Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-18 TSMITH PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 18, 2004 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of TOM SMITH (SLU 04-005/ was called to order at 11:15 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach REZ 04-008) Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman Earl Fujikawa presiding. PRESENT:Earl Fujikawa ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Fred Galdones C. Kimo Alameda Bill Graham JeffreyMcCall Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill P. Thibadeau Patricia O€Toole, Deputy Corporation Counsel Chris Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 23 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: TOM SMITH (SLU 04-005/REZ 04-008) a.State Land Use Boundary Amendment for 4.07 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Rural District. b.Change of Zone for 4.07 acres of land from an Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to a Residential and Agricultural .5-acre (RA-.5a) district. The property is located along the north side of Church of God Road, approximately 600 feet west (makai) of the Hawaii Belt Highway (State Highway 190) ƒ Church of God Road intersection, Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-19:28. FUJIKAWA:Next Applicant is Tom Smith (SLU 04-005/REZ 04-008). a.State Land Use Boundary Amendment for 4.07 acres of land from Agricultural to Rural District; b.Change of Zone for 4.07 acres of land from an Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to a Residential and Agricultural .5-acre (RA-.5a) district. Staff, go ahead. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could take a moment, we have received one or two late letters from the public, and I€m going to pass those around. We do not have copies of them. 1 If I could direct your attention, again, to the location map on the board, the subject location is in North Kona and this is going to be -. This white line coming through the center of the map moving in again in a northerly, southerly direction, is Mamalahoa Highway. In the south direction, you come to Palani Road in this area. Moving makai and mauka, we have Hinalani Street as well as Kaiminani Drive in this area. If I could bring your attention to a recent rezoning that we had earlier, this was for Hualalai Vistas in this area. The application that we are looking at today is on the boundary of Hualalai Vistas identified in red in this area. The Applicant, Tom Smith, is requesting a State Land Use Boundary from Agricultural to Rural for 4.07 acres of land and, also, a Change of Zone from Agricultural 3-acres to Residential-Agricultural .5-acres. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 7-lot subdivision of approximately ž-acre lots. Theseareidentifiedinthisparticulararea,theproposedlayoutofthesubdivision.This road here on the south side of the parcel that we€re looking at is the Church of God Road. On the north side of the property is the parcel that is owned by Hualalai Vistas and has been recently rezoned to Family Agricultural 1-acre. I€ve recently, also, had gotten a little bit of, I don€t know how I can do this, but this is a representation of what the subdivision at Hualalai Vistas and as well -. Let me hold that up. Okay, thank you. The area in yellow is the Smith property and the green lines indicate the alignment, proposed alignment for the Hualalai Vistas. As you can see in the upper area, we€re looking at a proposed alignment from Hualalai Vistas into the Smith property and lining up with the Kohanaiki Homestead Subdivision, that€s directly across from the Tom Smith property. Thank you, I€ll put that down. The reason for showing you this is roads have been, are an issue in this particular application. We€ve received numerous letters, some of support, some of opposition. The main concern is the roadway issue; and if I could address that briefly. In our conditions, mainly Conditions E and F, we have addressed, we feel, addressed the issues of the access for this particular application. Tom Smith has recently drafted a grant of easement, 55-foot easement, through his property that will address any concerns in the future regarding access through the property. Hualalai Vistas in their rezone were conditioned that they needed to connect from not only the north side with a roadway but, also, to the south side. The County is trying to align up the connection through Tom Smith€s property to align with the Kohanaiki Homesteads Subdivision so it can provide access onto Mamalahoa Highway for both the Smith property and residents in this particular area. There is a draft that we€ve received just, I believe, yesterday. So, hopefully, you folks had gotten a copy of that, and that€s the draft of this grant of easement through the Smith€s property. 2 The purpose of that is that if Hualalai Vistas is constructed or developed and Smith€s property does not go through, we do have a grant of easement through his property that Hualalai Vistas can construct to Church of God Road. So there won€t be anything that will stop the development of the road to connect to Church of God Road so that Hualalai Vistas can comply with their condition in their ordinance. If something does happen and access is not provided through Smith€s property to Hualalai Vistas, they will be required in Condition F to have to construct to dedicable standards the roadway of their entire frontage from, of their property all the way east to the intersection at Mamalahoa Highway to County standards. So that€s the other option. Now, it appears that things are being resolved through Hualalai Vistas and the Tom Smith property to provide access via those roadways. Again, we have received numerous letters; and I€ve recently passed out two that we€ve receivedthismorning. ThePlanningDirectorisrecommendingafavorablerecommendationofboththeState Land Use Boundary Amendment and the Change of Zone to the Planning Commission. FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, with the staff? Graham? GRAHAM:Just a quick one, Jeff. I hope I didn€t miss this, and it was in your presentation somewhere. But I know some of the letters we got people were concerned about the timing that if, in fact, this project were to move ahead before the Hualalai Vistas one gives the access that whatever kind of heavy equipment would need to come in has to come down to Church of God Road; and they€re concerned about the impacts on that. Do you have anything to offer in that regard? DARROW:The Hualalai Vistas is proposed to develop first. Now as far as, I spoke to the Director briefly about this, maybe he can be able to speak about it. But it appears that, I€m not sure we€re in a situation where we can limit them from being able to bring in equipment a certain way. We can, you know, hopefully be able to have them bring it in through Hualalai Vistas. They€re going to be in a process of doing construction shortly. They€re just waiting for the subdivision approval to go forward to get their grading permits. So they€re in the process of being able to go forward. At the same point, we can try to work with the Applicants to be able to bring the construction through Hualalai Vistas to the road. Church of God Road, obviously, is not constructed in a manner that you would even be feasible to bring heavy equipment down that road. GRAHAM:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? Chris Yuen? YUEN:You know, we don€t have a specific condition on that point of construction equipment, but I think we could add a condition. The basic concept is that Hualalai Vistas would develop first and that, and then the Smith property; and the Smith 3 property would then have its access through Hualalai Vistas. We did leave open the possibility that the Smith property could be developed off of Church of God Road, but with the condition that Church of God Road be developed to full County dedicable standards. This is probably completely impractical for anybody that has seen Churchof God Road, but it€s left out there as a possibility; butit€s extremely impractical and I -. As far as the construction equipment for the Smith property, that would be a good condition to put in, that it come in from the connection with Hualalai Vistas, which would be a much improved road over the present Church of God Road. FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, with the staff or the Director? Will the Applicant or his representative, please step forward. Kindly raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii Planning Commission? FUKE:Ido. FUJIKAWA:Stateyournameandyouraddress? FUKE:Goodmorning,Mr.Chairman,membersoftheCommission.My name is Sidney Fuke, I€m a Planning Consultant. My address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii. FUJIKAWA:You€ve received the Background Report and also the Recommendation? FUKE:Yes. I€d like to acknowledge, however, initially, that Mr. Tom Smith, the owner-applicant is also present, as well as we have Mr. Bruce Witcher, who is the engineering consultant, you know, in the event that there are questions relating to their components. Mr. Smith has had a chance to review the staff€s Background Report and the Proposed Recommendations and found them to be acceptable. I€d like to just, I think the staff€s report is fairly comprehensive. And I€d like to just, however, just touch upon, you know, several items which were either not mentioned, and expand on some other items which I know that have been like a concern to many of the existing neighbors in that area. First of all, I think that, as the staff indicated, the request is essentially for the creation of six additional lots for a total of seven lots, seven ž-acre lots. There would be a no ohana restriction, if approved, you know, for this project, as stipulated in the staff€s proposed condition; but this would also be something that the Applicant already had in mind. In addition to that, there was an archaeological inventory survey performed, and that was approved by the State. And the survey identified one feature with two burials in that area; and those burials will be preserved, subject to the preparation and acceptance of the Burial Treatment Plan. That burial feature kind of lies on the mauka portion of the property. 4 I think as the staff report and, you know, if you look at all of the comments that, public comments you have received on this application, you€ll find that there does not appear to be too much of an issue relating to the land use in the area. You know, just looking at the existing lot sizes and what€s coming up in that area. You know, the residential, rural residential lot would appear to be consistent. However, what appears to be driving much of the concern deals like with the infrastructure issue, particularly on the roadway question. The Applicant recognizes the concern. And over the last three or four months, actually, even longer than that, we have been working very closely with the County Planning Department and trying to inform the community as far as, you know, how to best address this overall infrastructure question primarily relating to roadway and indirectly with the water system. Obviously, you know, the Applicant wants to develop the property, but as a property owner wants to find somemeanstobeabletohelpaddresstheinfrastructureissueandnotnecessarilyhinder it. And I think in the end like what the staff has proposed, you know, in our estimation, reflects a very pro-active, comprehensive approach to addressing infrastructure where you, you know, you address not only the developer€s needs but more than that you address the broader community€s needs. And what is the outcome? I think the outcome is partially reflected in what the Director and the staff had indicated. But if I could use and maybe, you know, use that presentation map to kind of further describe the project -. Mr. Chairman, can I go up there? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. FUKE:If I can just kind of direct your map, you know, direct your attention ƒ. Can you see? THIBADEAU:I€ll look over your shoulder. FUKE:Okay, thank you. But I€m not very tall so, okay -. This is generally the proposed subdivision layout. Now, what it referred, and this is mauka, and this makai. The Church of God Road, the Homestead Road, is this narrow road that goes mauka-makai. The Hualalai Vistas Subdivision that€s referred to in the application is this property over here, to the, actually, it runs to the north of the property. The way the conditions are structured, the conditions are structured in the manner where it states that the development of this property would be, would get its access and all of its required infrastructure through one of two means. The preferred means is really getting it through the Hualalai Vistas Subdivision, which is the development of this area; and the Hualalai Subdivision eventually has a roadway that would connect to this property and, eventually, through this property. And, in so doing, when you do that then it means that your roadway system and your waterline would have to be extended all the way to the Church of God Road. You know, that is the first option and the most desirable option. 