Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-16 Leeward Exh A - Towata Grand LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 16, 2012 MILLICENT TOWATA GRAND, A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE LILLIAN U. TOWATA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST (REZ 11-148) was called to order at 9:34 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chair Geraldine Giffin presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geraldine Giffin, Brandi Beaudet, Wayne Iokepa, Thomas Hickcox and Thomas Whittemore ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Lani Bowman and Richard Nelson ALSO PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Kiran Emler (Department of Public Works, Engineering Division), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And six people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: MILLICENT TOWATA GRAND, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE LILLIAN U. TOWATA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST (REZ 11-148) Application for a Change of Zone from Agricultural–1 acre (A-1a) to Single Family Residential– 20,000 square feet (RS-20) for approximately 1.090 acre of land. The property is located on the east (mauka) side of the Māmalahoa Highway in Hōlualoa town at the northeastern corner of the Old Government Road-Homestead Road intersection, across from the Hōlualoa Gallery, Hōlualoa stnd 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-6-004:018. GIFFIN: Without any further ado, I’d like to call your attention to our first agenda item. The applicant is Millicent Towata Grand, the successor trustee of The Lillian U. Towata Revocable Living Trust. They have submitted an application for a change of zone from Agricultural-1a to Single-Family Residential 20,000 square feet, RS-20. The application number is REZ 11-148. Staff? ARAI: Thank you very much. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Commission. The first item before you today is an application for a change of zone. The applicant is Millicent Towata Grand as successor trustee to The Lillian U. Towata Revocable Living Trust. If I may direct your attention to the projection screen to your left. The subject property is located in the village of Hōlualoa. Hōlualoa here is located on the right side of this location map as circled by my laser pointer. For points of reference, you have the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway located here on the left side. This is Kona Vistas Subdivision and Lako Street heading mauka-makai, and this is the Old Māmalahoa Highway. And again, the area indicated in the various pink colors is Hōlualoa Village. This is a close-up view of Hōlualoa. The subject property is located here outlined in black. It is located on the mauka side of the Māmalahoa Highway. For points of reference, the pink color here represents Village Commercial zoning, as well as this pink color here. The areas indicated in 1 EXHIBIT A yellow is Single-Family Residential zoning with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, and the remaining green color which surrounds the village of Hōlualoa is Agricultural 1 acre zoning designation. Again, the subject property is located here outlined in black at the junction of the Old Māmalahoa as well as the Old Government Road. This is another shot of the same exact area, but this map shows the State Land Use designation. As you can see, the subject property, as well as the village of Hōlualoa is situated within the State Land Use Urban District. The areas in green that surrounds the village is in the State Land Use Agricultural District. This site plan here represents the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map. As you can see, most of the property here outlined in black is situated within the Medium-Density Urban designation, which would accommodate uses, for example, medium multiple-family residential as well as commercial uses. The outlined areas indicated in yellow is Low-Density Urban and that would support basically low-density, I’m sorry, single-family residential uses. This is an aerial photo of the affected area. This time the subject property is outlined in red, and you can see within the property an existing 49-year old residence on the property. This property is located at the juncture of the, again, Māmalahoa Highway and the Old Government Road, as well as a private roadway, twelve-foot wide roadway that runs mauka-makai. Immediately to the south where my laser pointer is pointing is the Hōlualoa Gallery, and the post office is located just further south here in that particular location. The applicant, again, is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural 1 acre to Single-Family Residential 20,000 square feet. The project site is just over an acre in size, and should the applicant be able to secure this zoning, it would allow them to develop a two-lot subdivision with lots at least 23,000 square feet in size. This item here just simply indicates that each lot will be at minimum 23,000 square feet in size. And the purpose of the subdivision is for distribution of the trust assets to its beneficiaries. Access for this proposed subdivision, as represented by the applicant, will be limited to the Old Government Road and will not access the twelve-foot wide private road located immediately to the south of the project site. This is a site plan of the proposed subdivision. As you can see, on the bottom here is the Māmalahoa Highway, and adjacent to the east of the, I’m sorry, west of the subject property is the Old Government Road where access will be provided. And this is the twelve-foot wide private road to the south. Again, access will be provided only to the Old Government Road in this particular location. This is a photograph looking north along the Māmalahoa Highway. As you can see, to your right is the Hōlualoa Gallery, and this is the junction of the twelve-foot wide private road to the south, as well as the Old Government Road, which is 25 feet wide in width to the west. The subject property is located here basically off to the right. This is looking from the Māmalahoa Highway, looking directly mauka along the twelve-foot wide private roadway. And this is looking north along the Old Government Road, 25 feet in width with roughly eight-foot wide pavement in good to poor condition. The subject property is located here off to your right. This is looking south along the same Old Government Road. Again, the property is located off to your left. And you may notice the utility pole located here within the existing 25-foot wide right-of-way. This is looking at the subject property from the Old Government Road. You may notice this cleared are, which is 2 EXHIBIT A informally being used as basically off-site, I’m sorry, on-site parking for activities located makai of the subject property. And you may note here is the existing 49-year old single-family residence. The Planning Director is recommending favorable recommendation of this change of zone request subject to conditions of approval. And we do have additional photos provided in case it’s necessary. But with that, I would like to make reference to your recommendation report, which is on the goldenrod paper in your binder. If you look at Page 3, we did make reference to the twelve-foot wide private road as a Homestead Road, and that is not accurate. Homestead Road seems to convey that this is an old government road as well; the Department of Public Works has confirmed that it is private. So I wish to replace on the bottom of Page 3, the reference to Homestead Road, and simply make reference it as a private roadway; so it will read, “twelve-foot wide asphalt and gravel private roadway.” And that is at the bottom of Page 3. And if you look further -. GIFFIN: Daryn, excuse me? ARAI: Sorry. GIFFIN: Are you speak-. Which -. Are you at our condition or -? ARAI: On Page 3 of your recommendation report at the bottom, the last paragraph. GIFFIN: Okay -. ARAI: The last paragraph makes reference to Homestead Road. Replace the word -. GIFFIN: Hang on just one minute. ARAI: Sorry. LEITHEAD TODD: Here. GIFFIN: Got it. Okay, yeah, I did mark it. And I’m sorry, your recommended changes would be? ARAI: Replace the word “Homestead Road -.” GIFFIN: In the last line? ARAI: In the second to the last line, oh, you are right, on the following line as well – my apologies. And replace those two instances with the words “private roadway.” And that is simply to recognize that it is not a government road and it is a private road. If you were to go to Page 1 of the proposed conditions of approval, and looking at Condition F as in Frank, we would like to make some changes to the language of this condition, again, to recognize that Homestead Road is actually a private roadway, but also to provide additional clarifying language that access to this private roadway is not proposed by the applicant. And therefore, we would like to include a condition that would restrict access to this twelve-foot wide private road. So if I may read the condition in its entirety, the revised condition would read, “On the preliminary plat map reflecting the proposed subdivision of the subject property, a five-foot wide future road widening setback, with no access 3 EXHIBIT A permitted, along the private road shall be clearly delineated and labeled in a manner meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works.” And it is not, just as an explanation, a road widening setback is just a setback. It is not taking the five feet at this time; it’s simply saying that the road could be widened in the future, so any homes to be built on it in the future should kind of anticipate the additional widening, so we don’t allow it to be built right up to where the widening would occur. So with that, I -. Oh, I’m sorry. We did have a series of communications that just came in this morning. One of them is an email that was sent to you, as well as hardcopies provided, it’s transmitting a letter from Bhagavan Buritz making reference to the twelve-foot wide private road located to the south of the subject property. We’ve also provided a number of materials that were provided by the applicant just this morning; it’s a series of photographs, as well as a proposed change to the language of Condition F, I’m sorry, it says here Condition E. And finally, a memorandum dated February 16 from the Department of Public Works, speaking to Condition F regarding the road widening. So with that, I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Daryn? Commissioner Whittemore. WHITTEMORE: The width on the Old Government Road, I know it’s very narrow, and you are representing that it’s 25, the allowed is 25 feet. Is that an encroachment on the mauka side or the makai side? ARAI: The additional widening of eight feet, as contained within Condition E -. WHITTEMORE: No, I’m talking about the existing 25-foot reserve, because it didn’t look like 25 feet. ARAI: The right-of-way is 25 feet currently. The pavement as you see is roughly about eight feet wide, and it kind of sits inside of the 25 feet -. WHITTEMORE: Can you go to that picture? I just want to understand this. ARAI: Let’s see, there was a subdivision map in here. There. WHITTEMORE: Well, you had a photograph that was a little more clear. There, there. ARAI: This one? Okay. WHITTEMORE: Yeah, so -. Yeah, that’s looking down towards Hōlualoa Town, right? So, looking at that, if that’s eight feet, where are you -? It looks like the utilities are set in the 25-foot -. ARAI: Which is one reason why I made specific reference to the utility pole. The utility pole is within the existing right-of-way. WHITTEMORE: Okay, so, and if you look on the makai side, there is no way that that falls within the normal setback for buildings. Is that