference is just inconveniencing fewer of the residents on the south side. VITOUSEK: Did you guys do a cost analysis of both options? KIRK: I believe that we did. I VITOUSEK: Okay, well, that would be definitely helpful information to have when, if we come back, after deferral, to have the information for sure that we are saying hey, this doesn't affect it in any way or it does and here is what we can do. KIRK: Certainly, we can provide whatever materials we have. 17 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Yes. I would ask that the motion be amended to state that the deferral be till the next meeting in August in hopes that we can get answers by then and vote up or down. VITOUSEK: Would you like to make a motion to amend the main motion on the floor? VAN PERNIS: Yes, I'd like to move to amend the main motion, your motion, to defer to, defer to the date of the August commission meeting. VITOUSEK: Okay. Is there a second? (No audible response) Second by Commissioner Armbruster. All those in favor—Do we need a roll call vote or can we, can we do show of hands for this? DUNN: In favor of the amendment? MOOERS: (Inaudible response to Mr. Dunn) SCHLUETER: A roll call VITOUSEK: We do a roll call? SHLUETER: That would be best. CAMERO: Commissioner VITOUSEK: (Indiscernible—simultaneous speech) motion CAMERO: Sorry, sorry, I got so ahead of myself, go, you can go, Chair, sorry. VITOUSEK: I was just saying roll call vote for the motion to amend the motion on the floor. CAMERO: And the motion on the floor is to defer this application and the amendment until the August hearing after the applicant and the county have facilitated a conversation between the Department of Public Works, correct? VITOUSEK: So the motion, the current—the main motion on the floor is to defer until we can have the information but the current motion that we are voting on is a motion to amend the main motion to bring, to add that it will be deferred until the August Leeward Planning Commission meeting. DEFRANCO: What if it takes longer, Mike, for them to get the answer? And they come back in 30 days and they don't have the answer? 18 EXHIBIT C SCHLUETER: Can I, can I step in real quick? So once the motion is seconded, so a motion to amend, we second the motion to amend, we can discuss the motion to amend—Did we, we got the second, so we are in discussion, right? VITOUSEK: Yep. SCHLUETER: Okay,please proceed. Just making sure. VITOUSEK: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: So my concern about agreeing to that is if it took longer than 30 days for them to get their answer, then they are on the agenda, and then they don't have their answer. So I'm just wondering if there is a way to word it, so that we are sensitive to everybody's timing on this. I don't even know what our agenda is exactly for the next month. So maybe there is a way to word this and to honor Commissioner Van Pernis's thought thinking that sooner is better, and I think I'm in agreement with that, sooner is better, but I don't want to put it so tightly. That's just my opinion. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Yes, I don't think Ms. DeFranco's comment has any merit. If it's not decided in 30 days, at the August hearing we can make another motion for deferral for another date. Under, thinking of that last commentator of-60 days or 90 days or 12030 days will get everybody to move quickly. And we have to think, or I think we have to be sensitive to the time requirements for the gym money. So I think we should limit it to the August meeting, and if for some reason we think we should go further, a motion can be made then. VITOUSEK: Okay, that makes sense to me where if at the conclusion of the 30 days, the next meeting, if we feel like we still need more information, we can request another deferral at that time. So I'd be comfortable with the language as presented. Are there any other discussion? KERN: Mr. Chair, I just want, if I could just clarify, so you folks, we are going to have DPW comment, they'll show up at the next hearing, and then you are asking for a rough cost differential between whether it be on the right side of the road or left side of the road VITOUSEK: Not necessa-what I'm asking for is the applicant to analyze the feasibility of whether that makes sense for them to do it on which side of the road. You know, they don't have to do a rough cost analysis—if they've done that already, terrific but if they can look at the feasibility and whether it would be easier to do it on that side or the other side, that will be great to have that information for the next meeting. MOOERS: I think we can get that information; I think we have that information already. But it seems to me the real question is whether Public Works will allow us to build that on the other side. 19 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Yep, and so I'm hoping that the applicant and the Planning Department will work with Public Works and with the, Margaret Wille who had a settlement, who has raised the question, and come back hopefully with an answer on whether that's possibility or not for the next meeting. So MOOERS: Because they are already getting an indication as, if we do come back and they say, we can't build on the north side, we have to build on the south side, are we just delaying? I mean, is it something that—our request is to, is to defer that condition, and if the condition is, if you are not going to defer, then we are just spinning our wheels by asking about a different design. VITOUSEK: Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: No, I don't think you are spinning your wheels at all. I think all of this support your school and want you to have a gymnasium, but we are just also tasked with asking questions that involve the community. And I think, Mr. Van- Commissioner Van Pernis, that my comment did have merit because when I asked the owners, I mean the presenters, what, how much money was time-sensitive, they didn't even answer the question. So I am not trying to make this a long-winded thing; I'm just trying to be realistic. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Absolutely. I think everybody is coming from a good place. I think Commissioner DeFranco's question come from a good place, trying to give everybody the opportunity to do a thorough investigation on this. So with that, I think we've got the motion to amend on the floor. I'd like to take a roll call vote on that. CAMERO: Okay. Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Armbruster? ARMBRUSTER: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: (Inaudible response) VITOUSEK: That was an aye. CAMERO: Okay. And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. 20 EXHIBIT C CAMERO: The motion carries five to zero, with Commissioner Kanuha is absent. VITOUSEK: Okay, and then we'll take a roll call vote on the main motion to defer until the August Leeward Planning Commission meeting. CAMERO: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Armbruster? ARMBRUSTER: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Van Pernis? VAN PERNIS: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: The motion carries five to zero, with one absent. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much for your time to the applicant. We look forward to seeing you guys again and hopefully having the commission to move forward. MOOERS: Okay, thank you. Thank you for your time. VITOUSEK: Aloha. KIRK: Thank you. Aloha. The hearing was adjourned at 12:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 21 EXHIBIT C