Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-16 Leeward Exh B (AMEND REZ 1049) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 16, 2018 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of WEST HAWAI‘I BUSINESS PARK, LLC (AMEND REZ 1049) was called to order at 10:11 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Keith F. Unger presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Keith F. Unger, Perry Kealoha, Michael Vitousek and Faye Yates RECUSED: Nancy Carr Smith ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Scott Church and Sonny Shimaoka ALSO PRESENT: Malia Hall, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay (Planner), Shancy Watanabe (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And three people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WEST HAWAI‘I BUSINESS PARK, LLC (AMEND REZ 1049) Application to amend Condition K (Roadway Improvements) of Ordinance No. 04-110, which reclassified approximately 196.634 acres of land from an Open (O) to an Industrial-Commercial Mixed-20,000 square feet (MCX-20) zoning district and reclassified approximately 85.733 acres of land from an Open (O) to a General Industrial- 1-acre (MG-1a) zoning district. The property is located along the east (mauka) side of Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway (State Highway 19), stnd Honokōhau 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMKs (3) 7-4-008:013, 030, 074, 076-78 inclusive, 084 and 085. It was announced earlier that Commissioner Carr Smith would recuse herself from discussion and voting on this item due to a conflict of interest. UNGER: Agenda Item No. 2, Applicant West Hawai‘i Business Park, LLC, Amendment REZ 1049, application to amend Condition K, Roadway Improvements, of Ordinance No. 04 110, which reclassified approximately 196.634 acres of land from an Open to an Industrial Commercial Mixed-20,000 square feet zoning district and reclassified approximately 85.733 acres of land from an Open to a General Industrial-1 acre zoning district. The property is located stnd along the east side of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, Honokōhau 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK (3) 7-4-8: Parcels 13, 30, 74, 76, 77, 78, 84 and Parcel 85. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here, Members of the Leeward Planning Commission. It’s good to see you all. 1 EXHIBIT B As the Chair said, this is an amendment to a Change of Zone. If I can direct your attention to the screen. The subject parcels are located in the North Kona District of Hawai‘i Island, more specifically in the Kaloko-Honokōhau area. For your reference the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway is running generally north-south through the slide. The subject parcels are outlined in red, the three subject Parcels 1, 2 and 3. For further reference the Kaloko Light Industrial area is adjacent to the north; this is the location of Costco and Home Depot and several other industrial and commercial uses. And then makai of the highway is the Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historic Park. County zoning for the area is a mixture of General Industrial, Limited Industrial and the Industrial-Commercial Mixed use. The State Land Use designation for the subject property is Urban. And the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map indicates that much of the subject parcels are Industrial with other Urban Expansion to the east and Open to the west. And this is in the Kona CDP Urban area. Here is an aerial photograph of the site that we are working on right now. On the left hand side you’ll see all three parcels outlined in black, and the area that this amendment really addresses is in this, within this yellow outline. And on the right hand side I blew it up a little bit so you can see, again, with Queen Ka‘ahumanu running generally north-south, and there is Allied Quarry Road, an old quarry road, that actually is, the access to the highway is no longer there after the State’s highway widening project. We’ve got the national park here makai of the highway, and to the north we’ve got the Kaloko Light Industrial area. The applicant is requesting an amendment to Condition K of Ordinance No. 04 110 to increase the area allowed for development prior to triggering the construction of Kamanu Street from the current ten acres to an area of 48.4 acres. The applicant requests that the subject condition is amended as follows – I won’t read it but I’ll give you a moment to take a look. The reasons for the request are: The applicant is not an active developer of this property and has been seeking to sell some or all of the project area since 2008 with no success due to the upfront roadway improvement requirements, specifically Kamanu Street Extension and connection between Kamanu Street and Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, being too costly to market and develop the property; the proposed amendment would provide for the sale or development of a significant portion of the West Hawai‘i Business Park, which would then provide financial resources to the construction of Kamanu Street Extension improvements; the applicant believes that due to alternative regional transportation facilities being completed since 2004, for example the Ane Keohokālole Highway between Palani Road and Hina Lani Street and the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway widening project, the immediate improvement of the Kamanu Street Extension is no longer necessary to provide for regional traffic circulation needs; approval of the proposed amendment will require that Kanalani Street be built from the existing Kanalani Street terminus in the Kaloko Light