grandfathered in because of the age of the buildings? ARAI: Yes. 4 EXHIBIT A WHITTEMORE: Okay. ARAI: Yes, it is an old roadway. The properties were developed with structures built many years ago. Just to let you know, if – I believe it is, I just switched the photograph showing looking north along the Old Government Road – if I’m not mistaken, this is the home where, and maybe Ki or someone can correct me, but a portion of the roof sticks into the right-of-way. So the right-of-way is really somewhere in here. WHITTEMORE: Okay, so 25 feet, if I’m looking at the, I’m just curious, from this roadway, how much mauka into the Towata property does that go? And then you’ve got another eight feet on top of it, right? So -. ARAI: Well, right now Public Works is asking for a total of 12.5 additional feet. Just to let you know, I’m not sure if it’s in this particular location, but the road sort of like slowly meanders mauka, and doesn’t, it’s not situated in the middle of the right-of-way. If I were to go to the subdivision map, you can barely see the pavement in the right-of-way, and you can see it’s sort of like scooting over mauka and gets really close to where the property line is. So looking here -. LEITHEAD TODD: Go back, Daryn. Back. There. No, stop. There, yeah. WHITTEMORE: So it looks like that house on the corner is right, totally an encroachment almost. ARAI: Yeah. WHITTEMORE: If you look at, not just the overhang, but the -. Okay. ARAI: And this map here, it barely shows down here, and this exhibit is within your file as well, it shows the corner of the building and where it’s encroaching into the right-of-way. So, to clarify, the Condition E, as it stands right now as recommended by the Planning Director, requires, or is recommending eight additional feet to be added to the existing 25 feet on the mauka side to accommodate additional roadway improvements. Public Works just submitted a memo to you this morning, asking that instead of eight feet they will prefer to have 12.5 feet to provide for a transitioning, given that the road does meander within the right-of-way, and especially to accommodate anticipated turning movements. Just to note, the typical local street section in the Subdivision Code requires 50 feet right-of-way; that’s the standard for a local street. Twenty-five feet, if you take 12.5 on one side, 12.5 on the other, you end up with the standard 50 feet, and that is the basis for the recommendation that’s being offered by Public Works right now. WHITTEMORE: Okay, thank you. GIFFIN: Are there any more questions of staff, Commissioners? If not, I would like to call on the applicant or the applicant’s representative, and/or the representatives of the applicant. Could you please raise your right hand, both of you? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? GOODENOW: I do. TOWATA GRAND: I do. 5 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Good. Would you please state your name into the mike? Thank you. GOODENOW: Kenneth Goodenow of Carlsmith Ball, representing the applicant who is with me today. Did you want me to spell that? GIFFIN: No, we have it in the written documents. GOODENOW: Thank you. Millicent Towata Grand. GIFFIN: Great, thank you. GOODENOW: You know, we really agree with most of the recommendation that this complies the, comports with the General Plan. We give thanks to the Planning Department, which I think did excellent work on this. There really is only one issue that we have, and that is the improvements to Old Government Road, Condition E, to improve the eight feet of area of Old Government Road, originally suggested by the Department of Public Works. But, you know, I do want to state that we appreciate the Planning Department recognizing that this isn’t your regular road, given the volume of traffic, the historic rock walls, and they write that in there in their recommendation. And the condition as currently written really gives a lot of, it really gives the Director of Public Works to say as to what will be done. And we can understand that. But this recommendation will effectively kill this project in my opinion. I’d like, I gave you two photos: Photo A and Photo B. If you could look at Photo A -. GIFFIN: Okay, hang on just a minute, please. GOODENOW: Photo A is coming off of Māmalahoa Highway there; it’s kind of the start of Old Government Road, a little in. You see that the rock wall is there. The distance of pavement in this area is seven feet three inches. But as was pointed out earlier in response to Mr. Whittemore’s question, the actual centerline of the road is not, is such that if you required 16 feet of pavement here, it would not only require removal of the rock wall on the applicant’s property but across the street; it would actually go into that rock wall. You know, I guess when people did surveying back then, maybe they weren’t so accurate. You look at the utility pole up here, you see the rock wall there, well, that’s the neighbor’s rock wall. It turns the corner there; it’s part of the neighbor’s. But actually, it is on the applicant’s property, a lot is in the roadway. So any kind of improvement would have to taper there. Our engineers looked at what it would cost. Even looking at the condition as written – let’s say Public Works said, “Okay, we understand the rock walls” – we go out to them, do different things, our estimate was $70,000 to $90,000 to do the improvement, and that’s not including any walls. And the utility pole there – if you look at Exhibit B, you’ve got a better look of the utility pole – that, because it’s connected to a major transformer down there, it would be, $50,000 is the estimate to move that. And very likely, because it would have to go back so far, they may have to move the other utility pole, because it would be going over the neighbor’s property, the trees there. So we are looking at a project that would cost $120,000 conservatively. If you look at the Google Map, which I provided, plus their Google Map, take a look at it, you can see there really isn’t much service; I mean this is like an alleyway to a handful of lots. And you are going to have, you know, that level of improvement, it’s going to have to stop right at the pole; it’s going to be a small area, because this road will never be fully improved. Look at all the rock walls lining this whole road. You know, you look at some of those on the map I gave you, the Google Maps, a lot of these private roads serve a lot more lots. Now, I understand they are not coming in 6 EXHIBIT A for the rezoning – we are. But is this really a safety issue to the level that would require this type of improvement? A lot of these roads, people drive slow. It’s like an alley. I’m not sure that, you know, the traffic congestion or safety really rise to the level that’s been suggested. This is a beautiful and unique area of Kona, and to some people this is quintessential Kona, a rural Kona. These lots lined with rock walls all along here, this is a Kona, you know, Māmalahoa Scenic Byway, they call it. It’s a beautiful drive, up on the mountain road. The level of traffic on that road, let alone the traffic on Old Government Road, is not very high. The building that they were talking about across the street was built in 1897, and is a Kona Heritage Site. The walls were probably built with that building. I don’t think that’s ever, you know, going to be torn down. So actually, this condition, I believe, would kill this project. I think it shouldn’t be left to Public Works, because this is a planning decision. You know, standardized engineered roads are sometimes desirable and always a factor, but they are not the only factor. And it’s noted in the Planning Department in their recommendation; Kona, the Kona CDP Policy, Land Use Policy 3 is to preserve the rural character of the existing rural towns. And the State plan calls for an environment characterized by beauty and uniqueness. This is a cultural heritage area that should be preserved. And you say, well, don’t do the rezoning. But if you don’t do the rezoning, I mean, they have to sell the property, you have a new owner, he could put a hedge in there, he doesn’t have to allow anyone to park there. People at least can pull off to the side when another car is coming now. I mean, I think this land area is a benefit. So I have attached a proposed amendment for Condition E for your review. But at this time, I’d like to ask Millie to kind of talk about why they are subdividing and the project location. GIFFIN: Thank you. TOWATA GRAND: In 1993 my husband and I moved home to help my mother because she was all by herself. And before she entered the care facility, she asked me not to sell her land and to divide everything equally amongst my two siblings. So in order for me to distribute two pieces of property, the three of us agreed to divide the agricultural portion into two. And in order for me to do that, I had to ask for this rezoning into a residential portion. And then, my mother was very concerned about her property, because it has been in the Hayashi family since the late 1800’s. And actually they, the first part of the building was built in 1895. And the Old Government Road was just a walking path, and later it became a jeep road, but it was very narrow. And so there were rock walls along the sides of them. And I have a picture here -. Oh, by the way, this is a book of my grandfather, and I have pictures in here that shows that the rock wall, they had a gate here a long time ago, because they had animals running around in here. And so, this is me with my grandmother. And here I have pictures of when my mother was little, but you can hardly see the path behind the house; it was just a walking path. And then they made, my brother said it was just an easement road to the – the Hose’s were back there and the Yoshidas and the Matsuos – and he said it was an easement road and my father had to give that to the County. So that’s, there were two little paved strips; there wasn’t a paved road, just two little paved strips, because the road became so muddy and rocky. And so I think the Hose’s put that in. And I also have pictures here of when we were little, and across the road was our sandbox and our laundry clothesline, and my father had to tear down a part of the rock wall where the big parking lot is now to build a carport when he bought his first car. It was like in 1949. And so, it seems like every time I came back for a visit, that road kept getting larger and larger. And actually, the house was there before the road. Let’s see -. Are there any questions? GIFFIN: Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? 