Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0251.000 2002-2004 Harry ICim ,~C'.~,•-`•"•!w Dixic I~aetsu ~ tifanaging Direcbr wayn~~ ~~,6i,;t, E. i Oi Mi ~~~i1I~IT~' ®F I~AV~1~flY 14 A(fl 7 SA 25 ilupuni StreeS Room 215 Hilq Hawaii 96720-4252 (808)Y61-82~1~~~(~y pnx~ (808)96 L6553 KONA 755706 Kual,ini Illghwsy, Suitz I0J • Ka~lua-Kona IWt9ai~J0740 ~_~~_(_f (f\ ~sos»ze-sz2~ . F~.raosiszb-s6e3 COUNTI' .1F HAW~I! May 9, 2003 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-002) Applicant: I. Kitagawa & Co., Ltd. Request: RS-10 to MCX-20 Tax Map Key: 2-2-50:14 Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-004) Applicant: HAKS, Inc. Request: RS-10 to MCX-20 Tax Map Key: 2-2-50:37 and 38 Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 91-38 (REZ 686) Applicant: Hirayama Brothers Electrical, Inc. Request: Amendment to Conditions B and D of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 91-38 and Other Conditions As Needed Tax Map Key: 2-2-35:31 A endment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 00 128 (REZ 698) ~pplicant: Paul Ogasawara Request: Amend Conditions C and D Tax Map Key: 1-5-07:20 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced requests. S' cerely, Harry Kun Mayor 51 Comm. No. Enclosures Ref. To: cc: Planning Department Ref. Uate MAY 1 4 9(1(13 ~~N t~ i,~ Harry Kim : - " Maynr • • ~~NA+~ County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 Fax(808)961-8742 h#0.d n Q Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 00 128 (REZ 698) Applicant: Paul Ogasawara Request: Amend Conditions C and D Tax Map Kev: 1-5-07:20 The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on April 17, 2003, voted to recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill to amend Condition C (curbs, gutters, sidewalk and pavement improvements) and Condition D (roadway intersection improvements) of Ordinance No. 00 128, which reclassified approximately 4.901 acres of land from an Agricultural 1-acre (A-la) to a Neighborhood Commercial -20,000 square foot (CN-20) zoned district. The property is located at the junction of the Pahoa Bypass Road and Keaau-Pahoa Road bordering Kahakai Boulevard, Keonepoko Iki Homesteads, Pahoa, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-5-07:20. The previous owner of the property was Kaneshiro and Sons Enterprises, Ltd. The Commission is recommending favorable consideration of the request to amend Conditions C and D of Ordinance No. 00 128 since the reasons presented by applicant are determined to be reasonable. The Commission further concludes the following: The applicant is requesting amendments to Conditions C and D of Ordinance No. 00 128 relating to required roadway improvements. The applicant proposes to construct a service station and related improvements while deferring the required curb, gutter and sidewalk and intersection improvements as imposed by Conditions C and D. Effective December 2, 1991, the property was rezoned from Agricultural (A-la) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) under Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 Ordinance 91 1 16, and a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban was also approved at that time. The original landowner had proposed to establish a supermarket on the site. Subsequently, the applicant purchased the subject property from the original owners with the intent to construct a service station and convenience store on the site, and a Traffic Assessment Report dated October 21, 2002, was prepazed by The Traffic Management Consultant. The study concluded that the intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service after the development of the proposed service station. Furthermore, the study concluded that no improvements to existing intersections were necessary to accommodate the proposed use. However, based on the existing Ordinance No. 00 128, significant improvements to portions of the intersections and roadways would be required. Thus, the applicant requests amendments to Conditions C and D to construct the service station and convenience store. The applicant is requesting that Condition C be amended to read as follows: (Material to be deleted is bracketed, material to be added is underscored) (C) curbs, gutters, sidewalk and pavement improvements shall be provided within the Kahakai Boulevazd extension right-of--way fronting the property meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development other than thg~ronosed service station and convenience center as described in the Traffic Assessment dated October 21.2002. Further, a 25-foot radius shall be provided at the Kahakai Boulevard-Pahoa Road intersection. [n order to construct the commercial standard road, utilities shall be relocated, if necessary. The Department of Public Works had no objections to the request to defer the curbs, gutters, sidewalk and pavement improvements for future improvements. Since the rezoning was approved, there has been no change to the General Plan affecting this area. Although the Zoning Code has been revised, all applicable requirements such as setback and height will be complied with. The subject property is located south of the Pahoa By-Pass Road between the Keaau-Pahoa Road and the Kahakai Boulevard extension. Access to the property is from Kahakai Boulevard, which has an approximate 50-foot right-of--way. All essential utilities and services are available to the site. Whenever a highway is constructed bypassing a town, there is a natural tendency for commercial development to migrate to the new highway. Unless restrained by zoning, this process will often lead to the decay of the town. The Planning Department's policy is to support the vitality of our small towns like Pahoa. The 1989 General Plan, for example, contains a Course of Action for Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 commercial development in Puna, which states, "Centralization of commercial activities in Pahoa shall be encouraged." When the Pahoa Bypass was constructed in the late 1980's, rezoning requests followed for properties near the corner of the bypass and the old Keaau- Pahoa Road. These requests included the rezoning of the subject property to allow the development of a Food Fair supermarket. At the time, the rezoning was rationalized by the fact that the narrowness of the old Keaau-Pahoa Road precluded the establishment of large commercial enterprises in the old central area of Pahoa, and given the increase in population in Puna, it was more important to allow such development. The infrastructure conditions attached to that rezoning tend to discourage smaller commercial development of the type now being proposed, which would be feasible in the central part of Pahoa. There have, however, been three commercial rezonings in this area: • TMK: l -5-7: 20 (subject property) -SLU Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban (SLU 794) and a Change of Zone from A-1 a to CN-20 (REZ 698) under Ordinance No. 91 116 effective December 2, l99] . The ordinance was amended by Ordinance No. 00 128 effective November 24, 2000. • TMK: 1-5-7:21 directly across the street from the subject property - SLU Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban (SLU 1016) and Change of Zone from A-1 a to CN-20 (REZ 903) approved under Ordinance No. 98 128 effective December 7, 1998. • TMK: 1-5-7: 80 located west of the subject property -SLU Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban (SLU 1067) and a Change of Zone from A-1 a to MCX-20 (REZ 946) under Ordinance No. 00 77 effective July 18, 2000. As such, it is too late to try to discourage commercial development in this area. As requested by the Department of Public Works, Condition D is further proposed for amendment by replacing the words "Deparhnent of Public Works" with "Department of Transportation" since the portion of the Keaau-Pahoa Road north/northwest of Kahakai Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation. Based on the above findings, the proposed amendments to Conditions C and D are not contrary to the original reasons for approving the Change of Zone. For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Ordinance No. 00 128 is transmitted. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 For your information, the Planning Director is recommending that the request to amend Condition C not be favorably considered. The Director, however, is also recommending favorable consideration of the applicant's request to amend Condition D. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Planning Director's background report and recommendation and a transcript of the hearing. Sincerely, Y Fred Galdones, Chairman Planning Commission Iogasawara02pc cc: Mr. William L. Moore Mr. Paul Ogasawara Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Rodney Haraga, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu BOgasawaraREZ. doc-0!7/03 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT PAUL OGASAWARA CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO.00 128 (REZ 698) AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS C AND D PAUL OGASAWARA has submitted a request to amend Conditions C and D (required roadway improvements) of Ordinance No. 00 128, that amended Ordinance No. 91 116, which reclassified 4.901 acres of land from the Agricultural (A-] a) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN- 20) zoned district. The property is located at the junction of the Pahoa Bypass Road and Keaau- Pahoa Road bordering Kahakai Boulevard, Keonepoko Iki Homesteads, Pahoa, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-5-7: 20. OBJECTIVE The applicant is requesting an amendment to Conditions C and D of Ordinance 00 128 to allow the construction of a service station and convenience store while defemng the required curb, gutter and sidewalk and intersection improvements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. December 2, 1991: Effective date of Ordinance No. 91 116 which changed the district classification of the subject property from A-1 a to CN-20. The applicant requested the change of zone to establish a supermarket on the site. The property was also the subject of a State Land IJse Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban. 2. November 25, 1992: One-year administrative extension of time to December 2, 1993 granted to comply with Condition B (secure Final Plan Approval). 3. November 26, 1993: Final Plan Approval No. 2902 granted. Pursuant to Condition C, construction of the proposed supermarket should have commenced within one year from the date of Final Plan Approval 4. October 3, 1994: Applicant requests extension of time to commence construction. 5. December 28, 1994: Letter to applicant that Ordinance No. 91 116 does not allow the Planning Director to grant another administrative extension of time, and any requests for a time extension must be considered by the Planning Commission and County Council. 6. November 26, 1995: Expiration date of FPA No. 2902 since plans were not utilized ATTACH. C-251 (Bill 112) within two years from Final Plan Approval. 7. August 30, 1996: Landowner/applicant informed that the Planning Department will initiate downzoning of the parcel due to non-compliance with the conditions of approval. 8. September 13, 1996: Applicant requests that downzoning not be initiated, as potential lessees aze being sought. 9. February 15, 2000: County Council requests Planning Director to downzone the property to its original designation of A-1 a. 10. June 12, 2000: Applicant requests amendment to Conditions B and C of Ordinance No. 91 116 for an additional five years to complete construction of the proposed project. Applicant states Yhat development plans were stalled due to the economic downturn since the rezoning was approved. The applicant reports that he has relinquished the development rights of this property to another entity in 1994. That entity was subsequently unable to proceed with the project, and the development rights were returned to the applicant. 11. November 24, 2000: Effective date of Ordinance No. 00 128 amending Condition B (secure Final Plan Approval) and deleting Condition C (commence construction) of Ordinance No. 91 116. (See Exhibit A -Ordinance No. 00128) ] 2. January 6, 2003: The applicant is requesting an amendment to Conditions C and D of Ordinance 00 128 to allow the construction of a service station and convenience store while deferring the required curb, gutter and sidewalk and intersection improvements, consistent with the findings of an October 21, 2002 Traffic Assessment Report prepared by The Traffic Management Consultant. Condition C is proposed to read as follows: (Material to be deleted is bracketed, material to be added is underscored). (C) curbs, gutters, sidewalk and pavement improvements shall be provided within the Kahakai Boulevard extension right-of--way fronting the property meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development other than the proposed service station and convenience center as described in the Traffic Assessment dated October 21, 2002. Further, a -2- 25-foot radius shall be provided at the Kahakai Boulevazd-Pahoa Road intersection. In order to construct the commercial standazd road, utilities shall be relocated, if necessary. Condition D is proposed to read as follows: (D) access to the property shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Direct access to the property shall be limited only to the Kahakai Boulevard extension. Improvements at the intersection of Kahakai Boulevazd and Pahoa Road, which shall include the provision of left-and right-turn lanes on Kahakai Boulevazd extension, and aleft-turn lane on Pahoa Road, shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development other than the proposed service station and convenience center as described in the Traffic Assessment dated October 21, 2002. (See Exhibit B -January 6, 2003 Letter and attachments) Currently, the speed limit on the Keeau-Pahoa Road is 30 mph. The portion of the Keaau-Pahoa Road north/northwest of Kahakai Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, and the County owns the road south/southeast of Kahakai Boulevard. AGENCIES' COMMENTS 13. Department of Water Supply (February 12, 2003 Memo): "We have reviewed the subject application and have no objections to granting the subject request. Should there be any questions, please call ow Water Resowces and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 1." 