5 The other option, as the Planning Director had indicated, allows, you know, in the event Hualalai Vistas does not develop, you know, for its own reason, does not develop in a timely manner and Mr. Smith wishes to develop his property in advance of Hualalai Vistas coming on line, then the other option, as the Director mentioned, is that he can develop it, but he has to improve Church of God Road to full County dedicable standard. And that I think, and I would tend to agree with the Director that it would really not be a realistic alternative. Because given the cost involved to improve Church of God Road, bring the waterline and, you know, only for a six- or seven-lot subdivision, it just doesn€t balance out, combined with the fact that the existing road right-of-way of the Church of God Road, you know, ranges from about 20 to 35 feet and the required County dedicable standard calls for 50-foot right-of-way, which means now Mr. Smith would have to condemn properties or find means to acquire, you know, additional land to make it, you know, a full dedicable standard roadway. So,ultimately,whatwillhappenisthatifHualalaiVistasisnotdeveloped,thenprobably Mr. Smith would not develop, you know, knowing that the only way he can develop his property is to do the Church of God Road highways, improvements rather. So I think the pro-active way, and in addition to that, what the Department is saying is that, and to which Mr. Smith is agreeing to, is that there€s also the possibility that Hualalai Vistas may develop. And if for some reason Mr. Smith may not want to develop his property, I don€t know -. But if Mr. Smith chooses not to develop his property, what the County is requiring and Mr. Smith is agreeing to is that he will nonetheless provide a 50-foot wide easement through his property that would connect Hualalai Vistas with the Church of God Road. So, at some point in time, then the County would be in a position to improve this small little section and, in so doing, provide access to the people who presently use Church of God Road to get through Smith€s property, and ultimately through Hualalai Vistas. You know, it provides an alternative relief. YUEN:No, that€s, actually, it€s a little bit farther than that. As part of the subdivision approval for Hualalai, if Hualalai Vistas goes first and Smith is not developing, as part of the subdivision approval for Hualalai Vistas, they have to build that road -. FUKE:Oh, okay. YUEN:To Church of God Road over that easement. FUKE:Through this easement? YUEN:Right. FUKE:Got you. YUEN:And the conditions of the rezoning for Hualalai Vistas are that these connector roadways have to be built to County dedicable standards and dedicated to 6 the County on request. So, and, although I don€t think we finalized the intersection requirements of Hualalai Vistas with Mamalahoa Highway, the idea is that it would be an improved intersection and much safer than the current intersection. So that the people who currently live in Kohanaiki Homesteads could go, whether Mr. Smith develops or not, as soon as Hualalai Vistas develops would be able to go out through Hualalai Vistas through a better road and to a safer intersection along Mamalahoa Highway. FUKE:Thank you. Thank you for the correction. It basically goes even further than what I thought. So, with that explanation, and if there are any further questions, I€d be more than happy to answer them. FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners? SPRINGER:Mr. Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Springer? SPRINGER:Good morning, Mr. Fuke. Could you show me on the map then wheretheintersectionwiththeroadunderdiscussionandtheMamalahoaHighwayis? Or, Jeff, can you do that? DARROW:Yes, ma€am. And we€re speaking about the intersection in Hualalai Vistas connecting. Okay, that would be where this green line connects here with Mamalahoa Highway. SPRINGER:And is that a new road and a new intersection, then? DARROW:Yes. It was, it€s going to be, it€s going through subdivision approval, it€ll be a requirement of subdivision. But it was also part of the rezone that they meet requirements of Department of Transportation in their connection with the State Highway. SPRINGER:Okay. May I continue? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. SPRINGER:In these discussions with the Police and Department of Transportation and Public Works, is the, are the traffic conditions discussed, not only the physical conditions of the roads but the tremendous backup that€s occurring there now where there are police officers directing traffic at Hinalani and Mamalahoa intersection, for example? FUKE:I€m sorry, your question is? 7 SPRINGER:In discussion with the various agencies that touch upon traffic, is the traffic congestion being discussed not only physically the conditions of the intersections that get people on and off of the Mamalahoa Highway but, for example, in the afternoons? Police officers are now directing traffic at the Hinalani and Mamalahoa intersection, and I€m wondering if those circumstances are taken into consideration in your discussions. FUKE:The discussion for this 7-lot subdivision dealt more with trying to address the internal circulation movement, you know, between the Hualalai Vistas and the existing Kohanaiki Homestead area. And the direct answer to your question, no, it was not addressed. You know, it€s probably like about a mile south of, you know, where the proposed intersection is. If you look at the map with the board on, as the staff had indicated, Hualalai Vistas is required to construct a fully-improved intersection at that highway; and I€m looking at the condition which could include like a, dedicated left- turn/right-turnlanesinthatarea.Soitwouldprovideanewaccesswayintothislower Kohanaiki area, not only to Royal Hualalai Vistas but through Smith€s property, would enable residents in that area to take access to a new improved and safer highway. SPRINGER:So then this new road in its improved condition would be of benefit to all of the individuals who live makai of Mamalahoa Highway in that they would have better sight distance at this new intersection? FUKE:That is the whole objective, correct. So I think that if one can just understand or visualize that if Hualalai Vistas came in with an application that already included Smith€s property, then this issue would, you know, really be redundant, because that access to, the physical access to the Homestead Road would already be there. It just so happens that right, you know, Hualalai Vistas does not have any physical connection to Hualalai Road. This property provides that connection. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners, with the Applicant? If not, Mr. Fuke, could you sit on the side. I have five people who signed up to testify. Will the people stand up. Paula Wilson, Carol Souther, Andrew MacIsaac, Robert Whitmyer and Curtis Tyler. Okay, Mr. Tyler, I€ve already sworn you in so you may sit down. TYLER:I€d like to go after these folks. FUJIKAWA:Sure. Four of you people, please kindly raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. Yes, sir. 8 FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Go ahead and introduce yourselves with your address and then we go to the next person. What is your name? MACISAAC:My name is Andrew MacIsaac and I live at 73-1183 Mamalahoa Highway. FUJIKAWA:Okay. And next person? WILSON:My name is Paula Wilson and I live at 73-4517 Mamalahoa Highway, which on the map is Lot No. 2. FUJIKAWA:Okay. And the next person, your name? SOUTHER:Carol Souther, 73-4526 Mamalahoa Highway is my address. FUJIKAWA:Okay. SOUTHER:That€s not where I live. WHITMYER:My name is Robert Whitmyer. I live on the same street but I don€t knowthelotnumber. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Let€s start with your testimony with your first. MACISAAC:It appears that the Planning Commission has done a fair amount of work on the roadway issues and I think that€s primarily the, at least my concerns and a lot of the concerns of the neighbors. But I think a bunch of the questions I have in my testimony have been addressed, but I think I€d like to go ahead and just go ahead and read my testimony to emphasize the concerns that I have and some of my neighbors do. I am an abutor to abutors to the property under consideration. My first objection to the application is the classification request itself. The 1989 County General Plan for this applicant€s parcel and the larger area of North Kona over time appears to be Low Density Urban and Residential. The County General Plan Revision Program for 2002 proposed general plan documents have a Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map of North Kona, it€s number, Map No. 2, showing the area bounded by Hina Lani Street, Kaiminani Street and Mamalahoa Highway to be an area slated for urban expansion as Low Density Urban. This is an area serviced by major islandwide thoroughfares and is already a center for residential development and urbanization in Kona. I have heard testimony at previous hearings describing the agricultural marginality of the land in this immediate area and have some hands on experience to believe it to be likely. I think the fallacy that this and similar applications perpetuate is that a zoning change from a larger 4-acre Ag-3 lot to an Ag lot one seventh the size creates a greater agricultural potential on this marginal land and is not in effect residential urbanization. In fact, this application is low density residential urbanization, masking itself as 9 agricultural without any of the planned nor existing infrastructure to support it. This is true whetherthe lots are half-acre or 7,500 square feet. The result is residential urban impacts. And the only way to minimize these impacts would be for the applicant to build as zoned as that is what our infrastructure level can handle. The General Plan document, Article 5, division 5, section 25-5-1 regarding residential RS zoning states a single family residential district for lower and low and medium density districts for urban and suburban family life having the facilities to carry out the above stated purpose.‚ In the light of the General Plan for the area, I would suggest that this application qualifies, admittedly on the low end of the RS division, and the only reason the area may be lacking facilities is because of the general deficit of infrastructure in the area. The same document, Sec. 25-5-50, regarding the zoning classification the applicant seeks, RA zoning for residential and agricultural districts, states low density residential lots in rural areas where city like‚ concentrations of people and structures andstreetsareabsentandwheresmallfarmsareintermixedwithresidentiallotsforuse only in areas designated in the State Land Use rural or urban districts. Here again the applicant qualifies. So what the County in effect ends up is the same low density, excuse me, the same low density urban residential impacts with none of the mitigation of a higher zoning, that a higher zoning requirement could provide. And as an aside, if one has lived in Kona as long or longer than I have, it feels pretty city like‚ right now. If the General Plan document considers the facts on the ground today, then this application fits nicely. However, if the 1989 General Plan and the General Plan update documents are followed as a plan for a future low density urban situation, then the application is submitted with the wrong classification. I have made the comparison of the two classifications as I read them because if there is any advantage to the County by insisting that as per the General Plan, the application is submitted in the wrong classification, then this Commission should at least require that change before approval and hopefully gain an added infrastructural requirement of this applicant. As it stands now the General Plan calls for low density urban expansion. The applicant is applying for low density agricultural and will avoid paying for the urban impacts that the County will have to deal with. I€d also like to take issue with the notion that a ž acre residential lot is low density; and for agricultural lots it€s actually an extremely high density and should be treated as such. The willingness to allow residential urbanization to happen in this manner is what has created the disaster of West Hawaii infrastructure. In truth the ultimate reason behind the opposition to this application is because of a previous zoning change approval that allowed an, in effect, residential urbanization without the supporting infrastructure. Our homes now sit on that land and we have had an education, bar none, on what a mess this type of zoning approval can create. The question here is can the Planning Commission require the applicant to provide for all of the infrastructural improvements on the Government Road (Church of God Road) to the extent that the improvements mitigate the obvious impacts this application will have on the neighborhood and if not, can the planners require a zoning change level that would provide a sufficient Impact Fee Assessment that would allow the County to create the needed improvements. Can the 10 Commissioners require the applicant to create an Improvement District that existing homeowners would agree to and other zoning change applicants would be required to participate in? I have heard the Commissioners express their frustration with this development/ infrastructure dilemma before, and the County wants the developer to provide for the improvements as a part of development, and to the affected public, the improvements should be in place before the development. Why this disconnect? Because all too often promised eventual improvements become unlikely. So, to us, the remedy is deny the zone change until the infrastructure is in place. To some that may sound like a government advocacy of a building moratorium, but of course it isn€t. Any applicant is welcome to build as zoned. If an applicant is dissatisfied with that result, that applicant is welcome to join the battle for infrastructure improvements. Just a few dissatisfied applicants could create a whole new class of people demanding