Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-19 Leeward Exh C (Amend USE 05-001) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 19, 2021 A regularly advertised continued hearing on the application of PARKER SCHOOL (Amend USE 05-001) was called to order at 9:45 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Shani Armbruster, Barbara DeFranco, Clement"CJ" Kanuha III, and Faith"Faye" Yates EX-OFFICIO MEMBER PRESENT: Robyn Matsumoto (Department of Public Works, Engineering Division) ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Sinclair Salas-Ferguson, Esq. (Counsel for Department of Public Works), Dalilah Schlueter, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Zendo Kern (Planning Director), Jeffrey Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), 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: Moving onto Unfinished Business, item 1. 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 (indiscernible—echo) KAY: Someone has got YouTube on the background. If you can close off the YouTube YATES: I didn't hear what, what you said. KAY: I'm sorry, can you hear me now? YATES: No, I hear you, Christian. I didn't hear what Mike proposed. KAY: Okay, sorry, go ahead. 1 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Yeah, it was a, it was feedback coming off of somebody's YouTube live stream that has both windows open at the same time, I think. YATES: So what was your recommendation? Or was it a recommendation or a statement or? VITOUSEK: No, I was just getting through, reading through the application, and I got some feedback. But we'll try it again. Hopefully, if anybody can just mute their, mute their thing and turn off the YouTube if you've got that going. Try again, 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, RS-7.5, zoned district. The subject properties are located between Kapi`olani Road and Waikoloa Stream, Waimea, South Kona [Kohala], Hawaii, TMK (3) 6-5- 004: parcel 025, 026, 028 and 063. This is a continued hearing from our July 15'h meeting. Commissioner Kanuha was absent from that hearing, so in order for him to participate today, I ask Commissioner Kanuha to state on the record that he has reviewed all the materials, including the hearing transcript, or anything else otherwise. KANUHA: Yes, I went through the 21-page transcript, and I reviewed all of what happened on the last meeting, and I saw all the, everything from DPW that came through my email and all the background information from the testifiers. So, yes. VITOUSEK: Okay, mahalo, CJ. At the last hearing the commissioners voted to defer its decision so that the applicant could further investigate the placement of the required pedestrian safety improvements on Kapi`olani Road, namely, the possibility of putting in the improvements on the north side of the road as opposed to the south. I believe that Tracie is going to provide us with an update since the last hearing, with the limited staff presentation. Tracie Camero. CAMERO: Thank you so much. Let me just get my screen ready for you. Can you all see my presentation? Thumbs up is goodoh, I see nodding, perfect, okay. Good morning, members of the Leeward Planning Commission. The item before you, as represented earlier by the Chair, is the request from Parker School to amend their Use Permit 05-01. The Leeward Planning Commission at its hearing on July 15'h considered the above-referenced request to amend condition number 11. The commission voted at its July 151' hearing to defer this matter until the August 2021 Leeward Planning Commission hearing to allow the applicant to work with Department of Public Works and the parties to the private settlement agreement to analyze the feasibility of providing road improvements along the north side of Kapi`olani Road alternatively to the south side. 2 EXHIBIT C So some updates since the last July Leeward Planning Commission hearing is that Planning Department staff conducted a site inspection on July 28, 2021; the applicant met with the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, via, over Zoom on August 6, 2021, to discuss the commission's comments and request for the feasibility of constructing the road improvements along the north side of Kapi`olani Road; the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, stated in their August 9, 2021, memo that it is not common practice to require an applicant to pay for improvements on a property that is across from their property and restated that they have no objection to deferring the roadway improvements to be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the middle school. Therefore, at this time the planning director is not recommending any changes to his June 7, 2021, recommendation. These are some of the site photos these are two of them actually the photo on the top right is the photo that the commission saw at its last hearing. The photo is located along Kapi`olani Road; you are looking across the street from the school's entrance, and you can see it's a two-lane road with some grass shoulders. The photo on the bottom left was taken at my site inspection late last month and is taken directly from Parker School's entrance looking east as well along Kapi`olani Road. This again is the site photo on the top