14. Department of Public Works (February 12, 2003 Memo): "We have reviewed the subject request forwarded by your memo dated January 16, 2003 and have no objections to the requested amendments, but do note some corrections. 1. Correct the type "construction" to "construct" on the last line of Condition C. 2. Revise the third sentence of Condition D from "as required by the Department of Public Works" to "as required by the Department of Transportation" as it is under the State DOT's jurisdiction. Correct the type "land" to "lane."" -3- 15. Fire Department (.Ianuary 27, 2003 Memo): "We have no comments to offer at this time regarding the amendments to the above- referenced Change of Zone application." 16. Real Property Tax Office (.Ianuary 21, 2003 Memo): "There are no comments at this time." "Current. Real Property taxes are paid through December 3 2002." 17. Police Department: (See Exhibit C -January 27, 2003 Memo and Applicant's Response Letter dated February 13, 2003) 18. Department of Health: (See Exhibit D -January 22, 2003 Memo and Applicant's Response Letter dated February 13, 2003) AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE 19. Department of Transportation PUBLIC COMMENTS 20. The Department has not received any written objections or comments from the public or adjacent landowners on the subject request. -4- COUNTY OF HAWAII. STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. 318 (Draft 3) ORDINANCE NO. 00 ~ti~ AN O~~AI~I~CE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91 116 WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROG,} A~iRICULTURAL (A-la) "f0 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-20) AT KEONEPQKO, PUMA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 1-5-07:20. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 91 116 is amended as follows: "SECTION 1. Section [25-] 07] 25-8-26, Article [3] 8 Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Keonepoko, Puna, Hawaii, shall be Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20): Beginning at a point at the southeast corner of this parcel of land and on the northerly side of Kahakai Boulevard, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey 'Triangulation Station "olaa" being 34,554.85 feet South and 35,137.78 feet East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South: 1. 70° 34' 732.05 feet along the northerly side of Kahakai Boulevard to a point at the easterly side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road (F.A.S.P. No. 5-0130 (8)); thence along the easterly side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road (F.A.S.P. No. S-0130 (8)) for the next three (3) courses along a curve to the left having a radius of 2,904.79 feet, the chord azimuths and distances being: 2. 152° 15' 29.2" 216.99 feet; -1- EXI.IIBI~ 3. ] 49° 43' 03.4" 40.56 feet; 4. 149° O1' 01.7" 30.47 feet; 5. 148° 43' 49.91 feet along the easterly side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road (P.A.S.P. No. 5-0130 (8)); 6. 238° 43' 10.00 feet along a jog in the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18); thence along the easterly side of Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 8) along a curve to the right having a radius of 180.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 7. 177° 40' 35" 174.31 feet; thence along the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18) along a curve to the right having a radius of 39.87 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 8. 249° 48' 32" 54.56 feet; thence along the southerly side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18) along a curve to [hc left having a radius of 1,370.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 9. 289° 59' 27" 142.96 feet; 10. 287° 00' 353.36 feet along the southerly side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18); 11. 197° 00' 10.00 feet along ajog in the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18); 12. 287° 00' 298.51 feet along the southerly side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18); thence along the southerly side of the Kcaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18) along a curve to the right having a radius of 1,940.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 13. 287° 3l' 43.5" 35.81 feet; 14. 328° 50' 1 1.43 feet along a jog in the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18) to the point of beginning and containing an area of 4.901 Acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. This change in district classification is conditioned upon the following: (A) the applicant, its successors or assigns shall comply with all stated conditions of approval; (B) [final Plan Approval for the development shall be secured from the Planning Department within one year from the effective date of the change of zone. To assure adequate time for plan approval review and in accordance with Chapter 25- 244 (Zoning Code), plans shall be submitted a minimum of forty-five days prior to the date by which plan approval must be secured;] Construction of any development on the subiec~roperty shall be completed within five (5) years from the effective date of this amendment. In the event substantial construction has occurred, but not completed within the five Year period, the Plannine Director may Brant an extension of not more than one year. Prior to commencing construction, Final Plan Approval shall be secured from the Planning Director in accordance with Chapter 25-2-72, 25-2-73, and 25-4-7 of the Zoning Code. Plans shall identifti the proposed structures, landscapin ,fire protection measures, paved driveway and parking stalls associated with the proposed uses. Landscapint* shall be indicated on the plans and be provided for the pumose of mitiQatine any adverse noise or visual impacts to adiacent properties [(C) Construction shall commence within one year from the date of receipt of Final Plan Approval and shall be completed within two years thereafrer;) [(D)] ~ curbs, gutters, sidewalk and pavement improvements shall be provided within the Kahakai Boulevard extension right-of--way fronting the property meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy i'or any portion of the development. Puriher, a 25-foot radius shall be provided at the Kahakai Bou]evard-Pahoa Road intersection. In order to construct the commercial standard road, utilities shall be relocated, if necessary; [(E)] ~D access to the property shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Direct access to the property shall be limited only to the Kahakai Boulevard extension. Improvements at the intersection of Kahakai Boulevard and Pahoa Road, which shall include the provision of left-and right-turn lanes on Kahakai Boulevard extension, and cleft-turn lane on Pahoa Road, shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development; [(F)] ~ improvements, if any, to the Pahoa By-Pass Road, which may include extending the left-turn storage lane leading to the comiector road, shall be installed as required by the State Department of Transportation-Highways Division, prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development; [(G)] ~ a drainage s} stem shall be installed meeting with the approval of the Department of Public W~~rks; -a- [(H)] Ul should an}~ wiidentified sites or remains such as artifacts, shell, bone, or charcoal deposits, human burials, rock or coral alignments, pavings or walks he encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Planting Department shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clear2nce from the Planning Department when it finds that sufficient mitigative measures have been taken; [(I)] ~ all other laws, rules, regulations and requirements of State and County agencies shall be complied with; [(J)] ~ should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for the imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein may, at the developer's election, be satisfied by performance in accordance with the requirements the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance; [(K)] (~J an annual progress report shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the anniversary date of the effective date of this change of zone. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the status of the development and to what extent the conditions of approval are being complied with. This condition shall remain in effect until all of the conditions of approval have been complied and the Planning Director acknowledges that further reports are not required; and, [(L)] ~ [an extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: 1) the non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence; -5- 2) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the general plan or zoning code; 3) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of die change of zone; 4) the time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may he extended for up to one additional year); and 5)] if the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the Count}~ Council for appropriate action. Further, should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, flee Director shall initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation." SECTION 2. Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material is underscored. SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other ports of this ordinance. SECTION 4. 'This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: •~o C CIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hilo, Hawaii Date oflntroduction: Uctober 18, 2000 Date of 1st Reading: October 18, 2000 Date of 2nd Reading: November 9, 2000 Effective Date: November 24, 2000 REFERENCE: Comm. 919.00' APPROVED AS TO DORM AND LEGALITY ~ CORPORATION CO SEL DATED: 2 z~~ .7- FOR REFERENCE ONLY ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ cm5 ~®a,: ? NNZ 2 D i A-S~ P A-s® A So o ~ ~ UvT URp`t' A-sa P~RI 3 s,1377® E A So "OL..A A" m pp~H®~ ®P. ? /Sa / A I a ~ A la ~ AC3R)CCIC.TURAI.. cA-?o~ ~ ~ , "r0 ~lE1GHB®~HOO® ~1I A14BA = 4-9~1 ACld~S I A la P/>HOA+ A la ~ Ro%+.p e pAY~®A ~CAp.U A-Iv . KE PPU A la A le I ~-l0 1 A-'aa~~ e~yjy~~ ~q~°~~+ - ~I~f A- a0 a I ! ire ~ ! ~ I i~ be _ ~ Of'hICE OI l-H[ COUNTY CLERK County of I{awaii Hi-lo , Hawaii 'Draft- 3) ROLL GALL VOTE Introduced By: Bobby Jean Lei'_h 3a-Todd Arakaki ~ X Uatelntroduced:_ October 18 2000 _ Chung X._~ FirstReading: October 18, 2000 Elarionoff X Published: 3J/A Jacobson X ~ - i Leithead-Todd X RF,AO,-IRKS: Pisicchio X - - Smith ~ ~ - - Tyler X - - Yugong X ~ _ ~ 8 ~ 0 1 U I Second Reading: --November 9_2000 To Mayor: Novetnber 15, 2000 - ROLL CALL, VOTE _~AY_ES NOES ABS EX Returned: _ November 24, 2000 Arakaki ~ X Effective: November 24, 2000 Chung -X Published: -December 4,_ 2000 Elarionoff X Jacobson X - REMARKS: - Leithead-Todd X - Pisicchio X Smith X - Tyler X ~ Yagong X ~ I --t 5-- 3 - , I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing 61LL >7~as adop/ed by the County Council puhlrshed ns indicated afiove. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: > DEP TY CORPORATION COUNSEL ' COUNTY OF HAWAII CO N /AIRMAN Date ~~~z / ~ _ Y) NTV CLERK ~'IPP''~°e~/~'~! this- _ ctuv af_~OU~ot~I_ ,'0~0 ~ ~„t(~,~ZU BiIINo.: -_318 (Dr_aft 3) Af.It'OR,COI,~TY"OFHdW~111 Reference, ___C_919/PC-11£3 Ord. No.: 0~ 1,n`Z~ WILLIAM L. MOORS PLANNING 159 HALAL STREET Hti,o, HAWAII 96720 (808) 935-03]]/Fax (808) 934-0162 i' Y I wimp@gtc.net ~ ~ 17 (?Vv ~ "i~l~i j January 6, 2003 - Christopher J. Yuen, Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Amendment to Conditions of Approval Ordinance No. 091-116 as amended by Ord. No. 00-128 (RI3Z f>98) Applicant: Pau] Ogasawara Keonopoko dci Homesteads, Pahoa, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: ]-5-07: 20 On behalf of Paul Ogasawara, this letter is to request an amendment to certain conditions of approval of Ordinance 00-128. Specifically, this request is to allow the caistruction of a service station and related improvements while deferring the required curb, gutter and sidewalk and intersection improvements. The subject property is located at thejunction of Pahoa Bypass Road acrd Keaau-Pahoa Road and bordered by Kahakai Boulevard. The area is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN- 20) and is within the State Laud Use Urban District. The subject property is currently owned by Paul Ogasawara. He acquired the property from Kaneshiro and Sons Entc~pnses, Ltd.. BACKGROUND The subject property was rezoned from Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20), effective December 2, 1991. The owner at that time, Kaneshiro and Sons Enterprises, Ltd. (Kaneshiro) proposed to establish a supermarket on the site. A State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agriculhiral to Urban was also approved at that time. The original development concept included a 32,000+ square foot super market, including approximately 300 parking stalls. In 1994, Kaneshiro sold its supermarket chain to Sure Save Supermarket, Ltd, including the rights to construct and operate a supermarket on the subject property. When Sure Save Supermarkets, Ltd. filed fora "reorganization" petition in 1998, Kaneshiro terminated the agreement with respect to the subject property and sought a buyer. E5CFI161~' 3 Christopher J. Yuen January 6, 2003 Page No. 2 In order to ensure the entitlements were current, in June 2000, Kaneshiro requested an amendment to Conditions H and C of Ordinance No. 91-116 to allow an additional five (5) years to complete construction of the proposed project. On November 24, 2000, Ordinance No. 00-128 was approved, revising Conditions B and C to require that "construction of any development on the subject property shall be completed within 5 years from the effective date of this amendment." Paul Ogasawara subsequently purchased the subject property from Kaneshiro with the intention of construction a service station and convenience store to supplement his existing service station in Pahoa Village (Paul's Repair Service). More specifically, Mr. Ogasawara proposed the construction of gas station with eight (8) fueling positions and convenience store with approximately 1,500 square feet of gross floor area on the subject property. As pact o7~ this proposal, Mr. Ogasawara submitted a Traffic Assessment Report for the proposed service station, prepared by The Traffic Management Consultant, Randall S. Okaneku, P.E., P.T.O. E, Principal. Phis traffic study found that the study intersections will continue to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service after the development of the proposed service station. Accordingly, no improvements to existing intersections are recommended or necessary to accommodate the proposed use at this time. However, in pursuing approval of the service station, Mr. Ogasawara found that the conditions of approva] require significant improvements to certain intersections and roadways, based on the requirements of Ordinance No. 00-128. More specifically, the following improvements are required: Condition C. Cw'bs, gutters, sidewalks and pavement improvements shall be provided within the Kahakai Boulevard extension right-of=way fronting the property meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development. Further, a 25-foot radius shall be provided at the Kahakai Boulevard- Pahoa Road intersection. [n order to construction the commercial standard road, utilities shall he relocated, if necessary. Condition D: Access to the property shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Direct access to the property shall be limited only to Kahakai Boulevard Extension. Improvements at the intersection of Kahakai Boulevard and Pahoa Road, which shall include the provision of left- and right-turn lands on Kahakai Boulevard extension, and cleft-turn Christopher J. Yuen January 6, 2003 Page No. 3 land on Pahoa Road, shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development. NATURE OF REQUEST The applicant is seeking to amend conditions C and D of Ordinance No. 00-128 to allow the construction of the proposed service station and convenience store while deferring the required curb, gutter and sidewalk and intersection improvements, consistent with the findings of the Traffic Assessment. More specifically, Mr. Ogasawara is requesting that Conditions C and D of Ordinance No. 00-128 be amended as follows: Condition C. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks and pavement improvements shall be provided within the Kahakai Boulevard extension right-of--way fronting the property meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development other than the proposed service station and convenience center as described in the Traffic Assessment dated October 21, 2002. Further, a 25-foot radius shall be provided at the Kahakai Boulevard-Pahoa Road intersection. ]n order to construction the commercial standard road. utilities shall be relocated, if necessary. Condition D: Acce,s to the property shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Direct access to the property shall be limited only to Kahakai Boulevard Extension. Improvements at the intersection of Kahakai Boulevard and Pahoa Road, which shall include the provision of left- and right-trim lands on Kahakai Boulevard extension, and cleft-turn land un Pahoa Road, shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development other than the proposed service station and convenience center as described in the Traffic Assessment dated October 21 2002. All other conditions of approval will be complied with by the applicant. NATURE AND REASONS FOR REQUEST As mentioned above, the applicant is seeking to amend Conditions C and D of Ordinance No. 00- 128 to allow the construction of the proposed service station and convenience store while deferring the required curb, butter and sidewalk and intersection improvements. This request is based on the findings of the Traffic Assessment Report For The Propnsecl Ogaeatinm~a Service Station. The Tra/Jic Assessment 2epnr~ found that the intersections of the Pahoa Bypass Road Christopher J. Yuen January 6, 2003 Page No. 4 and the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road, and the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road and the Kahakai Boulevard Extension operated at satisfactory Levels of Service during the existing AM and PM peak hours of traffic. It is projected that these intersections will continue to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service after the development of the proposed service station (Traffzc Assessment Report, p.l I). It is fiirther expected that queuing in the left turn lane of the northbound Pahoa Bypass Road at the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road will be insignificant during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic with the development of the proposed project. The Traffr~c Assessment Keport determined that "extension of the left turn lane on northbound Pahoa Bypass Road at the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road is not recommended at this time" (Traffc Assessment Report, p. L l). It is also expected that the traffic turning left from the through traffic lane on southbound Old Keaau-Pahoa Road to the Kahakai Boulevard Extension will result in minimal delays to through traffic as southbound traffic on the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road should travel at relatively low speeds in order to "safely negotiate the curved connector roadway at the Pahoa Bypass Road" (Traffic Assessment Report, p.l 1). Therefore, construction of au exclusive left turn lane on southbound Old Keaau-Pahoa Road at the Kahakai Boulevard Extension is not recommended by the Traffic Assessment Report at this time (Traffic Assessment Report, p.] 1). The roadway improvement requirements were originally imposed based on the contemplated supermarket improvements. More specifically, the conditions were imposed to address a proposed 32,000 square foot supermarket with approximately 300 parking stalls. The current improvements are to allow a service station with eight (8) fiieling positions and a 1,500 square convenience store. The Petition agrees that any improvements beyond these would require the construction of the curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along Kahakai Boulevard Extension and at the Kahakai Boulevard L'-xtension/Pahoa Road intersection. Since the original zoning was granted in L991, there has been no change to the General Plan affecting this area. Further, although the Zoning Code has been revised, all applicable requirements, such as setback, height and other requirements will be complied with. The proposed service station and related uses are permitted under the Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Thus, the granting of this request would not be contrary to Che commercial designation. The reasons for approving the commercial zoning have not changed. In summary, the commercial zoning is a) consistent with the County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map and policies; b) all of the required infrastructure is available; c) there is a demand for commercial facilities in lower Puna; and d) it would not adversely impact the commercial land use pattern of Pahoa. Based on the foregoing, the applicant respectfiiAy request your favorable processing of this matter. Pursuant to the Zoning Code. please find enclosed the following: Christopher J. Yucn January 6, 2003 Page No. 5 I. Original and twenty (20) copies of the amendment request; 2. Twenty (20j copies of the Traffic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Ogasawara Service Station, Tax Map Key: 1=5=07: 20; 3. A list of surrounding property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property; 4. Rea] Property Tax Clearance; and 5. A filing fee of $500. Thank you far your consideration of this request. Sincerely, f,U,~Q,~~ W~ William L. Moore attachments ca Paul Ogasawara, Masa Nishida, Okahara & Associates n TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT ,~,.;,,r Fri a FOR THE PROPOSED OGASAWARA SERVICE STATION TAX MAP KEY 1-5-07:20 PREPARED FOR OKAHARA 8~ ASSOCIATES, INC. PREPARED 8Y THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CON LTANT TMC S u RANDALL S. OKANEKU, P.E., P.T.O.E., PRINCIPAL + 1188 BISHOP ST., # 1907 • HONOLULU, HI 96817 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED OGASAWARA SERVICE STATION TAX MAP KEY 1-5-07:20 PREPARED FOR OKAHARA 8~ ASSOCIATES, INC. OCTOBER 21, 2002 PREPARED BY TMC THE TRAFFIC MANA EMENT C*N ULTANT RANDALL S. OKANEKU, P.E., P.T.O.E., PRINCIPAL • 1186 BISHOP ST., # 1907 s HONOLULU, HI 96813 Table of Contents Pace I. Introduction 1 A. Purpose and Scope of the Study B. Project Description 1 C. Methodologies 3 1. Capacity Analysis Methodology 3 2. Trip Generation Methodology 3 II. Existing Conditions 4 A. Roadways 4 B. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions 4 1. Field Investigation and Data Collection 4 2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic 5 3. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic 5 III. Future Traffic Conditions 5 A. External Traffic 5 B. Site-Generated Traffic 8 C. Peak Hour Traffic Assessment 8 IV. Findings and Conclusions ....................................................................................................11 List of FiQUres Pave Figure 1. Site Plan 2 Figure 2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic 6 Figure 3. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic 7 Figure 4. 2005 AM Peak Hour Traffic With Project 9 Figure 5. 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic With Project ........................................................................10 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED OGASAWARA SERVICE STATION TAX MAP KEY 1-5-07:20 I. Introduction A. Purpose and Scope of the Study The purpose of this study is to analyze the left-tum lane requirements imposed by the County of Hawaii Ordinance No. 00128, Section 2, Items D and E. Item D pertains to the requirement for the construction of an exclusive left-turn lane on southbound Old Keaau-Pahoa Road at the Kahakai Boulevard Extension. Item E pertains to the extension of the existing left-turn lane on the northbound Pahoa Bypass Road at the connector road to the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road. This report presents the findings and recommendations of the study. The scope of this study includes: 1. Evaluation of existing roadways and traffic conditions. 2. Development of trip generation characteristics of the proposed project. 3. Estimation of the Year 2005 traffic conditions with the proposed project. 4. Assessment of the left-turn lane improvements required by Ordinance No. 00128. B. Project Description The 4.901-acre project site is identified as Tax Map Key 1-5-07:20. Ordinance No. 00128 reclassified the project site to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20). This traffic assessment analyzes only a service station with a convenience store, which initially would be developed on the site. The Ogasawara Service Station would consist of a gas station with eight (8) fueling positions, a convenience store with 1,500 square feet of gross floor area (SFGFA), and six (6) parking stalls. Year 2005 is this study's planning horizon, which is five years from the effective date of Ordinance No. 00128. The site plan for the proposed service station is depicted on Figure 1. Ogasawara Service Station Traffic Assessment Report October 21, 2002 i' 1 Ii 1 ~i I li i li i li i i i i X4.1 1_ 1 1 hq~~ ~4 1 1 i i 1 ~ 1 1 i N 2 ,1 W 1 1 1 K rl j i W -1li i i i r li ~ o i a P' ryl 1 l i i W ly ' i i 1 y~0 li 1 1 1 i 1 I~ 1 1 m 1 i 1 1 li ~~~P 1 i t 1 ~ 1 1 ' ,HOPI ~ i i t i F 1 1 1 Q` ! i~~ C i i 1 1 11 i I 1 ' 1 y 1 3r ' 1. i i i i ~ 1' 1 ~ r i 1 i i i ~ i ~ i y 1 ~1 l i i i 1 i i is i i ~ =1 1. i i 1 i i i.i i i i 11 ~ l i i i i i' i i t i I+i71 l i ' i i i ` ~ 1 yi 1 i i i i i i it i i i i ' I 1 1 1 1 , Ily 1 i 1 i 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 i 11 1 1 1 1 1 i ® 1. 