The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0702.000 1998-2000,.r Stephen K. Yamashiro Mayor March 14, 2000 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 99 -031) Applicant: Morton Associates Holdings Request: A -20a to A -10a Tax Map Key: 7 -3 -26:19 State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 99 -014) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 99 -030) Request: A -Sato RS -15 Applicant: Keven H. and Patricia D. Rinkenbach Tax Map Key: 7 -3 -5:98 Resolution for Time Share Applicant: Bridge Puako, LLC Request: Resolution in Order to Establish Time Share on Subject Properties Tax Map Key: 6 -8 -1:25 and 36 -40 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 5- 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. Sincerely, Stephen K. Yan%aaitiro Mayor • �I L, F11ti 1? HP] 8 25 tuuntu uf 25 Aupunt Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 -4252 • (808) 961 -8211 • Fax 008'961 -6553 KONA. 75 -5706 Kuakint Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua -Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808) 329 -5226 • Fax (808) 326 -5663 L030300.MAY Enclosures - On file in the Office of the County Clerk cc: Planning Department 9_ill 2 ab William G. Davis Managing Director Henry Cho Deputy Managing Director Comm. No, 7b2 File No. ZNG � KN Rer. PC. Ref. To: Date MAR 2 0 2000 Stephen K. Yamashiro Mayor MAR 1 4 2000 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 99 -031) Applicant: Morton Associates Holdings Request: A -20a to A -l0a Tax Map Key: 7 -3 -26:19 • �it Or • (gaunt of AttiliZtit PLANNING COMMISSION 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 -4252 (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961.9615 The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on March 3, 2000, voted to recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill to change the district classification for approximately 33.461 acres of land from Agricultural (A -20a) to Agricultural (A -10a). The property is located in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision on the north side of Kaloko Drive and west side of Makahi Street at approximately the 3,200 -foot elevation, Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the change of zone: In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 • • The applicants submitted an application for a Change of Zone for approximately 33.461 acres of land by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A -20a) to Agricultural (A -l0a) in order to subdivide the property into three lots, each consisting of 10 acres or larger. The subject property is a rectangular lot with two existing dwellings and a maintenance shed. The applicants have reforested the property by planting Monterey Pines, over 500 Koa trees and 250 Sugi Pines. On June 2, 1997, the County Council passed Resolution No. 58 -97 amending County Council's Resolution No. 330 -96. This resolution amended the Council's policy relating to the rezoning of district boundaries within Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. The Council found that a maximum density of two dwellings per twenty acres for lands within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation, with certain conditions, will protect the watershed and native forest and maintain a low density pattern. The resolution recommends that Agricultural -10 acres (A -10a) zoning requests may be approved only for those parcels within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation and include the conditions as stated within Resolution No. 58 -97. The property is located in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision on the north side of Kaloko Drive and west side of Makahi Street and at the 3,200 -foot elevation, Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7 -3- 26:19. The Change of Zone Application from Agricultural -20 acres (A -20a) to Agricultural -10 acres (A -l0a) zoned district will conform to the following goals, policies and standards of the General Plan Land Use and Agricultural Elements: Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County. Zoning request shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zone uses, availability of public services and utilities, access, and public need. The compatibility of agricultural and non - agricultural uses should be carefully reviewed and where appropriate, buffers required. Rural -style residential - agricultural developments, such as new small -scale rural communities or extensions of existing rural communities, shall be encouraged in appropriate locations. Protect and encourage the intensive utilization of the County's important agricultural lands. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 • • The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. Agricultural land shall be used as one form of open space or green belt. While the potential for intensive and /or extensive agricultural uses may exist, the project site is comprised of soils identified as Kiloa Extremely Stony Muck (rKXD). This soil consist of well- drained, thin, extremely stony organic soils over fragmental A'a lava and is used primarily for woodland and pasture. Soils within the subject property have been classified as "E" (Very Poor) for agricultural productivity by the Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System. Finally, soils within the subject property are classified as "Other Important Agricultural Land" by the ALISH System. "Other Important Agricultural Land" are lands that are other than Prime or Unique Agricultural Land that is also of wide or local importance for agricultural use. The recordation of deed restrictions for individual lot owners to file a conservation plan with the Kona Soil and Water Conservation District will encourage agricultural activities or the presentation of the lands within the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with the "Orchard" designation by the General Plan LUPAG Map and "Other Important Agricultural Land" designation by the ALISH system. The requested A -l0a zoning is consistent with the recommendation of the Kona Regional Plan. The proposed subdivision of three 10 -acre or larger lots would be compatible with the agricultural character of lands located within the upper elevations of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision which are primarily zoned A -20a and A -10a. The applicants have agreed to impose restrictive covenants requiring the filing of a conservation plan with the Soil and Water Conservation District as well as restricting the construction of second dwelling units on each subdivided lots. The 10 -acre lot sizes will also provide additional opportunities for residents who wish to pursue limited agricultural activities, but are not able to commit to the financial or labor demands placed on them by the larger 20 -acre parcels. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 Lands located within the upper regions of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision are predominantly zoned A -20a. Recent zoning classifications have been approved for 5 -acre parcels at the 2,900 -foot elevation and 10 -acre parcels at the 3,000 -foot elevation. The subject property is adjacent to and bounded by 20 -acre zoned lands. However, an increasing number of parcels are being affected with condominium property regimes. In addition, in keeping with the policy of the County Council, conditions of approval related to the forest reserve easement and 100 -foot building setbacks are being included. Therefore, a favorable recommendation of this change of zone request will be consistent with the surrounding land use pattern already established within this portion of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. The subject property is located at the 3,200 -foot elevation. The 'Alala Recovery Plan, prepared in an effort to preserve the habitat of the critically endangered 'Alala, recommends that portions of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,200 -foot elevation be designated as "essential habitat" for the ' Alala. As part of the Office of State Planning's Five -Year State Land Use District Boundary Review, the Water Resources Research Center recommends that the high rainfall and fog -drip area mauka of the 2,000 -foot elevation be redesignated into the Conservation District for protection as a watershed recharge area. The Kona Watershed, which provides for the recharge of aquifers which supplies most of Kona's drinking water, includes those lands located within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision and situated above the 1,900 -foot elevation, which includes the subject property. The subject property, located above the 3,000 -foot elevation, does not seriously compromise the recommendations of these studies beyond existing conditions. While the subject property is located at the elevation recommended for preservation as a habitat for the 'Alala, it is located above the approximately 2,000 -foot minimum elevation recommended by the Office of State Planning and the Water Resources Research Center for protection as a watershed area. Approval of the requested change of zone will not alter the existing land use conditions within Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. Whether a parcel has an Agricultural zoning with a minimum lot size of 10 or 20 acres, uses permitted within the Agricultural District will allow for a variety of agricultural activities to be conducted on the property. Therefore, favorable consideration of this request will also complement the goals, policies and standards of the Land Use and Agricultural Elements of the General Plan previously cited above. Primary access to the subject area from the Mamalahoa Highway is provided by Kaloko Drive, a County roadway having a pavement of approximately 20 feet with 8 -foot wide grassed shoulders within an 80 -foot wide right -of -way. This road is able to accommodate the proposed 3 -lot subdivision. The Mamalahoa Highway - Kaloko Drive intersection is of a "T" configuration without channelization improvements. The analysis of traffic along Kaloko Drive and at its intersection with the Mamalahoa Highway found that there are no appreciable delays at this intersection during the AM and PM peak Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 • • traffic hours. The State Department of Transportation and County Department of Public Works have expressed the need for improvements to the Mamalahoa Highway - Kaloko Drive intersection. The need for such improvements is essential since similar changes of zone may occur throughout the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision and the creation of additional homesites placing additional traffic burdens on the intersection. A fair share condition related to this has been included to assist in payment to the fund already created by previous change of zone ordinances for the improvement of the Mamalahoa Highway - Kaloko Drive intersection. The improvement of the intersection would be coordinated with the State Department of Transportation by the Department of Public Works. The existing County's North Kona Water System presently provides water to the subject property. Wastewater generated by the existing dwellings are disposed of utilizing an individual wastewater disposal system which meets the requirements of the Department of Health. All other essential utilities and services are or will be made available to support the proposed development. An archaeological investigation of the Kaloko ahupua'a was conducted by Huehue Ranch, the developer of the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. According to the application, the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic Preservation Division (DLNR -HPD) conducted a site inspection of the parcel. In a letter dated October 22, 1999, the DLNR -HPD stated "Because of the previous study and recent site inspection, we believe there are no significant historic sites on the subject parcels. Therefore, additional archaeological work is not necessary prior to subdivision review or land altering activity. We feel that any development in the subject parcels will have 'no effect' on significant archaeological sites." However, should historical sites be located within the subject property, the applicant will be required to immediately notify the DLNR -HPD. In addressing potential adverse visual impacts the clearing of the subject property for individual home sites and agricultural uses may have on the existing upland forest character within the subject area, the applicants have proposed a 100 -foot wide "forest reserve easement" for buffer purposes along the existing road, a 100 -foot wide structural setback along the existing roads in lieu of the required 30 -foot setback, a 30 -foot "forest reserve easement" along all lot lines not covered by the 100 -foot easement and a provision that no- less -than eighty percent (80 %) of the entire lot area be retained in forest. These recommended conditions will attempt to preserve the forest corridor so prominent along the roads of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. Based on the above findings, approval of the Change of Zone request from Agricultural -20 acres (A -20a) to Agricultural -10 acres (A -l0a) zoned district. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 6 For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Section 25 -8 -2, the North and South Kona Zone Map, of the County Zoning Code is transmitted. We are enclosing a copy of the application, a copy of the staff background and a transcript of the hearing for your information. Sincerely, Richard B. Baker, Jr., Chairman Planning Commission • • Lmorton02PC Enclosures cc: Mr. Gregory Mooers Morton Associates Holdings Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply West Hawaii Office Department of Land & Natural Resources Kazu Hayashida, Director /DOT- Highways, Honolulu 1 I ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE Agricultural 20 -acres (A -20a) to Agricultural 10 -acres (A -10a) MOOERS ENTERPRISES P.O. Box 1 101 KAMUELA, HAWAII 96743 APPLICANT: Morton Associates Holdings (Limited Partnership) TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7 -3 -26:19 Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii Submitted by: Mooers Enterprises December 21, 1999 PHONE: (808) 885-6839 FAX: (808) 885-1574 EMAIL: GMOOERS @IBM.NET C - 7 o2. /e; /! Rao /Oc 1 1 1 APPLICANT: / ��i 0 /Ait 2e7•YE,esi ,p v / • r r /+� APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: cYM2l1 n( 11/6 � DATE: // 1 1 1 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: General partners of Limited Partnership LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: 1 PHONE: (Bus .)8 /8 0./024�/- .38//6��S (Res . .)8/S - 3,�5 -,3 /4Z (Fax) ea? S?5 LANDOWNER(S): \44ht - G./.. zrttv`S' /�` 7Je nzd. ,!e%e 4) 1 ANDOW SI NAT (S): _,l.;.. _ I/ go, ..Ill i i 1 - .+D ATE: /0/97 //99 • ne e �i (May be by letter) LANDOWNER(S) ADD SS: Same as above REQUEST Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) TO Agricultural 10 -acre (A -10a) (Existing zoning) TAX MAP KEY: 7 -3 -26 :19 1 1 1 ADDRESS: PMB #670 26500 W. Agoura Rd. 1 1 • CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION • COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) Calabasas, California 91302 (Proposed Zoning) STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 7- 3-/9 %20x0 Trive SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED. 33.461 acres AGENT: Mooers Enterprises, LLC Gregory R. Mooers ADDRESS: P. Box 1101 1 Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 1 1 TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 885 - 6839 (Res) 885 -7126 (Fax) 885 -1574 Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Mooers COPIES Morton (See Instructions on Reverse Side) 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT Agricultural Rezoning PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE L. If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? Yes If yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to question 3. a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? 33.461 acres b. Into what lot sizes? 10+ acres c. If your request is approved, approximately how long after the date of approval do you expect to submit your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? 