right that the commission saw at its last hearing, which is taken along Kapi`olani Road looking towards the park area at the Lindsey Road and Kapi`olani Road intersection, and you can see it's a two-lane road with some grass shoulders and the hedges that are of concern to some people. The photo on the bottom left was taken on my site visit and is further down Kapi`olani Road at the entrance of Parker School and was taken, again,just in late July. This is a new site photo that I'm presenting to you today that is looking in the direction of Kapi`olani Road from its intersection with Lindsey Road. As mentioned in the planning directors background report, Kapi`olani Road is a county-owned and maintained roadway with approximately 18-to 20-foot pavement in good condition with approximately two-to four- foot-wide grass shoulders, all in all it's within a 40-foot right-of-way. As you can see, there are hedges located on the right side of the slide. The hedges do continue along the county right-of-way sporadically along Kapi`olani Road up until you reach the Parker School property. And on the left-hand side, you can see the clear grasp shoulders that also continue along Kapi`olani Road all the way up until the Parker School property as well. At this time the director is not recommending any changes to the June 7, 2021, recommendation. Based on the preceding the planning director recommends that the request for an amendment to condition number 11 to Use Permit number 05-01 be approved by the Planning Commission to defer the roadway improvements until the middle school can be built. We do have the Department of Public Works and the applicant available, as well as myself and the Planning Department to answer any questions that the commissioners may have. And with that, I can turn the floor back to the Chair. 3 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. The applicant's representatives, I've got on my list Greg Mooers, David Kirk, and Steven Dunn. Can you please turn on your microphones? I'll 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. KIRK: I do. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Please state your name and the town that you live in. MOOERS: My name is Greg Mooers, and I live in Waimea. DUNN: My name is Steven Dunn. I live in Waimea as well. KIRK: My name is David Kirk, and I live in Waimea. VITOUSEK: Awesome, thank you. Do you have anything to add to the staff's update? MOOERS: The one point I'd like to add, Commissioner, is that in the last meeting Commissioner DeFranco had asked a question about the potential funds that could be lost, if we don't construct the gym at this time, and I apologize for not being prepared to answer that question at the time, but I can answer to a certain degree; I don't want to disclose any individuals or foundations that have been gracious enough to donate to this project and identify them, but I can tell you that the amount is somewhere between one and a half and two million dollars that would be lost, if, if we don't move ahead with construction at this time. Obviously, the school would try to hold onto as much of the that as possible, but some foundations and individuals are very specific about timeframes. So I did want to share that information with Commissioner DeFranco. VITOUSEK: Just a quick follow-up, is there a timetable also? MOOERS: For us to begin construction? Yeah, I mean, we'd like to begin within the next six to 12 months with construction. We have construction drawings for the facilities and the improvements. VITOUSEK: I'm, I'm referring more to the timetable on the, on when that money would be lost. MOOERS: Money will be lost within 12 months,you know, roughly. So, if we don't proceed within that time frame, some of the money will be lost. Obviously, the longer we go, then the more of the funds are at risk. But it's really hard to say, it's not definitive. Most people, when they make donations, don't have specific time frames. Some do, you know, foundations, particularly, will because they have annual budgets, and if the money is not spent during that particular fiscal year, those funds get reallocated to other projects. Individuals are less precise. 4 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? MOOERS: Not at this time. I think we've worked with staff and Public Works and, and believe that they've done a pretty thorough analysis of the differenceI think at one point you'd asked what the difference with the cost would be from one side of the street to the other. Essentially, there is not going to be much difference because the removal of any encroachments on the county right-of-way, hedges, rock walls, things of that sort, would not be the responsibility of Parker School or the applicant; they would be the responsibility of the homeowners to remove those encroachments. So the cost of the traffic roundabout at Kapi`olani and Lindsey, the sidewalks, the curb, gutters, the streetlights, effectively, will be the same, whether they are placed on the north side or the south side, so there's not necessarily much of a financial difference between the two alternatives. VITOUSEK: Commissioners, are there any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Yates. YATES: I took a drive over to, you