7 EXHIBIT A TOWATA GRAND: Would you like to look at these pictures? GIFFIN: Daryn, that would really be nice to circulate that amongst all of us – very interesting anyway. So at this point, and Daryn, correct me if I’m wrong, there seems to be some discussion over the proposed Condition No. E between what the Public Works has proposed and what the applicant is saying is really feasible. Am I correct? ARAI: That is correct. We have had discussions not only with Public Works but with the applicant as well prior to this meeting, and while the Department did initially recommend eight feet, the difference between eight feet and twelve feet, it’s not as significant as the improvements that would be included in the road widening. That is why, you may note, that the applicant’s proposed Condition E excludes all of the physical improvements within the right-of-way and they will be more than willing to convey the eight-foot wide strip of land for the road widening. What I can basically say is that our approach is somewhat academic in many ways; we understand the historical nature of the area, we understand to some respects, although elaborated much more clearly today, that the area did evolve from what was previously a footpath. But the fact of the matter remains is that a request for a change of zone is being proposed. There are some basic standards that normally go along with a change of zone, and in order to be consistent in application and not appear arbitrary or capricious in our requirements, we try to impose basic minimum standards. And what you see before you, as originally represented, was our attempt to work closely with Public Works to try to minimize the improvements as much as possible in recognition of the historical nature of this area. But at the same time, to simply waive all improvements would make it difficult for the Planning Department to view other types of similar change of zone requests where similar requests could be made to waive all necessary improvements. And part of it, too, is in recognition that, should you approve this rezoning of this property, there is still the potential for other properties along this Old Government Road to also come in for future rezonings. And you know that could happen and we have to think downstream. We are the Planning Department; we are supposed to plan. So we try to provide a more long-term vision on what could be anticipated. GIFFIN: And I’m sure the members of the Commission along with myself, we appreciate all of that. If there are no further questions at this point of the applicant -. BEAUDET: One question -. GIFFIN: Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t see your hand. BEAUDET: It’s not necessarily for the applicant. GIFFIN: Oh, okay, is it for Daryn? BEAUDET: Yes. GIFFIN: Okay. There is a question for you, Daryn, and it’s from Commissioner Beaudet. BEAUDET: Is there an anticipated increase in traffic flow based on the requested change of zone? ARAI: There will be an increase in traffic flow. The property currently zoned Ag-1 would normally accommodate one additional, one home. If they want an additional home on the property, it could be considered like a farm dwelling. They could even apply for an ‘ohana, but that will 8 EXHIBIT A pretty much limit it at two. In this particular case, with the conditions as proposed, there is a restriction on additional dwelling units. So ultimately, you could get two additional homes on this property versus the maximum, I’m sorry, a total of four homes on – sorry, I’m just trying to count – a maximum one additional home. So it will be a somewhat minimal increase, should this change of zone be approved. BEAUDET: Is that a factor in the suggested improvements? ARAI: It is a factor. It’s also in considering the standard requirements that normally go along with a residential type of rezoning. It’s also in anticipation that other properties in the area could be rezoned as well. We do try to measure the scope of improvements with the scope of the project, which is why the improvements are limited only to the frontage of this property; we are not asking like the entire Old Government Road be improved and upgraded. So we try to be reasonable in its application. I should also note that unlike other conditions you may have seen – there have been occasions where we say, “You shall do this,” “It shall be 20 feet wide with curb, gutters and sidewalks” – if you read Condition E, especially toward the bottom of it, it says, “Pavement widening along the frontage of the subject property, to the extent possible and/or reasonable, should attempt to reach a minimum width of 16 feet with proper transitions and striping.” That is in recognition that we do have some issues in the area whether it’s topographical, geometric and location issues with the utilities. All of those things need to be engineered, work closely with Public Works, trying to figure out how best to provide these improvements. And that’s why we provided some flexibility in the condition, so it’s not so specific that it doesn’t give Public Works or the applicant a little bit of wriggle room to negotiate something that would work to the best interest of both parties. BEAUDET: So what is this revised Condition E then? GIFFIN: That’s from the applicant. ARAI: That is from the applicant, and they would like to exclude all off-site improvements. BEAUDET: Thank you. GIFFIN: Would it be prudent -. I’m sorry. The applicant? GOODENOW: If I could kind of respond to that. GIFFIN: To what? GOODENOW: What was just said -. GIFFIN: Staff just said? Sure. GOODENOW: Yes. I appreciate that. And in response to the previous question. I mean I think there’s a couple of things to consider. One is you are guaranteeing that you are not having access on that what was called Homestead Road, private road, which is more dangerous; so you are kind of eliminating that possibility. You also, as Daryn said, if you got an additional farm dwelling, you’d have two houses there. Now, the applicant doesn’t really plan to build any house at this time. Her brother lives in Hilo and they just -. But we understand one day someone, you know, we could get 9 EXHIBIT A that. But that’s really only an additional house. What kind of traffic impact, increase are we talking about? The other thing is that we understand that they gave deference to Public Works, and we really appreciate that because they understand, I mean, look. But in reality, again, this is a planning decision, and to just say, “Okay, well, we’ll leave it up to Public Works,” we’ll have no resolution at this point as to what the cost would be, you know, we still have to go to the Council. This is not a wealthy trust. There is, I mean, I, maybe, shouldn’t speak for my client, but this is not, there is not a lot of money; it’s just preserving the property. You know, and to be honest, if there really is a concern about growth, which I think is doubtful, No. 1 – these other properties are not in the Urban area, right, they are Ag, most of them, so it’s unlikely that they’ll, you know, change – but why not maybe do a one-way road here? To me, that makes a lot of more sense. You come in right here, and it’s just a short little loop. So I think there are other options that Public Works could consider that probably would be a better solution than $120,000 minimum, not including removal of the walls and stuff. And I hate, I mean I don’t want to speak for Public Works, but they’ve made their position, I think if the condition is there, it’s going to be hard for them to say, “Well, we recommended it, but now we are going to say you don’t have to do it.” I really, we must, you know, we really ask that you take out the requirement for improvements. GIFFIN: Mrs. Grand, did you want to add premise? TOWATA GRAND: I’m going to say that this house, the old house, is in the historical corridor. And we have a lot of tourists that come up to the town and they walk up this back road, because it’s scenic. And there is a restaurant down the roadways, and they, lots of, more, I think there are more people walking up the road than there are cars. And I also wanted to say that I’m afraid if we don’t settle, the trust, there’s such a dispute in my family, that we might be forced to sell our property and I don’t think any of my relatives would approve of that. GIFFIN: Daryn, I have a question, and I don’t know if I should wait for Ki, but there has been reference by the applicant’s representative about minimal traffic, and then we had some implications that there could be increased traffic with this change. How many cars are we talking about? I mean, like, so I can have a frame of reference. ARAI: I don’t have a specific number of cars, I mean, knowing that one additional home would be built, I’m sure the overall traffic level would be minimal, I mean if you just view at this property. But we do look at it from a cumulative standpoint, meaning if other rezonings occur, you know, there will be additional homes built in the area. That could have a cumulative impact to traffic along this road. Now, granted you are not going to see a large significant volume of traffic but, and I’m not a traffic expert so I can’t confirm that, but at the same time, it’s also a standard of any typical residential rezoning. You know, you may have seen over the years where it’s few and far between where you see a residential rezoning go without any roadway improvements, if the roadway is severely substandard. And one would argue this is severely substandard. HICKCOX: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Yes, Commissioner. HICKCOX: Question in reference to the existing right-of-way. It, according to the documents, it measures or allots for 25 feet already. Okay, now, with, and understanding that to be consistent with past practice, but you are asking for, or what should be a 50-foot right-of-way or easement. The question I have is that with the existing 25 feet, would then it not be possible for the addition of 10 EXHIBIT A another eight feet of pavement to accommodate two lanes? Understanding that there are stonewalls there, understanding that there will be encroachment, but the encroachment is already done by the landowners in the area. So it’s, you know, we are basing a decision on what is there now versus what is applicable on paper in reference to the width of the roadway. So with the existing 25 feet, you have enough space, you have enough road to put in a pavement, an additional pavement. But at whose expense? ARAI: Well, maybe Public Works could chime in for more clarification. I understand what you are saying. Part of the problem, too, is that whenever improvements are made to the road, because it is a government road, it has to try to meet certain established standard. And when I say standards, I’m talking also design standards. So you have the geometrics of the road that you need to consider. Whenever you add additional pavement, you might have to provide transition, shoulder improvements, drainage improvements, you know, all of those things have to be designed and taken into account; it’s not simply, you know, putting four feet of additional pavement off to the side of the existing pavement. That’s part of the reason why Public Works is asking for additional right-of- way width, too, is they understand the limitations that exist along the stretch of the Old Government Road, and still try to see if they can sort of wiggle things through. I mean you have utility poles in the area, you know, drainage issues, and you have rock walls, existing encroachment; in many ways, they do have their hands full. And they are just trying to see what more they can do to improve the situation there, knowing that it’s not only this rezoning but it could be the seed toward additional considerations in the future. And as you may note, thinking long-term – this is the General Plan, as I said, as you can see, the property is here – this whole area in orange is an area depicted for medium-density growth, which could be multiple-family residential, commercial uses, and then you have the residential in the yellow-outlined areas. So you can see the potential growth. Now, you may argue it’s unfair of the applicant to anticipate those types of future events and put that burden on them. I can understand that sentiment, but at the same time, we have to have that visionary type of approach, because if we hamstring ourselves now, you know, it could prevent us from looking at these types of accommodations in the future, should additional requests or something even more grand – no pun intended, sorry, okay, maybe I should just end it right there. GIFFIN: Commissioner Beaudet, did you have a question? Anybody else? At this time I’d like to call up Ki Emler from Public Works. It seems to me we have some questions and they have some recommendations. Ki? Good morning. EMLER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission. Good morning, people from the public. And the applicant, good morning. Thank you for