2003-07-18 tkapoho - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SPRINGER:Okay, thank you. ItÓs a part of our record but for your benefit. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Is there any other question from the Commission? Mr. Moore? Testifier? If not, do I hear a motion? GRAHAM:I donÓt feel quite up to making a motion on a complex iss this. However, I am still concerned about the timing issues. It seems like this would be Condition B that originally subdivision approval was to be secured within two years, and weÓre moving it back to five years. And I know the Applicant is requesting that there be an ÐorÑ condition so that, within the five years, either the subdivision approval is secured or the traffic signal is completed. And, to me, it feels like itÓs just pushing that envelope too much. Maybe if the Commission was inclined to go along with the traffic signal alternative, then I feel like at least the traffic signal alternative should be held to the two- year timeframe. So that, you know, if we wanted to do that, or IÓm not sure itÓs appropriate. But that on that ÐorÑ it should be the traffic signal would be taken care of within two years or the final subdivision within five, just to expedite the traffic signal issue. I just feel like itÓs pushing the issue too much the way itÓs being proposed by the Applicant. FUJIKAWA:Who made the change? Was it Mr. Moore or the staff on particular -? GRAHAM:That was Mr. MooreÓs suggestion. MOORE:That was my suggestion. FUJIKAWA:Would you like to go ahead and -? MOORE:You know, just for the record, again, what weÓre looking at is to be treated the same, similar to other projects. The standard language now on time conditions, again, similar to the previous development, is five years to complete it. It takes awhile to get through everything. The traffic signal, I mean, weÓre happy to not separate it out. It just makes it, I think, easier for us. Again, if weÓre going to spend money on the traffic signal and if can do that right away, our intent is to work with the Keaau Service Station project. We believe that theyÓre going to be moving ahead of us; and so weÓll be putting out resources before subdivision, and you donÓt get any resources in until you have final subdivision. So thatÓs why, again, weÓre looking for that assurance. If you donÓt do it in there, we need to assess the risk of accelerating the traffic signals. We donÓt cause any impacts on that intersection until we subdivide, so thatÓs the equity situation. WeÓre taking care of a problem in advance of our impact by putting the signals in first, and thatÓs the situation that weÓre looking at. The timing, to me, is, you know, I prefer not to have it on different timeframes. It makes it more complex. If we didnÓt do the timeframe in two years, are we in violation of that portion of it; and I think it gets pretty complex in terms of enforcement. 22