Industrial area to the West Hawai‘i Business Park South Access Road, instead of just to the North Access Road as currently required; these improvements will 2 EXHIBIT B allow a second access to the area thereby reducing congestion at the Kanalani Street-Hina Lani Street, the Kamanu Street-Hina Lani Street and the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway-Hina Lani Street intersections. This is one of two site plans that were submitted as part of the application. This is showing the area as is currently permitted under existing Condition K. What’s in yellow is the generally ten-acre area that they are allowed for right now, and the red is the associated roadway improvements. Again, this is Kanalani Street running from its terminus at Kaloko Light Industrial to the location of the North Access Road, which will then be built from Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway. What is being proposed at this point is now in yellow, the 48.4-acre area, and, again, Kanalani Street running, now, connecting from its terminus here to the South Access Road whose intersection was just completed and opened as part of the highway widening project. I did make a slight adjustment to this schematic, given that as part of the new condition request they are also going to build the North Access Road segment between the highway and Kanalani Street; so this is a little bit different from what was in the application, but I made a change here to show what the condition as amended, or the proposed condition as amended, would include in terms of roadway improvements. Here is a roadway circulation plan that was included as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report, just showing the phasing of roadway improvements relative to the project, and what type of roadway improvements would be required under the TIAR in each phase: Phase 1 being in the lighter gray area, Phase 2 darker gray, and Phase 3 more mauka and further darker gray. Again, just one quick change is the TIAR still calls North Access Road as part of Phase 2, but the applicant is proposing now to build it as part of Phase 1. Here are some site photos of the area. We took these about three months ago, so actually there’s a quite difference now. This is the South Access Road and makai of this is the national park, so this is a fully signalized channelized intersection that was done part of the State’s widening project. And here is a view of the North Access Road intersection improvements at the highway. This will be limited to right-in and right-out movements. And then here is a view of Parcel 1 from Kanalani Street, looking makai toward the North Access Road. You can see this is the general area of the North Access Road, and this is taken from the end of Kanalani Street within the Kaloko Light Industrial area. And a view of Parcel 1 from Kanalani Street, looking east, kind of give you a general idea of what it looks like at this point, or at least at three months ago. So the Director is actually recommending some different changes to Condition K that are different from what the applicant requested. And this was just done to provide a little more clarity; the applicant was trying to use the original condition and amending it based on the, the original condition was kind of written in an unclear way, so this is just to try to add clarity. So the new condition reads, “Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for development within an approximately 48.4-acre portion of Parcel 1 (initial project area, as indicated in Exhibit 3 EXHIBIT B 3A of the November 22, 2017 amendment application), the applicant, successors or assigns shall construct the following roadway improvements to County dedicable standards: the Kanalani Street Extension from the north property boundary to the South Access Road; and the North and South Access Roads between Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and the Kanalani Street Extension.” So the Director is recommending a favorable recommendation be sent to the County Council with conditions. We, as kind of a matter of course, we also adjust conditions that are older, outdated or have already been complied with, so there’s been a lot of back and forth on some other conditions that we updated that weren’t the condition they were asking to amend. So there were other conditions that we amended. And since the background and recommendation report was sent to the Commission, we’ve received several documents in relation to the language of some of those th additional conditions. On August 14 a letter from William Moore Planning, Incorporated, outlining some concerns and proposed a changed language to some of those conditions. The th Planning Director provided a response on August 15, with the Director’s, whether or not the Director agrees with those proposed changes and justification for that. And then today we received two documents from the applicant: One specifically speaking about Condition G, which is related to a Traffic Impact Analysis Report and how the language should read, some justification for that, and then after some brief discussion this morning the applicant also submitted an updated set of condition language for Condition G. So I’m sure we’ll get into some discussion on that as you get a chance to engage the applicant, but I’ll be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have about this or anything else. UNGER: Great, thank you. I just wanted a discussion on Kamanu Street Extension because that seems to be the impetus for this change. If we agree to this change, how does that affect Item J? Do we need to also adjust Condition J? Let’s just take a look at that. KAY: Okay, one moment. Mr. Chair, the applicant has asked to come up. UNGER: Yeah, that’s probably a good idea. I think this is, a lot of these questions will be directed at both staff and the applicant, and I think this is definitely going to be a rolling discussion. So why don’t we, why don’t we do that? And we can address, the Commissioners can address our questions either to staff or the applicant. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Commission? APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVES: Yes. UNGER: Please state your name and the area of address. SMITH: Riley Smith, Kamuela, Hawai‘i. MOORE: Riley is the president of Lanihau Properties, and is the, which is the wholly owned owner of West Hawai‘i Business Park LLC, which is the applicant. 4 EXHIBIT B UNGER: Okay. MOORE: So they are the landowners. I am Bill Moore. I’m the planning consultant. I’m based in Hilo. UNGER: Okay, great. We might want to take a step back, and, I don’t know – do you want to make a presentation before we dive into questions? I was going to start, we were going to start with questions there, but. MOORE: You know, I’m happy to just, I think, let me just address your first question on Kamanu Street. UNGER: Okay. MOORE: And a little bit of history. And, you know, I’ll do a real quick, why don’t we start with a brief overview of the applicant. UNGER: Okay. MOORE: Thank you. SMITH: Aloha Chair Unger, Members of the Planning Commission, Planning Department staff, Corporation Counsel, my name is Riley Smith. I’m the president and chief executive officer of Lanihau Properties. We also own Palani Ranch, 1,000 mother cow operation, in North Kona. Our roots go back to 168 years ago when Henry Nicholas Greenwell moved to Hawai‘i and massed some lands. These lands in Honokōhau are part of our landholdings that we’ve worked since 2003. We provided an EIS in March of 2003. We went through the State Land Use Commission in 2004, changed the Land Use designation from Conservation to Urban. In 2004 we also went through a County zoning ordinance and obtained the approval to take the land to MCX-20 and MG-1a as identified in the Planning staff report. What we found is that, since 2008 we’ve been trying to sell the lands, we are not an active developer, we are a passive landowner, we tried to sell all the entitled lands, which are about 245 acres, and we could not find a buyer. We then tried to go back to just Parcel 76, which is about 95 acres, to see if we could find a buyer for those lands, and the high infrastructure costs that we found in West Hawai‘i, especially with all the rock, just made it prohibitive. The offers we were getting is that they would pay us the value that would cost us to build the road; so in exchange basically what we are doing is we are giving the land to somebody, they give us enough money, we build the road and we walk away from the land that we’ve owned for 160 years. So we didn’t think that was viable. What we thought would be an opportunity was if we could look at a smaller chunk of infrastructure, so instead of building Kamanu Street, which extends from Kaloko Light Industrial to the Honokōhau Properties land to the south, instead of building that road upfront before we could subdivide, what we are looking to do is build three roads that Christian Kay talked about, so the North Access Road that connects Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Kanalani, Kanalani Street from the Kaloko boundary to the South Access Road, 5 EXHIBIT B and then the segment of South Access Road from its intersection with Kanalani Street to the new traffic signal that Goodfellow put in on the highway. So we are offering to build that infrastructure, if we have the opportunity to subdivide the 48 acres, okay. I think you asked about Condition J. Condition J is Kamanu Street and it still exists. If we were to try to subdivide anything outside of the 48.4 acres, it would trigger the construction of that road. UNGER: Okay. SMITH: Okay? UNGER: Yeah, and I see it’s in phase, so everything would be intact then width of that. In another reference to Kamanu Street they are talking about phases, you can phase it in, and, as far as improvements, maybe not curbs and gutters at first run at it, and then the second, and then upon, you know what I’m talking about — SMITH: Yeah, you know, we actually have the design plans for Kamanu Street signed off on by Public Works, Planning Department and Health. So they are ready to build. We just don’t have the money to build it — UNGER: Okay, got it. SMITH: — to a County dedicable standard with curb, gutter and sidewalk. You want to — MOORE: Yeah, if I can. The condition really is before we do anything else in other than this area in yellow, Kamanu Street needs to be drivable from Kaloko Industrial Park to Honokōhau. And it can be developed in phases, but the travel way needs to be in, and then the curb, gutter and sidewalks can be in later. The design plans that Riley is talking about is they’ve actually, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to do it that way because of, you know, liability, so the design plans are to build it all at once. But the Condition J requires that, except for two exceptions, one is the quarry, existing quarry uses or quarry related uses can continue without triggering Kamanu Street, and then this Condition K area, now 48.4, but anything else, the other large areas, as soon as we touch that, in order to touch that, Kamanu Street has be built and connected, including portions of improvements within the Kaloko Industrial. Kamanu ends before the property line, so Lanihau had to acquire rights of entry and agreements so they can construct lands on other people’s property. Same thing on the Honokōhau Industrial site; there is a small