letting me just say a few words about our comments. And I did submit a supplemental memo to try and help explain our position. I’d say the one thing that I want to bring up beyond what Daryn spoke of here is the geometry of the intersection there of the Old Government Road with Māmalahoa Highway; it’s so acute that to try and make the improvements on the opposite side of the road would be contrary to what would be appropriate from an engineering standpoint. Right now, the pavement already is forced to the property side of the property line there. If you look at Exhibit 4 – you should have it there in your packet, and it’s the exhibit that’s shown there now, but you can’t really see it very well from your seat, so I prefer if you would look at it in your package - okay, if you’ll notice the edge of pavement line, you can see the beginning of it at Māmalahoa Highway. If, let’s say, you are taking Māmalahoa Highway northbound and you are making a right turn onto the Old Government Road, you’ll trace out that edge of pavement line from Māmalahoa Highway, and you’ll see that it approaches then the applicant’s property line, property pin actually, it’s right there at the edge. And because of the acute angle of Old Government Road with Māmalahoa Highway, if you try to make 11 EXHIBIT A that improvement on the other side of the existing road, it would not make sense from an engineering point, if we would make that turn too sharp. It’s already a very sharp turn, trying to either make a left turn off of Māmalahoa Highway or making a right turn onto it from the Old Government Road. That’s the reason why we are stepping back and letting you know that not only is our request consistent with what we normally do in asking for a half the difference between the standard road and the existing right-of-way, but also because the unique condition at this location calls for the additional pavements, which are, the additional pavement is minimal. We are asking for the ultimate traveled way to be 16 feet for two-way traffic; that’s as about little as you can get by with. And then in addition to that, another four or four and a half feet for shoulder to give a little bit roadside clearance. So let’s say if you had a shoulder, a person could be walking along the shoulder, you know, if somebody were to put a retaining, I mean, a wall along the property line or a fence along the property line, there is such a thing called a shy distance you want to maintain from the traveled way. Otherwise, you know, people are not going to be able to drive right up against the fence. So that’s the reason for our comment in our revised memo today to try to explain that. GIFFIN: Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Emler, this particular road starts over here and then ends up by Kona Imin Center. Am I correct? EMLER: That’s correct. LEITHEAD TODD: So a very short segment. What if you made it one-way? EMLER: Well, I did take that -. LEITHEAD TODD: Because then you wouldn’t need 50 feet, right, if you made it a one-way street, because you don’t need two lanes of traffic. And since there is an entrance at both sides, the people who live there would, and they are not very far apart, the people who live there would quickly learn where you had to turn in to get to their homes. EMLER: That is definitely a consideration that I thought of. But the problem with that is that I believe requires a traffic code amendment and has to go through the Traffic Division and go through all kinds of review. And also, there could be people who live along the road that would not want it changed to a one-way road. And so I think it would require some kind of a zoning change, which is outside of the scope of what we are considering here. And that’s why I dropped it as a, considering it as a possibility for this, for the purpose of this application. LEITHEAD TODD: But I also suspect that some people along that road might object to it becoming a 50-foot wide roadway, because given the short distance of it and the fact that almost all the properties along that that use that road for access are residential; the commercial properties primarily use the Māmalahoa on the, you know, other side. And it’s been my experience that a lot of people don’t want, especially in residential areas, they want stuff that’s traffic calming. And widening it will increase speed. But my biggest concern in this area which, it’s not an engineering, it’s not the type of concern that we normally, you know, come up with when we are planning because typically we take the comments from DPW and we put them in. My concern is that we have conflicting mandates in Kona. One is to try and keep the rural character. And taking out the stonewalls and widening this 12 EXHIBIT A short stretch of road, and particularly because you’ve got a historic building next to this road and some walls that may in fact be more than 100 years old, kind of conflicts with some of the message that I have out of the Kona CDP. So I found myself very conflicted with this. I would not have been as concerned, if this had been a rezoning that was coming in and asking for commercial zoning, so it was going to significantly increase traffic on this road, then I thought it would have made total sense to widen the road and increase the, you know, the accessibility. But we are talking about one more house. And it just seemed that to put the burden for the intersection and the improvement, when all it is is it’s going from, well, it’s essentially residential right now, one house to two houses, it just seemed like a lot. And also, the question I had was what was the likelihood that the rest of this roadway would ever get, you know, widened, because I think the intent is to try and keep commercial traffic on the Old Māmalahoa and not to necessarily expand it to this back road. So I don’t see that you are going to have commercial zoning come in off of this back road. And I just don’t really see us ever widening the whole stretch. I like preserving the possibility by having a set-aside, you know, for the property. But if you are not going to do the whole thing at one time, then you are just going to have a segment that’s this wide, that just all of a sudden goes like that and may be like that forever. So I was very, very conflicted over this. Also because I kind of like some of these old historic roads. And this one doesn’t pose the same problems like the other what we are calling a homestead road, I have major problems with, because of topography, the sharp 90-degree turns on it that creates some problems for emergency access – but this is a straight road, and it doesn’t present the same kind of problem, the same kind of need, except for that intersection area that you are concerned about. But you really don’t have that much traffic going in there. So I just was not comfortable, given the fact that all that’s occurring out of this is one more, one more house, and so I find myself very conflicted over this. But we typically, our Department typically defers to the requests from DPW because they are the road people, and so we include it and we put it in. But this was one where I felt like I was a rock, you know, or between two rocks kind of, because on the one hand you want to try and preserve the rural character and the difficulty that you do have some historic sites along this area and, you know, traffic concerns. And I kept thinking that perhaps the problem is is that we haven’t had that wider discussion over what’s the other alternative, and I thought that the one-way was a possible alternative that would take care of a lot of the concerns and also preserve, you know, especially because it’s a short stretch and there’s two ends to it. And so I just, you know, that may be something that the County Council has to take a look at, you know, it’s above my pay grade, so to speak. But I think you have to have that conversation because you also don’t want to turn this into a little speedway where people are trying to avoid the traffic on Māmalahoa with the commercials and then come zipping through this as a way to get around some of the other traffic, and that will happen if you widen this whole road to 50 feet in a long run. So I’m just, I’m just, you know, thinking that maybe there is more than one way to address this and still preserve the character of the area and yet address the traffic concerns. And I know it’s not an engineering thing per se; it’s kind of like, you know, what do we do with this area, how do we preserve the character, how do we retain the wall. I happen to love old stonewalls in Kona, and I’d like to preserve, you know, a lot of them unless they really present health and safety kinds of issue, sight distance, that kind of thing. But I was really troubled by this particular one because of the proximity to the historic home and also because I just felt like in a long run we are not going to 13 EXHIBIT A widen this entire, you know, it’s a very short stretch, so I just thought there might be a different way to handle this. Thank you. GIFFIN: Ki? EMLER: If I may, I just would like, Madam Director, to respond. As far as Public Works asking for a full dedicable road section, you realize we haven’t done that. We are, we did discuss this early on with the Planning Department as far as what we would need for minimal improvements on it. And so we agreed that, and because of the expected traffic volume and the existing traffic volume there, it probably doesn’t warrant that type of improvement. And we are also concerned about speeding. It’s a problem we have to deal with; we have to come up with ways of traffic calming and so forth. So the additional pavement width of eight feet to the existing eight feet is 16 feet, just enough to get two cars through. And right now, it is a two-way street, so we have to look at it the way it is now. And as far as the applicant’s concern about the magnitude of the improvements, I think it’s quite an overestimate. And the issue of relocating the utility pole is not on the table; it’s not something we are asking for. We realize the excessive cost of doing that. But we are talking about the utility pole I believe along, next to the northerly property corner, that large one there; we are not asking for that to be removed. So the pavement transition would occur within the frontage of this property, so there would be some, it would be enough to where someone can pull into that, the additional pavement width and then it would transition back to the one-lane within this property frontage. That’s what we had in mind, then with minimal shoulder improvements in addition to that of four and half feet. BEAUDET: I have a comment, Madam Chair. GIFFIN: Commissioner Beaudet. BEAUDET: It’s clear that consideration that’s been given by Public Works, and it’s really appreciated. But, you know, by moving in this direction to follow that recommendation, you know, we talk about setting precedent of our future, but on the other side of the same coin, we would be setting precedent for the continued widening of the road, should other requests for rezoning be approved in the future. And by doing that, in itself, we are already setting the stage to eliminate part of our history. I agree with the Director on the historical value of those stonewalls, and I just, it saddens me to think that we are setting precedent for additional removal. You know, growing up on this side of the mountain, it’s -. The architecture of the old stonewalls that we have here in Kona is unique to this island. I’m not a mason, I don’t know why, but, you know, it’s visually apparent. And I just have to really, it’s hard to set that precedent, because I think it would be a requirement for other landowners north of the property to increase it to the same extent and, you know, both sides of the roadway is lined with those old stonewalls. GIFFIN: Madam Director. Unless Ki, did you want to respond to -? EMLER: We understand that concern. The most of the rock walls would probably be dry-stack walls; they can’t be relocated and rebuilt to reasonably same type of wall. We’ve seen it done before. But I understand the historic nature of the walls and I appreciate your concern about that. It’s just that we look at the reality of what is coming, and that is expanded use of the road and the conflicts that causes, so -. 