1 Ir 1 1 i;/ 111'11 i l i 1 i I I 1 11 1 1 ~11 1 1 I 1% 1 i 1 i i t 1 i i 1 l 1 4 l l Ili ~ ~~'~~'i, ~ r 1 1 1 i i i i P I ' i i 1 ' i. i 1 1 1 1 1~ 1 i `t i i i 1 i i i 1 1, i 1 1 ' li i i i 11 i i I ~ '1 li i 1 I1 i 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 OAD N` ~ ~f ~ 1 I! H Figure 1. Site Plan 2 Ogasawara Service Stanon T~ . Traffic Assessment Report October 21, 2002 9..:. US C. Methodologies 1. Capacity Analysis Methodology The highway capacity analysis, performed for this study, is based upon procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board, 2000. HCM defines Level of Service (LOS) as "a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream". Several factors are included in determining LOS, such as: speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, driver comfort, and convenience. LOS "A", "B", and "C" are considered satisfactory levels of service. LOS "D" is generally considered a "desirable minimum" operating level of service. LOS "E" is an undesirable condition, and LOS "F" is an unacceptable condition. Intersection LOS is primarily based upon delay. Table 1 summarizes the LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 1. Level of Service Criteria (HCM) LOS Control Delay (sec/veh) A 10 B > 10- 15 C >15-25 D >25-35 E >35-50 F > 50 2. Trip Generation Methodology The trip generation methodology is based upon generally accepted techniques developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and published in Trip Generation, 6th Edition. ITE trip rates are developed by correlating the total vehicle trip generation data with various activity/land use characteristics, such as the vehicle trips per hour (vph) per fueling position or 1,000 SFGFA. The average ITE trip rates, correlated to the number of fueling positions, were used in this analysis. The total trips generated by a gas/service station can be defined as driveway trips, i. e., traffic entering and exiting the project site. A percentage of the peak hour trips, generated by a gas/service station, are considered to be "pass-by" trips, i.e., traffic already on the road stopping at a "secondary" destination. The "new" or primary trips 3 ~ Ogasawara Service Sta~,..n ~jI ~~'^c. TraiFc Assessment Report October 21, 2002 . ~ . .:..Y ..R'.':/5 generated by the project are trips, whose primary destination would be the proposed gas/service station. The percentages of pass-by trips from gas/service stations with convenience markets consisting of 8-10 fueling positions and 300 SFGFA to 2,200 SFGFA were compiled by ITE. The results of the analysis were published in the Trip Generation Handbook, October 1998. The pass-by trip rates for agas/service station with a convenience market are summarized on Tables 5.13 and 5.14 of the Trip Generation Handbook. The average pass-by trip rates are 62 percent, during the AM peak period of traffic, and 56 percent, during the PM peak period of traffic. II. Existing Conditions A. Roadways The Pahoa Bypass Road is a two-lane arterial highway, which bypasses the town of Pahoa, and continues as the Keaau-Pahoa Road toward Keaau. Keaau-Pahoa Road is a two- to three-lane arterial highway between Keaau and the Pahoa Bypass Road. A connector roadway was constructed to realign the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road to intersect the Pahoa Bypass Road at a fully channelized, unsignalized Tee-intersection. Pahoa Road contains exclusive ]eft-turn and right-turn deceleration lanes and aright-turn acceleration lane at its intersection with the connector road (hereinafter referred to as the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road). The Old Keaau-Pahoa Road continues to the south through Pahoa Town as a two-lane, two-way collector road. Kahakai Boulevard is a two-way, two-lane collector road in Pahoa. Kahakai Boulevard is stop-controlled at its Tee-intersection with the Pahoa Bypass Road. Prior to the construction of the Pahoa Bypass Road, Kahakai Boulevard extended to the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road. The Pahoa Bypass Road created a remnant cul-de-sac road at the west end of Kahakai Boulevard, herein referred to as the Kahakai Boulevard Extension. The Kahakai Boulevard Extension intersects the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road at a stop- controlled Tee-intersection. However, it does not directly access the Pahoa Bypass Road. B. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions 1. Field Investigation and Data Collection Manual traffic count surveys were conducted on September 24-25, 2002, during the peak periods of traffic -from 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM and from 3:30 PM to 5:30 PM - at the following intersections: • The Pahoa Bypass Road and the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road • The Old Keaau-Pahoa Road and the Kahakai Boulevard Extension 4 Ogasawara Service Station Traffic Assessment Report Ocfober 21, 2002 The traffic data collected at the intersection of the Pahoa Bypass Road and the Old Keaau Pahoa Road were obtained from the State Department of Transportation (DOT). 2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic The AM peak hour of traffic occurred between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM. The total volume of traffic entering the intersection of the Pahoa Bypass Road and the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road, during the AM peak hour of traffic, was 1,043 vehicles per hour (vph). The study intersections operated at satisfactory Levels of Service, i.e., LOS "B" or better, during the existing AM peak hour. The left turn movement from northbound Pahoa Bypass Road to westbound Old Keaau-Pahoa Road operated at LOS "A". The left turn movement from southbound Old Keaau-Pahoa Road to eastbound Kahakai Boulevard Extension also operated at LOS "A". Figure 2 depicts the existing AM peak hour traffic volumes, and the results of the capacity analysis. 3. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic The PM peak hour of traffic occurred between 4:15 PM and 5:15 PM. The total volume of traffic entering the intersection of the Pahoa Bypass Road and the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road, during the PM peak hour was 1,029 vph. The study intersections continued to operate at LOS "B" or better, during the existing PM peak hour. The left turn movements from northbound Pahoa Bypass Road to westbound Old Keaau-Pahoa Road, and southbound Old Keaau-Pahoa Road to eastbound Kahakai Boulevard Extension continued to operate at LOS "A", during the existing PM peak hour of traffic. The existing PM peak hour traffic volumes, and the results of the capacity analysis are depicted on Figure 3. III. Future Traffic Conditions A. External Traffic Linear regression analysis was performed on historical traffic data, collected by the State DOT, on the Keaau-Pahoa Road (Station No. 2-G), northwest of the Old- Keaau-Pahoa Road. The analysis indicated that Keaau-Pahoa Road traffic increased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent, between 1994 and 2000. The historical growth in traffic was extrapolated from the Base Year 2002 to the Year 2005 by uniformly increasing the existing peak hour traffic demands by 3.0 percent. A future commercial development is proposed on a parcel to the north of the project site. The proposed Pahoa Marketplace is planned on a parcel located on the west side of the remnant road segment of the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road, which was created by the construction of the Pahoa Bypass Road. Representatives of the future development were unresponsive to inquiries. Therefore, the proposed Pahoa Marketplace was not taken into account in this traffic assessment. 5 Ogasawara Service Stauon Tom. TrafFcAssessmentRepon' October 2l, 2002 9;:.: _ :L : . i ...y. v.J r.g, me;'Y.^dry.:.., Ftln1.:,:. ...:%lnaa•#<s.69R`jan:6 KEAAU-PAHOA ROAD NORTH NOT TO SCALE ~ 33 ~ W 301 „ J V LEGEND OLD KEAAU- 90 TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) PAHOA ROAD 1" LANE CONTROL ~0 LEVEL OF SERVICE 89 111 ~ ^ Z8 T A A 12 OLD KEAAU- PAHOA ROAD PAHOA BYPASS 1 A 8 ~ 0 153 ~ KAHAKAI BLVD. EXT. 100 10 i OLD KEAAU- PAHOA ROAD Figure 2. Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic 6 ~ Ogasawara Service Static„ Traffic Assessment Report October 21, 2002 ;:::nz ....;.r. ~ ~:z ax or.:YlNOxC>xa KEAAU-PAHOA ROAD NORTH NOT TO SCALE 188 / 1 I CCC~~~ 3~~\8VVV8 LEGEND OLD KEAAU- 90 TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) PAHOA ROAD LANE CONTROL 274 LEVEL OF SERVICE 125 al ~ 27 A A 29 OLD KEAAU- PAHOA ROAD PAHOA BYPASS 9 ~V 75 ~l~' 9 208 ~ KAHAKAI BLVD. EXT. 145 T ~~8 OLD KEAAU- PAHOA ROAD Figure 3. Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic 7 Ogasawara Service Sto_ ,n Tom. Tra~cAssessmentReport October 2l, 2002 B. Site-Generated Traffic The proposed service station is expected to generate a total of 80 vph - 40 vph entering the site and 40 vph exiting the site -during the AM peak hour of traffic. Fifty (50) vph of the total 80 AM peak hour trips are expected to be pass-by trips. During the PM peak hour of traffic, the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 108 vph - 54 vph entering the site and 54 vph exiting the site. Of the total 100 PM peak hour trips, 60 vph are expected to be pass-by trips. The trip generation characteristics for the proposed project are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Trip Generation Characteristics Gas/Service Station AM Peak Hour (vph) PM Peak Hour (vph) With 8 Fueling Positions Enter Eait Total Enter Eait Total (ITE Code 845) Primary Trips 15 15 30 24 24 48 Pass-By Trips 25 25 50 30 30 60 Total Trips 40 40 80 54 54 108 C. Peak Hour Traffic Assessment The peak hour traffic generated by the proposed service station is not expected to affect the Levels of Service at the study intersections. The study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS "B" or better, during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Figures 4 and 5 depict the Year 2005 AM and PM peak hour traffic with the proposed project and the results of the capacity analysis, respectively. The through traffic on southbound Old Keaau-Pahoa Road is expected to experience an average delay of 2.2 seconds per vehicle as result of vehicles fuming left from the through traffic lane into the Kahakai Boulevard Extension, during the AM peak hour of traffic. During the PM peak hour of traffic, the through traffic on southbound Old Keaau- Pahoa Road is expected to experience an average of 1.4 seconds of delay per vehicle, resulting from vehicles turning left from the through traffic lane into the Kahakai Boulevard Extension. The 95-percentile queue lengths in the left turn lane of the Pahoa Bypass Road at the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road are estimated at 5 feet and 3 feet, during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, respectively. 8 J/ ~ Ogasawara Service Statio.- Trafrc Assessment Report October 21, 2002 '.i.... 5 '.5 .Af.^<c'.N:M n... '.)YAi v. q.fa`v:Pb3niAYlS'2.: b5 KEAAU-PAHOA ROAD NORTH NOT TO SCALE 158 ~ ~ I 310 „ 1 V" LEGEND OLD KEAAU- 90 TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VP H) PAHOA ROAD LANE CONTROL 494 LEVEL OF SERVICE 109 ~ ~ 39 18 OLD KEAAU- PAHOA ROAD PROJECT ACCESS PAHOA BYPASS 24 37 ~ 22 48 158 KAHAKAI ~BL~VD. EXT. 1' pg 59 T ~ 22 OLD KEAAU- PAHOA ROAD Figure 4. 2005 AM Peak Hour Traffic With Project 9 ~ Ogasawara Service Sto..on TI'^o . Traffic Assessment Report October 21, 2002 KEAAU-PA HOA ROAD NORTH NOT TO SCALE 221 ~ W 400 V" ~ ~ LEGEND OLD KEAAU- 90 TRAFFIC MOVEMENT VOLUME (VPH) PAHOA ROAD LANE CONTROL V 282 © LEVEL OF SERVICE 149 ~1 1 ~ 37 i I A 43 OLD KEAAU- PAHOA ROAD PROJECT ACCESS PAHOA BYPASS 42 ig 7 43 ~ 32 71 214 ~ KAHA KAI pV- BLVD. EXT. f D 149 68 26 OLD KEAAU- PAHOA ROAD Figure 5. 2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic With Project ~o Ogasawara Service Stan.... ~ Traffic Assessment Report October 21, 2002 r" ~ , r.n... ,...~..a .6. :dA 9N. .,,..,rya 1V. Findings and Conclusions The intersections of the Pahoa Bypass Road and the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road, and the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road and the Kahakai Boulevard Extension operated at satisfactory Levels of Service, during the existing AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The study intersections are expected to continue to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service after the development of the proposed service station. Queuing in the left turn lane of northbound Pahoa Bypass Road at the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road is expected to be insignificant during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic with the development of the proposed service station. Therefore, extension of the left turn lane on northbound Pahoa Bypass Road at the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road is not recommended at this time. The traffic, turning left from the through traffic lane on southbound Old Keaau-Pahoa Road to the Kahakai Boulevard Extension, is expected to result in minimal delays to through traffic. Furthermore, southbound traffic on the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road is expected to travel at relatively low speeds in order to safely negotiate the curved connector roadway at the Pahoa Bypass Road. Therefore, the construction of an exclusive left turn lane on southbound Old Keaau-Pahoa Road at the Kahakai Boulevard Extension is not recommended at this time. As development continues on the project parcel, traffic operations at the study intersections should be monitored in the future to determine when the traffic improvements that were imposed by Ordinance No. 00128 should be implemented. 