infrastructure improvements,andinfactthisgroupmayhavemoreofaneffectoninfrastructure development than apparently limited, the limited effect the current groups have. This application may well conform to all of the various planning documents for West Hawaii, but all of those documents plan for new infrastructure to support new development. Whether the County or the developer provides these improvements, the eventual improvements do no good. They need to be assured prior to an application€s approval. With regards to infrastructure specifically related to this zoning and the mitigation that€ll be necessary, if the application is approved, I would like the Commissioners all to see these photos. Would you care to look at the photos I€ve taken of the road? FUJIKAWA:What did you say? Use the mike. MACISAAC:I€m sorry. Would you care to look at the photos I€ve taken of the existing Church of God Road? Could I pass them out or -? FUJIKAWA:Yeah, you can hand them over to the staff in the meantime. MACISAAC:Sure. FUJIKAWA:Are you done with your testimony? MACISAAC:No, I have some more. Thank you. These are just photos of the conditions of the roadway. I€ve labeled those photos with what I think are pertinent identification markers. I€ll continue with my testimony. This is the driveway, at this point, for 20 to 25 residences. Please note the broken concrete, take note of the narrowness, both stonewalls on private property, and the power poles are in the road right-of-way. Notice also the private waterlines that run on the stonewall. These are the conditions the neighborhood will be left dealing with when you consider this letter from the County to the neighborhood. If I could get you to look at this letter, also. This letter is the result of Carol Souther€s amazing persistence in badgering 11 the County into accepting this road in limbo as a County right-of-way. This badgering was the ultimate result of an unrealized eventuality that another area zoning change applicant suggested would happen, but that€s another story. As the copy suggests, the neighborhood thought that a one-time improvement with no further maintenance by the County would be an acceptable choice. This got the neighborhood an improvement that was supposed to allow fire truckaccess down the road, and a demand that the neighborhood absolve the County in writing of any responsibility. Needless to say this application would create a major impact on our self-maintained roadway and infrastructure, especially with the County refusing to be responsible for any maintenance. These facts could force us into a potentially serious conflict with the applicant regarding our electrical, water and road service with no help from the County. It€s not a stretch to imagine that the applicant would be using the neighborhood-maintained road to develop his property, run waterlines, receive electrical service; and then after making a mess of our infrastructure eventually connect with (the gated private) Hualalai Vistas,‚ leaving usholdingthebagwithnohelpfromtheCounty. Ihaveemphasizedeventually‚purposefully.Itishighlyunlikelythattheproposed Road Lot A,‚ and this may be resolved already but I€m going to read this paragraph anyway. It€s highly unlikely that the proposed Road Lot A‚ of this zoning change application would connect with the gated private Hualalai Vistas and very likely that the lot owners would end up using Government Road (Church of God Road) creating 7 more dissatisfied residents demanding to know how the County could allow such a situation to continue to deteriorate. The idea that this party could suggest interconnectivity with a gated private second party to allow a third party access to the highway sounds about as eventual as one can get. The neighborhood€s experience shows that suggested eventualities ultimately turn into unlikelihoods that come back to the Commission looking like poor planning decisions. This neighborhood has been burned before by eventualities. At the meeting where the Hualalai Vistas application was considered and approved, the State Highway Division had not provided the Planning staff with any information regarding the status of the intersection the Vistas would be required to construct at the highway. If the applicant is implying that the lot owners will be accessing the State Highway via Hualalai Vistas, then it seems proper planning would require that the application should be deferred and contingent upon an agreement between the State Highways and Hualalai Vistas regarding that intersection being resolved. Question: Are the Commissioners aware of such an agreement? And I believe that the staff has suggested that they€re at least moving towards some sort of resolution. At present, the applicant€s map shows the Road Lot A‚ to be tantalizingly close in alignment (This is the maps that the neighborhood has received from Mr. Smith) to be channelizing the, close in alignment to Hualalai Vistas road, but misaligned enough to thwart interconnectivity. The layout of the applicant€s subdivision lots would preclude moving his alignment, thereby requiring the eventuality of Hualalai Vistas moving their stndrd roads to accommodate this applicant. (A 1party,2partytobenefita3party eventuality). So by default the new lot owners could be required to access the lots via 12 Government Road (Church of God Road). This eventuality is more likely thanthe interconnectivity that the applicant suggests. Is the applicant intending on using Government Road as access? This isn€t clear, and as previously stated, using that road for access creates a host of issues to be solved with no help from the County. With this in mind, and while advocating against this zoning change application, but being aware that requiring a resolution of the State Highway/Hualalai Vistas intersection as a contingency for approval may be a bit more planning than we can handle at one time. An alternative layout of the applicant€s plot plan is another planning option. And I have drawn up on the map for that alternative layout that you may want to take a look at. The basic difference in the layout would be the elimination of the applicant€s Road Lot A‚ and substituting it with a dedicated County Road easement paralleling Government Road. An approximate 30-foot easement, the mauka-makai length of the property, would be about equivalent to the square foot area contained in the Road Lot A‚. This alternative layoutwouldallowtheCountytoplanforpotentialimprovementstoGovernmentRoad and recruit a potential ally to help badger the County into actually taking responsibility for the maintenance of the road. This requirement can also be put into the Commissioners€ back pocket, so-to-speak for, use with other applications. Eventually, the neighborhood infrastructure could be accommodated, perhaps as an improvement district to which this applicant could be required to contribute, or the Commissioners could allow it to be passed off to future lot owners, which would seem to them in the future as another bad planning decision coming home to roost. Either way, without this easement on this specific property, there will never be enough room in the Government Road right-of-way for infrastructure accommodations. This sort of easement should be a condition of approval regardless of whether or not the eventuality of interconnectivity with Hualalai Vistas is possible. To conclude, a few questions and statements. Firstly, in the Commissioners€ minds, is the General Plan zoning for the area, in the General Plan zoning for the area, is there really an emphasis on agriculture here or is it ultimately urban residential? Should the planners require the Single Family Residential classification instead of allowing the classification that the applicant is requesting, and would that requirement help mitigate the urban impacts this application will create? Considering the infrastructure deficit, should the County start working to its advantage? Can the planners require the creation of an improvement district as a remedy? Secondly, remember the County€s opinion of its responsibilities regarding the maintenance to Government Road. Be aware of the waterline, electrical service, roadway conditions and private property issues the neighborhood will be forced to deal with, potentially in an adversarial manner. Consider carefully that it is likely that interconnectivity with the gated private Hualalai Vistas will remain an eventuality resulting in a default use of Government Road. These are some of the reasons to defer or deny this application. If this application is approved, the eventuality of interconnectivity should be a conditional requirement that is assured now, not eventually. The application€s approval should be conditional regarding the resolution of Hualalai Vistas intersection at the State Highway and also conditional on a Government Road easement. 13 The reasons I have given for denial of this application in conjunction with my suggestion that the approval be contingent on so many eventualities being resolved now, Ibelieve, is enough to deny this application. I believe this Commission needs to accumulate some hard facts before proceeding to approve this application. The window for good planning decisions in this immediate vicinity will be open for only a shorttime; and, as a matter of fact, approval of this single application as it is will close the door on a viable infrastructure solution for the Government Road permanently. I wanted to read all of that even though it appears that alot of those concerns have been addressed, well, addressed in some form. But I think the eventual partofall these possibilities is really what concerns us all. So I think that€s the main thing to keep in mind as far as this testimony goes, is that we need to assure that these kind of roadway issues are resolved before these kinds of applications are approved. Let€ssee.Iguessonequickcommentregardingthepreviousapplicationisthat,andI don€t believe that Mr. Smith knows this, but Mrs. Springer seems to be concerned about native plants and Mr. Springer has a rather remarkable stand of native llama trees on his property that is really unusual for the area, but I just wanted to mention that. And as a direct concern to my property, which is located in a little different area, makai of Mr. Smith€s property, I have some concerns about the waterline issues. As you know, all of our waterlines come down from the highway; and my waterline, in particular, goes about twice as far as my neighbor€s waterlines go. So if a waterline is installed at the Church of God Road Lot A‚ junction, my waterline will still have to be run another, say, 750 feet makai of that area, so I€ll still have, and a number of people below me will also have waterline issues still. So, if water meters are installed at that point, we have some concerns as far as who€s going to be paying for those water meters, will there be future issues with waterlines going makai down to my property and below me to the Kohanaiki House Lots area that is at the end of the Government Road makai of all of this property? So maybe we can look at some of those waterline issues at some point during this testimony. Thank you very much. FUJIKAWA:Any question of -. Springer? SPRINGER:I was just wondering if, I don€t have any questions for the testifier, but I am wondering if the Director can respond to some of the concerns raised by the testifier, in particular the philosophical and practical issues that were raised regarding urbanization in its various forms. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? If not, Paula, go ahead. Oh, you have one? YUEN:I think she was asking me a question about -. FUJIKAWA:Oh, I see, I€m sorry. 14 YUEN:I think she was asking me a question about -. FUJIKAWA:Oh, I see, I€m sorry. YUEN:The infrastructure that we will be looking for for this project is not any different, whether it€s labeled RA, as in the application, versus RS, which would be Single Family Residential. Given, if it was a half-acre RS-zoned lotversus a half-acre RA-zoned lot, we would really look for the same kind of infrastructure. You€re correct, in reality, these are large residential lots, not small farm lots. That€s really quite clear. But it really, from the standpoint of what, the kind of road that the County would be looking for as an accessor the provision of water, there really isn€t any difference between the two. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? If not, Paula, go ahead. WILSON:Listening to you speak a little while ago, I can tell that you€ve alreadygivenquiteabitofconsiderationtothethingsthatareofmajorimportanceto most of us who live down this little bitty road, but I would like to read my testimony. Anyway, to reiterate how important it is to all of us, one thing that I€m hearing in your conversation is probably a lot. We need to hear it€s going to happen, not probably. Earlier this year Mr. Smith of Dallas, Texas purchased a plot of land between Kohanaiki Homesteads and a new subdivision, Hualalai Vistas. At the time of the purchase it was clear that this parcel of land was land-locked and the only access to it is by use of Church of God Road. Additionally, water is supplied from Mamalahoa Highway down to the various homes in this area utilizing the time honored Hawaiian method of above ground pipes from the water meters to the individual homes. Mr. Smith is requesting a zoning variance to divide his parcel into seven one-half acre lots. It is our understanding that Mr. Smith intends to build a road that will connect his property to Hualalai Vistas subdivision. However, it also appears that there is no binding agreement for that to happen and the planned roads do not intersect in such a manner to allow an easy connection. Therefore, Mr. Smith will need to use Church of God Road as his access road in order to build these homes. Church of God Road is a one lane, very narrow road that allows access to the residents of Kohanaiki area. At its narrowest point it will barely accommodate the width of a standard automobile. At its widest point it will accommodate something only slightly larger. The equipment required to clear Mr. Smith€s property and prepare it for building is far too large for this small road, both in terms of girth and weight. This is a winding and hilly road that would further impede the ability of moving such equipment. Additionally, the vehicles to deliver such equipment and the delivery trucks that would be used to deliver building materials require a wide radius when making turns. There is no room at that point where they would be completing such a turn to provide that wide 15 radius without causing property damage to my property or that of the neighbor directly across the street. Since Church of God Road is the only access road into and out of this area, it is imperative that for the safety and well beingofthe families living there, traffic such as these trucks should not be allowed down this road. An accident of any type could block this road for a considerable amount of time which, in turn, could create a life-threatening problem as well as a major inconvenience for all residents of this area. We are opposed to the zoning change Mr. Smith has applied for until such time as a binding agreement with the developer of Hualalai Vista is reached concerning access to Mr. Smith€s property from the north side of his property. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, with the testifier? If not, go ahead, Carol. SOUTHER:Well,I€mjustswimminghere.Ididn€thearanyanswerstoanyof these questions, just one. I guess I€ll just read and then put it in the files. We all seem to agree that Church of God is unsafe, the access to the highway; and we all seem to agree we need a safer egress and ingress. Approximately 50 cars exit Church of God Road each morning at 7 a.m., and at due course are re-entering from Mamalahoa Highway each evening starting at 4, making a dreaded left-hand turn, cars speeding around you. Yes, they swing and pass on the right. Between Hualalai Vistas 47 lots and Tom Smith€s proposed 7, 54 homes will be adding two cars each, approximately 108 more cars, 50 of ours. And that€s 158 cars, triple the amount of cars coming and going, tripling the amount of cars taking that risky left-hand turn. Upon returning each evening, is it truly going to be a safer egress and ingress for my neighbors that now use Kona Church of God Road? Ms. Springer mentioned, you know, the back-up. Well, Mr. Fuke, I believe, said that€s a mile away. Well, believe me, it€s backed up that mile. PUBLIC:More. SOUTHER:More. So you need to visualize at 4 or 5 o€clock this 150 cars coming up, stopping to make that left-hand turn. And how many more will be rear- ended, is what I would like to know. Do you really think this is going to be a safer alternative for us? The County has said that this is our legal access road, Church of God Road, and I€m just not too sure that this is going to be a better way to go. FUJIKAWA:Are you through? SOUTHER:I€m through. FUJIKAWA:You have any question, Commissioners, with Carol? Graham? 16 GRAHAM:Carol, you know, in, I feel like you€vegot, you know, a major issue with your road, which is terrible; and you guys have been living with it for a long time. And, so, when something like this comes up, it€s a chance to get some maybe redress from the County as far as improving things for you. But when I look at the overall thing, if there€s an overall traffic problem, it was probably made when we did the Hualalai Vistas thing, which we did, you know, with a lot of thought from us, but maybe mistakenly, I don€t know that. But it does feel to me like Mr. Smith is reaching a long way to try to accommodate what can help you guys out. And it seems to me the Planning Director has been quite firm with the Hualalai Vistas that he is going to require that it happen that way. So, other than your persistent problem of having that lousy road going into an over-burdened highway, I sure don€t know any, I don€t know what€s an appropriate reaction on my part or our part in a reasonable manner to give you any help. So if you, I mean, if there€s some little turnover, I mean, other than letting us know about yoursituationwhichyouallhaveverymuchdone,ifthere€ssomelittlekernelofthisor that that would really, the specific, that would really help us here that€s reasonable, you know, please come forth with it. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners -? SOUTHER:And you€ve read all of my letters? GRAHAM:I don€t know if I€ve read all of them. I sure have done some reading of your material. FUJIKAWA:Right. Okay. You may go ahead with your testimony. WHITMYER:My name is Robert Whitmyer. I live on the road that most everybody else lives on in that Kohanaiki Subdivision. And the biggest problem that I have is when you buy a piece of property, you want to do what you want to do with it. And I understand that things are going to change, Kona is going to change, people are going to build houses and homes and improve land; and that€s going to happen, that€s inevitable. There€s nothing you€re going to do to stop that. And you are in a position of where you have to do things for the overall common good. The only problem that I have is we keep doing things with in the future we€re going to do this, and in the future we€re going to do that, and if you do this, well, then we€ll do that; and if you do this we€ll go to the bank and we€ll get the money and we€ll do that.‚ And, you know, things don€t always happen like that here. Unfortunately, what we have, the reason I€m very cynical is we have a street that 10 or 12 families live on and we used to have a very poor entrance and exit to the property on Old Government Road, or Kona Church of God Road, or whatever you want to call it; and at some point we had a supposedly-approved entrance and exit from the other end of the street, which isn€t on this map here, and it was through some other people€s property that we were supposed to have easement to go to the highway on. So we spent a tremendous amount of time and 17 money to build a cement extension to this road that went up tothe highway and gave us a very nice exit so that we could enterone way,exit the other. Well, the people decided they didn€t want us drive into their property so a tremendous court battle ensued. And after thousands and thousands of dollars, they tore up our cement road, put boulders across it, closed the gate and all this thing that we were supposed to have from the 60€s where we have this subdivision with proposed, if you ever want to build a road, or if you want to do this, or one of these days they€re going to do that. Well, we did all of that and now we€re back to a crummy road that you can€t pass on, we can€t get a fire truck down, you can€t do anything else. All the thousands of dollars, And the turn that everybody spent to pour the cement and everything else to build the other road, totally thrown away, thousands of dollars that it cost us in court fees and attorney fees. We were worse off than we were in the beginning. Andthisisanextensionofthesamething.They€regoingtobuildanothersubdivision, they€re going to propose to add a road or an extension or help us out, or improve this, or improve that. It€s ridiculous. They shouldn€t do anything until they build the roads. If they built the roads, they€re going to build houses there, they€re going to improve the infrastructure, bring the water down where it€s supposed to be, improve the road, improve the exit to the highway and the entrance to the highway. It€s not like there might be an accident. There was somebody killed turning into our road. They stopped to turn left, the car ran in back of them and killed the lady; and there€s accidents that happen there all the time. I ran into my neighbor there about three days ago. I turned left into the street, you can€t even see them from the way the road is shaped, and I smashed into my neighbor at night. There€s no street lights, the road is a, it€s not even a left turn. It€s almost a u-turn off the highway to even get down in there, and you have to turn right. It€s like driving off a cliff. I mean, you€d have to absolutely see it to believe it. It€s ridiculous. And, you know, my understanding now, I€ve never even talked to the Tom Smith guy about it but what I understand is he has threatened that if we don€t go along with helping to get this approved that rather than relying on the Hualalai Vistas Subdivision as access to his property, he€s going to utilize Old Government Road to bring the trucks down and everything to improve his property. He has threatened us with if we don€t go along with him, that€s what he€ll intend to do to get his property developed. It€s absolutely ridiculous. That road is not usable by two cars, much less dump trucks and cement trucks and construction equipment. It€s ridiculous. If you€re not going to insist that he improve the entrance and exit for everybody, then there€s no reason for us to add more problem than it already is. Kona is going to grow, things are going to change, we have to live with that. I understand that. I mean, I live where people probably hated houses being built 30 years ago. But, at some point, we have to stop and say, let€s do the improvements before we keep approving more and more and more land to be developed with more and more houses and more and more problems. You€re the only ones that have that capability. Put your foot down. Make them build the roads, make them improve it. You cannot improve Old Government Road to where they can bring trucks down that road. It cannot be done. Anyway, it€s very frustrating. That€s the reason most everybody in this subdivision is 18 cynical is because we€ve been through it before and we just don€twant to see it happen again. We want good access to our houses. We can€t get an ambulancedown there, we can€t get a fire truck down there. We can even hardly get our cars down there. And they€re going to put seven more houses on there? It€s ridiculous. I really hope you guys would take a lot of this under consideration. I took the day off from work to come down here and vent my frustration. I hope somebody listens. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, any questions with Robert? WILSON:I€m sorry? Can I make a comment in addition to his, just briefly? FUJIKAWA:You may. WILSON:When they mentioned improving Church of God Road, widening it ormakingitaCounty-approvedroad,you€llhavetoconsiderthatistheonlyentrance into our homes and that -. I know by watching a freeway in California what happens. I know it happens there and the backup of the traffic. There€s not going to be a backup of the traffic. We won€t be able to get in and out of where we live because they€re building and improving the road, which ultimately will be good. But that takes time, and it takes equipment, and it makes us a prisoner of our homes while they€re doing it. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Mr. Tyler, before I call you, there€s another person who signed up to testify. TYLER:I€d be more than happy to let -. FUJIKAWA:Beverly Aikele. TYLER:I€d be happy to sit back. GRAHAM:Could I ask a question of the last testifier? FUJIKAWA:You may. Go ahead. GRAHAM:I just wanted to follow-up one question about what you just commented. Was, my sense was that from the plans that we saw that there would be a road extension coming across so that none of the units in this subdivision, the seven we€re looking at now, will be using Church of God Road and, furthermore, that you folks that use Church of God Road would have another alternative which would be to go out through this other road. So am I hearing something wrong or am I understanding something wrong? WHITMYER:Can I go up to this map right and point out -? GRAHAM:Surely. 