segment of land that doesn’t come to the boundary, so Lanihau, as part of these requirements, had to get the rights to build that section on the land, and that’s part of their responsibility. UNGER: Right. That’s a significant improvement because you are talking about connecting Kamanu from Kaloko Light all the way over to Kealakekua, uh, Kealakehe Parkway? SMITH: Yes. 6 EXHIBIT B UNGER: Okay, okay. So are you okay with the language in J as it stands? Because it does talk about subject to and that’s provided in Conditions K, L and M. So it sounds like you are okay with the conditions in J as it stands. SMITH: Yes. UNGER: And then Condition L after K also refers to the Kamanu Street Extension, and they’re saying, which is what you are saying, Mr. Moore, “Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for improvements within Parcel 2” – I’m assuming, or I’m thinking, Parcel 2 is Phase 2? KAY: Parcel 2 is this one right here — UNGER: With the development of Parcel 2 then kick in the requirement to do Kamanu Street. Or that’s, or is that part of the initial 48 acres? MOORE: Parcel 2, there is a zoning map as opposed to a parcel map, so it gets pretty confusing. That’s why in our application we included – let me pull up our application. KAY: Just for your reference, the zoning map is part of the recommendation. It’s here right before the conditions. MOORE: So under the original zoning conditions Parcel 2 is the MG area; so that would be the Phase 3 area, including those two areas in white, which is West Hawai‘i Concrete and Glover, but that is Parcel 2. So those industrial uses, existing industrial uses, can continue. Any activity that is not related to an existing industrial use — UNGER: Right, as far as your future development. MOORE: — would trigger Kamanu Street. UNGER: Okay. And what about Phase 2? Would that trigger Kamanu Street? MOORE: Yeah, so Phase 2, yes, any development in Phase 2. So, again, two separate things: Parcel 2 is a zoning condition; Phase 2 is our TIAR, development in Phase 2, which would trigger Kamanu Street. UNGER: Okay, okay, thank you. MOORE: We have multiple triggers, but Kamanu Street has to be built before we can do pretty much anything else. UNGER: Got it. Okay, thank you. SMITH: Just my last comment as part of introduction. As the State continued on with Queen Ka‘ahumanu phase 2 improvements, we knew that the traffic signal was going to be 7 EXHIBIT B implemented and limited usage by our existing quarry tenants, which are mauka. And so what we wanted to do was, as part of this amendment, we felt that if we were able to construct that short segment of South Access Road – Christian, you have the exhibit that has the red, yeah – so if we were to construct that short segment of South Access Road and Kanalani Street to where Spectrum’s office is, it provides an additional access to the Kaloko Light Industrial area. As all of you that shop in Kaloko and try to hit north to get out to Hina Lani, it’s a little problematic; the intersection at Kamanu with that batwing design, and then Kanalani is always really congested. So we felt that having this third option, especially with Costco adding the back entry on Lawehana Street by Ferguson, would provide some safety benefits to the region. So I think those are some of the other benefits to this amendment. UNGER: Right, and that was a Public Works suggestion? Didn’t Public Works come up with that recommendation? I thought your original discussion was extending Kanalani to the South Access Road and down, and then Public Works came in and made a recommendation to attach the North Access from Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway to Kanalani? Is that the history of the discussion? KAY: So, yes, Public Works had a concern that the removal, that the amendment as originally proposed would remove the requirement to build the North Access Road. So in response to that, and also somewhat in response to the supplemental traffic study that was done, it was recommended that the North Access Road be moved into part of Phase 1. So those are the kind of two reasons, and I’m assuming those are the two reasons that the applicant responded to that and wanted to add that as part of this condition. UNGER: Right, and regardless it’s there, and that’s part of Phase, we are calling it Phase 1, and part of this amendment. MOORE: The intersection improvements are completely constructed for the North Access Road, as well as the South Access Road, so, you know, it just makes sense to go ahead and use it. The real benefit is the South Access Road where you are tying into a fully signalized intersection. North Access Road is a right-in, right-out, there is limited benefit, but we did not have objections to the requirement that they be built as part of the Phase 1. UNGER: I couldn’t find any reference to – I saw the references to the roadway development we are talking about now in Phase 1, I saw the discussion on the Kamanu Street Extension – I couldn’t find anything in the conditions for, let’s call it Phase 2 and Phase 3 other than Kamanu Street, and I know that the traffic study was talking about continuing development, road development, within the entire project access, access north extension from Kanalani, access south, access road south from Kanalani up to Kamanu, there was discussion throughout the material about those improvements. What is the status of that, or how are those roads going to be developed? Are they kicked in by phasing? And are they, where can we find it in the conditions? MOORE: The other improvements, those are identified as mitigation measures within the TIAR, so as part of Phase 2, TIAR. The zoning condition, Condition G, with the ones we are going back and forth