11 ,MYY Of „7~ Hang Kim ~ ~ Lawrence K. Mahuna ' L6i4., Mayor - P9Lcv Chi~J Hang S. Kubojiri ~r+i~ of ~M';~P Drput~ Polire Uuef i ',I ~1 S~ County of Hawaii POLICE DEPARTMENT (,~,-_;~,,1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ 349 Kepi olam Street Hilq 1[awuif 9(720-3998 0408) 935-7311 Fax (808) 961-8869 January 27, 2003 TO , CFiR~ST ER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM LAWRENCE K. MAHUNA, POLICE CHIEF SUBJECT CHANGE OF ZONE N0. 00-128 APPLICANT: PAUL OGASAWARA REQUEST: AMEND CONDITIONS C AND D TMK: 1-5-007:020 Staff has reviewed the above-referenced request to amend conditions C and D (Required Roadway Improvements); and because the Department has observed problems created by development which is not supported by proper infrastructure, we would prefer that the applicant comply with all improvements required by Ordinance No. 00-128. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. DAK:IIi E~~IB'~~ G WILLIAM L. MOORE PLANNING 1591~+.LAISTREET HILO, HAWAII 96720 f,1,1~j t t f3 ] g 1 38 (808)935-0311/Fax (808)934-0162~~~ wlmP@gte.net F~,;,pin.llpr,~ - ' i iii-1`JT February 13, 2003 - Lawrence K. Mahuna Police Chief County of Hawaii Police Department 349 Kapiolani Stree[ Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3998 Dear Mr. Ma}mna: Subject: Amendment to Conditions of Approval Ordinance No. 091-116 as amended by Ord. No. 00-128 (REZ 698) Applicant: Paul Ogasawara Keonepoko Iki Homesteads, Pahoa, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-5-07: 20 This is to acknowledge receipt of the comments of the County of Hawaii Police Department dated January 27, 2003 regarding the proposed amendment to the conditions of approval of Ord. No. 91- 116, as amended by Ord. No. 00-128, Keonepoko Homesteads, Pahoa, Puna, Hawaii. Please be informed that the applicant, Paul Ogasawara, intends to comply with the requirements of Ord. No. 00-128. However, he would like to provide the required improvements commensurate with the projected impacts. The desire to do so is based upon Che recommendations of the Traffic Study that was performed in October of 2002 by Randall Okaneku, P.E., P.T.O.E. Accordingly, the applicant is seeking to allow the construction of the proposed service station and convenience store while deferring the construction of [he curb, gutter, sidewalk and intersection improvements, consistent with the recommendations of the traffic assessment. The applicant agrees that any development beyond the proposed service station and convenience store will require the construction of these improvements. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Sin/'celreQly~,~~ n,~T_ ^ I-CI~tiJ GL(~(_ L V " V'' T William L. Moore cc: Pau] Ogasawara Christopher J. Yuen, Director, Planning Department t c o r Mq ' ~P% X959 LINDA LIN6LE ``t~" e+,. ` CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO, Ai:D. governor of Hawaii Director of Health ~~~J~ STATE OF HAWAII ~ ~ ;l ~ 'i .L i ~ 2 DEPARTMENTOFHEALTH ~ub,l(, i~i_-- Po.eox 916 (~l.ii~i~•~ ~ ~I~ ~~~`~`~l/1~~ HILO, HAWAII 96]21-0916 MEMORANDUM DATE' January 22, 2003 TO: Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Aaron A. Ueno District Environmental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: Change of bone Ordinance No. 11 128, which amended Ordinance No. 91 116 (REZ 698) Applicant: Paul Ogasawara (Fomterly Kaneshiro and Sons Enterprises) Request: Amend Conditions C and D (Required Roadway Improvements) Tax Map Key: ]-5-007:020 WWB is unable to comments to the proposed project at this time. Before we can offer any comments, the applicant needs to address the following: a. The amount of wastewater to be generated by flee project. b. The quality of the wastewater to be generated by project. a The location of all existing wastewater systems. d. The treatment and disposal of wastewater from the project. bVORU.I2EZC93 mi EXFIiBI~ WILLIAM L. MOOR,F~PLANNING 159 x,aLat s r~Li~T' EB j g c~ Hn,q HAWAII 7 0 1 ~ (80R) 935-0311/Fax (80) Sr3}4~0~11g~!=~ C,T wlmP@gte.net ~'~~11iY , ,,pEfVT 11 February 13, 2003 Aaron Ueno, District F,nvironmental Health Program Chief State of Hawaii Department of Health P.U. Box 916 Hilo. Hawaii 96721-091~~ Dear Mr. Ueno: Subject Change of lone Application (REZ 698) Applicant: Paul Ogasawara Request: Amend Condition C and D of Ordinance NO. 00-128 Tax Map Key: 1-5-007: 020 -Phis is to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the memorandum dated January 22, 2003, from Department of Health regarding the above cited Change of Zone amendment requests. There are currently no wastewater disposal improvements on the subject site, which is vacan[ of any use. The applicant is proposing to utilize an h~dividual Wastewater System (IWS) and leach field meeting with thr approval of the requirements of the Department of Health to dispose of wastewater generated by the proposed service station and convenience store and related uses. According to the project's civil engineer, the anticipated amount of wastewater to be generated by the proposed use will be approximately 1,000 gallons per day from bathrooms and a possible kitchen facility. ~ he IWS will be designed as par[ of [i[a buiidii~g permit process and •?diil ba submitted to ti~a Department of Health for review and approval prior to commencemexit of construction. Please call me if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, ~ William L. Moore cr Christopher J. Yuen, Director, Planning Department Paul Ogasawara Mara Nishida, Okahara ~ Associates, Inc. ROguawaraREZ.doc - 4/7/03 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMF,NT RECOMMENDATION PAUL OGASAWARA CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 00 128 (REZ 698) AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS C AND D Upon review of the request, the Planning Director recommends that an unfavorable recommendation to amend Condition C and a favorable recommendation to amend Condition D of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 00 128 be forwarded to the County Council This recommendation does not, however, sanction the specific plans submitted with the application as they may be subject to change given the specific code and regulatory requirements of the affected agencies. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon additional information presented at the public heazing. This favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The applicant is requesting amendments to Conditions C and D of Ordinance No. 00 128 relating to required roadway improvements. The applicant proposes to construct a service station and related improvements while deferring the required cwb, gutter and sidewalk and intersection improvements as imposed by Conditions C and D. Effective December 2, 1991, the property was rezoned from Agricultural (A-la) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) under Ordinance 91 116, and a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultwal to Urban was also approved at that time. The original landowner had proposed to establish a supermarket on the site. Subsequently, the applicant purchased the subject property from the original owners with the intent to construct a service station and convenience store on the site, and a Traffic Assessment Report dated October 21, 2002 was prepazed by The Traffic Management Consultant. The study concluded that the intersections would continue to operate at satisfactory Levels of Service after the development of the proposed service station. Furthermore, the study concluded that no improvements to existing intersections were necessary to accommodate the proposed use. However, based on the existing Ordinance No. 00 128, -1- significant improvements to portions of the intersections and roadways would be required. Thus, the applicant requests amendments to Conditions C and D to construct the service station and convenience store. Condition C is proposed to read as follows: (1l~laterial to be deleted is bracketed, material to be added is underscored) (C) curbs, gutters, sidewalk and pavement improvements shall be provided with''=.n the Kahakai Boulevard extension right-of--way fronting the property meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development other than the x~ro~osed service station and convenience center as desc~bed in the Traffic Assessment dated October 21 2002. Further, a 25-foot radius shall be provided at the Kahakai Boulevard-Pahoa Road intersection. In order to construct the commercial standard road, utilities shall be relocated, if necessary. However, it is recommended that Condition C remain in its entirety, and curb, gutters, and sidewalk and. pavement improvements should be provided within the Kahakai Boulevard extension right-of--way as stated in the Ordinance, as granting the request to amend Condition C would be contrary to the original request. Furthermore, the Police Department has indicated that problems have been created by development which is not supported by proper infrastructure, and recommends that the applicant comply with the improvements as required under Ordinance No. 00 128. Since the rezoning was approved, there has been no change to the General Plan affecting this area, Although the Toning Code has been revised, all applicable requirements such ~~=y setback and height will be complied with. The subject property is located south of the Pahoa By-Pass Road between the Keaau-Pahoa Road and the Kahakai Boulevard extension. Access to the property is from Kahakai Boulevard, which has an approximate 50-foot right-of--way. All essential utilities and services are available to the site. Whenever a highway is constructed bypassing a town, there is a natural tendency -2- for commercial development to migrate to the new highway. Unless restrained by zoning, this process will often lead to the decay of the town. The Planning Department's policy is to support the vitality of our small towns like Pahoa. The 1989 General Plan, for example, contains a Course of Action for commercial development in Puna, which states, "Centralization of commercial activities in Pahoa shall be encouraged." When the Pahoa Bypass was constructed in the late 1980's, rezoning requests followed for properties near the corner of the bypass and the old Keaau-Pahoa Road. These requests included the rezoning of the subject property to allow the development of a Food Fair supermarket. At the time, the rezoning was rationalized by the fact that the narrowness of the old Keaau-Pahoa Road precluded the establishment of large commercial enterprises in the old central area of Pahoa, and given the increase in population in Puna, it was more important to allow such development. The infrastructure conditions attached to that rezoning tend to discourage smaller commercial development of the type now being proposed, which would be feasible in the central part of Pahoa. There have, however, been three commercial rezonings in this area: • TMK: 1-5-7: 20 (subject property) -SLU Boundary Amendment from Agricult~.~ral to Urban (SLU 794) and a Change of Zone from A-1 a to CN-20 (REZ 698) under Ordinance No. 91 116 effective December 2, 1991. The ordinance was amended by Ordinance No. 00 128 effective November 24, 2000. • TMK: 1-5-7: 21 directly across the street from the subject property -SLU Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban (SLU 1016) and Change of Zone front A-la to CN-20 (REZ 903) approved under Ordinance No. 98 128 effective December 7, 1998. • TMK: 1-5-7: 801ocated west of the subject property -SLU Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban (SLU 1067) and a Change of Zone from A-1 a to MCX-20 (REZ 946) under Ordinance No. 00 77 effective July 18, 2000. As such, it is too late to try to discourage commercial development in this area. -3- As requested by the Department of Public Works, in Condition D, "Department of Public Works" shah be amended to "Department of Transportation". The portion of the Keaau-Pahoa Road north/northwest of Kahakai Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, and the County owns the Keaau-Pahoa Road south/southeast of Kahakai Boulevard. The Planning Department will use the existing landscaping condition and work with the applicant to try to have t'us be a reasonably attractive project, given its potentially high visibility from the road. Based on the above findings, the proposed amendment to Condition D is not contrary to the original reasons for approving the Change of Zone. The Traffic Assessment Report supports the access and intersection improvement requirements as stated in Condition D. It is recommended that an unfavorable recommendation to amend Condition C and a favorable recommendation to amend Condition D be forwarded to the County Council witl.~ the following changes to Ordinance No. 00 128: (Material to be deleted is bracketed and material to be added is underscored, with the remaining conditions re-alphabetized): (D) access to the property shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Direct access to the property shall be limited only to the Kahakai Boulevard extension. Improvements at the intersection of Kahakai Boulevard and Pahoa Road, which shall include the provision of left-and right-turn lanes on Kahakai Boulevard extension, and alert-turn lane on Pahoa Road, shall be installed as required by the [Department of Public Works] Department of Transportation prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development other than the ~ro~osed service station and convenience center as described in the Traffic Assessment dated October 21 2002. Condition C is recommended to remain in its entirety with no changes. The accompanying draft bill to amend Condition D of Ordinance No. 00 128 is provided for your favorable consideration. -4- COUI~ITY ~F HA'WAI`I STATE CAF ~-~~~A_I`.