19 FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. WHITMYER:I€m very sorry I€ve never talked in front of a large group, so bear with me. The thing that€s really a problem is, this is where we live, is basically in this area. And we were supposed to have easement up to the highway at this point. The original plans for this subdivision that they made in the 60€s, as I understand it, was that we would have entrance to Old Government Road, but we would have an easement through these other properties here to the highway. So, at some point, we built a cement road that went up here and connected with another road that was a driveway for some other property, and we were able to access the highway. So we could come in here and go out that way. There were two entrances or exits to every, however you wanted to do it. But, it actually made it pretty livable. Well, these people here have some fairly nice houses and stuff, and they didn€t want anybody driving through their property so they started to lock a gate and then they put boulders up on the road. Then we went to court anddidallkindsofbattles;andeventuallyweweren€tabletouseanyofthisexitover here anymore. So now everybody has to come in and go out of this property here. And what they€re proposing is, if they get all this approved and if they get all this approved and if, if, if, and one of these days we€re going to do a road from here, and then maybe down into here, and then maybe even connect here. It€s all maybe stuff. That€s what ridiculous. It shouldn€t be any maybe stuff. Build a road here, build a road here, connect it, give us proper authority to use it, you know, to where we can go in and come out, and there€s a road for everybody can use it, and everything is fine. I could care less what they do. They€re going to do all that eventually. You know they€re going to do it, I know they€re going to do it, that€s the way the world is. But what they€re proposing, as I understand it, we€ve been threatened that if we don€t go along with all this, he€s just going to bring his trucks down Government Road and work on his property here, and build it, and do whatever he€s going to do. And after this road is totally destroyed, one of these days he€ll probably have a nice entrance out here, you know, better entrance. We might not normally, we may never be able to use this. And the reason that I feel that way is because we€ve already been there before. This isn€t maybe. It€s not maybe an accident happens up here, we€ve had a woman killed. It€s not maybe we€re going to have a problem with, you know, letting them use our, letting us use their entrance and exit. We€ve already had those problems before. We€ve already spent the money, and been to the attorneys, and all the poor planning, and all that. We€re just tired of all that. You€re talking about 10 families in here. And we have one, I don€t know how many there are, actually, but, you know, we have this one little bitty road to go in and out of; and after they€re through doing what they€re going to do, they could care less about this. We€ll have absolutely no way in the world that we would be able to make them do something with this road in the future. And if they don€t allow access right here, we€re never going to have an opportunity ever again to improve our entrance and exit to all of these properties in here and all this area down in here. It€ll never happen. So I€m hoping they€ll do something about it right now. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? 20 MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, may I say something, also? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. MACISAAC:I think what you€re seeing here and Mr. Graham has asked a couple of times about it is what you€re seeing here is that peoplereally don€t believe that this is going to happen. I think that€s the key, you know. They€re saying it€s going to happen, everybody says it€s going to happen, but we just don€t have it in hand. And I think that€s our, at least that€s my major concern. I mean, I commend the Commissioners and the Planning Department for moving this along in that direction because I think we€re going in the right direction. But we still don€t have it in hand; and we have a really hard time believing it. WHITMYER:We€ve already been there. MACISAAC: And that€s my only comment. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. We have Beverly. Beverly, can you kindly raise your right hand?DoyousweartotellthetruthonthismatternowbeforetheHawaiiPlanning Commission? AIKELE:Yes, I do. FUJIKAWA:Please state your name and your address. AIKELE:I€m Bev Aikele, A-i-k-e-l-e. I live in the Palisades right now. We€re in the process of moving to our farm, which is just below the Kohanaiki Homestead and just above, just below this gentleman. FUJIKAWA:Okay, you may go ahead with your testimony. AIKELE:Okay. I don€t want to be repetitive but we built a farm cause we thought it was a farming area. We€ve got 120 macadamia nut trees that we€re trying to take care of and grow and have a real farm there; and then that€s what we understood that this area was going to be, was a farm land. We understood that the folks, that we had this neat little Kohanaiki subdivision which we felt good. We€ve got our neighbors somewhere close by in case we€re ever in trouble. I understood from talking with Bennett Mark at the Planning Department that the Hualalai Vistas was going to have a gated subdivision and that they didn€t want to be connected to us that live over here in these little not so nice homes. But Curtis tells me that that is not a gated area, so perhaps I€m misled on that. But I agree with Robert. We really just don€t trust Tom Smith. We just are shuddering at the fact that this other thing, Hualalai Vistas, may be hung up for however long and that what is going to happen is that those trucks are going to come down that road and going to try and turn in front of 21 Dean and the other folks there on the corner. It just makes me shudder, and I€m the one that wrote the letter about timing. Do you guys everjust say no‚ to rezoning? SPRINGER:Yes. AIKELE:Okay. This is the time do it. Just deny this for now and then let€s see how Hualalai Vistas turns out. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners, with Bev? GRAHAM:I have. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. GRAHAM:MayIaskthePlanningDirectorbecauseoftheskepticismofthese people that they€re afraid that in some way there would be the 7 lots created andnot have the access through Hualalai Vistas. You know, my understanding is that if we do, if this rezoning does move through that, in fact, there will be only the one lot that€s already there until the road is actually in place and can be used by these folks as wellasby the Applicant here. Is that correct, what I€m thinking? YUEN:Yes. And the only if‚ to the issue of a better access through Hualalai Vistas is whether Hualalai Vistas actually develops. Because if they don€t, if for business reasons Hualalai Vistas -. They have a subdivision application into our office. If for business reasons Hualalai Vistas does not develop the subdivision, then they remain as a 47-acre lot with no road through it. Mr. Smith€s lot remains as a 5-acre lot with no more than, no more developed on it than as allowed by the existing zoning; and you folks remain with the same access. You have the exact, you€ll be in exactly the same situation that you are today. So Hualalai Vistas has the zoning to be allowed to develop, they have the conditions that force them to build the road out to Church of God Road. But if they do not, if their financing falls through or some other thing and they do not develop, then you do not have a road. But nobody is, unfortunately nobody is going to just build you a better road out of the goodness of their hearts. So that€s the situation that€s here. If the rezoning for Mr. Smith goes through, the way it€s written, then his rezoning is really good for nothing unless the road gets developed through Hualalai Vistas. WILSON:Well, could -? FUJIKAWA:We have a question here of a testifier. Go ahead, Paula. WILSON:I€d like to ask a question. If the situation occurs where Hualalai Vistas doesn€t happen, Tom Smith gets his variance and he decides to pursue what he€s already indicated he will, I€m going to build my lots anyway and I€m going to use Church of God Road to do so, is there some legal way that he can be prevented from bringing all that equipment down that little bitty road, other than the fact that he€s probably going to get stuck somewhere? 22 YUEN:The first thing he would have to do before developing a subdivisiontherewould be he would have to improve Church of God Road with a 50- foot right-of-way with a 20-foot pavement. That would require him buying property from the lot that is mauka of him and widening, and then widening the rest of the roadon his side of the road. So that€s both a difficult and expensive proposition. WILSON:So, in other words, he would have to all the way, my lot is Lot No. 2, he would have to approach us to have some portion of our road, of our lot as well as some portion of his property to accommodate that widening and make that intersection -? YUEN:He could do it all on his side of the road. WILSON:Would that be a requirement? YUEN:If you don€t want to sell him part of your property, you don€t have to. WILSON:Iunderstandthatpart. YUEN:Sothisisanalternativeforhimbutit€snotaverypractical alternative. FUJIKAWA:Robert? WHITMYER:The biggest concern that I have, it€s always, it€s the same old thing nowadays, it€s, your definition of what is; and it gets kind of tiring after awhile. But the biggest problem that I have is they built Hualalai Vistas, they allowed Tom Smith to develop his property, they have a wonderful entrance and exit on the highway and his road connects with theirs, and his road runs right up to ours, and then they don€t let us use it anymore. That€s the biggest problem that I have because we€ve been there already. Okay? You€ve met all the requirements of Hualalai Vistas, you€ve met all the requirements of everything else. And for some reason I€ve been there when there€s boulders as big as my car on the street and you can€t drive through it anymore because the people are pissed at you. It€s ridiculous. I don€t want to be in that place ever again. As long as you, if you made me feel comfortable that I€m not in that kind of position anymore, you know, we€re not having this conversation. That€s it. YUEN:I understand your frustration on the prior experience that you had. I don€t know anything about the background of that or the legalities of that, except that a judge ruled contrary to you. However, the condition of rezoning of Hualalai Vistas requires that road to be dedicated to the County at no cost upon request. That€s a matter of law. WHITMYER:The connection to our road, also? Not to interrupt you but that€s the main thing I€m wondering. 23 YUEN:The road, the connecting roads within Hualalai Vistas, both the spine road and the side road that would go out to connect to your road, that€s the conditionofHualalai Vistas. And this is, we€ve been specifically planning the way that these roads would be laid out in order to get a better access for the people who live on your road to not have to rely on the existing Church of God Road. And that is, and we, the Planning Department and the Council have been doing this so that we do get an improved access for the present residents of the area in allowing these other developments to be built. WHITMYER:I appreciate that; and I€ll take one more second then I won€t say anymore. The only reason that we€re cynical about this is because the reason that we don€t have our other entrance anymore wasn€t only because of a judge€s ruling. We were out-spent and that€s the problem nowadays. With only a few families there we can€t affordtogothroughtheselegalbattles.Wehavetorelyonyoutohelpusbeprotected from this in the future. We can€t go down a road where 5 or 10 years from now, we€re with Mr. Smith, or the Hualalai Vistas, or something suing to have access to a road that we were supposed to have 10 years before. We just can€t afford that over and over and over again. That€s the only reason we don€t have the road out the other way, is we couldn€t afford to spend the money on attorneys anymore to do battle over it. That€s all. We don€t want to get involved in it. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Carol. SOUTHER:May I ask a question? When you say that he has to have his road, be dedicated and legal and everything, how far out in the intersection of Church of God Road and his road? I think this is probably where we got in trouble before, is does he also have to make the intersection? You see the little square up there, the intersection in between our subdivision, Kohanaiki Road and Mr. Smith€s proposed one? This is where boulders could be put. This is where roads could get chopped up and -. Does that mean that he has to have that intersection fixed, also, to County standards? YUEN:Yes. SOUTHER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. We have another person, Mr. Tyler, who signed up. Elizabeth? Staff, can you make a seat. ELIZABETH THERIAULT: The last line of questioning from neighbors here have addressed my questions. 