know, where Parker School is and, and in the back, and, you know,just to see what we are talking about. And so my question is, in reading this application for amended use or, you know, regarding there is an elementary school there already—what you are trying to do is put a gymnasium and the middle school or just a gymnasium for now? MOOERS: Just a gymnasium. The gymnasium would be effectively behind the elementary school and would be accessed via pedestrian pathways from the upper school for the, their use. But that's the proposal; the proposal was to build a gymnasium complex right now, the middle school would be in the future. YATES: So the big open field would remain open? MOOERS: Are you talking about east of the elementary school along the roadway? YATES: Yes. MOOERS: The soccer field, yes, that would remain open. DUNN: Yep. YATES: Okay, because I did also noticeI don't know if, that little street before you get to the elementary school? MOOERS: Yeah, Pu`uki. YATES: Right, it's, it's so narrow and congested, so, but you all, that's not, doesn't come into play? 5 EXHIBIT C MOOERS: Not for this, no. The school owns some of the properties along that roadway, others are owned by private individuals. But that is not part of this proposal; it would not be used to access the gym. YATES: Okay, so the parking that you remember we, well, the last time we talked about the gymnasium and parking, so once you get that, you, you will have enough parking for people to attend when things might come up? MOOERS: The county code has requirements for parking, and all the party will be required to be on site, and we have plans that have been reviewed and approved that have the appropriate on-site parking. YATES: So you are confident that, I mean, and including the lady who lives on that street there that I mean I'm sure all the people around there have gotten notices as to what is going on—so you are confident that it will not affect, you know,people's living or coming home or et cetera. MOOERS: Correct. I think, you know, the vast majority of the use of the gym is going to be by our students during the day. You've got to realize Parker school is almost 50 years old, we've never had a gymnasium YATES: Right. MOOERS: Sporadically, we've had basketball teams and volleyball teams that would potentially have matches, but those were always held in county gyms. You know, we are talking about very few nights a year and the times of the matches would be at times when school is not in session. So the impact, we believe, will be rather minimal. YATES: Okay. MOOERS: So that's, that's why we've asked for the, you know, for the, you know, the deferral at this time is because we don't believe that the impacts—and Public Works has shared that opinion, and I think even Margaret Wille who has a priority agreement with the school, has agreed that it's a reasonable request and is not opposed to it. YATES: Okay. Thank you. MOOERS: You're welcome. VITOUSEK: Any other questions from commissioners? (No audible response) okay, I have, I have some questions. So just sort of to summarize briefly, we are, we are in a place where there is a requirement in the special use permit to do these off-site roadway improvements. And they have to be done under the current regulations from the current approvals before the gym or the middle school. This is a, my question is, is that a result of the settlement agreement or did that predate the settlement agreement that, with Margaret Wille. 6 EXHIBIT C MOOERS: They were, they were separate events, you know, the settlement agreement has many of the elements of the Use Permit, or the special permit, in it. But the, they are separate agreements; one is not contingent upon the other. So, regardless of what occurs here, any amendments to the Use Permit, you know, that has that subject to, you know the agreement allows Margaret and her clients to comment on and make reference to in this, this application, so they can participate in this process. They can't prevent the process; the Parker School is allowed to amend the permit as it sees fit, that's part of the agreement. So they are separate but yet they do overlap. So anything that is in the agreement still is in the agreement; changing the Use Permit doesn't change the agreement. VITOUSEK: Okay. I had a question for our corporation counsel or anyone from the county Planning Department. Is the county a party to the settlement agreement also? SCHLUETER: I'm not privy to the settlement agreement, so, I don't believe the county is, but if you give me a few minutes, I can try and dig up a copy of it. It went through, it went through the Third Circuit Court, so let me check that docket, and I'll get right back to you. VITOUSEK: Okay. And, Greg, you MOOERS: (Indiscernible–simultaneous speech) answer that question. They are not a party to the, the county is not a party to the agreement. VITOUSEK: Okay. Okay. What, what was the basis for recommending these off-site improvements? Was it based on a traffic study that was done to establish the need for pedestrian improvements? DUNN: I think, I think there were two, there were two things, right? There was, a part of the application was a projection that our enrollment would increase to 450 students, which is a