~ BILL NO. ORDII~IANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 00 128 WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM AGRICULTURAL (A-la) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-20) AT KEONEPOKO, PUNA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 1-5-07:20. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 00 128 is amended as follows: "SECTION 1. Section 25-8-26, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code, is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Keonepoko, Puna, Hawaii, shall be Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20): Beginning at a point at the southeast corner of this parcel of land and on the northerly side of Kahakai Boulevard, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "olaa"being 34,554.85 feet South and 35,137.78 feet East acrd running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South: 1. 70° 34' 732.05 feet along the northerly side of Kahakai Bouleveard to a point at the easterly side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road (F.A.S.P. No. 5-0130 (8)) thence along the easterly side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road (F.A.S.P. No. 5-0130 (8)) for the next three (3) courses along a curve to the left having a radius of 2,904.79 feet, the chord azimuths and distances being: 2. 152° 15' 29.2" 216.99 feet; 3. 149° 43' 03.4" 40.56 feet; 4. 149° O1' 01.7" 30.47 feet; -1- 5. 148° 43' 49.91 feet along the easterly side of the Keaau- Pahoa Road (F.A.S.P. No. SO130 (8)); 6. 238° 43' 10.00 feet along a jog in the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18); thence along the easterly side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (t8) along a curve to the right having a radius of 180.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 7. 177° 40' 35" 174.31 feet; thence along the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18) along a curve to the right having a radius of 39.87 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 8. 249° 48' 32" 54.56 feet; thence along the southerly side of the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18) along a curve to the left having a radius of 1,370.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 9. 289° 59' 27" 142.96 feet; 10. 287° 00' 353.36 feet along the southerly side of the Keaau- Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18); 11. 197° 00' 10.00 feet along a jog in the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18); 12. 287° 00' 298.51 feet along the southerly side of the Keaau- Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18); thence along the southerly side of the Keaau- Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18) along a curve to the right having a radius of 1,940.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 13. 287° 31' 43.5" 35.81 feet; -2- 14. 328° 50' 11.43 feet along a jog in the Keaau-Pahoa Road Project No. RS-0130 (18) to the point of beginning and containing an area of 4.901 Acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. This change in district classification is conditioned upon the following: (A) the applicant, its successors or assigns shall comply with all stated conditions of approval; (B) construction of any development on the subject property shall be completed within five (5) years liom the effective date of this amendment. In the event substantial constnuction has occurred, but not completed within the five-year period, the Planning Director may grant an extension of not more than one year. Prior to commencing conshuction, Final Plan Approval shall be secured from the Planning Director in accordance with Chapter 25-2-72, 25-2-73, and 25-4-7 of the Zoning Code. Plans shall identify the proposed structures, landscaping, fire protection measures, paved driveway and parking stalls associated with the proposed uses. Landscaping shall be indicated on the plans and be provided for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties; (C) curbs, gutters, sidewalk and pavement improvements shall be provided within the Kahakai Boulevard extension right-of--way fronting the property meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development. Further, a 25-foot radius shall be provided at the Kahakai Boulevard- Pahoa Road intersection. In order to construct the commercial standard road, utilities shall be relocated, if necessary; (uj access to the properly shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Direct access to the property shall be limited only to the -3- Kahakai Boulevard extension. Improvements at the intersection of Kahakai Boulevard and Pahoa Road, which shall include the provision of left- and right-turn lanes on Kahakai Boulevard extension, and aleft-turn lane on Pahoa Road, shall be installed as required by the [Department of Public Works] Department of Transportation prior to receipt of a certi I icate of occupancy for any portions of the development other than the proposed service station and convenience center as described in the Traffic Assessment dated October 21, 2002; (E) improvements, if any, to the Pahoa By-Pass Road, which may include extending the left-turn storage lane leading to the connector road, shall be installed as required by the State Department ofTransportation-Highways Division, prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development; (F) a drainage system shall be installed meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works; (G) should any unidentified sites or remains such as artifacts, shell, bone, or charcoal deposits, human burials, rock or coral alignments, pavings or walks be encow~tered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Planning Department shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from the Planning Department when it finds that sufficient mitigative measures have been taken; (H) all other laws, rules, regulations and requirements of State and County agencies shall be complied with; (1) should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for the imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein may, at the developer's election, be satisfied by performance in accordance with the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance; -a- (J) an annual progress report shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the anniversary date of the effective date of this change of zone. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the status of the development and to what extent the conditions of approval are being complied with. This condition shall remain in effect until all of the conditions of approval have been complied and the Planning Director acknowledges that further reports are not required; and, (K) [an extension of time for the perfornance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: 1) the non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have be foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence; 2) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the general plan or zoning code; 3) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone; 4) the time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year maybe extended for up to one additional year); and 5)] if the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. Further, should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director shall initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation." SECTION 2. Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material is underscored. -5- SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: -6- PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT April 17, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on PAUL OGASAWARA (REZ 698) was called to order at 11:29 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom-Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairperson Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT: Fred Galdones ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Earl Fujikawa William Graham Florence Kubota Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staf1'Planner And approximately 3 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PAUL OGASAWARA (REZ 698) -Request to amend Conditions C and D (required roadway improvements) of Ordinance No. 00 128, that amended Ordinance No. 91 116, which reclassified 4.901 acres of land from Agricultural (A-la) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) zoned district. The property is located at the junction of the Pahoa Bypass Road and Kea'au-Pahoa Road and also borders Kahakai Boulevard, Keonepoko [ki Homesteads, Pahoa, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-5-7:20. GALDONES: Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 5. The Applicant is Paul Ogasawara. It is REZ 698. This is a request to amend Conditions C and D (required roadway improvements) of Ordinance No. 00 128, that amended Ordinance No. 91 116, which reclassified 4.901 acres of land from Agricultural (A-la) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) zoned district. Norman? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. if I may direct your attention to the presentation map. First of all, the location map, the subject property is indicated in red, and it's at the intersection of, corner of the Pahoa Bypass Road. This is going towards 1 Kapoho, and the Pahoa Village Road, also known as the Kea'au-Pahoa Road. The State Department of Transportation owns the Pahoa Bypass Road and also owns a portion of the Kea'au-Pahoa Road up to the Kahakai-Pahoa-Kea'au Road intersection. The remaining portion of the roadway into Pahoa Village is owned by the County and under the County's jurisdiction. This particular property was rezoned back in 1991 to Kaneshiro and Sons. At that time, the Kaneshiros wanted to construct a Food Fair Supermarket on their property. The Applicant recently purchased the property from, purchased the property, and is now proposing to build a service station or gas station for eight pumps as well as a convenience store on the property. They are requesting that two conditions be amended. Condition C relates to the imposition of curb, gutters, and sidewalks along Kahakai Boulevard and, again, Kahakai Boulevard is owned by or under the County's jurisdiction. They are also requesting that certain roadway improvements, including turning lanes, be deferred until the, for uses other than the proposed service station. And that also goes for Condition C, to defer those improvements until, and not including the, at the time of construction of the proposed service station. We are recommending that current Condition C regarding curbs, the imposition of or installation of curb, gutters, and sidewalk be retained; and that we also, we are recommending that the proposed Condition D, as proposed by the Applicant, be recommended for approval. So, on one hand, we are recommending that Condition C, as requested by the Applicant, not be approved or not recommended for approval, and on the other hand, we are recommending that Condition D, regarding deferment of the roadway improvements, be considered. And just as, since this discussion was previously had by, on the previous application regarding the timing of the development and non-compliance, there are some information in the Background Report that the Planning Director at that time, back in 1996, did inform the Applicant, I believe it was Kaneshiro and Sons at that time, that they would, the Planning Department will initiate rezoning of the property due to non-compliance. Subsequently, the Applicant did come in for a time extension. Then again back in the year 2000, the early part of 2000, the County Council requested the Planning Director to initiate down zoning of this property back to Agricultural-1 acre. Since that request came down, the Applicant did submit another time extension request to, time extension request, and that was subsequently processed. So this particular application is still classified as Commercial, I mean this property is still classified as Commercial. GALDONES: Commissioners, any questions of Norman? Seeing none, will the Applicant or representative please step forward. Bill, could you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai' i County Planning Commission? MOORE: I do. 2 GALDONES: Mr. Moore, could you please state your name, your resident address. MOORE: Yes, thank you. My name is Bill Moore. I'm a planning consultant representing the owner, Paul Ogasawara, who's in the audience. My address is 159 Hala'i Street, Hilo 96720. GALDONES: Mr. Moore, have you received a copy of the Background Report and the Recommendations? MOORE: Yes, we have. GALDONES: Do you have any comments on them? MOORE: Yes, we do. Again, we are pleased that the Planning Department is recommending approval of Condition D. We do believe that the request for Condition C is reasonable and ask that that be retained as requested, that the sidewalk improvements be deferred for the service station. Again, we're not looking to eliminate this condition, we're looking to defer it. The, again, the way the condition reads, if he does anything beyond what was provided in the traffic study, then he would have to put in those sidewalk improvements at that time. And, again, this is consistent with the traffic study. It's also consistent with the Department of Public Works' comments on this. In fact, I did meet with Department of Public Works, and got their concun•ence before we even submitted or prepared the application. So we went in there again with the, at least concurrence of Public Works that it was reasonable to defer the sidewalk improvements. GALDONES: Norman, did the Department have some problems grappling with the request