on, requires us to implement the mitigation measures within the TIAR. So it’s not 8 EXHIBIT B directly stated in the conditions; it’s indirectly tied Condition G, which we’re not going to get rid of, requires us to provide the mitigation measures, those mitigation measures are in the TIAR. UNGER: As referred to in the, okay, got it, got it. SMITH: Chair Unger, maybe I can just add also that we have those three roads that are identified there under design. And I think the plans are going to end up in Public Works next week. UNGER: Okay. Did we want to shift our discussion to landscape plan. I know we went back and forth as early as five minutes ago with more language, and I know we were going back and forth on that. Can you open up the discussion with – if I recall correctly, there was discussion about the landscape plan and using the data of the landscape plan and some issues there. Can you talk a little about that? MOORE: Yes, sure. Just as some background, the going through the State Land Use Commission process was very involved. The National Park Service was a contested, was an intervening party, so we dealt with the National Park Service during the Land Use Commission. So those conditions probably run 20 pages of mitigation requirements from all kinds of safety and health; it limits some of the uses that we can do both in the Heavy Industrial and the MCX areas. As part of that they wanted to continue what really Kaloko Industrial has, which is a 50-foot landscaping setback. So that is the genesis of that condition. There is also some interior landscaping requirements. So as part of the, both the zoning condition and the state land use condition we had to do a landscaping plan. Our concern was twofold with the proposed changes: One, the original language proposed by the – and again, we did not propose any amendments to this condition – the Planning Department proposed to say that we had to comply with the landscaping plan as of a certain date; what that means, if we ever amended that plan, then we would have to come back to the Council to amend the zoning condition because we have to comply with an old plan. So we just want the flexibility in that, you know, the language we suggested was just that we have to comply with the approved plan. We have no objections to the Planning Director’s proposed changes, which he says “plan or as may be amended.” But the key was to not lock us in to a specific plan of a specific date. You know, and again, part of this is the County is trying to extend a wastewater reuse plan, and if that water becomes available, it could change the landscaping requirements or opportunities, and, you know, so we just wanted to have the flexibility. We saw subject to the approval of the Planning Director. The other thing we pointed out is the County has a Rule 17 on landscaping, and this kind of brings them a little bit to the review of the West Hawai‘i Business Park landscaping plan, and we just wanted to make sure, you guys want to do this, we have no objections to you doing it, but do you want to do it. But, so, we have no objections to the condition as proposed by the Planning Director. UNGER: Okay, good. Good clarification, because I know that went back and forth for a little bit. And then of course we have to talk about the traffic impact study, and I know we were going back and forth with that. I think I saw the latest comment, which was just passed out to the Commissioners. If you all would look at, there is handwriting on this sheet right here, yeah. 9 EXHIBIT B MOORE: And I want to apologize. I’m a policy planner. If you ever want to laugh, have me draw a plan. I am not a physical planner, and my handwriting reflects it. So I apologize for, and what I have is unreadable, the writer can read; what you have, I tried to print out a little carefully. But I’m happy to go through the discussions that we’ve gone back and forth with the Planning Department — UNGER: Okay, maybe I can summarize to see if we have a good understanding of what the issue is. So you went through your initial traffic impact study and it was done last year, correct? And the, one of the changes that the Planning Department is recommending is that before Phase 2 happens, and before Phase 3, an additional traffic impact study, not an additional, an updated traffic impact study be implemented with the approval from Planning Department, Public Works and State Highway Department. And I think your argument was in your opinion these traffic studies are good for 20 years and it shouldn’t be required. So maybe, maybe you can extrapolate a little bit on that or my understanding. MOORE: Sure, sure. Let me step back. The original Condition G was adopted, you know, there was a traffic impact analysis done as part, in 2004, as part of the EIS, State Land Use boundary amendment. So there was an analysis done when we came in, so we kind of knew what the roadway improvements were going to be like. The zoning condition then was adopted, required to look at another traffic impact analysis. In 2009 we submitted that traffic analysis, the Planning Department approved it, and we have complied with Condition G, we can move on and build everything that we needed. When we applied for the Change of Zone, we triggered the concurrency requirements in Chapter 25-2-46, the Zoning Code, so we had to do another traffic study and, which we did, that traffic study specifically addresses mitigation measures tied to two things: One, if there is existing deficiencies or if your five-year review says that there is a deficiency, then you need to do the mitigation measures. Our traffic, but the traffic study is required to go out 20 years, so we looked out 20 years; in five years with these