significant increase from where we are now, and relocating our middle school students from the Kahilu campus to the Kapi`olani campus, which would change the traffic patterns in those areas, so, we are not at that, at that student population. MOOERS: Yeah, Commissioner, we didn't, we didn't make the recommendation for the conditions; that was, they came from Public Works. So they'd have to, you know, maybe comment on—maybe Robyn could tell us why those conditions were applied. MATSUMOTO: Chair Vitousek, I believe they are in the traffic study. The comments we initially made were just identifying that there were no sidewalk improvements along the travel way, so we didn't specifically call out for a roundabout or sidewalk improvements. VITOUSEK: You did not specifically call out for? MATSUMOTO: No, I don't believe so, not in their original comments from Ki, Kiran Emler. VITOUSEK: Yeah. 7 EXHIBIT C MATSUMOTO: It was just identifying that there wasn't any improvements. VITOUSEK: So it identified a lack of improvements, but it didn't make specific recommendations for what improvements needed to be done, based on the proposed growth of Parker School? MATSUMOTO: No, it says the applicant should be required to provide proper pedestrian facilities and other necessary street improvements meeting with the approval of DPW at no cost to the county for the life of the subject permit. So we didn't specifically say to make the sidewalk but just proper pedestrian facility. VITOUSEK: Okay. Okay, so, you know, so we've gotten a lot of public testimony from folks who live on the road, who are not only opposed to the, who are saying they support the deferral, but they were, they want to remove the entire condition 11, which would remove the requirement to construct these off-site improvements on, in this area. And, you know, for us who are in this position now where we are reviewing something. Is this a time where we look at whether that makes sense from a logical standpoint based on the information that we have? So, do the traffic, in opinion of the Department of Public Works, does, the traffic conditions that are there, or that will be there, with the addition of the gym and the middle school, does that necessitate the pedestrian improvements that we are proposing in this, I mean MATSUMOTO: Chair Vitousek, I think if you, you know, you split up the two things like you have the construction of the gymnasium, which isn't adding any additional student count, you know, that for us doesn't feel like it warrants doing this, the off-site improvements. But once you add in the middle school where now there are more students arriving to the area, then we would think that would warrant it. But you would also have to look at a new traffic study at the time, because I believe the last one was done inactually, there's one done in 2020 but, like Mr. Dunn said, they are not at that student body count. I also want to be clear that—you know, those hedges are beautiful, right, we all, we all can say that—I'm speaking from the mindset of an engineer, those are considered encroachments into the county right-of-way, so if we were to get a complaint at this time, we would go and investigate and we would have to cite the owners to have to remove it. VITOUSEK: So my question on that is that Item 1.6 of the South Kohala Community Development Plan says that significant trees and other plants along roadsides that serve as windbreakers are to be preserved, is that something that would have to be reviewed by the county's Arborist Advisory Council [Committee] before determining whether this hedge can be removed? KAY: I can speak to that, Mr. Chair. This is, this is Christian, sorry. Arborist Advisory Commission [Committee] has authority over what we call exceptional trees, which are set up as a resolution from the county council. Furthermore, there hasn't been a seated Arborist Advisory Committee since 2000, I think, the year 2000maybeeight, as the Arborist Advisory Committee is co-terminus with the administration, and so under the last three administrations there has not been a revival of that commission. So, to, the short answer to your question is no, removal of this wouldn't be under the purview of the Arborist Advisory Committee. 8 EXHIBIT C If I can add one more thing. I got a note from Tracie that there was a 2009 memo from the Department of Public Works that specifically laid out the required improvements along the roadway, and Tracie may be able to speak to that, if you'd like that information. VITOUSEK: Sure that would be great, Tracie, if you don't mind. CAMERO: Yeah, okay, so in a September 17, 2009, memo that was given to our then-Director BJ Leithead Todd, it was signed by Galen Kuba, and within the Roadways section, it does state that"Increased demand for safe pedestrian use of Kapi`olani Road, in addition to the increase in vehicular use, as a result of the proposed school facilities should be anticipated. Upgrades to Kapi`olani Road to support the subject facility are not likely to be provided by the county, so we suggest the following conditions: a. Prior to the occupancy of the proposed middle school and/or gymnasium, the applicant should be required to provide pavement widening, concrete curb gutter and sidewalk, and