24 TYLER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission and staff, Director Yuen. I€m Curtis Tyler, and I represent all these fine folks. I try todo so to the best of my abilities. And what you heard from them, with the exception of Hualalai Vistas being gated, is pretty much all true. And I don€t know about the threats from Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith didn€t threaten me. But I can tell him one thing, that if he threatened anybody that is my constituents, we got a big problem. So I hope that€s not true. I hope that€s not a true statement. I have no reason tobelieve it is except that some of these fine folks said so. I€ll speak with Mr. Smith about that later. But I€d like to start at the top of my notes which are copious here. I€m really glad, Mr. Chairman, you gave me the opportunity to listen to my constituents. I€ve heard from many of them before. I have not heard from all of these folks here today; and I€ve certainly heard from others who are not here. They are painting a picture to you which is, unless you have been there and seen this place, you cannot possibly appreciate what they€retalkingabout.YoucannotappreciatetheinjusticethatthisCountyhasdoneto the residents who live along this road. This public road that has been public since the beginning, since the Highways Act, and which this County refuses, refuses to repair or maintain or even accept, despite what Mr. McClure said recently. And this is a gross injustice, absolutely gross. And these people have spent considerable sums because the County with their real property tax dollars has not spent a cent to help them out. They€ve had to spend their own money so they could have their own public health and safety taken care of. This is an abomination, absolute abomination. And for 8 years, almost 8 years I have gotten nothing from the previous administration or the current administration to reassure me that these people are going to get the service that they deserve and pay for on a public road. This is outrageous. It€s only about 10 feet wide, but it€s a public road. We know that. They knew that. They aren€t expecting a public, you know, highway. Anyway, I just, I want to get across to you the importance of what they€re saying. And I want you to go there and see this for yourself. And I€ll make some recommendations when I€m done here, and, you know, admittedly, you€re the recommending body. Myself and eight other persons are the ones that make the final decision. But you can really help us do our job if, you know, you address some of the concerns they have. And I€m going to make some suggestions in light of what they said. Let me begin by saying that your documents do not contain diacriticals. The law of this County mandates you to use diacriticals whenever possible. And the reason I bring this up is not to open any wounds or create problems for you in a long day that you€re having but because if the diacriticals were there, people would not be saying, Hu€alalai Road. It is not Hu€alalai Vistas or Hu€alalai Road. It€s Hua€lalai, Hua€lalai. Okay? This is not Kona Town, Kona is a moku, Kona is a district. When we lose our place names, we€ll have big problems, okay? And it just makes me, just makes me grind when I hear this Hu€alalai or Hu€alalai at Ka€upulehu, you know? Put the diacriticals in and we€ll all learn, be able to learn this better. Now, also, I would like to ask the Director to afford the staff, the opportunity to use power point. You have power point, you have maps, you have GIS, so that everyone can 25 see these drawings. So that you can superimpose right next to Mr. Smith€s property what is there approved by the Council for Hualalai Vistas. And it would be so easy and people wouldn€t be wondering. And I think it would help, to help all the Commissioners. It certainly would help, I think, all the members of the public; and I know it would help the Council. Just a suggestion. With respect to promises which thesepeoplehave had, their promises were in a form of an easement. We€re not talking about easements here, we€re talking about dedicated to the County. And I want to assure the residents here and the members of the Commission that the approval of Hualalai Vistas envision that all of their spine roads, all of the intersections and the connection to the Church of God Road would be assured and be public in perpetuity. And, as a matter of fact, their condition of Hualalai Vistas specifically says that they will connect to the Church of God Road at the southern portion of their property which does connect it, which does, is adjacent to and connects to the ChurchofGodRoad.Andthereasonforthatisbecausetohavehadahypothetical connection through Mr. Smith€s land, we have no, Mr. Clever, the Council has no, had no control over Mr. Smith. And, so, we changed the condition so that there would be an absolute assured connection to the road. Admittedly, from the Kohanaiki Homestead Subdivision, makai is even worse than mauka. I understand that; but at least you€d have a way. So Mr. Yuen is proposing now, along with his staff, to make some further assurances that you, your connection will be far more direct and, hopefully, safer and much more improved. So I€ll talk about that in a minute. Mr. Chairman, if I could get a copy of the draft easement document described in the June 9, 2004 letter from Mr. Fuke to Mr. Yuen, or perhaps Mr. Yuen -. HAYASHI:Here is a copy. TYLER:Oh, my goodness, how is that for fast? Okay, somebody must have read my mind, or looked over my shoulder, except I know they can€t read my writing. Anyway, about the promises, promises are good as long as no one reserves the right to break the promise. And I want to, some of the things I€m going to say today in terms of suggestions to this body, recommendations and, you know, it€s your choice and if it doesn€t happen, it€ll come to the Council and we€ll all try again, is to try to make sure that the promise can€t be broken. When I make a promise, it€ll never be broken. But I don€t know, I can€t speak for anybody else, so I€m going to try to do that today and make some suggestions. Mr. Yuen has indicated, Director Yuen has indicated today that the Hualalai Vistas project has a subdivision application into him. It€s my, there€s some concern expressed by some of the residents here today, Mr. Chairman, that this project might not come to fruition. I have no reason to believe that Mr. Clever and his folks are not going to bring this subdivision forward. But anything can happen in the financial markets, we know 26 that, and we can€t force them to do something that they€re unable todo,except along the lines of the conditions. I haven€t spoken with Mr. Clever since his application came forward. I have spoken with his planning consultants. And I think Mr. Clever, given the real estate market, would be quite wise to move forward withhisproject at this time. There€s a real need for it. Anyhow, as I was thinking about the comments of the Commissioners, as well as the public today, I just was reminded that whatever it is that you folks are called to do, whatever there is that I€m called to do as another, one of the public servants, it has to meet a public purpose, and certainly not give further problems for the people that are already residents here. Now, with respect to Condition No. B -. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, I€ve had a chancetoreviewtheBackgroundReport,theapplicationandtheRecommendationsof the Director, I forget to mention that; and Ithank the staff for providing this to me in advance. With respect to the proposed condition, I€m speaking in this case to the rezone, not the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. REZ 04-008, Condition B proposes that the Applicants, this is a standard condition on State Land Use Ag lands. And I just want to be sure that Mr. Yuen, all these folks will have, if they build a home they€ll have to sign that agreement, right, for a farm dwelling? Is that correct in this case? No, because it€s going to Rural? YUEN:No, yeah, because there€s no farm dwelling requirement in Rural. TYLER:Okay, so, really, Condition B, then, is not applicable since it€ll be changed from a State Land Use Ag to a Rural? YUEN:Well, there€s still limitations on uses in the Rural District, so it still applies; but it doesn€t apply to the farm dwelling. TYLER:But it doesn€t, is there a limitation through HRS 205? YUEN:There€s some limitations in HRS 205 to the Rural District, yes. TYLER:Okay, good. All right. As for the Hualalai Vistas being gated, they originally proposed this, but I told them I would not support any gated subdivision; and so that€s why the roads are public. And I think they finally saw that that was a good thing to do. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, Condition No. D is an old condition. This condition is not the current condition that you have been using; and I would draw your attention to the Kabumoto rezoning which is contained in your Background Report and which Condition No. E has the correct language. I would urge you to amend this to use the correct language to include condominium property regimes. 27 Condition No. E is mandating that access shall be through Hualalai Vistas Subdivision. However, Condition F says that if that mandate can€t happen, then there€s another option. I€m concerned about that and, because shall‚ means shall.‚ And, in any case, there are some problems with this proposed condition in my mind . Because it says in there about midway through on the first page of it that The subdivision road shall be dedicated to the County upon request.‚ Well, I would think that what should happen is that it should be dedicated to the County within two years of approval of the zoning, or something of that kind. I don€t want to leave it up to Public Works. I think it needs, there needs to be some connection, some nexus, that€s the word I€m looking for, nexus, that says, if we grant you this rezoning, this road is going to be built, it€s going to built in this time. And if you don€t build it, you don€t have your rezoning; and, you know, your condition hasn€t been met and, therefore, -. It says in Condition No. A, The Applicant and its successors or its assigns shall be responsible for complying with all the stated conditions of approval.‚ So you can€t do some of them, you€ve got to do all of them. Now, with respect to this, there was a, and they have this dedicated. This road through Mr.Smith€spropertybuilttoCountydedicablestandardsneedstobededicated.Yet,I find in a letter from Mr. Fuke that they can€t really do that until the rezoning takes places. It says, The road lot cannot be created now as it would result in having lots that would be less than a minimum area called for by the present Ag-3a zoning.‚ So they can€t break this out until after the zoning. Is that right, Mr. Yuen, because of the current zoning, which is 3 acres, and there€s only 4.1-something, 4 point something? YUEN:If it were, if it€s a County dedicated road, they could, because the Subdivision Code does not apply to the creation of road lots and, so, the remnant, for the remnant parcels resulting from the creation of a road. But as far as your prior request on putting a time limit on Mr. Smith building the connector road, this -. Again, if Hualalai Vistas does not develop a subdivision, then there€s no point in Mr. Smith building a connector road to nowhere. If Hualalai Vistas develops a subdivision, either they or, and they want to get finaled, then they have to build out to Church of God Road and connect. If Mr. Smith is building at the same time and he, or earlier, then he has to do it. But in either case, the timeframe is dependent, on the roads getting built is dependent upon the development of Hualalai Vistas. TYLER:Mr. Clever has to build a road over Mr. Smith€s property? YUEN:We€re requiring that, yes. That€s a condition of the rezoning, that they build a road out to Church of God and we had the power -. TYLER:Right, over the southern part of his property but he doesn€t own Mr. Smith€s property. YUEN:No. Well, that€s why we€re requiring Mr. Smith to donate a right- of-way for that road so that we can have a road built in a better location. 28 th TYLER:But Mr. Fuke says in his letter to you of April 14, The road lot cannot be created now as a result in having lots that would beless than a minimum area called for by present Family Ag-3a zoning.‚ So sounds tome like they€re not going to do that until they get their zoning. YUEN:No, we can, if they don€t get their zoning, they, it can either be done by No. 1, an easement, or we could create a road lot and, in effect, we€re giving him a free subdivision of his lot by creating that road lot. But, in either event, we€re requiring a donation of a road right-of-way so that Hualalai Road can come across the Smith property and at the intersection with Kohanaiki Homestead Road. You need to look at our letter to the Hualalai Vistas application and -. TYLER:Okay, that€s the June 1. I just saw it this morning. YUEN:Right. TYLER:ButifMr.,whatifMr.Smithwon€tallowhimtocomeonthe property? YUEN:This is their commitment that they€re donating a right-of-way. TYLER:But what happens if Mr. Smith€s rezoning isn€t approved? YUEN:Would still be a commitment to donate that easement to the County. TYLER:Is that what this document says right here? No matter what, even if the Council doesn€t approve it? YUEN:Yeah. TYLER:He€s going to give this? YUEN:Yeah. TYLER:Well, I€ll review this. YUEN:Well, you can check with Mr. Fuke but -. TYLER:Yeah, I€ll review this. That€s why I asked for a copy. Okay, I€m sorry, I didn€t mean to digress but -. Now, let€s see, there was a question by one of my constituents in one of the letters contained in the Background Report that said, Who€s going to pay for the cost of relocating the electric pole?