|
WATANABE: The reason we’re asking and the Public Works is suggesting that
<br />there be only one access to Manono Street is because Manono is considered a secondary
<br />arterial street. And as you know there’s already quite a bit of traffic there.
<br />Now as the Planning Director had indicated earlier, you know, even if we were to remove
<br />the consolidation requirement, which is one of the conditions here, yeah, we would still
<br />ask for like a cross-easement so that there would be only one access point, again. And I
<br />think this would be consistent with what Public Works wants and with providing better
<br />traffic flow in that area. Since you don’t have any plans, you know, I take it that
<br />probably that would be the best compromise; and in that respect you could move your
<br />planned access to share with the adjoining lots since you own it right now. And if you
<br />need it to or decided to sell that property later on, you know, you’d still be in a position
<br />where you wouldn’t have to do any additional work. I guess what I’m driving at is from
<br />my personal point of view I don’t think two accesses on Manono is really negotiable.
<br />CHUN: I would like to address that, Mr.Watanabe. I did talk to Kelly
<br />Gomes from the Public Works Department because it was a concern, cause initially, you
<br />know, it was, when I did write the report I asked for consultation. And I said, well,
<br />should I consolidate or not? And it came to the point where most of the people that were
<br />a advising me said, well, you should consolidate because it will make your life easier.
<br />However, as I got closer to the ending part of submitting and, you know, getting a better
<br />understanding I found out that when I did talk to Kelly he said at this moment in time
<br />they see it as two separate properties -- So both properties have an entryway, currently
<br />both of them have their own driveway -- however, if you should consolidate the two
<br />properties you now will be set under a condition where you will only have one access
<br />point. And at that point he said, well, what do you plan to do; and I said, well, I don’t
<br />know. So he said well then if that is the case then you should just keep it separate, so just
<br />remove the condition. So that is what I did. So basically they see it as two separate
<br />properties. He said it is not, they don’t see it as one.
<br />WATANABE: I understand, I understand. But I -.
<br />CHUN: So to have more options in the future, you know, it would be best
<br />to have two and so -. But with the other, the properties surrounding, you know, the
<br />conditions were to consolidate, so I am going to do that. But I would like to keep -.
<br />Kelly Gomes said although you consolidated the back portion you still will be able to get,
<br />most likely, two entryways from the Hinano side. So that’s the only reason why I took it
<br />off. It’s so that, you know, I would have more options.
<br />WATANABE: I understand what you’re saying. But, you know, and it’s all
<br />correct, except that the two parcels, the parcel you’re looking for requires a rezone, so it’s
<br />not a commercial parcel right now. It’s zoned Residential which implies less traffic. So,
<br />yes, you have access to Manono Street. On the other hand, what we are talking about is
<br />CN-20 which implies heavier traffic. And that is the purpose for, you know, requesting
<br />or making a condition, yeah, of one access. And, you know, I don’t have as much of an
<br />issue with individual access to the current parcel that you’re applying to rezone if it’s like
<br />two sedans going in and out occasionally. But it’s very different if you put a 7-Eleven in
<br />there and we have a lot of cars going in and out. You see? That’s the differential and I
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />6
<br />
<br />
|