6 months d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? No There are already homes on two of the lots. If yes, please answer the following questions: 2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans? b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? c. Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans? d. Keep it? e. Other (please state) P.D. 2 5/84 • • On how many ,of those lots? At what approximate price range? House Lot Total Approximately how long, after approval of the subdivision, would the first house be available for occupancy? If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. 1 1 •w • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f. If you intend to do either a, b, c, please elaborate on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also, include in your answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the subject land to another party. 3. Do you think that your request and your further plans for the land will alleviate the local housing situation? How? The proposed action will allow two additional families to have an agricultural lot in this desirable area of North Kona. What do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is approved? They will remain. Yes 4. Are there any buildings on the subject area? Yes If so, what kind? There are two single- family homes and a maintenance building on the property. S. Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? No If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on how many square feet or acres of land per product. The subject property is forest and will remain as forest under the proposal. 6. Was your request to allow for the creation of smaller agricultural lots? If so, did your plan include the following considerations? a. Commodity to be produced? What kinds of commodity? b. Suitablility of the proposed lot -size for that commodity? c. Sufficient farm size to allow reasonable chance of success in commercial agriculture? No I9 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • d. Agricultural leases or other forms of assurance that potential buyers or leases would put the subject area into some form of agricultural use? Please state the proposed type of arrangement. Please submit your agricultural plans for the subject area and present evidence of consideration of the above requirements together with your request for a change of zone. If you do not intend to subdivide the subject land for some sort of agricultural purpose, please state your other reasons. 7. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and /or drainage problem on the subject area? No If so, please describe the problem. The property is located in FIRM zone "X ". 8. Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvements? If so, what kind? Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? 9. What sort of governmental assistance and /or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? a. Schools b. Roads c. Sewer d. Drainage Yes No X X X X No Ye e. Police Protection f. Fire Protection g . Recreational Facilities h. Public Utilities i. Other Yes X No X X For those checked "yes," please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and /or assistance are needed. The intersection of Mamalahoa Highway and Kaloko Drive needs improvements. It is the applicants' understanding that they will participate in funding these improvements with other owners in this subdivision who have processed changes of zones. Signature: By letter. Address: PMB #670 26500 W. Agoura Rd. Calabasas, California 91302 Telephone: 818 224 -3865 Date: 12/21/99 aa • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 COUNTY BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE Agricultural 20 -acres (A -20a) to Agricultural 10 -acres (A -10a) APPLICANT: Morton Associates Holdings (Limited Partnership) TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7 -3 -26:19 Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii A. SUBJECT REQUEST 1. Details of Proposed Use/Development: a. Project Description: The subject property is a 33.461 acre parcel located on the north side of Kaloko Drive and west side of Makahi Street at approximately the 3200 elevation. It is identified as Lot 8, Block 5, Increment 2, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, Kaloko, North Kona. The property is heavily forested with slopes of 20 %.The mean annual rainfall according to USGS Report R -47 is approximately 70 inches. b. Statement of objectives and reasons for the request: This property was purchased by the present owners, Morton Associates Holdings, a family member only limited partnership, in1986. The site had been significantly graded by the previous owner. The applicants planted Monterey Pines, over 500 Koa trees and 250 Sugi Pines obtained from the State tree nursery to reforest the cleared areas. A maintenance shed was permitted and constructed on the proposed lot 8 -A in 1986. The applicants then built the first single- family residence on the property on proposed lot 8 -B in 1986. This home houses the caretaker for the property. The applicants' built their home on proposed lot 8 -C in 1989 1 • d • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 through 1991. These structures have all been permitted. The owners propose to create three lots in sizes of ten acres or more. The proposed subdivision will have a home on two of the parcels and a workshop on the third. The specific uses will be determined by the individual family members or buyers and are expected to replicate those activities and uses of other nearby properties, i.e. natural forest, orchard, garden, nursery, wildlife habitat, and open space. c Number of acres: 33.461 acres are covered by this request. d. Proposed units/lots /floor area of proposed building envelope: The applicants propose to create three Tots ten acres in size or larger. It is proposed that the lots will have similar conditions as those placed on other rezoned lots in the Kaloko Mauka subdivision. The conditions have included a 100 -foot wide "forest reserve easement" along the existing public street frontage of the subject property, exclusive of access points permitted by the Department of Public Works; a 30 -foot "forest reserve easement" along all lot lines not covered by the 100 -foot easement, and a 100 -foot wide structural setback in lieu of the required 30 -foot setback along the property's public street frontage to provide an additional buffer. Restrictive covenant(s) in the deeds of all the proposed agricultural lots fronting existing roads shall specify and uphold the easements and setbacks. The restrictive covenant(s) shall also specify that, including the area comprising the forest reserve easements described , no less than eighty percent (80 %) of the entire lot area shall be retained in forest. A copy of the proposed covenant(s) are to be recited in an instrument executed by the applicants and the County and recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. 2 a • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e Time frame and cost: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the agricultural lots as soon as the zoning amendment is granted. The lots will be used by family members, as their needs and means dictate. f. Membership size/nutnber of employees and clientele: In addition to the applicants and their family, the lots may be marketed to local residents with a desire to live in a natural forested environment with a rural lifestyle and desirable weather pattern. g. Parking arrangement: Parking for the lots created will be accommodated on each site as required by the Zoning Code. It is anticipated that there will be one residential unit per lot. h. Traffic Impacts: The applicants believe that the traffic generated by the proposed two additional agricultural lots will be minimal as two of the proposed lots are already developed with a residential unit on each. The development of this property into three lots will add two additional lots to the subdivision. Other related information: On June 2, 1997 the County Council adopted Resolution No. 58 -97. This resolution amends the Council's policy relating to the rezoning of district boundaries within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, the Council finds that a maximum density of two dwellings per twenty acres for lands within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 foot elevation, with certain conditions, will protect the watershed and native forest and maintain a low density pattern. The resolution recommends that Agricultural -10 acres (A -l0a) zoning requests may be approved for only those parcels within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation and include the conditions as stated within Resolution No. 58 -97 with such 3 1 w • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. State Land Use Designation: Agricultural 3. Applicable goals /policies and objectives of the General Plan: The proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance comply with the following goals, policies and objectives of the Economic Element of the General Plan. ECONOMIC recommendation provided that the other goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan are met. See the Exhibit "A" for a copy of Resolution No. 58 -97. Proposed on -site and off -site infrastructure: The intersection of Kaloko Drive and Mamalahoa Highway is in need of improvements. The applicants understand that all recent change of zones in the Kaloko Mauka area have been conditioned to require the applicants to participate in the improvement of this intersection. The applicants stipulate to this fact and will also participate in the improvements. The interior roadway system and water system are proposed to be developed to County standards as required by the subdivision code. GOALS o Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. o Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. o The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic system. o The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, 4 1 w 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LAND USE • 5 expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. POLICIES o The County of Hawaii shall assist the expansion of the agricultural industry, especially diversified agriculture, through the protection of important agricultural lands, capital improvements and other programs, and continued cooperation with appropriate State and Federal agencies. o The County of Hawaii shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. • The County of Hawaii's land, water, air, sea, and people shall be considered as essential economic resources for present and future generations and should be protected and enhanced through the use of economic incentives. o The County shall identify and encourage primary industries that are consistent with the social, physical, and economic goals of the residents of the County. The proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance comply with the following goals, policies and objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Through the careful analysis and examination of past and present situations, the following goals, policies, and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. w • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GOALS o Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural, and physical environments of the County. o Protect and encourage the intensive utilization of the County's important agricultural lands. POLICIES o Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. o The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. STANDARDS o Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access, and public need. (I) AGRICULTURE The following goals and policies are intended to address some of the land related problems of agriculture and are to be consistent with and supportive of the overall land use element. GOALS 0 Identify, protect and maintain important agricultural lands on the island of Hawaii. 6 5. Zoning: Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) 7 POLICIES o Zoning shall protect and maintain important agricultural lands from urban encroachment. New approaches to preserve important agricultural land shall be implemented by the County. o The County shall assist in the development of basic resources such as water, roads, transportation and distribution facilities for the agricultural industry. o The County shall coordinate and encourage efforts to solve the problems of the agricultural industry in the County of Hawaii. o Rural -style residential - agricultural developments, such as new small -scale rural communities or extensions of existing rural communities, shall be encouraged in appropriate locations. o The County shall develop subdivision standards which make a distinction between agricultural and urban land uses. 4. General Plan Designation: Orchards - "Those agricultural lands which though rocky in character and content support productive macadamia nuts, papaya, citrus and other similar agricultural products." 6. Community Development Plan: The Kona Regional Plan shows this area as agricultural 7. Special Management Area: The property is not within the County of Hawaii's Special Management Area. f a • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • C. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA Physical Characteristics /Environmental Setting: 8. Description of subject property: The subject property is a 33.461 acre rectangular shaped parcel located on the north side of Kaloko Drive at approximately the 3200 foot elevation. It is identified as Lot 8, Block 5, Increment 2, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, North Kona. The property is heavily forested with slopes of 20 %. The mean annual rainfall according to USGS Report R -47 is approximately 70 inches. The soil is Class "E" (Very Poor) and too rocky for conventional agricultural uses. This property was purchased by the present owners in1986. The site had been significantly graded by the previous owner. The applicants planted Monterey Pines, over 500 Koa trees and 250 Sugi Pines obtained from the State tree nursery to reforest the cleared areas. A workshop was permitted and constructed on the proposed lot 8 -A in 1986. The applicants then built the first single - family residence on the property on proposed lot 8 -B in 1986. This home houses the caretaker for the property. The applicants' built their home on proposed lot 8 -C in 1989 through 1991. These structures have all been permitted. The owners propose to create three lots in sizes often acres or more. The proposed subdivision will have a home on two of the parcels and a workshop on the third. 9 Lava Hazard Zone: The United States Department of the Interior/ Geologic Survey designates this area on a descending scale of risk 1 to 9 as Zone 4. About 5% of this area has been covered by lava since 1800 and less than 15% has been covered by lava in the last 750 years. "Zone 4 Includes all of Hualalai, where the frequency of eruptions is lower than on Kilauea and Mauna Loa. Flows typically cover large areas." 8 M • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 10 Distance from coastline: The subject property is approximately 5.3 miles east of the coastline. 11. Agricultural Lands of Importance in the State of Hawaii (ALSIH) designation: Soils within the subject property are classified as "Unique Agricultural Land" by the ALISH system. Unique Agricultural Lands are lands that have the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season and moisture supply and which is used to produce sustained high quality and /or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. 12. U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service Report soil type: The soil survey report classifies the soils within the project site as Kiloa Extremely Stony Muck (rKXD), 6 to 20 percent slopes. This soil consists of well - drained, thin, extremely stony organic soils over fragmental A'a lava. The surface layer is very dark brown, extremely stony muck about 10 inches thick. Permeability is rapid, runoff is very slow and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil is used for woodland and pasture. 13. The Land Study Bureau soil rating: Soils within the subject property are classified as "E270" (Very Poor) for agricultural productivity by the Land Study Bureau. Depth - limited soil material; color -dark brown; parent material - A'a and volcanic ash; stoniness -sharp lava clinkers; drainage -very well drained; slope -0 to 35 %; clime -humid and cloudy; mean annual rainfall -80" to 100 "; elevation -2,000 to 3,500 feet; machine tillability- unsuited for machine tilling. 14. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designation: The subject property is located in Zone "X" , outside of the 500 -year flood plain. 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Historic Resources: 10 15. Existing drainage ways or improvements: The property has no history of flooding. There are no drainage improvements on the site. 16. Air /noise/water quality: The air quality is excellent as there are no industrial uses in the area and the normally occurring winds prevent the emissions from the active volcano from affecting the quality of air on the subject parcel. The area is a rural agricultural area as such there is little noise pollution. The water to the site is provided by the Department of Water Supply and meets all EPA guidelines. 17. Existing archaeological, cultural or historic sites on National Register or Hawaii Register: The subject parcel is located in a forested area at the 3200 foot elevation within the boundaries of a precontact age upland agricultural system that was the subject of a reconnaissance survey and test excavations in 1970 and 1971 by Huehue Ranch, the developers of the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. Additionally, the National Park Service published a report in 1991 entitled "An Ahupuaa Study: The 1971 Archaeological Work at Kaloko Ahupuaa, North Kona. This study also identified remains of an agricultural field system up to the 3500 foot elevation at certain locations. There is no record of historic sites on this property in either the National or State Register. The applicant requested the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic Preservation Division to do a site inspection of the subject parcel. On September 30, 1999, Marc Smith conducted that inspection. He concluded that "... additional archaeological work is not necessary..." and that "We feel that any development on the subject parcels will have "no effect" on significant historic sites." See Exhibit "A" for the Historic Preservation Division letter. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Natural Resources: 18. Existing floral /faunal resources: The site is presently heavily forested with native trees and shrubs such as ohia, tree fern, other native trees and shrubs, and non native vegetation Wildlife seen at the property consists of turkeys, hawks, Chinese pheasants, and other forest birds. Though the area above the 3200 feet elevation in Kaloko has been considered an important habitat for the `Alala, the Department of Land and Natural Resources indicated that there have been no sightings in Kaloko during this decade. Vegetative cover is a mixture of native and non - native. The proposed development has the potential to alter the mixture of plant life, however the low density of development and previously applied zoning conditions will assure continuation of habitat for existing wildlife. 19. Scenic or coastal resources: The property is located 5 3 miles east of the shoreline and will not impact on coastal resources. As the subject parcel is heavily forested, there are no view planes to be disturbed by the development of the property. With the previously applied zoning conditions related to buffers, setbacks and percentage of undeveloped land, all structures will be well buffered from neighboring properties and the roadway. Social - Economic Characteristics: 20. Social settlement pattern for the area: Present and prospective owners in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision are of the upper middle class who are either retired or have employment in West Hawaii. The population of North Kona has grown steadily since 1965. The population in 1970 was 4,832; in 1980 it was 13,898 and in 1990 it had risen to 22,284 for a growth rate of 361 %. The expanding resident and visitor populations has increased traffic in all of West Hawaii. Major roadways in Kona have experienced tripling in daily traffic counts 11 _ • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Surrounding lands: 12 between 1984 and 1996 (Source: State DOT Planning Branch traffic counts). The increase in population is a result of the expanding visitor industry in West Hawaii, which has a large and growing share of the visitors to the island and consequently the de facto population. At any given time, up to one -fourth of those present in Kona are visitors. Kailua Village's major industry is tourism. 21. Economic resources of the area: Aside from a few nurseries and small scale agricultural endeavors within the subdivision, the surrounding areas are used for pasture lands by various ranches and much of the land in the area is left undisturbed for forestry. 22 Land values: According to prominent Realtors in the area, the land values in this subdivision have remained relatively stable over the past few years. Prices for 10 -acre parcels have ranged from $250,000 to $350,000. 23 Land use: The properties immediately surrounding the subject parcel within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision are low - density residential lots with minimal clearing of the natural forest. There are some small pasture and nursery areas within the subdivision. The State lands ofMakaula Ooma abut Kaloko Mauka on the north from 2100 to 3500 feet elevation. These lands are native forest. The Bishop Estate lands of Kaupulehu abut Kaloko Mauka on the north from 3500 to 5400 feet elevation. These lands are currently being grazed by Hualalai Ranch. The Palani Ranch lands ofHonokohau abut Kaloko Mauka on the entire southern boundary. These lands have been historically grazed, however a 80 acre parcel is presently being used for forest products. The Kaupulehu Forest Reserve abuts the eastern or mauka boundary of Kaloko Mauka. 1. , • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24. Zoning: The property in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel is zoned A -20a and A -l0a Properties within the subdivision at lower elevations are zoned A -5a and FA -3a. D. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 25. Description of access: The access to the subject property is from Kaloko Drive a 22 foot wide paved roadway with 8 foot grass shoulders within a 80 foot right -of -way. Kaloko Drive intersects with Mamalahoa Highway approximately 3.7 miles below the subject property. The grass shoulders have proven to be an effective method of dispersing water runoff from the roadway and after 20 years there is no evidence of erosion or damage to the edge of pavement. 26. Availability of Water: Water is available to the site from the Department of Water Supply via a 8" line on Kaloko Drive. The Department of Water Supply considers the Kaloko Mauka Water System a separate system from others in Kona. The system consists of transmission and distribution lines, pump stations, and seven reservoirs which extend to the 5,106 foot elevation. The reservoirs have a capacity of 500,000 gallons, sufficient for one unit for each two acres of the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. No water is contemplated for landscape or agricultural uses as the annual rainfall is adequate for these purposes. 27. Sewage disposal: The applicants propose to use individual wastewater treatment systems meeting with the approval of the Department of Health (DOH) for all newly created lots. 28. Solid waste: Solid waste is taken to the County's solid waste transfer station in Kealakehe west of the project site by the individual lot owners or a private 13 • 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • . hauling service. The applicants intend to use this existing transfer station for • the two new lots created. 29. Police and fire protection: This area is served by police and fire stations located approximately 5 miles to the southwest of the site in Kailua and Kealakehe. All roadways are paved, with adequate width and are accessible for emergency service vehicles. 30. Schools: The project site is located about four miles to the north of Kealakehe, Elementary, Intermediate and High Schools. 31. Parks: There is a County Parks and Recreation gym and park facility at the Old Airport Park in Kailua approximately 6 miles from the subject parcel. 32. Other utilities and services: There is electrical and telephone service on poles along Kaloko Drive that presently serves the subdivision and these services can be made available to the subject property as well. 14 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS 33. Relationship between local short term uses of environment and maintenance and enhancement of long tern: productivity: In terms of the relationship between short-term use of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long -term productivity, no short-term exploitation of resources that would entail negative long -term consequences has been identified for the proposed action. 34. Mitigative measures proposed to avoid, minimize, rectify or reduce impact: All construction on the site will comply with all governmental regulatory controls to mitigate noise and dust during the construction period. All structures and infrastructure improvements constructed will comply with all federal, state and county requirements. The applicants propose that the conditions applied to other re- zonings in this subdivision be applied in this case as well. These include: a. A 100 -foot "forest reserve easement" for buffer purposes along the existing roadway. b. A 100 -foot structural set back along the existing roadway. c. A 30 -foot " forest reserve easement along all lot lines as a buffer between parcels. d. At least 80% of the lot area shall be retained in forest. e. A restriction against a second dwelling on each lot. f. A conservation plan shall be prepared for each of the subdivided lots. g. A "fair share" contribution to mitigate any potential impacts will be paid. 15 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 16 • 33 Alternatives to the proposed development: One alternative to the proposed action would be to leave the entire parcel as is. This would not allow the creation of two additional agricultural lots for residential uses, forestry and agriculture. It would also not increase the real property tax base as the proposed action would. 34. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources that would be involved if proposed action is implemented: The construction of one additional rural- residential unit would involve the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of negligible quantities of natural resources. The conditions proposed to be applied to this request would help insure the protection of the forest and natural habitat. There are presently no such restrictions on the development of the property. Given the conformance with all established State and County goals, policies and plans; the physical characteristics of the site and surrounding area; the present zoning and uses of the surrounding area; the minimal impact on public facilities and services; the minimal impact on the environment; the applicants request a favorable consideration of this change of zone application. D m im e a n o n n° °_ ens nommilan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, • • COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII RESOLUTION NO (Draft 3) 58 97 RELATING TO ZONINGS ABOVE THE 3,000 -FOOT ELEVATION FOR PARCELS WITHIN THE KALOKO MAUKA SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 330 -96 which established a policy that no lands above the 3,000 -foot elevation within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision or the 2,500 -foot elevation above sea level elsewhere in the districts of North and South Kona shall be reclassified to any zone district having a minimum lot size of less than twenty acres; and WHEREAS, shortly after the adoption of Resolution No. 330 -96, the Council approved two change of zone requests for A-1 0a lots above the 3,000 -foot elevation with more stringent requirements to mitigate the concerns established in Resolution No. 330 -96; and WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that a low density use pattem for the mauka, watershed lands of the island of Hawaii, in particular the Kona region, should be protected and maintained for environmental reasons; and WHEREAS, the Council funds that a maximum density of two dwellings pc tweny acres for lands within the Kaloko Mauka subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation with the following conditions in addition to the standard conditions of approval for similar zonings in the area, will protect the watershed and native forest and maintain a low density pattern: A. Final Subdivision Approval of the proposed agricultural subdivision shall be secured from the Planning Director within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance. The applicant shall reserve the following easements and special setbacks in perpetuity for purposes of protecting and maintaining naturally forested areas and shall delineate such easements and setbacks on plans submitted for subdivision review: 1. A 100 -foot wide 'forest reserve easement" along the existing public street frontage of the subject property, exclusive of access points permitted by the Department of Public Works; 2. A 30 -foot "forest reserve easement" along all lot lines not covered by the 100 - foot easement; and 3. A 100 -foot wide structural setback in Iteu of the required 30 -foot setback along the existing property's •n,_lic street frontage to provide an additional buffer. EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. 58-97 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • B. Restrictive covenant(s) in the deeds of all the proposed agricultural lots fronting existing roads shall specify and uphold the easements and setbacks set forth in Condition The restrictive covenant(s) shall also specify that, including the area comprising the forest reserve easements described in Condition no less than eighty percent (80%) of the entire lot area shall be retained in forest. A copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the approved covenant(s) shall be recited in an instrument executed by the applicant and the County and recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. C. Restrictive covenant(s) in the deeds of all the proposed agricultural lots shall prohibit the construction of a second dwelling unit on and any further subdivision of each lot. A copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the approved covenant(s) shall be recited in an instrument executed by the applicant and the County and recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. D. A forest management plan for the proposed lots within the subject property shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director in consultation with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, the State Department of Health, the State Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Natural Resources Conservation Service. The forest management plan shall require the following: 1. Include at minimum, the best forest and reforestation practices, program for implementation and other applicable forestry management criteria, including those of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, such as the Forest Stewardship Program or the Soil Conservation Service Management - Program. 2. The forest management program shall include a restrictive covenant for the proposed lots within the subject property which shall be recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances and/or Land Court. A copy of the covenants to be recorded shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of final subdivision approval. A copy of the approved covenant(s) shall be recited in an instrument executed by the applicant and the County and recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances prior to the issuance of final subdivision approval. 3. If more than twenty percent (20 %) of the subject property has been cleared or grubbed prior to the submittal of Vie 'orest management plan or the recording of the restrictive covenant(s), the reforestation program for any cleared or grubbed 1* . ' area(s) in excess of the 205 within the subject property shall be substantially implemented prior to the issuance of final subdivision approval. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ATTEST: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that the Planning Commission consider favorable recommendations for A -10a zoning requests for only those parcels within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation and include the aforementioned conditions with such recommendation provided that the other goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan are met. BE IT RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County of Hawaii transmit copies of this resolution to Stephen K. Yamashiro, Mayor; Kevin Balog, Planning Commission Chairman; and Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director. BJLT/CES COUNTY CLERK This forest management plan shall govern the proposed lots within We subject property for a period of fifty (50) years and its termination may be considered after the 50 -year period has elapsed by amending this ordinance requiring County Council approval by ordinance. Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, this 2nd day of June 1 COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the ote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County of Hawaii on June 2, 1997 Reference , 1997. ROLL CALL VOTE C- 219 .04/PC -53 CRAM - & PRESIDING OFFICER RESOLUTION NO. 5 8 9 7 (DRAFT AYES NOES I ABS I EX j ARAMKI X I I 1 CHUNC X LEITIUAD -TODD X RAY I I X I REYNOLDS X I 1 SANTANCELO I X SMITH I X I I TYLER I X Y.‘Gt,NC I x I 1 8 0 I 1 I 0 1* . ' area(s) in excess of the 205 within the subject property shall be substantially implemented prior to the issuance of final subdivision approval. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ATTEST: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that the Planning Commission consider favorable recommendations for A -10a zoning requests for only those parcels within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation and include the aforementioned conditions with such recommendation provided that the other goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan are met. BE IT RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County of Hawaii transmit copies of this resolution to Stephen K. Yamashiro, Mayor; Kevin Balog, Planning Commission Chairman; and Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director. BJLT/CES COUNTY CLERK This forest management plan shall govern the proposed lots within We subject property for a period of fifty (50) years and its termination may be considered after the 50 -year period has elapsed by amending this ordinance requiring County Council approval by ordinance. Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, this 2nd day of June 1 COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the ote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County of Hawaii on June 2, 1997 Reference , 1997. ROLL CALL VOTE C- 219 .04/PC -53 CRAM - & PRESIDING OFFICER RESOLUTION NO. 5 8 9 7 (DRAFT 1. • p • � s , �, ehj " BENJAMIN J. CAVETANO GOVERNOR OF HAWAII October 22, 1999 Gregory R. Mooers Mooers Enterprises P.O. Box 1101 Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 Dear Mr. Mooers: Aloha, DON HIBBARD, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division MS:jk STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION Kakuhlhewa Building. Room 555 601 Kanwkda Boulevard Kapokl, Hawwi 96707 A site inspection was made to these parcels by Historic Preservation Division staff archaeologist Marc Smith on September 30, 1999. EXHIBIT "B" HISTORIC PRESERVATION LETTER TIMOTHY E JOHNS. CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND M40 NATURAL RESOURCES DEPUTIES JANET E. KAWELO AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAND STATE PARKS WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LOG NO: 24244 DOC NO: 9910MS02 SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Concerns for Two Parcels in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii Island TMK: (3)7 -3 -26: 12 and 19 A previous study of the area (Cordy et. al. 1991), suggested that remains of agricultural field systems in the Kaloko area would be unlikely above the 3500 foot elevation. Both of the subject parcels are approximately 3400 foot elevation, placing them at the margin of the agricultural zone. Parcel 19 has been extensively grubbed, and replanted in a tree nursery. A transect was walked across the top of parcel 12. No historic structures were observed in parcel 12. Because of the previous study and recent site inspection, we believe there are no significant historic sites in the subject parcels. Therefore, additional archaeological work is not necessary prior to a subdivision review or land altering activity. We feel that any development in the subject parcels will have "no effect" on significant historic sites. If you have further questions please call Pat McCoy at 692 -8029 (Honolulu), or Marc Smith at 933 -0482 (Hilo). 1 • • 1 Reference cited. Cordy, R.; Tainter, J.; Renger R. and Hitchcock, R. 1991 An Ahupua'a Study: The 1971 Archaeological Work at Kaloko Ahupua'a, North Kona, Hawaii. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Western Archaeological and Conservation Center Publication in Anthropology No. 58. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C • 141 M KA M AN • EXHIBIT "C" SITE LOCATION MAP 0 O 0 1 2 2 4 5 7 %W. N /eT O( 10001 7 7 7 0 f `/ CKNTTY MAP r x 0 vt z W 30 0 IM 3 1 3 vet A - 20o ZONING 564271 FL I.(tl66 FL 1/7 M0, Re. NOTES' I. Atim tM and coordinates ore referred to Government Survey T A s*tion Groben "AlO4N0W/EA". 2 Nome, 0" o 0303 d odpn39 overt are (rpm o.oiable Tor Mop records. J The features, Mown hereon. were located by on actual uea 9mum done hedeen Augiut 10,, 1999 and femlnr 22. 1999. 230 1q 4w 7 ATM" 7 ,.. -- ZONING 23728'30" 16170 PROPOSED LOT 8 -C P■per.f roc RONALD 5. MORTON (OWNER) c/e Nn ryN mime ±mare,, Inc M e 4 al K n:p vr - a .�.qb 9� MAKAULA 0094 3434.0,3 Portion 01 R.P 8214. L.0 Aw. 7715, Ap. PROPOSED LOT 8 -8 10.001 ACRES A -100 ZONING BLOCK 7 OF KALOKO MAUKA SUBDIVISION, INCREMENT 2 (FILE PLAN 1030) An. Pot MAUKA TRACT 1, BLOCK 5 OF KALOKO MAUKA SUBDIVISION. INCREMENT (FILE PLAN 1010) LOT V O 33.461 ACRES PROPOSED A -20a TO A -10a 787E46 R.. 13.459 ACRES 4 LLf3 ppc aio 444,,(x3 30 ma) .E 2 v 4 7 SO sty nes op em,o_ i-3/' Mn Poo Reti) ft M tsar aliTh • I • wen. ,tea - "•' ~ �« Ft P Carr M.. W95ro F.14KM • r -4 f....11 .Poe. M. I (f "e w,. B..® aide 92 et ZONING tote Komenameno PROPOSED LOT 8 -A 10.001 ACRES W LLo 0 810. 9199 11.2100 41 WES THOMAS ASSOCIATES TJ 1,M v nrM 11 ;7 1 " . : 4 1. r, (q htl EXHIBIT "D" SITE PLAN fol BLOCK 6 OF KALOKO MAUKA SUBDIVISION. INCREMENT 2 (FAF PIA. 3010) A -20o ZONING 7 ,...-- -- Ls 2 J REZONING EXHIBIT MAP SHOWING LOT 8 OF BLOCK 5 OF KALOKO MAUKA SUBDIVISION INCREMENT 2 (FILE PLAN 1010) Being a Portion of R.P. 8214, L.C. Aw. 7715, Ap. 11 to Lota Kamehameha At Kaloko, North Kona Island and County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii unen r camel , ue. prepared 3• f //4i—J 04 gyro ��v. lfrrorml 34434• of Ha.nl a Number LS -1331 PROJECT NO /RIP 1100K Ihl 1■8 341. uv '' 06244,2 NOV'ODER 23, 7999 I AND 1086 •t ;'6 19 MO Plll.. s , ti .i'a . `l �N•h + !b'xt- i 'ir^"L gym A - t 4J� L yam" '* h. S ° Y y 5 ''• f '8 ✓ ` 4 J R^^, t F T 4 Y a . T x + } , ?f 5 �$�'"' ✓ r ... E '�.+` 1!!.e ),'e"i " - .yyT ti - ' a ` . w p °'� a s c' 1 � - 'S t . ^ y,� ';hk a - Al?, ' ir •, ` ' Pp a s q5 1k sv rl 4 ?l4 '^J ," � . . •4 "�' stm -� k x �d P s .''�' i ..e r e ' r 2 ,. n r S ;. s,y' p y u S +" '+%F 7F 'S .� .Y"-1 � a i �,..¢'- r ., 1 c q t , a 'r.yv S+ I'4! y , m� n .: y� + ;' Yer- ti `ff*' L° '� 1s� S 4 ■ ,l `t}' f + 4 i la ,., ,r' + ` y^,,Y ^^ r 5 y X: ` D y Y,G 9 , $ }, t ., ' t t A's Y -S ,. J, 1 S �+� . �- � .7 ., * 5 �� .u i "�) .v. 2 ., ° e -N 1 4 . " •� ` - r t h 3 • t C r t -V raft, M y.. a+ , i' ,.{ ae,:. Y' r , - 1 `"-bc.; '1 �,�-- r ?1"a ' k F ` Y a .„ ,,,_ .' r y -...,,, Y y 3 r � 'v' Y x"." r `' ' il ' � ``'4. '' ti t =L 1 3r ' i F" '€c -+W� ed. rye . r , : te, � +� - r " ` r'{ " / e b i ; tom 1 : s". -p -'ka., .3 s {yr r e z tt:^+F l i L "s ,. j acFT;, a � : r? q . . 3 & r. : 2 a _ "I - `as G` ,` � i it. y 4 +2 r + 4 . * ';'J• !f"'v rte .- . _ • ]1 _ `,." .5. a - oa , `x.. r , .r , t X t ,rt W 1 r' 2 ' ' , r ' r ..,.....4, A' >, � � t g , T.a + � e e x. {' erF. r � � F -ri`4. 7 � i • • ''-" & ° fit 'i ' 0%, - %1`r��xe � '� , Ls, i .$4-4&. ' is k ' a " .A '*+ r , n.�„ ,'�y` F .. en � r"' a � . s r+.GS f C �a • ' $ ' �a a 5 � 6.A"- i X r .4. x . ' 'ttq - t st* i d I .l' - 1,CF•' ,+1-+,.: • ' j'a“ i .'. 'L. i. ' x 1 1R. P. e n J. [^ �� . '- ' ' . yS 13 x 'SS\r� 0' • s s J T r� . xi °• y "+t » k ? Si. '- f l ` x p u, ..,.? r r. kr: t,,, �N . r# r-�^a. >: r '° .„ , x'6: 1 .. ° . , ,t,.. 3 ' " r st C .� 1 } `�� ' 'r 3' +J �3�. t `,4e+. � ' � } t y,� j S$m'G r k+�ti .' ` � d . sr '� , � " ' ^ ✓y . s , 3P y . , srY `Q a° 4 '�.' •+. T 4 4, > :u t.. . _" - £,L ♦ A+'r °.-- "'4 ,LA,,‘ v t S N o . 2 ;4 C+ E A " r ', Y '..le ,. . t - i . r s ,,' a . . -41 t�s s .. ,", ' 7Jr Y s . P" r +3 r s ^✓ $.,. .'4 14 4 .144% -- L a \ t F... ,- 5 A , , k hs z;'G . 3 j=ne ipp.- 1 •.e % S . i t k' ".�f. e. :it` r i � 1W 4 z• y . : :. '+rpj r - , r 'tr - � ` " rc,{ -Z µ e; M � i .rh .... 'Gy Rx Y ✓ /.... fF `,s -`+ a a v T+ s . .� a A r +l � i ,�3' h t " s' a ^ + .,, . Sr?4, Y�• t P '�- u 4 4.k y, - ..1� "r 4l 'lw i:.4 s . �! " ' - '. . * s : 4 ' r - .st A . } ", t ; l. t nl , t r ,.w'+.� 4 4. ;,. s .,�, ,. fig• i� � s' 'w ,7.w E i . * J S: � F"� 4 Sri" , F .r .7 n =0, aC t L .i kith. �i' ' o -,. ',. f'" al, ! - ', .'5..,'„ z Y :u °.4 tw: : . , .. � n E� ' t y, ' r w •-•' % t r -- , , 45,:: y w ' . " i is a �"'° k'�ry�n 6 ` 3 r" $41 , fir � •4"1 ■ '{ !' d`' "• 'a' k«. y F Y.L ♦ . , CO t :, -7:44,-,r:,; r 4,... . 4:1- .5 �7'y . t 2 �. I+I (-e , • '`. ♦ v5"3� R w. ..' r t : A i ' 9 ,...l. 4 S' j... I � a .' sx x ' ° A " . ...NC.. r r � „'-� . t ; a ek-. rt ' z r + ti , a ' 3 7r ' cY. , A .• v' v. f � 1...1 `R' F ? " .(' Y ' yr= vc n _ {Q _ 1 ` S1. ; g"' Y 4- i 0 � im a *: e"r 'r , . a R � 74 1 � ' b-is a s ,� :F * $ , i .A.. � ` e zit f L , t - t f , “' .3 ... a. s �' t' .y d4 ., t . y am ' ' '` 'A , ' r +°• A 3 1 #' ^ m " � ." s rk a, fy ° , S 0 v- y <: �%. t af' �`' ^ + v ;V- v i 7e.. ' ip � -sat s yT r /� s- �q�, {�L, - , ` , Y **titre? .„ ,, e . . 7. may % j . - 2'-' ¶ f'7 ' -r' Y� ,, ,ya'�r-.p - ; ^• i t, d am `. ' to- .tt r r � '�`' � )] y , c 4.i . � ',V.;.;.%7.,: u -c r y .� „ 1 L • �; ' } � • a '+:: ,f . % } " +;t, Z .CE' •w - xJ 4 - 4. tit v r" a 4 � aka �! 9� a " "' °' �l . r i _., , A J t 1r� lsx { ,,, �� .�A44-}A.. ' r ' .'0. C K � C�^�,�c,,,�'�T:: 5 tw. c-.�.. a ' 'iL' " -ir 5 ' "" t - , '= ,* . 4° Y , ^ x W A t , a 5 r . . - - . • tr ,)• ' X . ' y 7 r 7 ` ., r S °` Ar ' ,a, r a v e l s r r ag: a ya 1 � s "" � - L T L " �r> `P i� { ` T,:. � '"A . "� X ' �y R � r 1 ]] N--„;.,, ` 1T A ti � d' t 1 1L n} ; °C.}jT �r-1 .�e n ; 8 b i t F � 4 � Cr ` r ry c ,,: t o J - J $ Y jay- a 0 - 44W:440( r { nSr C --s# .. ' ..•e$ r.. r Y �'C >F .�p +"f a 1 T's sa' .r,,, ri 'r' k a^ � - � '�'" ' a r �V i "' cd ` ` Sa. T.' • - s C y r'z .x 7 iat"' ai t * t � ' Y: : 4 , . ..U F r- '+f'7.i" r r 'r ' t ayl tat , r4"4"4 �r % %- et . • c • w t ' ,, . 14 '.ri '+ � .. r c. N i y t q i a"M1• `", &- �` I1-C ig . � ,a.rJ,' r 9. j ,� � eY X " .4d n � � 4 . 1... k,4 k\ - t ' f i ti '�T`f r .At n• v S. ,.: o-r'^x r z + � ',small l , d" s t r }, - a v- q* "1 ct 1. l 1, y 3 �€,v ,r r c .: t •IK . - t 1 �- t -#'a +, d ..4.-::' - ' n �tT(�r:y ^ d 4 ;tj'y Ski -,,y" %c,- {, 4 " Re�i'°4 ��L. -i + �bb � , • r . } 1,.t d ep "' q `. 1y 4 ° r 8R t�� r "�.. r 4 r l - '.t " tC " q ))C g r Y ,% ' T Yl�:4'^'f` rT v h'c,4,F Y • X+x ' � pt ' � r - + *II -t r' j:� 3.� ^. � 1 r �M &%f- may ' r `tk`. +1 F3 o u 'T" i '> r 4$ '* @ A 1 S h M1 t s' r , z J tit Y r ' r > st a iutSN' '~ '1 {"k' ,-.4-1.1. •r . 7 ^ r , f ' f � ` • le mt.:a..r•m .4, ' r ,a•It :'i _-mss � ,t, ^z E d x' $5 1 ' ^1 ;e a��c:" t ". e._4; l''" t ' z w S r x "...5 tir+ ' yh , . x „ ' 4 C at y {,,, ^"kt+r.> ra s t =1 .v'�,'p"n,,' .. •)' 1, ri _ ' • i...GLteRie °_ °T _rw.'Y�'s. .. a • J - . , , - ` - . . r G . -J 0' • COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT MORTON ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 99 -031) BMorton0l . emm- 02/23/00 MORTON ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS, have submitted an application for a Change of Zone to change the district classification from Agricultural (A -20a) to Agricultural (A -10a) for approximately 33.461 acres of land. The property is located in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision on the north side of Kaloko Drive and west of Makahi Street at the 3,200 -foot elevation, Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii,.TMK: 7 -3- 26:19. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Land Ownership: Morton Associates Holdings, a limited partnership, is the fee owner of the subject property. APPLICANTS' REOUEST 2. Request: The applicants are requesting an Agricultural -10 acres (A -10a) zone designation in order to subdivide the subject property into a total of 3 Lots consisting of 10 acres or larger. The applicants built two homes and a maintenance shed on the subject property. 3. Objectives: "This property was purchased by the present owners, Morton Associates Holdings, a family member only limited partnership, in 1986. The site had been significantly graded by the previous owner. The applicants planted Monterey Pines, over 500 Koa trees and 250 Sugi Pines obtained from the State tree nursery to reforest the cleared areas. A maintenance shed was permitted and constructed on the proposed lot 8 -A in 1986. The applicants then built the first single - family residence on the property on proposed lot 8 -B in 1986. This home houses the caretaker for the property. The applicants built their home on proposed lot 8 -C in 1989 through 1991. These structures have all been permitted. The owners propose to create three lots in sizes of ten acres or more. The proposed subdivision will have a home on two of the -1- C- 7 0 C8d i 2a6) PG • S F i parcels and a workshop on the third. The specific uses will be determined by the individual family members or buyers and are expected to replicate those activities and uses of other nearby properties, i.e. natural forest, orchard, garden, nursery, wildlife habitat, and open space." 4. Supportive Information: The applicants have submitted the following in support of the request: (See Exhibit A - Change of Zone Application) STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 5. SLU: Agricultural. 6. Hawaii State Plan Consistency: Economic objectives and policies. 7. General Plan Consistency: Economic, Agricultural, and Land Use Elements goals, policies and courses of action for North Kona. 8. GP LUPAG Map: Orchards. 9. Kona Regional Plan: Agricultural. 10. Zoning: Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a). 11. SMA: The property is not situated within the Special Management Area (SMA). 12. County Council's Resolution No. 330 -96: On June 19, 1996 the County Council adopted Resolution No. 330 -96, which established a policy relating to the amendment of zone district boundaries within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision and other Kona Watershed and Mauka Forest Areas. The resolution states that no lands above the 3,000 -foot elevation within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision or the 2,500 -foot elevation above sea level elsewhere in the districts of North Kona and South Kona shall be reclassified to any zone district having a minimum lot size of less than 20 acres. (See Exhibit B - Resolution No. 330 -96) 13. County Council's Resolution No. 58 -97: On June 2, 1997 the County Council adopted Resolution No. 58 -97. This resolution amended the Council's policy relating to the rezoning of district boundaries within Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. The Council found that a maximum density of two dwellings per twenty acres for lands within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation, with certain conditions, will protect the watershed and native forest and maintain a low density pattern. The -2- • • - 3 - •, resolution recommends that Agricultural -10 acres (A -10a) zoning requests may be approved for only those parcels within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation and include the conditions as stated within Resolution No. 58 -97 with such recommendation provided that the other goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan are met. