2003-07-03 TKABUMOTO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

that also would seem beneficial. Given the Planning Director's comments regarding the status of the intersection at Kaloko Drive, not having moved very rapidly as far as I can tell, it seems to me that if this Applicant were to go ahead with his subdivision, not subdivision but the rezoning to the four parcels in the near future, the most likely option he would take would be just to improve that Old Government Road intersection with Kaloko Drive before anything major gets done coming down Kaloko Drive. So my question to you just is if that is, in fact, the specific course that is taken to make the access to the Mmalahoa Highway from that Old Government Road for these four parcels, does that feel to you like that is a net plus for the community as opposed to just, you know, adding extra traffic and not a net plus? TYLER:May I respond, Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Go ahead, Mr. Tyler. TYLER:Thank you. Indeed, it would certainly improve the intersection because of sight distance. On the other hand, it would be about as draconian a condition as I could possibly imagine imposed on any landowner. And I don't say that in a flippant way, Mr. Graham. If you will notice, Mr. Kabumoto does not own the intervening properties on either side of the road. And for him to improve those roadways to County dedicable standards, which I think I saw here in one of the conditions, would entail acquiring a substantial amount of property. It would entail a huge expenditure at the intersections, both intersections along the Department of Transportation's corridor of Highway 190. And it seems to me to be a rather unusual condition for an addition of two lots for a total of four, two of which already have legal access to utilize the road. Mr. Kabumoto has told me in conversations that we've had that he's very committed to being a good neighbor, he's very committed to doing his fair share, and he will be more than happy to do that. He does not feel, and I, he's not here, so it is my understanding, let me put it this way, since I can't speak for him and don't presume to -. It is my belief that to require any landowner to improve a roadway that is not on his property or her property is, when the impact seems to be so minimal, and not do it for others whose impact is significantly more is not consistent. And I don't believe it's fair. And I hope none of you take that as a critical, I don't mean to make a criticism. What I have always tried to do, and I think this Commission has tried to do as well, and I applaud you for it, is to be fair and consistent and to -. We all agree. I can't imagine anyone would disagree that those roads need improvement. However, every citizen pays fuel tax monies to maintain the County roads, both of which these are. I think Mr. Kabumoto and any applicant who improves their property should have some responsibility to provide a fair share or to provide some kind of improvement in lieu of that, and I believe they have stated they are willing to do that. Mr. Graham, that was a long answer. I hope I answered your question. But did I? GRAHAM:Okay. TYLER:Thank you, sir. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Tyler. Commissioner Fujikawa, you had a question? 16