14 EXHIBIT A LEITHEAD TODD: Ki, what if we came up with some language that said, “If the County were to designate this as a one-way road, that then these improvements would not be required and the road widening would not be required?” Because it’s a short stretch, it’s open on two sides, it seems to me that, you know -. And obviously it would take some consultation with the neighbors but, you know, they are all going to face the same thing too over time, because I suspect that they are going to be in a similar situation as the Towata family has found itself that as time goes by and you want to try and, you know, keep the land in the family. And this is not very dense, you know, this is a half acre, right, 20,000 square feet, we are basically talking a half acre, which is twice as big as my yard is. So it just seems that maybe we need to have that possibility so that it’s not necessarily set in stone; if in fact the Council, you know, or Public Works makes an ultimate decision that this should be a one-way, that then these conditions for the road widening would drop off. Just a thought. If we had some language in there. I’m just looking for a way to try and preserve the character of the area. And I happen to live up in Kaūmana, and I’ve got, you know, Akolea Road, and the part that is one- lane is much safer to drive than the part where it’s two-lane and straight. And you would have opposition from the community to take out the bridge, which creates this kind of a hook, because that’s what slows the traffic down is the one-lane bridge that, and everybody’s got to stop, and people learn to be nice and stop and let the other people go. The section where we widened it to two lanes, it’s like a speedway through there, and for people who are pedestrians, they are really taking their life in hand when they go through that area. The older part of the road that’s skinnier and has the little hook to go over the one-lane bridge is much safer, and that ends up being the traffic calming. My concern is that widening this just destroys the character of the area and ends up also becoming a speedway, and then Public Works has to go in and put speed humps, like we’ve done on Haili. Haili Street in Hilo which is essentially wide enough for four lanes, and we’ve got multiple speed humps on it because people were racing through it, and they have sidewalks and yet people were concerned in that area over the speed at which people were coming through. So maybe in a long run, we may, if we can turn this into a one-way and preserve the character, we may be actually saving ourselves money because we won’t have to come back in with speed humps later on. But I’m just looking for some kind of a compromise or the potential for compromise, you know, that if we determine that it’s not absolutely necessary -. Because it’s one more house; one more house is not really increasing the traffic in this area substantially. So just a thought. GIFFIN: Ki, did you want to respond to the Director? EMLER: Yes, I would. GIFFIN: Okay, please. EMLER: Just that, as I said, I did give the one-way issue some consideration. Even if we did change it to one-way, having the pavement take that wider approach to Māmalahoa Highway at this end of the road would help facilitate whichever way we decided to make it one-way in order to make that turn. It really makes a difference which way you decide to make it one-way as to how usable the road is going to be. And this all will be part of argument, I’m sure, when the issue comes up to change it to one-way. GIFFIN: Sure. 15 EXHIBIT A HICKCOX: Chair? GIFFIN: Commissioner. HICKCOX: I have a question, Ki. The existing width of the right-of-way is 25 feet. The minimum width on the roadway to make it two-way would require 16 feet, as you said, right, eight feet per lane, correct? EMLER: Yes, sir. HICKCOX: Now, that leaves you nine more feet for shoulders. So I’m sitting here trying to go back and forth with that, and say, okay, you already have the designated, allotted property, right-of- way of 25 feet, and if Public Works is looking at it from the perspective of, okay, we can get away with a minimum eight-foot lane with shoulder improvements, the land is already there to accommodate that. So my, you know, and I’m looking at this from kind of a humanistic point of view is that because we have an applicant now and the only applicant that’s come in that I’m aware of at this juncture, we seem to be saddling that particular applicant with all of the future improvements in that area, and it doesn’t seem fair to me, you know, excuse me but it really doesn’t seem fair. And, well, that’s my mana‘o on it. Thank you. EMLER: Okay, if I could address that, too. I was trying to be consistent with how much property we are asking for based on the Subdivision Code standard, but I realized that’s awfully cut and dry, and so that’s why I brought in the issue of the unique characteristics at this intersection. If it is determined that it is sufficient to widen it at the south end of the property and narrow it toward the north end, and this is what the Planning Commission and the Council and the Planning Department would rather do in this instant, then I would say that that’s a reasonable accommodation that we could work with in order to even consider future improvements of this roadway. I just didn’t want it to be that complicated, so that’s why I didn’t propose that. GIFFIN: Thank you. The applicant have a comment? GOODENOW: Yeah, I just wanted to comment. And again, I think you all saw this earlier and I kind of highlighted the pavement area, right, it’s all on our half. And I think your comments are very, you know, much in order. But, you know, we think, I think one-way would be great. But I would ask that one of the Commissioners move to amend the condition, as we’ve suggested now. It will go to the Council, during that time, Mr. Emler can look further at, you know, one-way road and other possibilities and, you know, can always make his comments then. This is what we are asking for. Thank you. GIFFIN: Excuse me. I appreciate your recommendation, but that’s not quite what we are going to do. There is a person who has signed up to give testimony, and I think that it is proper that we hear from the public right now. So, Ki, thank you very much. And I appreciate your suggestion, but that is not what we are going to do. GOODENOW: One thing I didn’t want to be misspeaking of others, we do have members of the family here. GIFFIN: Do they want to testify? 16 EXHIBIT A GOODENOW: No, but they can, about the old times. We have the neighbor who lives, who is in support, so -. And Mrs. Towata Grand’s husband -. GIFFIN: If they would like to testify, they can sign up with the staff. And this person has signed up, and so it is my responsibility to call him up. Mr. – and you two may either sit there or you may go back to your seats, because we have enough room – and correct me if I’m wrong about the pronunciation, Bhagavan. BURITZ: Very close. GIFFIN: Okay. Buritz? BURITZ: Yes. GIFFIN: Okay. Will you please raise your right hand? And there is a microphone, I think, there. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? BURITZ: I swear. GIFFIN: Please state your name. BURITZ: Bhagavan Samson Buritz. GIFFIN: Okay, thank you. You may sit down. BURITZ: Yes, I have a difficult name, and people ask for something shorter, so I abbreviate it to B, so, makes it easier for people. I’m kind of behind the eight ball on this, because when I got the notice for the rezoning – I knew Millie from when we were dealing with a cell phone tower issue, and I got to know the whole neighborhood at that time, and I knew her and I knew that she was a kama‘āina person and her family had a lot of history – and so when I saw the rezoning thing, I didn’t really look at that carefully; I just thought, oh, she’s doing it, I support anything she does – that’s how I, that’s how I, that was my reaction. Then last week I got some kind of, it was the same kind of thing that happened to me with the cell phone thing, I got this kind of like, I’ve got to look at this, I really have to study this. So I started looking at it, and I saw the, you know, there were bigger, bigger issues here because we have this so-called private road. People call it all kinds of different things, Ghost Road, and it’s private, but it’s, who owns it is like up for question. It’s a complicated issue. And I’ve talked to several people about it. Let me say that I have no expertise in planning or road design or any these kinds of things – that’s just not my area. And I do own land at the top of this private road; if you went straight up the private road, I have land up there. So I am a landowner up there, and I am selling my house in Kainaliu and planning to move up there. And so when I started to look at this whole thing, I had some different ideas, and then I went around and talked to all the neighbors that I could contact. I talked to everybody and I came up, and I said, “You know, we have to get going here, and I, you know, we have to, we need to have a road association, we need to kind of get a little more organized,” because these people go and help and kōkua fixing the road, but we have this twelve-foot road and it’s -. And these twelve-foot roads were designed, I guess, for horse wagons back in about 1914, I guess, through the court system. And so you can’t make a turn on a twelve-foot road in a car. It’s just impossible. In fact, when an 17 EXHIBIT A ambulance came up to go up the road, it knocked the corner off of Millie’s land; they had to get up there, and just knocked the stonewall right down. And so there’s a lot of different issues with these roads. And so I started, in my ignorance, you can say, I just started looking, I just looked at the whole thing and I said, you know, it’s really a benefit to the people on the road to have Millie’s lots access from the road, because then we have more people participating in our road improvements and doesn’t necessitate her making any of the improvements to this Government Road. And, you know, my wife is a retired chef and she is a total foody person. And this restaurant we have there, the Hulakoa Café, she’s telling me this is like a world-class restaurant. It’s going to be, it just started a few years ago, it’s going to become famous like Merriman’s did. It’s that kind of place. And there is a parking area that tourists access on the Old Government Road, it’s parking for about twelve cars at the mauka side of the restaurant. And so this attracts people that are really, you know, they read about it in Bon Appétit and this kind of magazine. So this, and so to maintain the character here is what people are coming. I’m, I’ve lived in Hawai‘i for 40 years, in Kona for 40 years, but I still kind of have a malihini eye for things that I see – wow, this is really charming, this is really fantastic, this is really different than Massachusetts where I grew up. And so the tourists who come in here, you know, some wealthy people – cause I eat at this restaurant, I see – and they come and they walk around and they just love it. And so we really want to maintain the character there. We have that I think the original doctor’s office, isn’t it who it is, the original doctor in Kona, down below there, and we have a