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS 14. Subject Property: The subject property is a rectangular shaped lot with two existing dwellings and a maintenance shed. The applicants have reforested the property by planting Monterey Pines, over 500 Koa trees and 250 Sugi Pines. 15. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey Report: The Soil Survey Report classifies soils within the project site as Kiloa Extremely Stony Muck (rKXD), 6 to 20 percent slopes. This soil consists of well- drained, thin, extremely stony organic soils over fragmental A'a lava. The surface layer is very dark brown, extremely stony muck about 10 inches thick. Permeability is rapid, runoff is very slow and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil is used for woodland and pasture. 16. Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System: Soils within the subject property are classified as "E" (Very Poor) for agricultural productivity by the Land Study Bureau This soil is unsuited for machine tilling. 17. Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) System: Soils within the subject property are classified as "Other Important Agricultural Land" by the ALISH System. "Other Important Agricultural Land" are lands that are other than Prime or Unique Agricultural Land that is also of wide or local importance for agricultural use. 18. FIRM: The subject property is located within Zone X, areas determined to be outside the 500 -year flood plain. 19. 'Alala Recovery Plan: This plan dated October 28, 1982, prepared and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the 'Alala Recovery Team, recommends that certain selected essential habitats be preserved and properly managed to provide for the continued existence and growth of the population of the 'Alala, an • - 4 - endangered bird whose population has reached an extremely critical state. The Central Kona area along the north and west slopes of Hualalai is considered to be the center of concentration for breeding 'Alala. The Plan recommends that portion of the lands of Kaloko above approximately 3,200 feet to 3,400 feet elevation, including all parcels in Blocks 8 thru 13 of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, be designated as essential habitat for the 'Alala. Once such a habitat is "secured ", a specific management plan for each habitat needs to be developed which would address the improvement of food supplies, protection from grazing, predators and wildfires, and other management and monitoring activities to provide for a stable and secure environment for the recovery of the 'Alala. The subject property is located at an elevation of approximately 3,200 feet above mean sea level, below the elevation recommended as an essential habitat. 20. Flora and Fauna: A portion of the property was significantly graded and reforested with Monterey Pines, 500 Koa trees and 250 Sugi Pines. The remaining area of the parcel is heavily vegetated and is covered with native trees and shrubs such as ohia, tree fern, other native trees and shrubs and non - native vegetation. Wildlife seen at the property consists of turkeys, hawks (I'o), Chinese pheasant and other forest birds. Though the area above 3,200 feet in Kaloko has been considered an important habitat for the 'Alala, the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) indicated that there have been no sightings in Kaloko during this decade. 21. Archaeological Resources: According to the applicants' environmental report of 1970 and 1971, a reconnaissance survey and test excavations were conducted. According to the study, there is no record of historic sites on the property. The applicants requested the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic Preservation Division (DLNR -HPD) to conduct a site inspection of the subject parcel. It was concluded that the proposed action will not have any effect on significant historic sites. Nevertheless, a condition will be included to require the notification of the Department of Land Natural Resources - Historic Preservation Division should any archaeological sites be encountered during the course of development. 22. Surrounding Zoning /Land Uses: The Kaloko Mauka Subdivision extends from the • • • 1,700 -foot elevation to the 5,700 -foot elevation of Hualalai. Between the 1,700 to 2,500 -foot elevation, the lands are zoned FA -3a, A -3a and A -20a. Between the 2,500 to 3,000 -foot elevation, the lands are zoned FA -3a, A -3a, A -5a, A -10a and A -20a. At the 3,000 to 4,500 -foot elevation, lands are zoned A -7a, A -l0a and A -20a. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 23. Roads: Access is off of Kaloko Drive. Primary access to the subject property from Mamalahoa Highway is provided by Kaloko Drive, a County roadway, which has an 80 -foot right -of -way with a 20 -foot wide pavement and 8 -foot wide grass shoulders. According to Department of Finance, there is an approximate $133,550 collected through conditions of change of zone requests and an additional $48,000 was appropriated (Ordinance No. 94 -92) for the improvement of the Kaloko Drive - Mamalahoa Highway intersection. 24. Services: All essential utilities and services are available to the subject property. AGENCIES' COMMENTS 25. Department of Public Works (January 25, 2000 Memo): "We have reviewed the subject application forwarded by your memo dated December 27, 1999 and have the following comments. Any new building construction shall conform to all requirements of code and statutes pertaining to building construction. All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. All earthwork activity, including grading and grubbing shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code. Access(es) to the subject property, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the DPW.' 26. Police Department (January 10, 2000 Memo): "This application reflects a trend of increasing numbers of applications requesting rezoning in this area of Kaloko Mauka. If all these applications are approved, this subdivision could contain three to four times more subdivision lots than that were -5- ♦ • • originally planned for when the subdivision was first approved. "In this light, it is our opinion that the roads are not adequate to handle the traffic that would result should all of these applications for rezoning be approved. "It is requested that applications for rezoning in the Kaloko Mauka area be reviewed collectively and not individually with reference to the impact these requests have on the Mamalahoa (Route 190) Kaloko Drive intersection." 27. Real Property Tax Office (January 12, 2000 Memo): "There are no comments at this time. Current Real Property taxes are paid through June 30, 2000." 28. Office of Housing and Community Development (January 4, 2000 Memo): "Chapter 11, Article 1, Affordable Housing, of the Hawaii County Code is applicable to the request. "Thank you for the opportunity to comment." 29. Department of Health (December 30, 1999 Memo): "The Health Department found no environmental health concerns with regulatory implications in the submittals." 30. Land Use Commission (January 24, 2000 Letter): "We have reviewed the subject application to change the zoning for A -20a to A -10a to allow the creation of three lots ten acres in size or larger on approximately 33.461 acres located in Kaloko, North Kona, Hawai'i. We confirm that the subject parcel is in the State Land Use Agricultural District. "Based upon our review of the subject applications, we have no further comments to offer at this time. "Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application." 31. Department of Water Supply: (See Exhibit C - February 3, 2000 Memo) 32. Fire Department: (See Exhibit D - January 12, 2000 Memo) 33. Department of Transportation: (See Exhibit E - February 4, 2000 Letter) -6- • PUBLIC COMMENTS • - 7 - 34. Natural Resources Conservation Service: (See Exhibit F - January 25, 2000 Letter) 35. Applicants' Response to Agency Comments: (See Exhibit G - February 7, 2000 Letter) AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE 36. Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division and Land Division, and Department of Agriculture 37. The department has not received any written comments or objections from the general public or adjacent landowners on the subject application. ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1101 TELEPHONE:(Bus) 885 -6839 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION REQUEST: Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) (Existing zoning) TAX MAP KEY. 7 -3 -26:19 Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) APPLICANT: Alae-4 ci /#.5/77,9,45 ,G�yi ��e ✓Ees�,. Pr DA TE: // ADDRESS. PMB 11670 26500 W. Agoura Rd. Calabasas, California 91302 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: General partners of Limited Partnership LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: PHONE: (Bus.) '/S o?a24 .38 ‘ - ?j (Res 1849 (Fax)4'O6 77 ?S / x"S L ANDOWNER(S)Vkle1� ` o�.: &z.- re ;(//& ,tnl- e'/u� i � 1 / � ANDO N'�(S): letter) 1 • (May be by l .6 J . .9_4 , a ATE: _/ <Gl ette LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: Same as above TC) Agricultural 10 -acre (A -10a) (Proposed Zoning) STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY- 73 -/98S MJo eo rive SIZE OF PROPERTY OR. AFFEC thD AREAS) TO BE REZONED: 33.461 acres AGENT: Mooers Enterprises, LLC Gregory R. Mooers (R 885 -7126 (Fax) 885 -1574 Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL• Mooers COPIES: Morton EXHICCDS Ibc (See F -t uetu ns on Reverse Side) P ATTACHMENT Agricultural Rezoning • PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION' FOR CHANGE OF ZONE 1. If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? Yes If yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to question 3. a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? 33.461 acres b. Into what lot sizes? 10+ acres c. If your request is approved, approximately how long after the date of approval do you expect to submit your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? There are already homes on two of the lots. If Yes, please answer the following questions: P.D. 2 5/84 On how many of those lots? At what approximate price range? House Lot Total Approximately how long, after approval of the subdivision, would the first house be available for occupancy? If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. 2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans? b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? c. Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans? d. Keep it? e. Other (please state) 6 months No • • f. If you intend to do either a, b, c, please elaborate on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also, include in your answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the subject land to another party. 3. Do you think that your request and your further plans for the land will alleviate the local housing situation? How? The proposed action will allow two additional families to have an agricultural lot in this desirable area of North Kona. 4. Are there any buildings on the subject area? Yes If so, what kind? There are two single - family homes and a maintenance building on the property. What do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is approved? They will remain. 5. Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? No If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on how many square feet or acres of land per product. The subject property is forest and will remain as forest under the proposal. c. Sufficient farm size to allow reasonable chance of success in commercial agriculture? Yes 6. Was your request to allow for the creation of smaller agricultural lots? No If so, did your plan include the following considerations? a. Commodity to be produced? What kinds of commodity? b. Suitablility of the proposed lot -size for that commodity? • • d. Agricultural leases or other forms of assurance that potential buyers or leases would put the subject area into some form of agricultural use? Please state the proposed type of arrangement. Please submit your agricultural plans for the subject area and present evidence of consideration of the above requirements together with your request for a change of zone. If you do not intend to subdivide the subject land for some sort of agricultural purpose, please state your other reasons. 7. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and /or drainage problem on the subject area? No If so, please describe the problem. The property is located in FIRM zone "X ". 8. Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvements? If so, what kind? Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? 9. What sort of governmental assistance and /or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? a. Schools b. Roads c. Sewer d. Drainage Yes No X X X X No Ypq • e. Police Protection f. Fire Protection g. Recreational Facilities h. Public Utilities i. Other Yes x • For those checked "yes," please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and /or assistance are needed. The intersection of Mamalahoa Highway and Kaloko Drive needs improvements. It is the applicants' understanding that they will participate in funding these improvements with other owners in this subdivision who have processed changes of zones. Signature: Address: Telephone: Date: By letter. PMB 11670 26500 W. Agoura Rd. Calabasas, California 91302 818 224 -3865 12/21/99 No X X X y • • COUNTY BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE Agricultural 20 -acres (A -20a) to Agricultural 10 -acres (A -10a) APPLICANT: Morton Associates Holdings (Limited Partnership) TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7 -3 -26:19 Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii A. SUBJECT REOUEST I. Details of Proposed Use/Development: a. Project Description: The subject property is a 33.461 acre parcel located on the north side of Kaloko Drive and west side of Makahi Street at approximately the 3200 elevation. It is identified as Lot 8, Block 5, Increment 2, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, Kaloko, North Kona. The property is heavily forested with slopes of 20 %.The mean annual rainfall according to USGS Report R -47 is approximately 70 inches. b. Statement of objectives and reasons for the request: This property was purchased by the present owners, Morton Associates Holdings, a family member only limited partnership, in1986. The site had been significantly graded by the previous owner. The applicants planted Monterey Pines, over 500 Koa trees and 250 Sugi Pines obtained from the State tree nursery to reforest the cleared areas. A maintenance shed was permitted and constructed on the proposed lot 8 -A in 1986. The applicants then built the first single - family residence on the property on proposed lot 8 -13 in 1986. This home houses the caretaker for the property. The applicants' built their home on proposed lot 8 -C in 1989 1 • • through 1991. These structures have all been permitted. The owners propose to create three lots in sizes of ten acres or more. The proposed subdivision will have a home on two of the parcels and a workshop on the third. The specific uses will be determined by the individual family members or buyers and are expected to replicate those activities and uses of other nearby properties, i.e. natural forest, orchard, garden, nursery, wildlife habitat, and open space. c. Number of acres: 33.461 acres are covered by this request. d. Proposed units/lots/floor area of proposed building envelope: The applicants propose to create three lots ten acres in size or larger. It is proposed that the Lots will have similar conditions as those placed on other rezoned lots in the Kaloko Mauka subdivision. The conditions have included a 100 -foot wide "forest reserve easement" along the existing public street frontage of the subject property, exclusive of access points permitted by the Department of Public Works; a 30 -foot "forest reserve easement" along all lot lines not covered by the 100 -foot easement; and a 100 -foot wide structural setback in lieu of the required 30 -foot setback along the property's public street frontage to provide an additional buffer. Restrictive covenant(s) in the deeds of all the proposed agricultural lots fronting existing roads shall specify and uphold the easements and setbacks. The restrictive covenant(s) shall also specify that, including the area comprising the forest reserve easements described , no less than eighty percent (80 %) of the entire lot area shall be retained in forest. A copy of the proposed covenant(s) are to be recited in an instrument executed by the applicants and the County and recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. • • 3 e. Time frame and cost: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the agricultural lots as soon as the zoning amendment is granted. The lots will be used by family members, as their needs and means dictate. f. Membership size/number of employees and clientele: In addition to the applicants and their family, the lots may be marketed to local residents with a desire to live in a natural forested environment with a rural lifestyle and desirable weather pattern. g. Parking arrangement: Parking for the lots created will be accommodated on each site as required by the Zoning Code. It is anticipated that there will be one residential unit per lot. h. Traffic Impacts: The applicants believe that the traffic generated by the proposed two additional agricultural lots will be minimal as two of the proposed lots are already developed with a residential unit on each. The development of this property into three lots will add two additional lots to the subdivision. Other related information: On June 2, 1997 the County Council adopted Resolution No. 58 -97. This resolution amends the Council's policy relating to the rezoning of district boundaries within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, the Council finds that a maximum density of two dwellings per twenty acres for lands within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 foot elevation, with certain conditions, will protect the watershed and native forest and maintain a low density pattern. The resolution recommends that Agricultural -10 acres (A -10a) zoning requests may be approved for only those parcels within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation and include the conditions as stated within Resolution No. 58 -97 with such J B. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 2. State Land Use Designation: Agricultural 3 . Applicable goals/policies and objectives of the General Plan: The proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance comply with the following goals, policies and objectives of the Economic Element of the General Plan. ECONOMIC • • recommendation provided that the other goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan are met. See the Exhibit "A" for a copy of Resolution No. 58 -97. Proposed on - site and off - site infrastructure: The intersection of Kaloko Drive and Mamalahoa Highway is in need of improvements. The applicants understand that all recent change of zones in the Kaloko Mauka area have been conditioned to require the applicants to participate in the improvement of this intersection. The applicants stipulate to this fact and will also participate in the improvements. The interior roadway system and water system are proposed to be developed to County standards as required by the subdivision code. GOALS o Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. o Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. o The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and stability in its economic system. o The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, 4 • LAND USE • • expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. POLICIES o The County of Hawaii shall assist the expansion of the agricultural industry, especially diversified agriculture, through the protection of important agricultural lands, capital improvements and other programs, and continued cooperation with appropriate State and Federal agencies. o The County of Hawaii shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. • The County of Hawaii's land, water, air, sea, and people shall be considered as essential economic resources for present and future generations and should be protected and enhanced through the use of economic incentives. o The County shall identify and encourage primary industries that are consistent with the social, physical, and economic goals of the residents of the County. The proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance comply with the following goals, policies and objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan Through the careful analysis and examination of past and present situations, the following goals, policies, and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. P • • GOALS o Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural, and physical environments of the County. o Protect and encourage the intensive utilization of the County's important agricultural lands. POLICIES o Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. o The county shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social environment. STANDARDS o Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation, district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access, and public need (1) AGRICULTURE The following goals and policies are intended to address some of the land related problems of agriculture and are to be consistent with and supportive of the overall land use element. GOALS D Identini, protect and maintain important agricultural lands on the island of Hawaii. POLICIES o Zoning shall protect and maintain important agricultural lands from urban encroachment. New approaches to preserve important agricultural land shall be implemented by the County. o The County shall assist in the development of basic resources such as water, roads, transportation and distribution facilities for the agricultural industry. o The County shall coordinate and encourage efforts to solve the problems of the agricultural industry in the County of Hawaii. o Rural -style residential - agricultural developments, such as new small -scale rural communities or extensions of existing rural communities, shall be encouraged in appropriate locations. o The County shall develop subdivision standards which make a distinction between agricultural and urban land uses: 4. General Plan Designation: Orchards - "Those agricultural lands which though rocky in character and content support productive macadamia nuts, papaya, citrus and other similar agricultural products." 5. Zoning: Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) 6. Community Development Plan: The Kona Regional Plan shows this area as agricultural 7. Special Management Area: The property is not within the County of Hawaii's Special Management Area. a • • Physical Characteristics /Environmental Setting: C. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA 8. Description of subject property: The subject property is a 33.461 acre rectangular shaped parcel located on the north side of Kaloko Drive at approximately the 3200 foot elevation. It is identified as Lot 8, Block 5, Increment 2, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, North Kona. The property is heavily forested with slopes of 20 %. The mean annual rainfall according to USGS Report R -47 is approximately 70 inches. The soil is Class "E" (Very Poor) and too rocky for conventional agricultural uses. This property was purchased by the present owners in1986. The site had been significantly graded by the previous owner. The applicants planted Monterey Pines, over 500 Koa trees and 250 Sugi Pines obtained from the State tree nursery to reforest the cleared areas A workshop was permitted and constructed on the proposed lot 8 -A in 1986. The applicants then built the first single - family residence on the property on proposed lot 8 -B in 1986. This home houses the caretaker for the property. The applicants' built their home on proposed lot 8 -C in 1989 through 1991. These structures have all been permitted. The owners propose to create three lots in sizes of ten acres or more. The proposed subdivision will have a home on two of the parcels and a workshop on the third. 9. Lava Hazard Zone: The United States Department of the Interior/ Geologic Survey designates this area on a descending scale of risk 1 to 9 as Zone 4. About 5% of this area has been covered by lava since 1800 and less than 15% has been covered by lava in the last 750 years. "Zone 4 Includes all of Hualalai, where the frequency of eruptions is lower than on Kilauea and Mauna Loa. Flows typically cover large areas." 11 • • 10. Distance from coastline: The subject property is approximately 5.3 miles east of the coastline. 11. Agricultural Lands of Importance in the State of Hawaii (ALSIH) designation: Soils within the subject property are classified as "Unique Agricultural Land" by the ALISH system. Unique Agricultural Lands are lands that have the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season and moisture supply and which is used to produce sustained high quality and /or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. 12. U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service Report soil type: The soil survey report classifies the soils within the project site as Kiloa Extremely Stony Muck (rKXD), 6 to 20 percent slopes. This soil consists of well - drained, thin, extremely stony organic soils over fragmental A'a lava. The surface layer is very dark brown, extremely stony muck about 10 inches thick. Permeability is rapid, runoff is very slow and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil is used for woodland and pasture. 13. The Land Study Bureau soil rating: Soils within the subject property are classified as "E270" (Very Poor) for agricultural productivity by the Land Study Bureau. Depth - limited soil material, color -dark brown; parent material - A'a and volcanic ash; stoniness -sharp lava clinkers; drainage -very well drained; slope -0 to 35 %; clime -humid and, cloudy; mean annual rainfall -80" to 100 "; elevation -2,000 to 3,500 feet; machine tillability- unsuited for machine tilling. 14. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designation: The subject property is located in Zone "X" , outside of the 500 -year flood plain. • • • 15. Existing drainage ways or improvements: The property has no history of flooding. There are no drainage improvements on the site. 16. Air /noise/water quality: The air quality is excellent as there are no industrial uses in the area and the normally occurring winds prevent the emissions from the active volcano from affecting the quality of air on the subject parcel. The area is a rural agricultural area as such there is little noise pollution. The water to the site is provided by the Department of Water Supply and meets all EPA guidelines. Historic Resources: 17. Existing archaeological, cultural or historic sites on National Register or Hawaii Register: The subject parcel is located in a forested area at the 3200 foot elevation within the boundaries of a precontact age upland agricultural system that was the subject of a reconnaissance survey and test excavations in 1970 and 1971 by Huehue Ranch, the developers of the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. Additionally, the National Park Service published a report in 1991 entitled "An Ahupuaa Study: The 1971 Archaeological Work at Kaloko Ahupuaa, North Kona. This study also identified remains of an agricultural field system up to the 3500 foot elevation at certain locations. There is no record of historic sites on this property in either the National or State Register. The applicant requested the Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic Preservation Division to do a site inspection of the subject parcel. On September 30, 1999, Marc Smith conducted that inspection. He concluded that "... additional archaeological work is not necessary..." and that "We feel that any development on the subject parcels will have "no effect" on significant historic sites." See Exhibit "A" for the Historic Preservation Division letter. 10 Natural Resources: 18. Existing floral /faunal resources: The site is presently heavily forested with native trees and shrubs such as ohia, tree fern, other native trees and shrubs, and non native vegetation. Wildlife seen at the property consists of turkeys, hawks, Chinese pheasants, and other forest birds. Though the area above the 3200 feet elevation in Kaloko has been considered an important habitat for the `Alala, the Department of Land and Natural Resources indicated that there have been no sightings in Kaloko during this decade. Vegetative cover is a mixture of native and non - native. The proposed development has the potential to alter the mixture of plant life, however the low density of development and previously applied zoning conditions will assure continuation of habitat for existing wildlife. 19. Scenic or coastal resources: The property is located 5.3 miles east of the shoreline and will not impact on coastal resources. As the subject parcel is heavily forested, there are no view planes to be disturbed by the development of the property. With the previously applied zoning conditions related to buffers, setbacks and percentage of undeveloped land, all structures will be well buffered from neighboring properties and the roadway. Social - Economic Characteristics: 20. Social settlement pattern for the area: Present and prospective owners in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision are of the upper middle class who are either retired or have employment in West Hawaii. The population of North Kona has grown steadily since 1965. The population in 1970 was 4,832; in 1980 it was 13,898 and in 1990 it had risen to 22,284 for a growth rate of 361 %. The expanding resident and visitor populations has increased traffic in all of West Hawaii. Major roadways in Kona have experienced tripling in daily traffic counts 11 C--1o2 • • between 1984 and 1996 (Source: State DOT Planning Branch traffic counts). The increase in population is a result of the expanding visitor industry in West Hawaii, which has a large and growing share of the visitors to the island and consequently the de facto population. At any given time, up to one -fourth of those present in Kona are visitors. Kailua Village's major industry is tourism. 21. Economic resources of the area: Aside from a few nurseries and small scale agricultural endeavors within the subdivision, the surrounding areas are used for pasture lands by various ranches and much of the land in the area is left undisturbed for forestry. 22. Land values: According to prominent Realtors in the area, the land values in this subdivision have remained relatively stable over the past few years. Prices for 10 -acre parcels have ranged from $250,000 to $350,000. Surrounding lands: 23. Land use: The properties immediately surrounding the subject parcel within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision are low- density residential lots with minimal clearing of the natural forest. There are some small pasture and nursery areas within the subdivision. The State lands of Makaula Ooma abut Kaloko Mauka on the north from 2100 to 3500 feet elevation. These lands are native forest. The Bishop Estate lands of Kaupulehu abut Kaloko Mauka on the north from 3500 to 5400 feet elevation. These lands are currently being grazed by Hualalai Ranch. The Palani Ranch lands of Honokohau abut Kaloko Mauka on the entire southern boundary. These lands have been historically grazed, however a 80 acre parcel is presently being used for forest products. The Kaupulehu Forest Reserve abuts the eastern or mauka boundary of Kaloko Mauka. 12 9 • • 24 Zoning: The property in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel is zoned A -20a and A -10a. Properties within the subdivision at lower elevations are zoned A -5a and FA -3a. D. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 25. Description of access: The access to the subject property is from Kaloko Drive a 22 foot wide paved roadway with 8 foot grass shoulders within a 80 foot right -of -way. Kaloko Drive intersects with Mamalahoa Highway approximately 3.7 miles below the subject property. The grass shoulders have proven to be an effective method of dispersing water runoff from the roadway and after 20 years there is 110 evidence of erosion or damage to the edge of pavement. 