incidental drainage improvements along the south side of Kapi`olani Road from Lindsey Road to the middle school, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, at no cost to the county, or prior to the occupancy of the proposed middle school and/or gymnasium, the applicant should be required to provide and maintain a six-foot wide pervious paved pedestrian walkway/shoulder separated from the traveled way with an intermittent curb barrier along the south side of Kapi`olani Road from Lindsey Road to the middle school, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, at no cost to the county." VITOUSEK: Thank you. Okay, you know, for us in a situation where we are looking at the potential impacts of the proposed pedestrian improvements on the area where we may have to remove or alter or move a historic residence one, which is on the corner of Kapi`olani and Lindsey Road, and to alter the, what I would consider to be a historic landscape feature of Waimea, the orange honeysuckle hedge, which is,you know, a component of the cultural environment of Waimea, I feel as though we need to analyze whether the effects of the pedestrian improvements should be addressed and whether they fit the need. So, that, the most recent traffic study, 2020, is not inclusive of the middle school, the estimated middle school generating traffic, is that correct? MOOERS: No, I believe it does include the full impact of the traffic, yeah. Commissioner, can I make a comment that might be helpful? I VITOUSEK: Sure. MOOERS: I know that, you know, we've got two issues here: One, we are talking about what is the impact of the gym, and I think the other question that has been raised, and not by Parker school but by the community, has been whether or not condition 11 should remain at all. So I think that there are two separate issues, and the one that we are trying to decide today, I think, is what is the impact of the gymnasium. And I think that we, the applicant believes that Public Works and Planning has agreed that the impact of the gymnasium in and of itself does not, should not trigger these improvements. That being said, I think, in the long term, I think we have to look a—and I think, you know, Robyn Matsumoto made the point—that in the future if a 9 EXHIBIT C middle school is built, that another traffic study would have to be done at that time to really look at the impacts. And I think what is significant here is that, if you look at that area, the state and the county are looking at an improvement to the intersection of Lindsey Road and Kawaihae Road, and the discussion has been about a turnaround, or a roundabout, that would front Parker School; we don't know what's going to happen with that, but certainly that's going to be addressed prior to any middle school being built. If, for example, that roundabout is constructed, then it would be very reasonable to think instead of limiting the access to Parker School through Lindsey Road that the county and state would want to encourage one access point in and out of the school at Lindsey Road. So at that point, the traffic study might look completely different than what we are looking at today. So, I guess I would encourage the commissioners to look at the request before us today regarding the impact of the gymnasium, with the full realization that the potential impacts of condition 11 are probably going to have to be reevaluated after the county and state make that improvement to that intersection, because whatever is done there is going to certainly impact Parker School and the vehicular access and pedestrian access in the area. So I would suggest that, I would advocate for, obviously, the approval of the, of the deferral as we are recommending, with the understanding that in the future, another traffic study is going to have to be done prior to the middle school's construction that would re-evaluate the entire area and whether or not all access ought to be through Lindsey Road and, and really not have much access through Kapi`olani Road. I don't know how familiar you are with the Saint Francis School on Oahu, which unfortunately it's no longer a school, I think they close last year, but it was in Manoa directly above UH Hilo, or UH Manoa, and they had a one-way traffic pattern in and out with an access that opened into Manoa in case of emergencies. It's a possibility in the future that our access might be entirely through Lindsey Road. And so if that were the case, then that, then you would really question why the improvements have to be made on Kapi`olani. But we are not in a position at this time to say that, because we don't know what's going to be done in front of the school. But I guess what I'm trying to say is that I share your concerns, you know, about whether or not this is a long term solutions and what the impacts will have in the community, but there are other factors at play here that we have no control over, and all I can say is that prior to us constructing the middle school, there will be a resolution to that, so at that point, we would propose to do another traffic study to really look at what type of improvements would have to be addressed at that time to accommodate the middle school. VIOTUSEK: Thank you. (Indiscernible—feedback) sorry, is there some feedback? Shani, I mean, sorry, Commissioner Armbruster, you had your hand up there? ARMBRUSTER: I did, thank you. I just had a quick question for the Parker School representatives, if I could. I think one of the community members mentioned that you all actually had had changed your mind and weren't intending to build a middle school. Is that correct? I don't remember hearing that before. MOOERS: I don't understand the question. 