improvements, there is no impact; in ten years, which is our Phase 2, with the North and South Access Road improvements and Kanalani, there is no impacts; and then our 20-year build-out, we have to do some striping work, I mean, that’s the mitigation measure identified. So we looked at that. That is in compliance with the concurrency requirements. What this then did, and again, keep in mind that we have Kamanu, the goal is to build Kamanu Street, it’s designed, ready to go, we don’t have the financing, so with this sales hopefully we can build Kamanu. The original condition would require us to do another traffic study before we could implement, even if we had the money today, we’d have to do another traffic study, which is a 40 to 50 thousand dollars, that’s not a big deal but it is a significant impact; we’d have to do another traffic study even though the road is fully designed. And the same thing if we move to increment 3. And, but that also, the traffic study requires us, the way the language worked is to look at the regional requirements – our current traffic study looked at, I think, eleven off-site intersections – and analyze that, and we have to mitigate that; if there were impacts there, we’d have to mitigate that. In fact, one of the mitigation measures was turning lanes on Kealakehe Parkway, that we needed a right-turn lane, which thankfully the State built as part of its Ka‘ahumanu improvements, so the mitigation requirement has been addressed. What we felt was unfair is if, in looking at the Phase 2 and Phase 3 one, if there wasn’t change in circumstance, we don’t need to do the study, to looking at these regional requirements and facing potential mitigation measures again over and above 10 EXHIBIT B what’s required in this, the concurrency requirements, we felt, was not fair, not consistent with the Zoning Code. At the same time we acknowledge that for design elements, if Public Works wants a design traffic impact to look at how long should a turning lane be, what kind of improvements should be required, we have absolutely no objections to that and our proposed language included that. We also acknowledge that, you know, rather than the 20-year time frame, if there is a significant change in circumstances – and again, I know that there was some going background on significance, but significance is a term of art in the planning and legal field, it’s used in Chapter 343, if there is a significant impact, then you need to go do a full EIS, the same thing with the SMA, Rule 9, if there is a substantial significant impact, you need to go from a Minor Permit to a Major Permit, so that is a term of art, there is guidance, lawsuits on that – so we felt that, you know, and we offered this, if there was a significant impact or change in circumstances from what we analyze, then, fair, that we need to look at a regional TIAR. If the TIAR was looking at design turning-lane requirements that Public Works wants as part of their road design review, great, ask us of that and we shall do it. And that’s the changes that we suggested and that is the final language that is the handwritten language that I think Planning has agreed with. So stepping back again, we think we complied with the regional requirements. We have no objections to being required to do TIARs as we go through design elements, but not to have it done just because we move from a phase, like I said, if we move to construct Kamanu Street tomorrow, we couldn’t do it, we’d have to do a TIAR first. UNGER: Right, and I understand that and appreciate the discussion. That makes sense to me, and it’s almost ironic or counterproductive that you have to do a traffic impact study before you build Kamanu Street. That being said, I think the genesis of that recommendation was from your own report, the one of the recommendation, so why did, why did your consultant recommend an updated traffic study before each phase? MOORE: I think there is a, you know, we didn’t talk to the traffic, we will talk to him about this and, be careful about the language, but, you know, these are guidance and, you know, if needed, great, we’ll do it. But, you know, a lot of this is, there is a set of assumptions that you make and you are projecting out and, you know, it’s one where, you know, and again, if you look at the – and I looked at it and I should have brought with me – in the recommendation segment it is talking about the 20-year life of the TIAR and then talking about the impact in phases. So, you know, and generally, things happen way out over time, and again, if we are not built by 2020, or in 20 years, and again circumstances change, you know, then, fair, we’ve got to do it. But, you know, I think it was not intended to be used as a regulatory tool, which is, you know, how it was being applied here; you said this, therefore we are going to impose it on you. It’s a guidance tool. And we believe that as a guidance tool it’s great; as a regulatory statement it doesn’t work. And so that’s where we’ve been going back and forth with the Planning Director over specific language and specific requirements and what’s reasonable. UNGER: Thank you. We’re kind of doing this on the fly as we see, so there’s a good opportunity, we just got a chance to look at this. Has staff, or Director Yee, had a chance to look at this and what are your comments on their proposed language changes? KAY: So, if I may, I think generally, speaking for myself, I don’t have a problem with that. In my conversation with Public Works, which led to the email from Natalie Whitworth, we were 11 EXHIBIT B more talking about the internal roadway system and what type of design features or intersection improvements would be needed as part of the additional