26. Availability of Water: Water is available to the site from the Department of Water Supply via a 8" line on Kaloko Drive. The Department of Water Supply considers the Kaloko Mauka Water System a separate system from others in Kona. The system consists of transmission and distribution lines, pump stations, and seven reservoirs which extend to the 5,106 foot elevation. The reservoirs have a capacity of 500,000 gallons, sufficient for one unit for each two acres of the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. No water is contemplated for landscape or agricultural uses as the annual rainfall is adequate for these purposes. 27. Sewage disposal: The applicants propose to use individual wastewater treatment systems meeting with the approval of the Department of Health (DOH) for all newly created lots. 28. Solid waste: Solid waste is taken to the County's solid waste transfer station in Kealakehe west of the project site by the individual lot owners or a private 13 4 • • hauling service. The applicants intend to use this existing transfer station for the two new lots created. 29. Police and fire protection: This area is served by police and fire stations located approximately 5 miles to the southwest of the site in Kailua and Kealakehe. All roadways are paved, with adequate width and are accessible for emergency service vehicles. 30. Schools: The project site is located about four miles to the north of Kealakehe, Elementary, Intermediate and High Schools. 31. Parks: There is a County Parks and Recreation gym and park facility at the Old Airport Park in Kailua approximately 6 miles from the subject parcel. 32. Other utilities and services: There is electrical and telephone service on poles along Kaloko Drive that presently serves the subdivision and these services can be made available to the subject property as well. 14 • • E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS 33. Relationship between local short term uses of environment and maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity: In terms of the relationship between short-term use of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long -term productivity, no short-term exploitation of resources that would entail negative long -term consequences has been identified for the proposed action. 34. Mitigative measures proposed to avoid, minimize, rectify or reduce impact: All construction on the site will comply with all governmental regulatory controls to mitigate noise and dust during the construction period. All structures and infrastructure improvements constructed will comply with all federal, state and county requirements. The applicants propose that the conditions applied to other re- zonings in this subdivision be applied in this case as well. These include: a. A 100 -foot "forest reserve easement" for buffer purposes along the existing roadway. b. A 100 -foot structural set back along the existing roadway. c. A 30 -foot " forest reserve easement along all lot lines as a buffer between parcels. d. At least 80% of the lot area shall be retained in forest. e. A restriction against a second dwelling on each lot. f. A conservation plan shall be prepared for each of the subdivided lots. g. A "fair share" contribution to mitigate any potential impacts will be paid. 15 • • 33. Alternatives to the proposed development: One alternative to the proposed action would be to leave the entire parcel as is. This would not allow the creation of two additional agricultural lots for residential uses, forestry and agriculture. It would also not increase the real property tax base as the proposed action would. 34. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources that would be involved if proposed action is implemented: The construction of one additional rural-residential unit would involve the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of negligible quantities of natural resources. The conditions proposed to be applied to this request would help insure the protection of the forest and natural habitat. There are presently no such restrictions on the development of the property. Given the conformance with all established State and County goals, policies and plans; the physical characteristics of the site and surrounding area; the present zoning and uses of the surrounding area; the minimal impact on public facilities and services; the minimal impact on the environment; the applicants request a favorable consideration of this change of zone application. 16 • 11 COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII RESOLUTION NO 58 97 (Draft 3) RELATING TO ZONINGS ABOVE THE 3,000 -FOOT ELEVATION FOR PARCELS WITHIN THE KALOKO MAUKA SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 330 -96 which established a policy that ' no lands above the 3,000 -foot elevation within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision or the 2,500 -foot elevation above sea level elsewhere in the districts of North and South Kona shall be reclassified to any zone district having a minimum lot size of less than twenty acres; and WHEREAS, shortly after the adoption of Resolution No. 330 -96, the Council approved two change of zone requests for A -10a lots above the 3,000 -foot elevation with more stringent requirements to mitigate the concerns established in Resolution No. 330 -96; and WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that a low density use pattern for the mauka; watershed lands of the island of Hawaii, in particular the Kona region, should be protected and maintained for environmental reasons; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that a maximum density of two dwellings per tweny acres for lands within the Kaloko Mauka subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation with the following conditions in addition to the standard conditions of approval for similar zonings in the area, will protect the watershed and native forest and maintain a low density pattern: A. Final Subdivision Approval of the proposed agricultural subdivision shall be secured from the Planning Director within five (5) years from the effective date of this 1 ordinance. The applicant shall reserve the following easements and special setbacks in perpetuity for purposes of protecting and maintaining naturally forested areas `and shall delineate such easements and setbacks on plans submitted for subdivision review; 1. A 100 -foot wide "forest reserve easement" along the existing public street frontage of the subject property, exclusive of access points permitted by the Department of Public Works; 2. A 30 -foot "forest reserve easement" along all lot lines not covered by the 100 - foot easement; and 3. A 100 -foot wide structural setback in lieu of the required 30 -foot setback along the existing property's a,lic street frontage to provide an additional buffer. EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO, 58 -97 I 1 B. Restrictive covenant(s) in the deeds of all the proposed agricultural lots fronting 1 existing roads shall specify and uphold the easements and setbacks set forth in Condition The restrictive covenant(s) shall also specify that, including the area comprising the forest reserve easements described in Condition no less than eighty 1 percent (80 %) of the entire lot area shall be retained in forest. A copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the 1 Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the approved covenant(s) shall be recited in an instrument executed by the applicant and the County and recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances 1 prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. C. Restrictive covenant(s) in the deeds of all the proposed agricultural lots shall prohibit 1 the construction of a second dwelling unit on and any further subdivision of each lot. A copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances l shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the approved covenant(i) shall be _ recited in an instrument executed by the applicant and the County and recorded with t the Bureau of Conveyances prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. D. A forest management plan for the proposed Lots within the subject property shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director in consultation with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, the State Department of Health, the State Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of t Natural Resources Conservation Service. The forest management plan shall require the following: 1. Include at minimum, the best forest and reforestation practices, program for implementation and other applicable forestry management criteria, including 1 those of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, such as the Forest Stewardship Program or the Soil Conservation Service Management J Program. • 2. The forest management program shall include a restrictive covenant for the proposed lots within the subject property which shall be recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances and /or Land Court. A copy of the covenants to be recorded shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of final subdivision approval. A copy of the approved covenant(s) shall be recited in an instrument executed by the applicant and the County and recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances prior to the issuance of final subdivision approval. 3. If more than twenty percent (20 %) of the subject property has been cleared or grubbed prior to the submittal of ti,e -. Nest management plan or the recording of the restrictive covenant(s), the refc:estation program for any cleared or grubbed 1 1 1 1 i 1 4 OJ /C FS County of Hawaii on ATFEST: COLti Y CLERK • area(s) in excess of the 20% within the subject property shall be substantially implemented prior to the issuance of final subds' iston approval. This forest management plan shall govern the proposed lots within the subject property for a period of fifty (50) years and its termination may be considered after the 50 -year period has elapsed by amending this ordinance requiring County Council approval by ordinance. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that the Planning Commission consider favorable recommendations for A -lOa zoning requests for only those parcels within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation and include the aforementioned conditions with such recommendation provided that the other goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan are met BE IT RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County of Hawaii transmit copies of this resolution to Stephen K. Yamashita, Mayor; Kevin Balog, Planning Commission Chairman; and Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director. Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, this 2nd day of June COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii 1 hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the late indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the June 2, 1997 , 1997. ROLL CALL VOTE Reference C- 2_9.04/PC -53 CHAIRMAN & PRESIDLNG OFFICER RESOLUTION NO. 5 8 IDRTr AYES NOES ABS EX ^SIA, `KI X 1 CHUNC X LEITITL 4D -TODD I X RAY X REYNOLDS X SANT ANC ELO X sMrru X TYLER X Y•NC(JNC x e 0 .1 0 1 1 1 1 i 1 4 OJ /C FS County of Hawaii on ATFEST: COLti Y CLERK • area(s) in excess of the 20% within the subject property shall be substantially implemented prior to the issuance of final subds' iston approval. This forest management plan shall govern the proposed lots within the subject property for a period of fifty (50) years and its termination may be considered after the 50 -year period has elapsed by amending this ordinance requiring County Council approval by ordinance. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that the Planning Commission consider favorable recommendations for A -lOa zoning requests for only those parcels within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000 -foot elevation and include the aforementioned conditions with such recommendation provided that the other goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan are met BE IT RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County of Hawaii transmit copies of this resolution to Stephen K. Yamashita, Mayor; Kevin Balog, Planning Commission Chairman; and Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director. Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, this 2nd day of June COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii 1 hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the late indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the June 2, 1997 , 1997. ROLL CALL VOTE Reference C- 2_9.04/PC -53 CHAIRMAN & PRESIDLNG OFFICER RESOLUTION NO. 5 8 IDRTr 1 1 a 1 1 BENJAMIN 1 CAvETANO GOVERNOR OF HAWAII October 22, 1999 Gregory R. Mooers Mooers Enterprises P.O. Box 1101 Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 Dear Mr. Mooers: Aloha, DON HIBBARD, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division M S:j k • • STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION Kekuhihewa Budding. Room 555 601 Kemokde Boulevard Kepolei, Hewim 96707 A site inspection was made to these parcels by Historic Preservation Division staff archaeologist Marc Smith on September 30, 1999. EXHI IT "13" HISTORIC PRESERVATI !IN LETTER T1MO DIY E. JOHN *. CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCE[ DEPUTIES JANET E. KAWELO AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAND STATE PARKS WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LOG NO: 24244 DOC NO: 9910M502 SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Concerns for Two Parcels in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii Island TMK: (3)7 -3 -26: 12 and 19 A previous study of the area (Cordy et. al. 1991), suggested that remains of agricultural field systems in the Kaloko area would be unlikely above the 3500 foot elevation. Both of the subject parcels are approximately 3400 foot elevation, placing them at the margin of the agricultural zone. Parcel 19 has been extensively grubbed, and replanted in a tree nursery. A transect was walked across the top of parcel 12. No historic structures were observed in parcel 12. Because of the previous study and recent site inspection, we believe there are no significant historic sites in the subject parcels. Therefore, additional archaeological work is not necessary prior to a subdivision review or land altering activity. We feel that any development in the subject parcels will have "no effect" on significant historic sites. If you have further questions please call Pat McCoy at 692 -8029 (Honolulu), or Marc Smith at 933 -0482 (Hilo). ` • • Q. r ' Reference cited: Cordy, R.; Tainter, .1.; Renger R. and Hitchcock, R. 1991 An Ahupua'a Study: The 1971 Archaeological Work at Ka /oko Ahupua'a, North Kona, Hawaii. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Western Archaeological and Conservation Center Publication in Anthropology No, 58. • V^ i EXHIBIT "C" SITE LOCATION MAP G R 0 I 2 ) • - -•••••• V %ALL N /$7 Of 100 7 4. 7 7 O 1 '7TiC!NETY M NOTES- uB^ RE PROPOSED LOT 8 —C , 11459 ACRES .catwire LOT 8 JJ.461 ACRES PROPOSED A -20a TO A -10a REAM 1070) PROPOSED LOT 8 -9 10001 ACRES 0 0 HYW4 E MORTON ( l�w l. • (4� N ( MARAVIA 41 MAUNA TRACI www ZONING K .4 L 0 K O ma .u, IDIOT A -10, ZONING wi L wow Of moo WU PROPOSED LOT 8 —A 10 001 ACRES 0 P 0414'147 Rd6W :<.� _ �"" 1 :..�.r"'^i"1:yb^.'.:':1 ^.T..P.. �, �..: riT,'S•_. � R..':. 