10 EXHIBIT C ARMBRUSTER: Oh, I think in one of the community comments someone said that they weren't actually planning to build the middle school, that that plan had been, had been abandoned. Is that correct? MOOERS: I think she implied that, but that was not what we said ARMBRUSTER: Okay. MOOERS: I think we said we have no plans to build it in the immediate future. ARMBRUSTER: Okay. MOOERS: Yeah, but we have not abandoned the plans for middle school. ARMBRUSTER: Okay. Okay, that's all, thank you. VITOUSEK: Commissioner Yates. YATES: I was, you know, I've been reading this, the application, you know, under, and it, you know, the first sentence talks about the, you know, occupancy for the gymnasium, and then it goes on to the rest of these other things that you have in there. Is that something that maybe should not be there, that is making this whole thing confusing? And to us, understanding, you know, we are talking about elementary school and then expansion, et cetera, et cetera. So, I'm just wondering. MOOERS: That was the original Use Permit; I think that's the language you are referring to YATES: Right. MOOERS: Commissioner read is that the purpose for the Use Permit initially was to build the elementary school, which was issued in I believe 2005 that that school has been built. YATES: Right. MOOERS: I think the, the language of the permit is talking about the expansion of that, to include the middle school and these other improvements. Those things have not occurred at this time, but the language is, was developed by the Planning Department, not by the applicant. YATES: Okay. Thank you. MOOERS: You are welcome YATES: Confused. 11 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Okay, I just wanted to ask our rep from DPW if we have any idea of timing of the improvements that are being suggested by Parker School's representatives on Kawaihae and Lindsey Road. MATSUMOTO: No, I don't have any timeframe on that. Sorry. VITOUSEK: No worries, I know it's, it's tough, but I believe the requirement for the middle school under the special permit is 2030, is that right? CAMERO: Yes, sorry, I believe that that is the timeframe that is allotted to them based on the approval that was given last year in the Planning Commission when they came in and they requested for the time extension. VITOUSEK: 2030, so nine years. In just in your,you know, general opinion, Ms. Matsumoto, is there any likelihood of this happening in the next nine years, based on your knowledge of the way the system works? MATSUMOTO: I mean it's always a possibility; it's, you know, us deciding on who's going to take responsibility, as well as coming up with the funding. So, you know, anything can, I think a project can happen within nine years, but without knowing exactly what the direction is, it's hard to commit to anything. VITOUSEK: Right, yeah, seems like nine years for something that's not being actively planned in this day and age is a short time. Okay MOOERS: I believe there is an EA that's being done on that project right now, is that correct? VITOUSEK: Is that being done by State DOT? MOOERS: Yeah, IStephen, maybe you can comment I think we were asked to comment on the draft EA. DUNN: Yeah, I saw something earlier this year. It probably is the state that's, that's doing that. But I'm also not aware of any timeline for construction,just the EA. VITOUSEK: Okay. For the applicants, would you be okay with an additional amendment to condition 11, reflecting the need for an updated traffic study at the time of the moving forward with the middle school to determine whether the subsequent pedestrian improvements are, remain necessary? MOOERS: Well, we can support that, I think that's a reasonable request. VITOUSEK: Thank you. And then to the to the community, Ms., Ms. Ryan,just, you know, as a resident of the area, is that something that you would be okay with for us to put in this 12 EXHIBIT C condition saying that when you do the middle school, you are going to have to do an updated traffic study to determine whether or not these pedestrian improvements remain necessary. RYAN: That would be great. We would appreciate that. VITOUSEK: Okay. With that, we can, you know, if there, if there are any other discussions from the commissioners, any other questions from commissioners, we can seek a motion on this item. Anybody? DEFRANCO: Okay, so I'm, I would like to make a motion. And it, the motion will include the traffic study? Is that right, Mike? The motion would include that, so VITOUSEK: You could make that motion, or you could, you could make just a motion to approve or deny or differ, and then we can amend the motion DEFRANCO: Okay, so I moved that the application to amend Use Permit number 05-001 be approved, based on the planning director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Is