phases. So I, I’m in agreement with removing the more regional impact language from that. They did say that they’d like the Planning Department and the Director to kind of be the point person in consultation with Public Works and Department of Transportation, so I believe that this language keeps that as is and just adds the language from their proposed condition that says, “if warranted by a significant change in circumstances or as may be required by the Department of Public Works during the design and review of construction plans for future road segments,” I think that captures it. If at the time the roadway designs come in and there is a need for further study to determine what type of work needs to be done on roadway or intersection segments, then there will be an opportunity to capture that. And the Director also would have an opportunity to kind of look at the overall big picture, should anything come out, and kind of work with that as well. So I’m okay with it. Director Yee? YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. Yes, I’ll confirm that the Planning Department is fine with this revision. MOORE: And just, you know, I just want to point out, too, you know, this is all being going at the last minute; I cannot say how much we really appreciate this coordination, openness, talking to us, letting us share our concerns, listening. So whatever happens, I just want to say we really appreciate how this conversation has been going on. SMITH: Maybe I can just make an additional comment. You know, the email that was attached to the Director’s letter that included comments from Aaron Takaba, Traffic Division, and Natalie Whitworth, Engineering Division, both of them were not in the position when we went with the road circulation plan seven years ago with Ki Emler and Ron Thiel, their predecessors at Engineering Division and Traffic Division; they may not be aware that those Kamanu Street plans were signed off on; they may not be aware of the road circulation plan and the horizontal and geometric design that was approved by Engineering Division that allowed us to do a lot of the grading that’s underway there; Ki instituted some roadway setbacks in addition. So a lot of the work that we are proceeding with design is kind of pre-approved, so that we could go ahead and get Kamanu Street approved, so that we could proceed with Kanalani North and South Access. Because if you don’t have your horizontal and geometric controls and you are going to excavate out the land that we are excavating right now, and then you want to build the road, then you have to go fill it all. So a lot of this precedes their involvement of those two Divisions. MOORE: What’s the width of South Access Road between Kanalani \[inaudible\]? SMITH: Yeah, the width at the traffic signal right now is 105 feet, so where the traffic signal is for South Access, Goodfellow built it a little bit bigger than the plan showed, so our requirement is an 84-foot right of way, it’s actually 104, so we are going to do a transition and get up to the 84-foot right of way when we get to Kanalani and South Access Road. South Access up to Kamanu is 80 feet. All the other roads are 60-foot right of way. Kamanu has a ten-foot wide widening setback, and South Access has a ten-foot wide widening setback. 12 EXHIBIT B MOORE: And I want to point out that the minimum requirement, if you just go by normal road standards, for South Access Road that’s 104 feet is 60 feet. So a lot of this work has been done already. So again, there’s a through, you know, so a lot of the design work and setbacks, or, not setbacks, the standards have been design-negotiated, and are actually being designed as we speak. UNGER: Great, thank you. Commissioners, any more questions? Staff, any more comments? KAY: Right, so Jeff \[Darrow\] was just saying before we go forward and entertain a motion, I just want to nail down what the conditions say, and in conversation with Mr. Moore before hearing, I asked if outside of Condition G, which there were issues and concerns, if he was generally okay with the other changes in the Director’s memo, and he indicated that he was. And if you can confirm on the record — th MOORE: Yes, absolutely. We are, again, this August 15 we are in agreement with all of the changes contained in here, except for Condition G, and we are in agreement with the proposed changes, the handwritten changes. So based on the, so the revised Condition G and all the other changes proposed by the Planning Director we are in agreement with. And we are also in agreement with Condition K as originally recommended by the Planning Director. UNGER: Thank you. Can you make an attempt to craft the motion based on this discussion? KAY: Sure, so, I mean — UNGER: Oh — HALL: Wait, wait, let’s have the Commission choose what they would like to do first before we craft a motion. KAY: Okay, fair enough. UNGER: Okay, in fact, why don’t we go – we still need to open up the public discussion, if there are any – so why don’t we take a seat, and then we’ll let the process go as it will. MOORE: And again, just thanks to the staff and the Director for, again, their just cooperation in working with us. UNGER: Great, you’re welcome. VITOUSEK: Actually, if you don’t mind if I ask a question to the applicant. UNGER: Sure. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Just looking at the maps presented and the site plan, there is an archaeological protection purposes easement up, that runs mauka-makai, and then right at the Kamanu Street, is that another archaeological site, the little squiggly lines in there? 