by the Applicant for a deferral'? HAYASHC Defer? GALDONES: The deferral of the curbs, gutters, and sidewalk. HAYASHI: We felt thatjust to be consistent with a previous application in that area, which was the property situated across the street, that we'd like to retain the curb, gutter, sidewalks for any, prior to any developing occurring on that property, or simultaneously with the development of that property. GALDONES: So there was another applicant in which you folks had acted upon and HAYASHI: Yes. And if I may point out the property. Again, this is the Kea'au-Pahoa Road, this is going into Pahoa Village, Kahakai Boulevard. There is another property situated across the street, indicated in this pink here, that was rezoned to Sadao Tsubota. And at that time, when the rezoning came in, the Planning Department did recommend that curb, gutters, and sidewalks be imposed as part of the conditions of approval. However, when the application was forwarded to the County Council, there were some concerns relative to the imposition of curb, gutters, and sidewalks. So the County Council, at that time, in adopting the Tsubota application, deleted that curb, gutter, sidewalk requirement and basically said that improvements shall be provided, and it's not the exact language, but improvements, roadway improvements shall be provided MOORE: 1 have the language here. Again, their condition was condition, improvements to the frontage, which is on Kahakai Boulevard and Pahoa Road, which would be consistent with the rustic ambiance of Pahoa Town, and install street lights, signs, and markings. HAYASHI: Thank you, Bill. GALDONES: Norman, in light of the action taken by the County Council, would not the Department consider that in rejecting or giving an unfavorable recommendation to defer curbs, gutters, and sidewalks? HAYASHI: Can I defer that question to the Planning Director? GALDONES: Sure, you may. YUEN: We want to make consistent recommendations to create a level playing field for people with commercial properties; and so, as a general rule, we are putting in curbs, gutters, and sidewalks as a condition of commercial zoning. As there are possible exceptions to the rule, there, the Waimea area, for example, there's a design plan that talks about where there should be sidewalks and where there shouldn't be; and we would respect that kind of community, expression of community wishes. However, in this case, we really don't see a reason to vary from the general recommendation that we're going to make. GALDONES: Mr. Moore. MOORE: Yes, if I can respond. The, again, while the Department may have, again, requested, I didn't go back into the record that far, the condition was to allow the rustic ambiance. The adjacent development was approved, I have pictures here, it's an auto parts store, and it was approved without sidewalks. And, you know, again, to be consistent with the County policy, we could have asked for that same condition to eliminate the sidewalk improvements completely and consistent with the policy in this area; and we're not. We're asking that they just be deferred for the service station, again, which is not a generator of foot traffic. And, again, if there is a use that generate, any use beyond this, whether it generates foot traffic or not, the owner is willing to put in the sidewalk. So we're not asking to get out of this condition, we're just asking for the deferral. GALDONES: Commissioner Fujikawa. 4 FUJIKAWA: How heavy of a foot traffic is in that location? MOORS: Again, I don't live in there. I was out there looking at it, but I believe that there is minimal if any, if none. Again, what's there now is an auto parts store, and there's no residences really close to that. There are a couple of residences on the end of Kahakai, yeah, down in there. I think there are three residences down there; but, again, these are not uses that draw traffic like a downtown. FUJIKAWA: And how wide is Kahakai Road, Street? MOORS: Kahakai is 50 feet. FUJIKAWA: Fifty feet. So the curb, sidewalk, they intend to have parking on the roadway? MOORS: No. There will be sufficient parking provided on site. As you can see, it's afour-plus acre site, and we're using just a small portion of that. So whatever parking And again, the convenience store, there are requirements within the Code, but it's also the orientation of the store. If I can, this is Kahakai. The gas pumps will be in front, the convenience store behind. So people aren't going to be parking on the street to get to the convenience store, they're going to, you know, they can FUJIKAWA: Right. MOORS: People are people. They're going to get as close as they can. If they have to park in front of the pumps to get to the convenience store, they will. But there will be adequate parking. There's plenty of room within the property to take care of that. And so, and the Code discourages And, again, there's no intent to under park. So you really want to encourage people to be in there. FUJIKAWA: Okay. Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA: Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the discussion, am I to understand, Mr. Moore, that your request is for a deferral until such time as the build-out is more intense, and that the Department of Transportation, as well as Department of Public Works have agreed that it's okay with them? And that in the event, and I have your memo here that says that you will agree that any developments beyond the proposed service station and convenience store will require construction of these improvements which refer to curb, gutter and sidewalk. So you're merely, the condition, the conditional change that you're asking for in C is that this improvement be commensurate with the kind of buildings or development that you are now proposing, which is the eight pump MOORS: Right. 5 KUBOTA: Service station and the convenience store? And that later on, as the development gets heavier, that you will be bound to put in the curb, gutter, and sidewalk, is that correct? MOORE: That I think is a very accurate description. We're looking for conditions commensurate with the impacts. KUBOTA: And is it my understanding, Mr. Hayashi, that in the development right across this Applicant's, that the County did recommend curb, gutter, and sidewalk, but the County Council thought it prudent to leave it out? HAYASHI: That is correct. That was the Department that recommended approval, and the Planning Commission also recommended same. KUBOTA: I see. Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER: If installed, where would the sidewalks lead to? Are there sidewalks on either side'? MOORE: No, there's no And I have pictures. There's no sidewalks anywhere in this azea. So it would be just sidewalks along the frontage of Kahakai in front of this property. There's no sidewalks on Kea'au-Pahoa Road coming to this. So it would be, again, kind of afree-standing sidewalk. SPRINGER: I have a question. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER I'm looking at the Police Department memo of January 27`h, which is Exhibit C, and it reads, "The Department has observed problems created by development which is not supported by proper infrastructure." My sense is that they may have been refemng to Condition D. Could you explain to me how this might refer to Condition C? MOORE: Well, my sense of this comment is I think it's a generic comment and not specific to this project, that they have observed in other projects that things have not been taken care of And so, 1 don't get a sense that this is specific to this project. [t maybe, but that's my interpretation of it. You know, created by development which is not supported, I don't think they are being specific about this. SPRINGER: Thank you. FUJIKAWA: I have a comment. 6 GALDONES: Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA: I feel that it could be a stumbling block right now if there's no other sidewalk and just you have a sidewalk. Until the time comes when everybody puts a sidewalk, then that's the time to put a sidewalk. But it can be a stumbling block. GALDONES: Commissioner Mina. MINA: Yeah, I'm kind of familiar with that location because, you know, on the Bypass Road, there is a guardrail on Kahakai, it's blocking off Kahakai. The only way to that is you've got to go to the Old Pahoa Road and then coming down. You cannot go from the Bypass into Kahakai, you've got to come azound MOORE: That is correct. MINA: On the high side. MOORE: Yeah, that is correct. The only access to the property is from the Kea~au-Pahoa intersection. FUJIKAWA: I see. MOORE: And the only access that's permitted is from Kahakai. MINA: It's not from the bottom. MOORE: Yeah, not from the Bypass. GALDONES: Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM: Just for the clarification. The Planning Department, in their recommendation, is recommending that the curbs, gutter, and sidewalks be installed the whole length of Kahakai Road there abutting the parcel? HAYASHL That is correct. GRAHAM: Thank you. HAYASHI: Approximate distance is 730 feet. GALDONES: Any further questions? If not, is there anyone from the public wishing to make, to testify on this subject matter before the Planning Commission? HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, 1 do have one 7 GALDONES: t'es, Norn~an. HAYASHL Correction to make. GALDONES: Yes. HAYASHL: And this would be with reference to the draft ordinance that was submitted to you, on Page 5, Condition K, and there is a bracket before the word "an," a-n. That bracket should be deleted. KUBOTA: Yeah. Yeah. HAYASHL: And actually this bracket is there under the original ordinance that was, the amended ordinance that was granted back in 19, or 2000, yeaz 2000. GALDONES: It was a typographical error? HAYASHI: That's correct. KUBOTA: It's this one, right? This bracket? HAYASHI: Yes. KUBOTA: Right? GALDONES: Commissioners, you have heard the discussion in light of the, however, in light of the recommendation from the Department, that Condition C be given a HAYASHL• Excuse me. Maybe I need to take a look at the ordinance. One second. The original ordinance. GALDONES: Okay. Sure. HAYASHI: Because the reason why I say that is there is another bracket after No. 5, okay, I stand corrected. The ordinance that's drafted and presented to you is correct. We are deleting, this is, actually, Item K, or Condition K. That was deleted book, up until Item K. KUBOTA: Five. HAYASHI: Condition K(5), that was deleted in the 2000 Ordinance 00 128. Therefore, Condition K should basically state that if the Applicant should require additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the Applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action. Further, should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director shall initiate rezoning 8 of the area to its original. or more appropriate designation. So, technically, we could have deletod, the bracketed area should not be part of this ordinance since it :was already deleted back in 2000. YUEN: That's corr.,ct. GALDONES: Understand. YUEN: That's correct. The bracketed part of K should not be in here, and only the last paragraph that starts .with;. "If the Applicant should r:,~uire an additional extension of time," that should be K. GALDON-ES: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Yuen. Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER: Thank you. Jult clarification from Mr. Moore. With regard to your proposed amendmfant to C, any other proposal in the mature would then trigger the curbs, gutters, and sides~.?alks? MOORS: That's the language that we agreed with with Public Works. So, again, we're saying that if you do a., something small that does not even generate traffic, we still have to put the side,;'.=alks in at that time. So that was the azircement that we had_ We just want Again, the intent is to get the service station in there and do that without these itnproverrsents. If :anything beyond that goes in, then the owner is agreeable to putting the sidewalks at that time. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER: O`i might you come forward and have this discussion again? MOORS: I'm sorry? SPRINGER: Gi-might the Applicant come- forward and have this discussion again? MOORS: You never say never, but that's not the intent. SPRINGER: Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioner 1~ujikawa. FUJIKAWA: S'Ve're looking amending Condition C, right, curb, gutters, sidewalk, or what? GALDONES: That's the Applicant's proposal, recommendation. 