there a second? KANUHA: Second. VITOUSEK: Okay, a motion by Commissioner DeFranco, second by Commissioner Kanuha. Discussion? Okay, I, I know I, we are in a tough position where you've got community who are against this, you've got community who want, who have created this, established this need by a settlement to a lawsuit, and it is, you know, deferring, kicking it down the road, while we have it in front of us. But with the upcoming changes, possible changes to the road, possible changes to the access, to me, it makes sense to allow them to go forward with the gymnasium now, defer these improvements until such a time as they know that they need them. Because I personally believe that the honeysuckle hedges in that part of Waimea are a historic feature of the landscape, you know, the traditional Hawaiian songs about the wholeness of color in the area are a testament to that. I think it fits with the Kona Communi- or South Kohala Community Development Plan trying to maintain the historic feel of the town. The other aspect of it is the South Kohala Community Development Plan advocates not only for pedestrian traffic but also equestrian traffic, which could be accommodated on the grass swales, the grass roadways, and keeping the feel of the Community. So I do think that we want to make sure that the improvements are needed before we rush in and build something that's going to change the community. So with that, I would make a motion to amend the motion that's on the table to alter condition 11—and give me a, give me a little bit of time to try to word it, but—and I'll ask help from the Parker School applicant, Mr. Mooers, if you don't mind. MOOERS: All right. 13 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Where would you think the place to put the condition to do an updated traffic study to determine whether the items a. and b. are necessary? MOOERS: I would think in 11 after the first statement, "Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the middle School," a revised traffic study would be done to determine the improvements required "meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works, at no cost to the County." VITOUSEK: Sure, I want to make sure that it's in there that we are determining whether or not these improvements are still necessary. So, "Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the middle School, the applicant shall conduct an updated traffic study to determine if the following improvements are still necessary, and if so, the applicant shall provide the following improvements meeting with the Department of Public Works, at no cost—" MOOERS: Yeah, that's fine. VITOUSEK: Does that make sense? MOOERS: Yes. VITOUSEK: Do we do we have that recorded? I don't know if I can say that again exactly. KAY: We'll be able to catch it on the recording to make sure that we finalize the language, and then we'll run it past you as we get you the action letter. CAMERO: Yes, and I got it, Chair Vitousek, actually word for word, so. VITOUSEK: Okay, right on, would you please repeat that? CAMERO: Yeah, so, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the middle school, the applicant shall conduct an updated traffic study determine it, to determine if the following improvements are necessary, and meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works at no cost to the county. VITOUSEK: Okay. That would be my recommendation for amending the motion on the floor. Is there a second? DEFRANCO: (Raises hand to second the subsidiary motion) VITOUSEK: Second by Commissioner DeFranco. Should we take a roll, or is there a discussion? Is there any further discussion? (No audible response) Should we take a roll call vote? SCHLUETER: Yes,please. VITOUSEK: Okay, we'll do a roll call vote on the secondary motion. 14 EXHIBIT C CAMERO: Sorry about that. Commissioner DeFranco?\ DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Armbruster? ARMBRUSTER: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: Thank you. Would you like me to do the roll call vote on the original motion now? VITOUSEK: Yes, please. CAMERO: Okay. So this is the first motion that was done with Commissioner DeFranco and seconded by Commissioner Kanuha. SCHLUETER: So just to clarify, this is the, it's the main motion as amended by the amended motion, or by the motion to amend, sorry. CAMERO: Sorry, thank you, Dalilah, thank you so much. Yeah, so this is the main motion as amended by the previous motion. CAMERO: Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Armbruster? ARMBRUSTER: Aye. 15 EXHIBIT C CAMERO: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. CAMERO: And Chair Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: And I apologize I didn't say that the previous motion passed, five to zero. And this motion passes, five to zero, as well. I'm so sorry, I apologize for that. VITOUSEK: No problem at all. Thank you very much. To the applicants, thank you, you will be notified of the decision in writing. MOOERS: Thank you very much for your consideration, and our kids thank you, too. VITOUSEK: Good luck DUNN: Thank you, Commissioners. KIRK: Thank you very much. The hearing ended at 10:29 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 16 EXHIBIT C