13 EXHIBIT B SMITH: Yes. VITOUSEK: Is that a burial site that’s in a lava tube? SMITH: There’s a number of them, yeah. You want me to kind of give the background? VITOUSEK: Sure. I’m just looking at that; in my opinion it looks like there is a burial site blocking that road. SMITH: Mr. Vitousek, thank you for raising that question. The original archeological inventory survey was provided by Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, I think, in the 90’s, okay. Myra Tuggle and her husband also were involved in this. We went through, to obtain State Historic Preservation Division office approval, as well as worked with Hawai‘i Island Burial Council to obtain their approval on the disposition of all the burials, okay. There is a number of other larger complexes mauka of the upper quarry, but the ones in this area there are two burial areas. We’ve worked with Isaac Harp who is the cultural monitor for the families in this area. He’s actually staked out the entire archaeological preserve. We have signs, warning signs, every 50 feet along the corridor of that thing that sort of looks like a rifle. And then the two burial areas: One, with the approval of the Burial Council, we put in a stainless steel gate that’s lockable and that was to provide an alternative, should some inadvertent remains be discovered during construction, we would have the option to reintern them in that location; the other one had an infant burial and it was sealed. And the rock wall designs that were approved by the Burial Council have been put in place and are completed. VITOUSEK: Right, but, is the Kamanu Street alignment a viable alignment or is there a burial site that’s going to prevent the construction of that — SMITH: There’s no burials within the alignment. What we did was we worked with State Historic Preservation Division when they signed off on the grading permit – I don’t think it was you – they allowed a bridge section of the road, so it’s actually like an at grade concrete reinforced steel bridge that does not transfer the load of the road over the lava tube that’s beneath it. VITOUSEK: Got you. Okay, thank you. KAY: I just wanted to add that Condition Q as proposed says, “The applicant, successors or assigns shall fully comply with the provisions stipulated in the Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division approved Archaeological Preservation Plan and Burial Treatment Plan.” So we did capture that as well. UNGER: Great, thank you. Thank you, Applicants. If there are any members of the public to testify, this is your opportunity. Seeing no members from the public here to testify, I would like to entertain a motion to close public testimony. KEALOHA: So move. 14 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Second. UNGER: We have a motion by Commissioner Kealoha, second by Commissioner Vitousek. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. UNGER: Opposed? \[None.\] Public hearing is closed. At this time, Commissioners, we can entertain a motion for this agenda item. HALL: If you guys want to take a recess to craft the motion, we can do that together, yeah. UNGER: A motion to recess? Okay, let’s take a recess then. We’ll take a ten-minute recess and reconvene in ten minutes. Thank you. RECESSED Chairman Unger called a recess at 10:59 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:08 a.m. UNGER: The hearing is reconvened. Staff, did you have a comment to start with? KAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to put on the record: The Director’s August 15, 2018, memo, the last condition was supposed to reference Condition K; the memo actually referenced Condition H, so that was done inadvertently, it should reference Condition K. UNGER: Thank you. So noted. I’d like to open up the floor for a motion. KEALOHA: Mr. Chair, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the request to amend Change of Zone Ordinance No. 04 110, based on the Planning Director’s recommendation, findings and proposed amended conditions, which shall be adopted, except for changes to Conditions D, E, F, K in the Director’s August 15, 2018, memo and the applicant’s final changes to Condition G as proposed at the August 16, 2018, hearing as follows: “An updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) certified by a licensed engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director in consultation with the Department of Public Works and the State Department of Transportation, if warranted by a significant change in circumstances or as may be required by the Department of Public Works during the design review of construction plans for future road segments. The improvements identified in the updated TIAR shall be provided in an appropriate design year or phased with the needed right-of-way provided. Mitigation measures called for in the revised TIAR that are reasonably related to the project impacts shall be implemented meeting with the approval of the Planning Director in consultation with the Department of Public Works and the State Department of Transportation.” HALL: Sorry, just for clarification, he said “except for,” but I think the right terminology should have been “including.” Those, they are all being adopted, yeah. 15 EXHIBIT B UNGER: Do we have a second? YATES: Second. Commissioner Yates, second. UNGER: We have a motion by Commissioner Kealoha, second by Commissioner Yates. The floor is open for discussion. \[None.\] Roll call. KAY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Yates? YATES: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: And Chair – pardon me – Chair Unger? UNGER: Aye. KAY: Thank you. Motion carries four-nothing. UNGER: Thank you. Applicants, you’ll be notified in writing by the Planning Commission. Aloha. The discussion ended at 11:12 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 16 EXHIBIT B