9 MOORE: Again, if you look at the Recommendation. FUJIKAWA: Right. MOORE: Page 2 of the Recommendation FUJIKAWA: Right. MOORE: Has the language that we had proposed, and that was not recommended for approval. So that is the language that we have been or are seeking. FUJIKAWA: Okay. GALDONES: Mr. Moore, I didn't quite follow you. What was the recommended language that you had? MOORE: Well, the proposed language that we had is shown on Page 2 of the Recommendation, where the underlined section would be added. GALDONES: Where it says "other than the proposed service station?" MOORE: That's correct. So that's the amendment that we are seeking. Again, the Planning Department's recommendation is to not include that. GALDONES: I see. Hearing, seeing that there is no one from the public wishing to testify, we are in the, the Chair is ready to entertain a motion if further discussion is not needed. KUBOTA: Mr. Chair'? GALDONES: Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA: I would like to move I don't Okay. I don't know how to go about this in terms of procedure. Do I move to amend Condition C first before [move to, I move the application, or which comes first? Do I move the, do [move the application with the intent to amend C? GALDONES: Being that, Commissioner Kubota, being that there are two different changes, amendments that are being seeked by the Applicant, perhaps we can just take it separately. It might be more for clarity. Take Condition C first and then take Condition D. KUBOTA: No, I think I will move that I don't know what I want. I know what I want to do, but I don't know how to do it. I would like to move the approval of both Conditions C and D of REZ 698, the amendments to Conditions C and D. However, if I do that 10 GALDONES: Your KUBOTA: With the amendment from unfavorable to Condition C to a favorable, is that how you do it? I don't know how to do that. GALDONES: You would, Commissioner Kubota, you would have to take the recommendation, the language in the recommendation, Condition C, and have that incorporated into Condition C of the ordinance. TORIGOE: Mr. Chairman? GALDONES: Counsel. KUBOTA: Maybe somebody else can do it then. GALDONES: Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: Yeah, basically, I think all you have to do is, well, in essence, what you have to do is decide whether you're going to make a favorable or unfavorable recommendation on the requested amendments. The Applicant has requested certain amendments to Condition C, which is set out in Page 2 of the current Recommendation, as well as changes to Condition D, again which are set out on Page 4 of the current Recommendation. And so if your intent is simply to send a favorable recommendation on both of those, then that is what you should move, in simplest tenns, is that you move for a favorable recommendation on the KUBOTA: The amendment to TORIGOE: Requested amendments KUBOTA: Conditions C and D? TORIGOE: Right. And that that favorable recommendation be forwarded KUBOTA: To the County Council. TORIGOE: To the County Council, along with KUBOTA: Along with. TORIGOE: An appropriate ordinance. KUBOTA: Thank you. I so move. SPRINGER: Second. Second. 11 GALDONES: It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Springer that Applicant Paul Ogasawara Change of Zone Ordinance No. 00 128, REZ 698, it's an amendment to Conditions C and D, be given a favorable recommendations to [he change of zone ordinance. Must that be also addressed in the motion? KUBOTA: Yes. TORIGOE: 1 think it's clear enough what she's trying to do. I would GALDONES: Okay. TORIGOE: Also suggest that if you have some specific reasons why you believe that Condition C should be favorably considered KUBOTA: Well TORIGOE: Then you should put that on the record, as well. GALDONES: And that this be forwarded to the County Council. Discussion? Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA: Well, I just wanted to say that based on the testimony that I received today, that the granting of the request to amend Condition C would not be contrary to the original request. GALDONES: Any further discussion? Commissioner Springer. YUEN: 1 think Mr. Torigoe's, what Mr. Torigoe is getting at is that when you make a recommendation that's consistent with the Director's recommendation, then you have, in essence, a whole package that you send to the Council. You send the Recommendation, with the Recommendation of the Director, which has the rationale for saying yes to, in this case, yes to one and no for the other. He is requesting that you put on the record a rationale, you're going to only send When we put together a letter for the What happens Let me back up a little bit. What happens after you folks vote on a rezoning recommendation like this is that we put together a letter for the Chair to sign that gets sent to the County Council, that contains the reasons for the Planning Commission, why the Planning Commission acted the way it did. When the Planning Commission simply goes along with the Director's recommendation, then we completely recycle our recommendation into a letter to the County Council, and that's the Planning Commission's recommendation, all right. Now in this case, where it appears that you're going to go against the Director's recommendation on one element, then we would, we play fair, okay. We're just going to send, if you vote that way, we will send it to the County Council and say the Planning 12 Commission's recommendation is that you don't have to have the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, but we want to put, we want to have a statement from the Planning Commission as to the reasons so that we can put that in our letter that goes to the Council. And from the standpoint of making a motion, it could be as, for what we need to do, it could be as simple as for the reasons stated here by the Applicant that you wish to approve the Applicant's request. And from there, we can take that and put that into the letter that goes to the Council. KUBOTA: That sums up pretty much what I was going to say. So it's in a very concise manner, so I will accept that. GALDONES: Commissioner Springer. KUBOTA: I just feel that it's appropriate that we defer the construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk until such time as the build-out is more massive. GALDONES: Thank you, Commissioner Kubota. Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER: Thank you. 1'll be voting in favor of the motion because testimony by the Applicant's representative has indicated there has been extensive discussion with Department of Public Works, which has indicated the appropriateness of deferring installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks until future development is undertaken by the Applicant. And also that with regard to other similar applications, according to the Applicant's representative's testimony, the County Council has acted to not require curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Thank you. GALDONES: Thank you, Commissioner Springer. Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM: I also am in support. I think it would be an undue burden, given the rural nature and given the lack of pedestrian traffic. The only consideration I wanted to bring up is it looks like about 150 feet of that Kahakai Boulevard is going to be fronting the particular development that's going to be done there right now, and I don't want this omission to cause that 150 feet to not be done properly. So is there some guarantee or some wording that we are sure that the interface between Kahakai Boulevard and this particular project part of the gas station convenience store is done in the proper manner? Is that clear or MOORE: No, I'm sorry, ['m not clear as to what you're GRAHAM: Well, I guess you could just, you know, lay down a few slabs of asphalt and let somebody drive off MOORE: Okay. GRAHAM: Kahakai into your paved azea, but I think we would like to be sure 13 MOORE: Oh, no. GRAHAM: That that portion of it-. MOORE: No. GRAHAM: Is done in the proper way. So by removing the whole curbs, gutters, and sidewalks thing, maybe we're removing the requirement that you do that properly. MOORE: No. Let me just get the language, just to be real sure. GRAHAM: Okay. HAYASHI: I think it's clear in the condition that curb, gutters, and sidewalk will also be provided fronting that proposed service station and convenience store at some point in time. So this condition would not, it's only deferring the improvements. When other improvements are proposed on that particular property, the frontage of that proposed gas station and convenience store would also be required to provide curb, gutter, sidewalk. MOORE: I'd like Thank you, Norman. Just to add to that, the condition, both Condition C and Condition D requires that all the improvements be constructed with the approval, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works with respect to the sidewalks and road improvements within the County road and with respect to the Department of Transportation's approval for the section of turning lanes within the Kahakai, the portion of the Kea'au-P~lroa Road which is owned by DOT. So it's not a matter of the Applicant determining what level of improvements he gets to put in, it's, these improvements have to meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works or DOT, respectively. YUEN: No, wait, I'm not sure. Norman answered the If you were asking whether, if there was finally a major development in the area and there were sidewalks put in, that this language would create ahole GRAHAM: No. YUEN: In front of the gas station. So he answered that question. But that wasn't your question. Your question GRAHAM: Right. YUEN: Is, and I think maybe, and you haven't gotten to this question. It's what, if the amendment passes, what is, your idea is that you just have a driveway off of the existing Kahakai anti no frontage improvements to Kahakai other than that driveway? 14 GRAHAM: That's correct. YUEN: All right. GRAHAM: That's correct. YUEN: That is what he's asking for. GRAHAM: Okay. While I'm not clear on that then, my reason for supporting your change in Condition C is that it seems onerous for you to have to do that whole long frontage area. But I don't know whether it's not appropriate for you to do it in the proper way, the frontage in front of the service station and convenience store. And since I'm a little new at these matters, 1'll leave it to others. But I wanted to bring that up, because it does seem like it's a concern. MOORS: Just so there's no misunderstanding, the request is to defer the sidewalks completely, including the portion fronting the service station where, again, if you did that, you would have just, really, a sidewalk in the middle of nowhere. When there is additional development, when the sidewalk improvement is triggered, that sidewalk has to be provided along the frontage of Kahakai, including the portion in front of the service station. GRAHAM: And so when MOORS: That's what we're requesting. GRAHAM: And when Department of Public Works is in accord, they aze in accord with you doing only that limited work in the frontage of the service station convenience store? MOORS: Again, you're talk Okay, we're not proposing any sidewalks at this time, even in front of the service station. GRAHAM: Right. And Department of Public Works is in agreement with you in that regard? MOORS: That, I was, I believe so. Again, I don't want to put words in their mouth, but that was the discussions that I had with them and that is consistent with their memorandum. Again GRAHAM: Okay. HAYASHI: The comments from Department of Public Works indicated that they had no objections 15 MOORE: No objections, yeah. HAYASHI: To the Applicant's request to defer the installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. GRAHAM: Right. Well, 1 don't feel like I have the expertise to indicate anything different in front of the service station, but I want to bring that up as an issue. Whereas I'm philosophically in agreement with amending Condition C so they don't have to do the whole frontage. I'm not sure that what they're proposing right in front of the service station is appropriate or not, so 1'l] have to leave that For others. GALDONES: Commissioners, any further discussion? Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA: Now that we're delving into the intent oFthe responses of the various departments, I refer to one from the Director of Transportation, Rodney Haraga. And he also refers to amending Condition C and D and having no objections to it because he relies on the traffic assessment report as being satisfactory. YUEN: Yeah, I KUBOTA: So that's another support. Huh? What? YUEN: Oh, I'm sorry to interrupt. KUBOTA: Excuse me. YUEN: I do have to say though that the Department of Transportation would not caze what happens on Kahakai KUBOTA: That's right. They're YUEN: Simply, at all. KUBOTA: That's County, yeah. That's County. YUEN: They wouldn't care at all, and would say that regardless of if they were proposing to dig a 50-foot deep hole on Kahakai Street KUBOTA: Usually though, you YUEN: I think they would probably say they KUBOTA: I think this YUEN: Have no objection. 16 KUBOTA: Okay. Well, maybe this one had a little bit of concern because part of it is State, pari of this whole thing, Kea'au-Pahoa Road is YUEN: Right. KUBOTA: Is State owned. YUEN: They're KUBOTA: And also, wait. Usually, they say we have no comments. We have no comments. They do not border on our State highway. That would be their normal one. This one was a little bit different, so I took it to heart. GALDONES: Okay. No further discussions. Norman? HAYASHI: Yes, just before I take the roll call, one clarification regarding Condition D, and that is to recommend approval of Condition D as proposed, requested by the Applicant and as further amended by the Planning Department or Director? GALDONES: That is my understanding Norman. HAYASHI: Thank you. With that, I']l take the roll call. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Yes. HAYASHI: Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA: Oh, excused. GALDONES: He had to be excused. HAYASHI: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Ave. HAYASHI: Commissioner Mina? 17 MINA: Ave. HAYASHI: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Ave. HAYASHI: And Chair Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries seven-zero. GALDONES: Thank you, Norman. Mr. Moore, you will be informed. MOORE: Thank you. On behalf of the Applicant, thank you very much. Really appreciate it. GALDONES: You're welcome. The discussion ended at 12:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ . vim-,. - - Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Planning Commission 18