really charming road. And so I came to her like a couple of days ago and she said, “Wow, I wish you had come to me a month ago.” But I didn’t. So here I am. And so she already has an access on the, what I call the coffee road, or the private road. She already has an access to her property, and now they are going to put a flag lot in and all these different things. And what I’m, my issue is improving this private road, making it wider and making it functional. And so that’s, and I was trying to see how to tie this together with her subdivision, which I’m totally in favor of. And I didn’t come here to throw any kind of sticks in the way or anything; I’m not trying to do that. I support her whatever, whatever way they can do it. But I think that if she could access her lots on the private road, it could, you know, it could solve a lot of problem, because she could give up some -. They are already talking about having some conditions to widen that road with the, you know, future widening, and so it could be done not only on the part going straight up from the Māmalahoa Highway but also on the part that’s sort of parallel to the Māmalahoa Highway. So, like I say, I have no expertise in these areas and it’s not my -. My expertise is more in going around and talking to neighbors and trying to get them to cooperate and have the road, so that’s -. But I’m, like I say, I’m behind the eight ball here as far as the timing goes. But I think that one of the ideas is to have, perhaps have her access her lots on the private road may be, would be, solve some of these problems that we have, as far as her having her main access for two lots on the Government Road. So these are some ideas that I have that are late in the game. But, you know, this has inspired me to kind of try to organize the neighborhood and get a road association going. And so that’s, we are going forward with that. But, and let me say that the last time I went to the Planning Commission was many years ago and they had like a whole-island Planning Commission, and I’m really appreciative that we have a Leeward Planning Commission that understands, you know, what I might call my side of the island and, you know, kind of appreciates the historic character of it. And I think it’s really, I can see in this process that people are doing that. But, you know, so that’s, that’s basically my testimony is that I think there might be a different, a different way to approach it. And so my suggestion would be, like I said I’m no expert, but my 18 EXHIBIT A suggestion would be to for them to offer a certain portion of their property for future private road improvement and that, you know, based on that, that their subdivision be provided, and then they wouldn’t have to spend the money now, and it could be -. I think one of the Commissioners, I think it was that you, sir, mentioned, or maybe Mr. Hickcox, mentioned that there was kind of unfairness that they had to do all these improvements, and they are just trying to, you know, split up their property. I think what you said was that, you know, your mom made you a promise that you would keep it in the family. So that’s what it is. It’s not some, she’s not some big developer; it’s a person trying to provide for her ‘ohana. And that, so perhaps it would be a way to do this with the, you know, like I say, with the future, with the dedication for future widening of the private road. And who owns the private road is another whole question; it’s just like it’s up in the air. But I’m, people have told me that you can go through a quiet title action and perhaps, and if you have a road association and the road association has ownership of it, and if you have a road association, then there is government money available to improve the road. So if nothing else comes out of this, that’s what I’ve done is I’ve got the things going with the road. But if you could be a member, her family could be a member of the road association, it will be a real asset. So that’s, those, I’m kind of throwing a curve ball in here at the last minute, but perhaps, you know, something like this could be done. And then, like I say, she wouldn’t have to spend, she wouldn’t have to spend any money to do this. It could be a future dedication, here is where the future road is that will help me and help my other neighbors help the ambience. And I think one of these things to be aware of is when we are going to do these expansions of these twelve-foot roads, we need to think in terms of not just widening the road. We need to think what I call cutting the corner; we need to make like a little angle piece so that vehicles can make a turn. And people that drive on those roads know exactly what I’m talking about, because the neighbors do that already; they just cut off the corners, so people can do that. And I think that’s, I don’t want to take up too much time here, and I think that’s everything I have to say about it. I think the, one last thing, I think the one-way road is a good one, because you can preserve the character. And, yes, there is a lot of different, it sounds like there is a lot of different processes and steps that have to be gone through to do that, but I think it would be a benefit to the community, and I think the community would agree with it. So that’s about all I have to say. GIFFIN: Thank you very much. Commissioners, did you have any questions of the public testifier? If not, Daryn, did you want to respond to the comments from the public or do you have a new suggestion? BURITZ: Like I say, I’m coming in with a curve ball at the end here and I apologize. GIFFIN: That’s all right. Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, actually, we do have a condition proposed, and it’s a five-foot condition. The theory being that five feet from them, five feet from properties on the other side of the twelve feet, and that would give you 22 feet, you know, because we were thinking that there might be the potential. The problem is is that we couldn’t put more since it’s not a County road, so we just wanted to preserve the potential that the community would get together. And so there is a five-foot setback condition. And the theory being that if the other properties on the other side of the road came in, then that would give you, you know, some, so they don’t put a house right, too close to a potential road. BURITZ: Could I -? 19 EXHIBIT A GOODENOW: And we agree to that condition. BURITZ: Could I ask you a question about that? LEITHEAD TODD: Uh huh. BURITZ: So with that 22, so the 22 feet, the idea is that would give like a minimal two-lane road kind of situation -. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah -. BURITZ: That’s the idea, right? And we can get some -. Because I know that people, you know, when I was thinking about this, I know the Sheffs who are on the other side of the road, they have some request in to, I’m not sure what they are trying to do, but I know they are trying to reconfigure their property or -. GIFFIN: You know, speaking on behalf of the Commission, sir, I really am appreciative that you are here this morning. And if there are any more comments you would like to make germane to this application, we’d love to hear it. If not, thank you very much. BURITZ: Okay, you’re welcome. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. GIFFIN: And I think the applicant had some comments in regards to what the Director just said. GOODENOW: No, I think we agree, you know, that’s why we did not object to providing that five feet. I mean that’s, I think there are a number of things that we are willing to provide. It’s just, you know, we really request that one of the Commissioners would delete, as we suggest, the improvement language and give, you know -. If Public Works wants to take a look at it and come at the Council, they can. But for now, we would suggest it be deleted because, you know, the potential expense really will kill any chance of -. And she’s got to wrap up the trust; it’s been almost five years. GIFFIN: That’s well taken. Daryn, did you have some comments that you wanted to make or propose new wording for a condition? ARAI: Well, what you have before you is the Director’s recommendation, which makes specific reference to eight additional feet, including roadway improvements. Public Works by their memorandum is asking that the eight feet be increased to 12.5, which will give a total of 50-foot widening eventually. So that’s one consideration you need to make. This is something that I know the applicant’s representative is not offering; their preference is clearly to waive all improvements within the road and they are willing to give the eight additional feet. And I’m not sure if they have spoken directly to Public Works’ request that the eight feet of widening be increased to 12.5. But I have been sort of like trying to figure out an addendum to the existing condition as currently written that could accommodate the possibility that if this roadway is converted to a one-way traffic, that the widening improvements, utility relocations and street lighting improvements be sort of like waived in lieu of just a necessary pavement transitions and striping necessary for the one-way traffic flow. It’s an option. I know the applicant will prefer that you just eliminate the requirements as it stands, but -. So you have multiple things on the table right now. And if the Commission is so inclined, I can offer the specific language for the one-way -. 20 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: And in that regard, Daryn, I would like to propose that we go into a recess, so that all of us have a chance to step back for a minute, you can have a chance to come up with some proposed wording, and just give us a break for a few minutes. ARAI: Sure. And I think you all deserve the recess, given we’ve been going on an hour and half, but just to let you know, I do have some language ready for you. GIFFIN: I didn’t doubt that for a minute. So with that, I would like to call that we go into a recess for, what, ten minutes? Ten minutes? Daryn, is ten minutes sufficient? Ten minutes. Thank you. RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 10:56 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:10 a.m. GIFFIN: Will the meeting of the Leeward County Planning Commission back to order. At this point, and, Daryn, correct me if I’m wrong, it seems to me that we are faced with several condition possibilities. The first one, of course, is from our Director that came as part of her recommendation. The applicant has also come up with a proposed amendment to Condition E. At this time, I’d like to ask the staff if there are any other possible scenarios that this Commission can consider. ARAI: Okay, I know I’ll probably confuse matters more, but I’m going to try my best to keep it really clear and succinct. If I am to count correctly, I think you have like four options available to you: As Chairwoman Giffin mentioned, you have the Director’s recommendation; you also have the applicant’s proposed revisions to Condition E that was transmitted to you separately; the third item is Public Works has recommended that the Director’s Condition E be modified to increase the additional right-of-way width from eight feet to 12.5, so that is a third option; and the final option was based on previous discussions about the possibility of one-way traffic flow along Old Government Road that could alleviate the need for the extensive roadway, utility relocation, that also remains a possibility. For that possible option, I have come up with some, a basic draft language, or condition, that would be added on to the existing Condition E as a follow-out option, meaning if one-way traffic flow is established, then this optional condition would kick in and all the requirements originally proposed would not be applied. So you have four different opportunities, or options, available to you. GIFFIN: Commissioners, would you like to hear the proposed language for option four? COMMISSIONERS: Yes. GIFFIN: Daryn? ARAI: Okay, I should note that should this option, this proposed language be included, I would recommend that Condition E be modified to include the 12.5 feet of additional right-of-way from the current eight as proposed by the Director. Public Works has indicated that the 12.5 is necessary to accommodate all of the improvements and transitions required for two-way traffic along Old Government Road. So with that -. BEAUDET: So 12.5 -. 