REP PC 057 04/04/2006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 691 Bi11228 Page 4 of 5 Norman Hayashi stated that the department did receive a cost estimate and analysis in response to the County's request for a study and that they are in touch with the Department of Transportation regarding intersection improvements. Mr. Hayashi estimates that the $400,000 is enough to do the intersection improvements, but not installation of signalization. The study estimated a cost of $350,000 to construct intersection improvements, but the signalization costs were not part of that estimate. Mr. Hayashi also stated he was not sure where the Watershed area started, but the department was following Council resolutions that it's okay to rezone. Council Member Jacobson noted that the applicant's statement that there is minimal or no impact as a result of the rezoning does not necessarily make it true. Mr. Jacobson said the density in Kaloko Mauka Subdivision has more than doubled in some instances and further rezonings cannot be justified by the fact that these kinds of rezonings have been done before. Mr. Jacobson confinned with Mr. Hayashi that original lot sizes in Kaloko was 20-acres and noted that there are already a variety of A-3 and A-5 rezonings that have increased density four or six-fold in many sections of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. Council Vice Chair Isbell stated the need to determine the total amount of fair share contributions and whether or not this application is approved, the intersection improvements still need to be made. The traffic situation in this area is not functioning because Kaloko Mauka Subdivision has been "nit-picked" at for years. Ms. Isbell concluded we need to stop and take a look at Kaloko and protect the forest. The Planning Department needs to come through with a very clear statement because although there is a condition in all these rezonings that require SO% of every single lot remain in forest, this is not being done. Therefore Ms. Isbell is not supporting anything in Kaloko. Committee Member Safarik discussed the State ownership of that portion of the Mamalahoa Highway that intersects with Kaloko Mauka and the fact that this particulaz improvement project has not been a part of or included on the State Transportation Improvement Project ("STIP") list. Mr. Safarik stated that the County can do everything it can, but if the particular project is not included in the STIP, the project can't move forward. Mr. Mooers responded that the State wants the County to identify the improvements to be made, then the Department of Transportation wants to approve the proposed project and then have the County pay for it. Mr. Safarik stated that he sees the dilemma, however potential rezoning of other 20-acre parcels will definitely increase density in the area and eventually something has to be done with that intersection. Mr. Safarik concluded these discussions are long overdue. Council Chair Higa stated that the applicant knew at the time he purchased the property, that it was zoned A-20 and therefore he is leaning towards holding off on these kinds of applications until completion of the Community Development Plan for Kona. Chair Higa also stated he'd like to wait for the fair share dollar figures to come back from the Planning Department. Council Member Safarik acknowledged Mr. Mooers' statement that Mr. Mooers as well as other consultants are not clear as to the direction this council is taking with respect to development in this area. Mr. Safarik stated however, when the General Plan authorized initiation of a CDP for Kona, the concept of concurrency was evident and concluded what is consistent, is that any development that is approved, infrastructure must be able to carry it. Mr. Safarik agreed that both the legislature and administration need to come up with a policy. PC REPORT NO. 57