‚ I understand it€s something like $50,000 a pole. Is that 29 going to be done by Mr. Smith? Somebody is creeping up on me here. Oh. So, what would normally happen there, Mr. Yuen, who would pay for that? YUEN:The person doing the development. TYLER:Oh, boy, does Mr. Clever know that? And how is he going to get credit for this, through his fair share? YUEN:Well, if he develops this connection per our letter, we will credit him against the fair share, because then he€s making an improvement to the regional, public regionalinfrastructure. TYLER:Right. Okay. I hope everybody is listening carefully here, and we€ll all try to remember this when it comes to the Council. Okay. Now, there was a secondquestionraisedbysomeofthespeakerstodayaswellassomeofthosewho communicated to you that what access is Mr. Smith going to have during construction? And this is a very important point because the County refuses to repair and maintain this road. They call it road in limbo;‚ and, as we all know, the only limbo part of it is on the County side, it€s not from the State side. And their refusal, as you heard me say in the beginning and I won€t get back on my high horse, has really endangered anybody that uses this road, anybody, including me who has gone down there to check this situation out. And if you go down there, and I hope you will, you€ll take your life in your hands if you have to make a left turn in or out, especially out. So the use of this road by construction, heavy construction equipment should not be permitted. I don€t know what else to say except that maybe he can€t start until the roadway is completed and access is completed, the alternate access is completed out to Highway 190. But this cannot take a Low Boy. It can€t take, you know, any kind of heavy equipment. And I would say the only possible way that that would happen is if the County improves and maintains that road prior to his using it, which they have already told me, the County has already told me time and time again, year after year, they€re not going to do because they can€t just choose one road. Yet the County continues to want to approve the uses down here. Mr. McClure was quite surprised when I told him there was a subdivision down here at the bottom. Anyway, I mention this because I really think you need to resolve this before you move it out of your, move it out of the Planning Commission and come to the Council. Condition No. F on page 2 of the proposed Director€s conditions says that if access can€t be obtained that they will, Mr. Smith will improve the Church of God Homestead Road to County dedicable standards. That is a physical impossibility. As Director Yuen said it can€t happen. And I hate to be so, sound so pessimistic and cynical, but it€s too steep, No. 1; No. 2 is the right-of-way is too narrow; No. 3 is that both walls are archaeological sites and cannot be moved or touched, and they have told other adjacent landowners that they couldn€t do this. And they told Mr. Kabumoto that, I can tell you that. He had to get the archaeologist to come out there. So I really think it€s not only a physical impossibility, it may be a legal impossibility. And, so, I don€t think that that option 30 should be allowed. And you€ve heard from the residents who know onthe ground much more than all of us will know except, you know, than they dobecausethey live there; and I wanted to make that point. I think the Director said it very well, he didn€t think it could happen either. I hope that Mr. Smith will be required, in addition to signs and markings, I don€t know about street lights, you know, it just ruins the whole character of the area but, anyway, fire hydrants, be required to install fire hydrants. You know, Mr. Kabumoto only had two extra lots, I think, and he ended up having to put a fire hydrant in some place. So I would urge you to look at that. No. H is regarding the burial treatment plan; and this is pretty much standard language, it€s used by the Department. I would like to relate to you that part of the reason I was late coming this morning, Mr. Chairman, is because I was on a site here where burial after burialhavebeenfound.Myfamilythere,andI€mtheonlyculturaldescendantforthat land that€s been recognized by the Burial Council; and twice now iwi have been pulverized by either D-10 or a backhoe. And I had to go there this morning, and I was told that it had all been cleaned up and was taken care of. And you know the first thing I found when I got there on the ground was a molar, a human molar. That€s the first thing I found when I got there this morning. I spent the entire day yesterday, the entire day at the Burial Council meeting listening to the testimony of people about the impact of Alii Highway. This is serious, serious, serious stuff. I listened to some of my Hawaiian brothers and sisters talking about sending people back to where they came from. This is not the way I was raised, this is not the kind of thing we€re talking about. We€re one family. But these burials are creating huge problems; and our Chapter 10, Sedimentation and Erosion Control with the grubbing and grading permits is a joke. It€s a joke; and it doesn€t protect anything. So I€d ask you, please, that there be no grading or grubbing permits until this burial treatment plan, which is nonexistent, as far as I know, has not only been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office but also approved by any lineal or cultural descendants who might be recognized, and the Hawaii Island Burial Council. We can€t continue to have this. I mean, I€m getting calls all the time. This is tearing this community apart. And nobody here would ever want your family€s graves to be destroyed and desecrated by a D-10 bulldozer or a backhoe. This is outrageous that we should let this thing happen. You know, and don€t blame it on the Hawaiian people. I€m sick of it. It all says, oh, the Hawaiians don€t allow the roads to go through, oh, this and that and that kind of thing. Just think about your own family situation. I€m telling you, folks, this is getting worse by the day. It€s not getting better. And, you know, when I have to go down there after I€m assured that this whole place has been screened and the first thing I find is the molar of one of my ancestors, this is outrageous. It€s just unbelievable. I just, I can€t believe that we€d let this kind of thing happen. You know, something is wrong. If we cannot get this Chapter 10 done, and I understand there was some kind of court order in connection with Hokulia, if we can€t get this thing done, what the hell are we even here for as public servants? You know, maybe 31 we have to take up arms again. I don€t know but, you know, God, is this worked, all this violence that I just said, I don€t know. But, you know, I€m sorry to digress, Mr. Chairman, but, you know, youfolks have to, maybe you€re not out there out in the field. I hear this, I see it, I saw it this morning, my own ancestors. It€s just unbelievable to me that we would let this happen in a land of a law. What kind of a law is that? Mr. Smith has told me, and the only meeting I€ve ever had with him, that if this goes through, he€s going to move all the people that live on this Church of God Road, makai of Mamalahoa, he€s going to move their waterlines and he€s going to provide all the utility service at the southern boundary of his property. I don€t see that here. Mr. Smith, you better be sure that this condition gets in there. SMITH:I€mnotdoingthat. PUBLIC:He€snot.See,he€snot. TYLER:Well,weheardthatontherecord.Mr.Smithmadeapromiseto me and we just heard the result of that promise. I have it written down in my notes. Condition No. K, which is the fair share assessments condition, has a whole section that€s missing, after paragraph No. 5. And I would just urge you to insert the standard language there relating to annual adjustments and how many in-lieu conditions are handled. That language is entirely missing from there. I would say that with respect to Condition No. N that no extensions, no administrative extensions, no extensions by the Council should be allowed until this roadway is done, no extensions. So these people will have their road. Otherwise, you know, Mr. Clever is going to build the road as the ordinance says. I would also say that no occupancy permits should be allowed until a dedicable roadway, dedicable to County standards, has been built and that affords a roadway connection to Mamalahoa Highway through Hualalai Vistas, so these people, and all the other residents that aren€t here today but for whom we all speak, are assured that their quality of life will not be negative, further negatively impacted. And it seems to me that the only demonstrable public purpose aside from perhaps some additional housing is for these infrastructure upgrades. And unless and until we partner together to assure this -. And I don€t propose that you€re going to have all the language together today, I don€t think you can do this from the floor. I know I wouldn€t do it. I think you should just defer this, go take a site visit, have the staff and Mr. Yuen, who€s the officer of the court, work with Ms. O€Toole, who is the Corp. Counsel representative here, to come up with the language that will ensure that these infrastructure improvements will be made without any question. Otherwise, the rezoning will not be effective. 32 And, again, Mr. Chairman, I€m sorry for my outburst this morning. Ijust, I€ve had two days of the most incredible experience that I can remember with respect to our culture, our host culture, and it has just been very difficult. PUBLIC:Promises broken. TYLER:And, yeah, promises and promises that continue to be broken. And we can€t have any more of this, it just can€t be. And I€m really frustrated because, you know, I€ve only got about five or six months left and I€ve been unsuccessful in, you know, convincing people that when you tell somebody something and you look them in the eye, and maybe you even shake their hand, that€s what you mean, you know, that€s what you mean and you€ll die for it. I mean, that€s the way I was raised in this community. I assume most of you were. And if you weren€t in this community, your mothers or fathers taught you about this. We can€t have this kind of stuff anymore where peoplecomeinandreservetherighttobreaktheirpromise,whetherthey€refromthis community or from any other community. And as long as I€m alive and whether I€m elected as a public servant or not, I€m going to make sure that we hold people accountable; and our government is one of the worst examples today, I€m sorry to say. But with that, Mr. Chairman, I€ll stop. I€ve probably said more than I should have. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, do you have any questions with Mr. Tyler? Springer? SPRINGER:Not for Mr. Tyler, although I thank him for his testimony. But I€m wondering about the Director€s response to some of the suggestions that he made regarding amending the conditions. For example, on Condition N he recommended that there be no time extension until the road is dedicated, connecting Mamalahoa and the, via Hualalai Vistas. You can start there. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Well, there€s, the development of the connection to Mamalahoa, it really depends on Hualalai Vistas, not upon Mr. Smith€s rezoning. So not extending the condition, not extending the time on Mr. Smith doesn€t really do anything to make Hualalai Vistas develop. SPRINGER:Okay. How about the recommendation for inclusion of fire hydrants? Perhaps that would be under Condition G? YUEN:Well, I don€t have any, I don€t oppose it. I know that in, normally, this is done in the subdivision approval; and I€m not sure, I€m not sure at what point and what distance the County would require a fire hydrant. There would surely be one some place within Hualalai Vistas being a larger one, but I just don€t know; and, so, I don€t really have anything to say on that. 33 SPRINGER:So that might be taken up then subsequently at the time ofthe subdivision approval? YUEN:Yes. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you. With regard to the burial treatment plan, as I€m reading it, it says, A burial treatment plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Director prior to submitting plans for the subdivision review;‚ and I€m wondering if that addresses Mr. Tyler€s concern. TYLER:Only if it€s approved by the Hawaii Island Burial Council because -. Mr. Chairman, if I may just -. FUJIKAWA:Just a minute. SPRINGER:Looking at Condition H. YUEN:This does require the ultimate approval by the Burial Council. Whatwehavedoneattimesinthepastisoncewe,wemightallowsomedevelopmentto occur on a property at a considerable distance from the burial sites after seeing where they are located and having an idea that the buffers are adequate. That€s the way this is worded. But they would have to get the, eventually they would have to get the approval of the treatment plan from the Burial Council. SPRINGER:Thank you. There are two more items from Mr. Tyler€s testimony. One is with regard to Condition F, and he discussed it being too steep, too narrow; and given the presence of so much archaeology, it might not even be eligible for County dedication. YUEN:It probably cannot be done, but we put this in as an alternative. If the Hualalai Vistas does not develop, that the Applicant is not completely out. But we could not responsibly allow rezoning off of the existing Homestead Road or Church of God Road. So this would require this major upgrade of the road; and then they could, the rezoning would go in effect; and they would be able to develop the property that way. As a practical matter for a number of reasons, it€s extremely unlikely. SPRINGER:It would require them taking the initiative to purchase other private properties and all that that was discussed? YUEN:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. And then my final question is -. I think in Condition E Mr. Tyler discussed the possibility of including a prohibition against the use of construction equipment on this same road. 34 YUEN:Yeah, we€ve discussed that. And we would say, my suggestion would be that, we would say that Church of God Road, we€ve been calling it that but in the rezoning ordinance we€re calling, we€re saying Homestead Road. We would say in the, in the condition it would say, The Homestead Road shall not be used for construction access for the subdivision.‚ And I do, there€s a slight change I€d like to make to E. On the second sentence, at the, where it says, southern boundary of the subject property,‚ and instead of ending the sentence right there, say, comma, prior to Final Subdivision Approval.‚ We hadn€t put a timeframe on that aspect of it. That€s the second sentence in E. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? You may go ahead. SOUTHER:Can we ask questions? FUJIKAWA:Youmay.Goahead. SOUTHER:Ididn€tunderstandthefirehydrantthing.Itsaid-.Could,will Mr. Smith be putting in a fire hydrant, or you€re saying, no, you think it€s going to be in Hualalai Vistas? NOMURA:Microphone, please. SOUTHER:Oh, I€m sorry. YUEN:I don€t know the answer. Normally, that€s done in a subdivision but -. Normally we don€t put that in, we don€t have that level of detail in a zoning ordinance. And then when a subdivision comes through, Fire Department comments that they want fire hydrants on x‚ number of, you know, at a certain distance from one another -. SOUTHER:So it€s in the Code or something, you mean? YUEN:Yes. It goes by with the -. So that€s normally when it€s done. And I just don€t know, if there€s a fire hydrant at the very end of, at the point of Hualalai Vistas as closest to Mr. Smith€s subdivision, we would not require a fire hydrant in his subdivision. That would be normal practice. SOUTHER:I see. I just didn€t understand, yeah. FUJIKAWA:Okay, any questions? None? Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 3, Tom Smith. Now, what do you want for a decision on SLU 04-005? Let€s begin with that. Oh, I€m sorry. Testifier, will you please set back. I forgot that, we, I€m calling back the Applicant€s representative. So all of you may go back. AIKELE:Can I just ask one little quick question? 35 FUJIKAWA:Yes. AIKELE:I€m wondering, do you ever just say, no? Do you ever deny rezoning? FUJIKAWA:We havein the past. AIKEKLE:Cause by your approval, it kind of gives this person false hope. I mean, it€s based on Hualalai Vistas eventually. I would just ask for you to say no. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. You may go back to your seats, please? Mr. Fuke, you have heard those testimonies. FUKE:Sure. I€d like to just kind of clarify a number of items; and I think thatthedialoguebetweenthePlanningDirectorand,youknow,someofthequestionsI think helped clarify a lot of the roadway issue. There were some other associated issues. And I guess just to update some, to address some of those questions and update the Commissioners: Relative to the burial treatment plan, it€s my understanding, according to Mr. Smith, that one is in the process of being prepared and advertisements have already been sent out. So they€re kind of well underway. Councilman Tyler raised the issue about like, you know, making sure that no physical land disturbance activity occur, you know, prior to an approved burial treatment plan. And I think that if you look at your condition, that already incorporates that. Relative to the issue on the construction access, what the Planning Director is proposing is acceptable to the Applicant, that is to say that, you know, the construction access relative to the development of this subdivision would not utilize the Homestead Road. The other comment on the roadway issue, I think that if you have, if this project is denied, what I visualize is like you have the status quo. The status quo in a sense that the existing residents in this area will continue to use the Homestead Road without any opportunity, short-term opportunity for an improved access. I believe and I hope that the Commission also agreeS with the Planning Director€s recommendation, that is that, with this approval, it provides a very real opportunity for residents within that area to have a new roadway, new and safer roadway within the project up to the highway. What Mr. Smith may have, what Mr. Smith shared with some of the homeowners when I talked to him today may have been misunderstood in a sense that, you know, the so- called the threat,‚ it was not so much the threat that, you know, he would develop the subdivision anyway, you know, with or without Hualalai Vistas. It was more that if the rezoning were denied, then his only option to utilize the property is to construct one or, possibly through a farm dwelling, construct two, you know, dwellings on that 5-acre property. And in constructing that, those dwellings, dwelling or dwellings, or any 36 structures, then, he, like any other property owner in that area, would have to use the Homestead Road to bring down the trucks and whatever have you, construction trucks to build, build on it. With the subdivision, on the other hand, with the rezoning and the subsequent subdivision, the use of the Homestead Road would, you know, by this project would essentially go away. You know, they would use the Hualalai Road. Finally, in terms of the waterline, what he had shared, you know, based on information that I provided him is that, you know, if the roadway requirement is to have it, to be extended all the way to the Church of God Road, then likewise the waterline has to be extended to that point. Over and beyond that point, you know, once it reaches the Church of God Road or the Homestead Home, it enables other property owners in that area to take access from that waterline. But there was no commitment on his part that he would provide waterline, a new waterline to each and every homeowner in that area. But it€s just that he would extend it, like the roadway would be extended through his property, so wouldtheutilitiesbeextendedthroughhisproperty,totheHomesteadRoad. Intermsofthefirehydrant,astheDirectorhadindicated,it€sbasicallysetupbythe Subdivision Code, you know. There is like, I think, so many lineal feet of roadway, you know, within, you know, for residential subdivision you have to provide a waterline, excuse me, a fire hydrant. I believe it was like 150 or 200 feet, or every, you know, every so many feet interval a fire hydrant would have to be installed. So because this project is kind of like really being developed in conjunction with the Hualalai Vistas project, you know, wherever the last fire hydrant is then, you know, however feet that€s required by Code, then those hydrants would have to be in. But having the waterline extended all the way to the end of the Church of God Road would enable other residents in that area, if they so desire to participate, to also construct, not only get access for potable services but, if they want to petition the County Water Department and, possibly have a hydrant along that section of the roadway. With that I think like all of the questions, I think, really have been answered. I realize that Councilman Tyler has requested that this matter be deferred so that you can, you know, evaluate each and every suggested recommendation that he had offered. I believe, on the other hand, that the infrastructure concerns have been adequately addressed by the Planning Department. If there are other things that need to be addressed further that Councilman Tyler wishes to address further, you know, I think that can be done when it reaches at the County Council level. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, any questions with the Applicant€s representative? If not, we are on the item again -. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. SPRINGER:May I offer some discussion? 37 FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. SPRINGER:In addition to the inter-subdivision traffic circulation and other infrastructure issues that we€ve been discussing today in this vicinity, those of us who have been sitting together for a while know that I have voted in favor of some applications with reservations. And I€ve also voted against the applications in this vicinity when it occurred to me that the cumulative, and particular traffic, impacts are not acceptable, and each and every conditional approval that we make exacerbates the existing impacts. For example, I€m looking between Ooma Place and Liliuokalani Gardens in particular, and it€ll probably continue to do until infrastructure and zoning are commensurate with one another, and that is that conditions on the ground are ready for the zoning promised on paper. But as I indicate in these comments I€m inclined to vote that way, so I€d like to hear other discussion from us that might inform me to make anotherchoice. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners,youhaveanyothercommentsatthistime? Graham? GRAHAM:I€m not sure I get the whole gist of what Commissioner Springer is trying to open discussion upon. But, to me, the land use size of this particular project is in keeping with the adjacent properties; and it feels to me that the local situation, by the location situation I mean that ingress and egress and all like that and the roadways, can only be improved by what we see presented what was planned here. So I€m not feeling the concerns here that I felt with the earlier project of 100 units that was going on Kaiminani Drive. So that€s my feeling, that€s all. SPRINGER:May I just -? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER:Commissioner Graham, on Kaiminani Drive, there is not presently the congestion and backup of traffic that exists on Mamalahoa Highway at this time. That€s my concern, less of the inter-subdivision or inter-residence circulation issues that we spent much of our time discussing this morning, rather once people from any point come up to Mamalahoa Highway. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other comments, Commissioners, at this time? McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, maybe just a comment that I do agree that, I mean, Mamalahoa Highway is in bad shape right now and we are going to be adding more congestion to it by this. But my general feeling in this case is that I think that the overriding benefit to the existing homeowners in this area, I think that supersedes the potential detriment on Mamalahoa Highway. So I would be inclined to vote in favor of this. 38 SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER:That€s speculation on our part as to whether or not these conditions will come to pass. Do you have any comments on that, Commissioner McCall, the improvements that so much of this benefit is predicated upon? MCCALL:Well, if I understand what you€re saying, if the improvements to, the roadway improvements that will help the current residents of the, I forget the Homestead, if that roadway doesn€t go through by these subdivisions not being developed, there will not be any more detriment to Mamalahoa Highway because there won€t be any more residences being put in. So I see it€s, it€s either, to me it€s either the status quo or a slight degradation of Mamalahoa Highway; and it€s, in my opinion, an improvementofthesituationforthesubdivisionso-. SPRINGER:Thanks. FUJIKAWA:Okay.Anyotherquestions,comments?Okay.Whatdoyouwant to do, Commissioners? Go ahead, Graham. GRAHAM:I guess we have two matters here, the State Land Use Boundary Amendment application and the Change of Zone application -. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, we€re going to go with SLU first. GRAHAM:All right. Unfortunately, I don€t feel prepared to deal with all the specific modifications. But if I could move that we forward a favorable recommendation on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, SLU 04-005, I would so move. And I would like a little bit of help from the Planning Director on the modifications to the conditions that we have accepted through our discussion, which I believe are clear. FUJIKAWA:Planning Director? YUEN:There€s no modifications necessary for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. Those would come in at the Change of Zone; and I€ll suggest those again at that point. GRAHAM:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. MCCALL:Second. 39 FUJIKAWA:So it has been moved, motion by Graham, Commissioner Graham, and seconded by McCall, that SLU 04-005 be approved, favorable recommendation. Any questionS? SPRINGER:Discussion? FUJIKAWA:Discussion, go ahead. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair, I will be voting against the motion. Less in consideration of the discussion of the internal traffic flow issues, although they€re deeply heartfelt and I weigh them seriously -. But my concern is further burdening the Mamalahoa Highway, particularly in this region between Ooma Place and Liliuokalani Gardens. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Anyotherdiscussion?Okay,staff,goaheadwiththerollcall. DARROW:Thankyou,Mr.Chairman.CommissionerGraham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:CommissionerMcCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:No. DARROW:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:No. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes, five to two. 40 FUJIKAWA:Okay. We are on REZ 04-008. Do I hearamotion? GRAHAM:I€ll also make a motion for a favorable recommendation to be sent to the County Council on the Change ofZone application, REZ 04-008, and with the conditions set forth by the Planning Director in the paperwork we have, along with specific modifications, those conditions that he€s going to suggest at this time. YUEN:And those would be specifically adding the phrase, prior to Final Subdivision Approval‚ at the end of the second sentence on Condition E and adding a sentence at the end of Condition E that There shall be no access for construction vehicles for the subdivision improvements on‚ Church of God Road, I€m sorry, Homestead Road.‚ FUJIKAWA:Do I hear a second? SMITH:Second. FUJIKAWA:It has been moved by Commissioner Graham, motion-wise, and alsosecondedbySmiththatREZ04-008beapproved,withtheconditionsand recommendations. SPRINGER:Discussion? FUJIKAWA:Do we have a discussion? SPRINGER:Although it did not receive much attention during the discussion of this application, Ms. Souther did make comment responding to a comment that I made about the backup of traffic in this area that extends well beyond Ooma Place to the north. And I hope that by virtue of discussion at this point that there will be discussion of that at the County Council level and that that remains an overriding concern for me and is the reason that I€ll be voting against this motion. FUJIKAWA:I understand. Any other discussion? Staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. 41 DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:No. DARROW:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:No. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Aye. DARROW:Themotionpasses,fivetotwo. FUJIKAWA:Mr.Fuke,you€llbeinformedinwritingbythePlanning Department. Thank you. The discussion ended at 1:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 42