21 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Twelve point five, right. ARAI: Twelve point five, increase from the current eight. So at the very end of Condition E, as an addition, this addendum would state, “The requirements of this condition, as specified above, shall not apply, should traffic along the Old Government Road be converted to a one-way traffic pattern. Should a one-way traffic pattern be established, improvements to the Old Government Road shall be limited to pavement transition and striping along the frontage of the property to accommodate the one-way traffic pattern.” GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions on that wording? BEAUDET: I do. GIFFIN: Commissioner Beaudet. BEAUDET: How would we impose, or trigger, the efforts of securing a one-way? I mean it seems to be, it seems to be open-ended, the language; there is no direction. GIFFIN: Daryn? ARAI: There is some direction in a sense that it’s giving, it’s clearly giving an option for one-way traffic pattern. But you are correct; the only way to change the traffic flow is to actually amend the County Traffic Code, and in order to do that, it has to go through the Traffic Division with proper traffic studies, whatever studies they need to do, and then a proposal, a bill is then submitted to County Council, and it’s Council that ultimately determines whether to amend. BEAUDET: So who would be burdened with that effort? ARAI: It would have to be, maybe the applicant could initiate, and then it will be something that Public Works would have to follow up on. GIFFIN: Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Or the County Council could initiate an amendment to the Traffic Code to make it one-way, because they have that authority. If I were, you know, I’d probably go, if I were, you know, people who lived here, I’d probably draft a proposed amendment for the Council and give it to them, so they could introduce it. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other comments? So let me get clear again, Daryn. If the fourth option, which deals with the possibility of one-way, this one-way road, it would be in addition to Condition E, which would include also the 12.5 width, correct? ARAI: Correct. GIFFIN: Okay. So any one of us, you, making the motion would also include that, right, Daryn? ARAI: That is correct. GIFFIN: Along with the changes that were made to Condition F. 22 EXHIBIT A ARAI: That is correct. I’m just looking at Condition E now, and I know Deputy Corp Counsel has mentioned this, but it was making sure that these improvements are tied in, or there is a timing mechanism in it. Now, normally these improvements are always applied at the time of subdivision, because the whole purpose of this rezoning is for subdivision. But I’m just looking at the condition now, and I’m just wondering if we need to make a more specific reference that “shall be provided prior to final subdivision approval,” or something to that effect. GIFFIN: Madam Director, do you want to give input? LEITHEAD TODD: I think if you have language that says, you know, “if it becomes one-way prior to final subdivision approval -.” ARAI: Okay, let me work on something, but at this point, you can go ahead and discuss. GIFFIN: Good. Commissioners, do I hear any discussion? You can express your feelings about the four options that Daryn spoke of, and then maybe before actually Daryn can come up with some final wording on option four, we can have consensus amongst us. So if there is any comment -. Commissioner. HICKCOX: Yes, Madam Chair. Looking at Exhibit 4, the proposal is to take 12.5 feet off of the makai portion of the applicant’s property. Is that correct? GIFFIN: Daryn, is that correct? ARAI: Public Works is recommending 12.5 feet entirely on the mauka side, so it’s going to take that 12.5-foot strip from the property. LEITHEAD TODD: But it’s the makai side of the applicant’s property. HICKCOX: Right. ARAI: Yeah, I’m sorry, yeah, makai side of the applicant’s property, right. HICKCOX: And this would be to accommodate – 50-foot, no, 12.5 and 25 is 37.5. ARAI: Plus twelve feet on the -. LEITHEAD TODD: There’s another 12.5 -. ARAI: Yeah, plus 12.5 on the makai side eventually, should it happen. That’s why -. We are splitting the difference. It’s 12.5 feet now. You need an additional 25 to make 50, but because there is a mauka, makai side of the road, we split it to 12.5 just to be fair to owners on both sides of the road. HICKCOX: I see. Now, from an engineering perspective, if you were to take the south-west corner of the Towata’s property, and kind of like did a horseshoe thing as opposed to going the entire length of the property, would then that not more sufficiently address the intersection issues, the transition? 23 EXHIBIT A ARAI: I think we are talking about the radius. HICKCOX: Yes. ARAI: When you make a turn, right? HICKCOX: Right, yes. ARAI: That is why there is reference to meeting with the approval of Public Works. Because until the, if any improvements are proposed and engineered and designed, that will determine what kind of radius you need, so that’s why the reference to meeting with the approval of Public Works. Right now, it’s a little too early to know exactly how much is necessary; all we know is that we need the width. GIFFIN: Tom. WHITTEMORE: Daryn, the 12.5 feet that you are talking about is with the assumption that it’s two-way, right? So if they accomplish one-way, are we prepared to amend that setback, or do you, or you do want to perpetuate that? Because it would seem to me with a one-way road, you are not going to need 12.5 feet setback. ARAI: The option No. 4 that I offered you with the proposed additional language, what it basically would do is all the requirements and improvements specified in the current condition would basically drop off. WHITTEMORE: Okay, okay, I understand, okay. ARAI: And then the only we would ask for is proper pavement transitions and striping like where you make the turns into homestead road and the intersection. WHITTEMORE: Okay, thanks. GIFFIN: Any other comments or discussion? HICKCOX: I have. GIFFIN: Yes. HICKCOX: Madam Chair, one last thing, and this is kind of off the wall and I don’t know -. What if we just block it off? GIFFIN: Interesting. HICKCOX: You know, you take the corner of the property and you run it across the street and just block it off, and just have one-way entrance in and out. GOODENOW: You know, as the applicant, if I could kind of respond -. 24 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Just a minute. Daryn, did you want to -? ARAI: I’m sorry, help me understand the blocking off this road. HICKCOX: Okay. From the, it would be makai-south corner of the Towata property, running diagonally to the, I think that’s Lot 63 -. ARAI: Okay. So basically cutting off traffic flow along this Government Road? HICKCOX: Yes, from this side. ARAI: From this side -. HICKCOX: And the only entrance would be from Imin. ARAI: Normally, I wouldn’t -. Ki will take this. EMLER: If you try to block it off on this end, you need a turnaround, and that’s a pretty substantial amount of improvement to do a turnaround to a dedicable standard like that or, you know, in a way that an emergency vehicle could use it. So I think you are looking at more improvements at this end of the road than last, to do something like that. Can I have the floor for another minute on this issue? GIFFIN: Ki. EMLER: I really, when Daryn approached me with this one-way, I thought the option still having additional right-of-way at this end of the road was still open to facilitate that turn movement onto Māmalahoa Highway. Even if you made it one-way, it may be, make a real difference which way you go one-way, and how you facilitate that turn could call for additional widening on one end like this in order to do that properly and do it in a way that’s acceptable to the community. So I thought that -. And Wayne, I think it was Wayne, or Thomas, did you make the issue of having twelve feet on one end and zero on the other? Yeah, that’s a reasonable accommodation in my opinion. I just didn’t, again, I didn’t want to propose that; I thought that was too complicated, so I tried to make it standard request of one-half additional right-of-way. There is no way that Public Works will probably ever be going to get the other side to a full 50 feet. I’m not even considering that to be a possibility at this point. So, good one, I’m going to take that store. And this is overhanging the County road right now. So it’s a matter of trying to accommodate the existing condition is what we are requesting. GIFFIN: Right. Daryn? ARAI: The only thing I can think of is that to accommodate the additional right-of-way necessary, in the addendum to the Condition E that I mentioned, where it talks about “shall be limited to pavement, transitions and striping,” I could include additional language like “shall be limited to right-of-way and pavement transition and striping”; at least that speaks directly to right-of-way and it’s clear that it’s to accommodate the pavement transition. Ki was mentioning whether it will make specific reference to 12.5 feet, and I’m not making the specific reference because the way I see it is whatever is necessary to accommodate the pavement transition, that’s how much right-of-way you take. 25 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: I see, I see. Commissioner. HICKCOX: The condition would be “should it ever be improved?” ARAI: I’m sorry? HICKCOX: Would the language then, should that intersection ever be improved, then that would kick in? Is that what we are saying, or -? ARAI: Basically, the way I see it is if a one-way traffic flow is established -. And I honestly at this time have no idea which way it is going to go; whether it’s going to go northbound or southbound, I don’t know. But depending on the decision, I would think that Public Works will need to look at how all the pavements and turning movements are going to occur at that one intersection, and whatever they require at that time to accommodate the transition is what would be an obligation upon the applicant to provide. And that is why I haven’t made mention to exactly 12.5 feet, I haven’t made mention to pavement widening, I haven’t made mention to shoulder or drainage improvements. Because a one-way traffic flow is simply, their expectation is to leave the pavement as it is for the most part along the frontage of the property, and only when you get to the intersection, whatever is needed there to accommodate the new traffic flow is what would be the obligation upon the applicant. GIFFIN: I think the applicant had a comment that he wanted to make. GOODENOW: Yeah, you know, we really appreciate all the accommodation by Public Works and Planning in trying to come up with something. But the bottom line is, in my humble opinion, I really think the burden is being placed on this property. We are giving the eight feet and the five feet. Originally this road was there, right, the house was, the property existed before the road. You know, if we say one-way, one-way would be great; Public Works or the Council can always do that. I know the neighbors have already talked about it, and when I went out, he said he was going to send, start a petition now. That’s possible. There are other possibilities. But leaving in this condition even in this convoluted form is just going to kill the project. We won’t know. We’ll have no certainty. I just really ask, given that this is one more house, it’s going to, actually, they are not going to build the house, but one more residential lot. I mean, you could have additional farm dwellings, I’m not sure, on Agricultural land anyway, correct? So really there could be no impact, if they just went ahead and did the farm dwelling. I just ask on behalf of the Towata family if you would please consider just going with the condition to take out improvements. I think they’ve given enough. Thank you. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. I think we come back to discussing the four options, which included the suggestion, the request from the applicant – I think that was No. 2 that Daryn had presented to us earlier. The first one is E, as the Director has presented to us in our information. And the second one, which you have in front of you, is what the applicant’s representative just spoke of, which includes eliminating E from what the Director has proposed. The third one is, as Daryn said, what Public Works is suggesting. And the fourth one is also including E, as the Director has proposed, which would eliminate most of it, if the proposal of one-way is incorporated. So, Commissioners, I think that this is our time, our time to discuss it, and, Mr. Torigoe, if this is proper, should we close the discussion, I mean, not the discussion amongst us but with the public? 26 EXHIBIT A BURITZ: I have a question. GIFFIN: Just a minute. TORIGOE: As far as the public, your obligation is to allow a reasonable opportunity for the public to give input. So, you know, I think that’s within your discretion whether you close it at this point or not. GIFFIN: Do I need a motion for that? TORIGOE: I don’t think you normally do it that formally. GIFFIN: Okay. I think it would be prudent for us to go ahead and hear from you. BURITZ: I’ll make it brief. GIFFIN: You need to say your name again because I can’t pronounce it. BURITZ: Bhagavan. Call me B. GIFFIN: Please come forward and grab the microphone -. BURITZ: I have one question -. GIFFIN: And state your name one more time. BURITZ: Bhagavan Samson Buritz. Okay, my question is on the private road. This five-foot setback, is this, is this being legally deeded to someone, or this is just a -. What is it? I mean how, what’s the, what’s the -? LEITHEAD TODD: It is a five-foot future road-widening setback. It’s not being deeded to anyone because, frankly, we don’t even know who you would deed it to, because we don’t know who owns the road. BURITZ: I understand. LEITHEAD TODD: You know, so, but it preserves the potential. If the community wants to form a road maintenance association and wants to improve that, you know, the setback is there, and then at that point, you know, the community can talk about everybody kicking in some of the land. BURITZ: So the community, if they form the association, they can come forward to the property owners, based on this meeting, and say we are ready to improve the road and widen it and we would like to use this five feet. Is that correct? LEITHEAD TODD: Yes. BURITZ: Okay, thank you for the clarification. Thank you for the time. 27 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Thank you very much. And I think at this point in time, I would like to take the prerogative to close the discussion amongst the public and also confine it to members of this Commission. (After some discussion with Mr. Torigoe), there was some discussion between Ivan and myself regarding executive session, but probably that isn’t necessary at this time unless Members of this Commission felt that that was important. Okay, I, like many of you feel, that the burden of responsibility on the applicant doesn’t board well with me; nonetheless, I think that there are some merits to what the Director has recommended, and Daryn’s comments in terms of the Department are well taken in terms of their responsibility to the future and to what could happen in the future with so many other landowners that are part of this area. Frankly, the applicant’s suggestion to me, doing away with all of the Director’s recommendation E, doesn’t board well with me, either. I do appreciate No. 4, the one-way suggestion. But I’d like to hear more from you people and try to see how you feel. Tom. WHITTEMORE: I tend to lean towards No. 4 solution. But just as a point of curiosity, you know, public utility is, like electric company, they put in poles to one user on that block, that user pays for the entire thing, and then they are rebated as others hook up in the future. I’m wondering if there is not also a solution there. If we get further applicants, then – we are only talking about six lots off this road on the mauka side – if they were to hook up that, the applicant here would be reimbursed a one-sixth percent of the cost that they incurred, because it’s unknown now as to what that cost is going to be in the proposal. I’m just wondering if that isn’t a potential solution. Certainly, the property, when it’s subdivided, it’s going to have more value in aggregate, so there is that value that they are going to have. But they are going to hold on to that. And I think if they can recoup their upfront cost proportionally down the line, that might be an alternative to look at to. I just, I don’t know whether that’s done or it more complicates things or what, but it seems like maybe some solution. GIFFIN: Daryn? ARAI: I think it would complicate things. Part of the concern I have, and I’m not sure if I’m on the right track or not, but normally when there is a reimbursement mechanism, it’s to reimburse a cost that is imposed or that is placed upon the County. You know, a utility like HELCO is not a County agency or a County entity, so I don’t think we should get in a situation where we are obligated or contracted to provide reimbursements to a non-governmental entity. And that’s just my opinion. WHITTEMORE: I was just thinking that what it would be would be a condition of any new applicants. So if nobody else made any application -. GIFFIN: Director. LEITHEAD TODD: I was just going to say that’s how we ended up in court on Hōkūli‘a. WHITTEMORE: Oh, okay. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other comments about the four options that are in front of us? Or is anyone ready -. I hate to call for a motion when the wording is not firm. ARAI: Right. And I have been working on additional revised wording. And Public Works also came to me just now to explain that if it does convert to a one-way traffic flow, that Public Works will actually do the transition improvements, the pavement transition improvements. So all they 28 EXHIBIT A really ask of the applicant is the necessary right-of-way to accommodate the transition. So that’s one concession that they are willing to make, and I’ve modified the condition as such to recognize that. So depending on the motion, if you want to hear it again, I can read it into the record. GIFFIN: Wow, that’s a big concession. Commissioners, do you want to hear the change? COMMISSIONERS: Yes, please. GIFFIN: All right. Daryn? ARAI: Again, as an addition to Condition E, it will state, “The requirements of this condition, as specified above, shall not apply, should traffic along the Old Government Road be converted to a one-way traffic pattern. Should a one-way traffic pattern be established, improvements to the Old Government Road shall be limited to the dedication to the County of sufficient right-of-way to accommodate the necessary pavement transitions to accommodate the one-way traffic pattern.” I probably need to clean it up just grammatically a little bit, but I think you get the gist of what I’m trying to do. So if you give me the liberties, I can clean it up later. GIFFIN: Sure. So is your desire for us to make a motion pending final wording from you or would you prefer that we postpone this decision? ARAI: I’ll probably just need a few more minutes to try to hammer out the proper language. GIFFIN: Not a problem. Please. Not a problem at all. Commissioners, I think we’ll just give Daryn some slack in terms of time. (After a few minutes) Daryn? ARAI: Okay, I think we have something I hope will be palatable for everyone. And I should note that, for the record, that by adding on this supplement to the existing Condition E, the intent is if the one-way traffic pattern fails or is not established, that basically the full requirements of Condition E kicks in, and they’ve got to do all the pavement widening, the right-of-way dedication, the utility relocation, everything would still be in place. So with that being said, the revised language I offer to you will state as follows: “The requirements of this condition, as specified above, shall not apply to the extent that traffic along the Old Government Road be converted to a one-way traffic pattern. Should a one-way traffic pattern be established, the applicant shall dedicate to the County the necessary additional right-of-way to accommodate appropriate pavement geometry for the one-way traffic pattern as part of the subdivision of the subject property.” GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions? BEAUDET: Yes. GIFFIN: Commissioner Beaudet. BEAUDET: I thought we were going to add in to that change some language relative to prior to final approval. ARAI: Which is why at the very end it says “appropriate pavement geometry for the one-way traffic pattern as part of the subdivision of the subject property.” So that tells the Planning Department that when they subdivide the property, that’s when the right-of-way dedication kicks in. 29 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Any other comments? Hearing none, do I hear a motion? It’s not preferable for me to make the motion, so it would, the Chair would appreciate hearing a motion. IOKEPA: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Yes, Commissioner. IOKEPA: I propose a motion in the change of zone application, REZ 11-148, to recommend a favorable, or forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council, with the amendments to Condition E as specified by Daryn, with the additional language at the end of Condition E, as well as the changes, or amendments, to Condition F. GIFFIN: Perfect. Daryn. ARAI: May I ask for one clarification? Does that motion also include or not include the recommendation by Public Works to increase the additional right-of-way from eight feet to 12.5? IOKEPA: My apologies. It does. Thank you. GIFFIN: Okay? ARAI: Thank you. GIFFIN: Do I hear a second? WHITTEMORE: Second. GIFFIN: It’s been moved by Commissioner Iokepa and seconded by Commissioner Whittemore that the change of zone application, REZ 11-148, be forwarded to the County Council with a favorable recommendation from us, along with all of the conditions that were proposed by the Director, with the exception of changes to Condition E, as specified by Daryn, which included the 12.5 change in the width, and also Condition F as proposed by the Department. Correct? ARAI: Correct. GIFFIN: All right, Daryn, I think we are ready for the question. ARAI: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. 30 EXHIBIT A ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, motion carries with five aye votes. GIFFIN: Thank you very much. And, Daryn, the Commission appreciates all that you have done. Thank you very much. And Ms. Grand, you’ll be notified by the Department of the motion carried out today. The discussion ended at 11:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 31 EXHIBIT A