6 7. BLOCK 9 07 4210 MAUNA Car Ko PEAM ,o,a i A-1170 1053Ve EXHIBIT "D" SITE PLAN J INCREMENT REZONING EXHIBIT MAP SHOWING LOT 8 OF BLOCK 5 OF KALOKO MAUKA SUBDIVISION INCREMENT 2 (FILE PLAN 1010) Being a Portion of R.P. 8214, L.C. Aw. 7715, Ap. 11 to Lota Kamehameha At Koloko, North Kona Island and County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii 00,47 2 4N0 999 4 /ORM 1 • • EXHIBIT "E" 1986 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF TMK (3) 7 -3 -26:19 V\. IV 1 1 Vr I1HYYHIt • • 6' RESOLUTION NO. 330 96 c ESTABLISHING A POLICY RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT OF ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES WITHIN KALOKO MAUICA AND OTHER KONA 9 WATERSHED AND MAUICA FOREST AREAS. • WHEREAS, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision (Subdivision) was established over twenty years ago as a 2,000 -acre subdivision of twenty acre lots comprising the upper half of the ahupua'a of Kaloko and extending up to the 5,700 -foot elevation level within the state Agricultural land use district and the county Agricultural - 20 acre (A -20a) zoned district; and WHEREAS, although a significant amount of the native forest cover has been removed throughout the original subdivision for pasturage, recreation and residential use since its initial development, a substantial amount of forest cover remains on lands above the 3,500 -foot elevation above sea level, which lands comprise the upper half of the subdivision; and WHEREAS, to the north and south of the Subdivision, for the entire length of the makai- facing slope of Mouth Hualalai above an elevationvfapproximately 2,500 feet above sea level, all lands are in the state Agricultural land use district (L.U,D.) and the county A -20a zoned district (or the equivalent, by way of owner - initiated cluster /open space zoned district combinations) and are in pasture and forest use, with the exception of several forest reserve areas which are in the state Conservation L.U.D.; and . WHEREAS, from time to time since the initial subdivision was completed, various lot owners have applied for changes of zoning to a smaller minimum lot size to allow their lots to be further subdivided, and to date most such change of zone applications have been approved by the council and enacted by ordinance; and WHEREAS, such rezoning ordinances have established a pattern of (I) Agricultural - 3 acre (A -3a) minimum lot size densities in the bottom one -third of the Subdivision, up to the 2,600 -foot elevation and (2) Agricultural - 5 acre (A -5a) minimum lot size densities in a narrow band immediately above the A -3a zoned district, extending to the 2,900 foot elevation; and WHEREAS, like the surrounding lands, the entire upper half of the Subdivision remains in the A -20a zoned district, although a majority of lots in the upper half of the Subdivision reportedly have one or more single family dwellings thereon and approximately fifty percent arc reportedly improved with two or more dwellings; and J It G Vr fIHVVMII a WHEREAS /era' property owners have cited the ightened levels of effective density and initiaS quests for rezonings of lands in the 'r half of the Subdivision from the A -20a zoned district to an Agricultural - 10 acre (A -10a) zoned district, which requests, if approved by the council, would indicate a zoning policy supportive of ten acre minimum lot sizes throughout the upper half of the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the council believes that most lots improved with two dwellings have done so by creating "virtual subdivisions" of ten acre property interests under provisions of the state Condominium Property Regime (C.P.R.) law, which regime creates multiple saleable and mortgageable interests on a single lot without regard to the county zoned district such lot may be in; and WHEREAS, while the council is concerned that the limited right to build additional dwellings on agricultural lots may have been distorted into over use in this and other rural subdi visions tluouglt the application of the C.P.R. law, it finds that such misuse should not be cause to compromise the value and force of county zoning powers, and instead may be reason for the state legislature to amend the C.P.R. law to prevent misuse on lands in state Agricultural land use district; and WHEREAS, the council believes that zoning lands in the upper half of the Subdivision, far above the elevation where the A -20a districts begin throughout the rest of this region, will effectively sanction the existing practice of condominium divisions of agricultural lands within the County of I lawaii, promote its use as pre- cursor of up- zoning pressures throughout the island's watersheds and signify that ten acre lot densities may be acceptable within the watershed elevations without any commensurate lowering of densities in surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the council desires to protect and maintain the low density use pattern long established for the mauka, watershed lands of the island of Hawaii, and the Kona region in particular, for a variety of environmental and service management reasons. THEREFORE, 13E IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII, that no lands above the 3,000 -foot elevation within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision or the 2,500 -foot elevation above sea level elsewhere in the districts of North Kona and South Kona shall be re- classified to any zone district having a minimum lot size of less than 20 acres except where contiguous lands held under the same or a cooperative ownership are concurrently placed in a lower density zoned district with a net effect of maintaining or reducing overall density levels and enhancing the integrity and value of the regions watershed and forest systems. 13E IT THER RESOLVED that the Clerk We County of Hawaii transmit copies of this resolution to the Honorable Stephen K. Yamashiro, Mayor of the County of Hawaii; Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director; and Kevin Balog, Chairman of the Hawaii County Planning Commission. Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, this 19th day of June 1996. I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County of Hawaii on June 19, 1996 COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawaii ' Hilo, Hawaii INTRODUCED BY: / COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII 'LI atiPL- Arakaki Bonk- Abramson Childs De Luna Domingo Osorio Rath Ray Smith ROLL CALL VOTE AYES X X X X X x 6 NOES X x 2 ABS X 1 Reference C- 1199/PC -124 & PRESIDING OFRCER RESOLUTION NO. 3,30 3b TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 3, 2000 DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAII 25 AUPUNI STREET • HILO, HAWAII 96720 TELEPHONE (808) 961 -8660 • FAX (808) 961 -8657 Ms. Virginia K. Goldstein, Planning Director Planning Department Milton D. Pavao, Manager CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 99 -031) APPLICANT - MORTON ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS REQUEST: A -20a TO A -10a TAX MAP KEY: 7 -3- 026:019 We have reviewed the subject change of zone application and have the following comments. The subject parcel currently has two existing services with the Department through two 5/8 -inch meters. One meter is on the 4 -inch waterline along Makahi Street while the other meter is on the 4 -inch waterline along Kaloko Drive. Both waterlines border the property. Each of these existing services is restricted to a daily maximum usage of 600 gallons. The water availability in the Kaloko Mauka water system is such that water is available for the proposed change of zone. Pursuant to the Department's "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy," a copy of which is being forwarded to the applicant, a water commitment may be issued. Based on the one additional water service that is requested in the proposed change of zone application, the required water commitment deposit is $150.00. Remittance of $150.00 from the applicant is requested as soon as possible so that a water commitment may be formally issued. The commitment will be in writing with specific conditions and effective dates stated. Please keep in mind that this letter shall not be construed as a water commitment. In other words, unless a water commitment is officially effected, water availability is subject to change depending on the water situation. For the applicant's information, should the subject change of zone be approved and a subdivision application executed, final approval of the subdivision will be subject to the following requirements: 1. Construct necessary water system improvements, which shall include, but not be limited to a service lateral that will accommodate a 5/8 -inch meter to each of the proposed new lots. EXHD sOTT o , eide? bo°AO8dd3 ro a a o f Ms. Virginia K. Goldstein, Planning Director Page 2 February 3, 2000 BCM•gms • • Submit installation plans prepared by a professional engineer, architect, or land surveyor, registered in the State of Hawaii. 2. Remit the prevailing facilities charge balance and capital assessment fee, which are subject to change, of $3,225.00 and $500.00, respectively. These are due and payable upon completion of the construction of the water system improvements and prior to final subdivision approval being granted. For your information, the amount of the water commitment deposit may exceed the prevailing facilities charge amount, for example, when requests for time extensions continue and are approved Until the development is finally completed, these are separate and unrelated items. In the event that water commitment deposits exceed the facilities charge, no refunds are applicable. 3. Comply with all other applicable policies and requirements of the Department's Rules and Regulations. Noncompliance may be cause for voiding this water commitment, at which time availability will be subject to change in accordance with the prevailing water system conditions, policies, and Rules and Regulations. Should there be any questions, please call our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961 -8665. copy — (w/enc.) Morton Associates Holdings (w /o enc.) Mooers Enterprises Sincerely yours, lton D. Pavao, P.E. Manager Stephen K. Yamashiro Mayor January 12, 2000 • • Tountg of pakntii FIRE DEPARTMENT 777 Kilauea Avenue • Mall Lane, Room 6 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 -4239 (808) 961 -8297 • Fax (808) 961 -8296 To: Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director From: Edward Bumatay, Fire Chief SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 99 -031) APPLICANT: MORTON ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS REQUEST: A -20a TO A -l0a TAX MAP KEY: 7 - - 026: 019 "Fire Apparatus Access Roads EXHOBOT L. n I � it Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207: "Sec. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. "(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. "EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified. "2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b). Edward Bumatay Fire Chia/ Russel M. Mlyao I Deputy Fire Chief • To: Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Page 2 January 12, 2000 "3. When there 3 or Group M section may be the chief, fire be impaired. are not more than two Group R, Division Occupancies, the requirements of this modified, provided, in the opinion of - fighting or rescue operations would not "More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. "For high -piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109. "(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction. "(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. "EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance. "(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. "(f) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all - weather driving capabilities." (20 tons) "(g) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as approved by the chief." (45 feet) "(h) Turnarounds. All dead -end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. (i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. To: Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Page 3 January 12, 2000 "(j) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved by the chief." (15 %) "(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. "(1) Signs. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both." Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301: "Sec. 10.301. (a) Type Required. The chief shall designate the type and number of fire appliances to be installed and maintained in and upon all buildings and premises in the jurisdiction other than private dwellings. This shall be done according to the relative severity of probable fire, including the rapidity with which it may spread. Such appliances shall be of a type suitable for the probable class of fire associated with such building or premises and shall have approval of the chief. "(b) Special Hazards. In occupancies of an especially hazardous nature or where special hazards exist in addition to the normal hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, additional safeguards may be required consisting of additional fire appliance units, more than one type of appliance, or special systems suitable for the protection of 'the hazard involved. Such devices or appliances may consist of automatic fire alarm systems, automatic sprinkler or water spray systems, standpipe and hose, fixed or portable fire extinguishers, suitable asbestos blankets, breathing apparatus, manual or automatic covers, carbon dioxide, foam, halogenated and dry chemical or other special fire - extinguishing systems. Where such systems are installed, they shall be in accordance with the applicable Uniform Fire Code Standards or standards of the National Fire Protection Association when Uniform Fire Code Standards do not apply. EB /mo To: Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Page 4 January 12, 2000 "(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief, on -site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow. "Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. "The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be protected as set forth by the respective county water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207. "(d) Fire Hydrant Markers. When required by the chief, hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. "(e) Timing of Installation. When fire protection facilities are to be installed by the developer, such facilities including all surface access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. When alternate methods of protection, as approved by the chief, are provided, the above may be modified or waived. "(f) All fire alarm systems, fire hydrant systems, fire extinguishing systems (including automatic sprinklers), Class I, II, III (combination standpipe system) and combined systems, basement inlet pipes, and other fire protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall meet the approval of the fire department as to installation and location and shall be subject to periodic tests as required herein. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to installation." C¢ EDW A1� BUMATAY Fire Chief a a BENJAMIN J. CAPE fANO t OVERNOR Although we have no objections to the proposed change in zoning, we are very concerned about the many recent proposed land use changes in the Kaloko Mauka area and their cumulative impact on the intersection of Mamalahoa Highway and Kaloko Drive. Ms. Virginia Goldstein Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 -4252 Dear Ms. Goldstein: STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 -5097 1 - L{S 4 2000 Subject: Change of Zone (REZ 99 -031), A -20a to A -10a, Morton Associates Holding Kaloko, North Kona, TMK: 7 -3 -026: 019 Thank you for requesting our review of the proposed change of zone. The intersection must be improved due to the cumulative impact of these land use changes: 1. Sight distance must be improved. 2 The intersection must be illuminated at night. 3. The various turning movements at the intersection must be channelized. All improvements must be made at no cost to the State and all plans for improvements within the 'State highway right - of - way must be submitted for our review and approval. If the County plans to continue to allow further development in Kaloko Mauka, the County must seek funding to improve this intersection. EXHOBOT KAZU HAYASHIDA DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTORS BRIAN K. MINAAI GLENN M. OKIMOTO IN REPLY REFER TO: HWY -PS 2.7129 a Ms. Virginia Goldstein Page 2 4 2000 Very truly yours, KAZU HAYASHIDA Director of Transportation HWY -PS 2.7129 If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ronald Tsuzuki, Head Planning Engineer, Highways Division, at (808) 587 -1830. $ a United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service P.O. Box 636 Kealakekua, Hi. 96750 -0636 USDA. Virginia Goldstein Planning Director County of Iin waii- Planning Dept. 25 Aupuni St. Room 109 Hilo, HI 96720 -4252 Aloha Ms. Goldstein, In response to your request for comments on the Change of Zoning Application (REZ 99 -031) for TMK 7-3-026:019 let me submit the following. There is a minor error on page 9 item #11 of the application. Soils are classified as "Other Important Agricultural Land" not "Unique ". Please refer to the enclosed map and legend. I am in concurrence with Resolution #58 -97 seeking to protect the Kona watershed and native forest by allowing only 2 dwellings per 20 acres. Subdivision of this parcel would seem to lead to more than that number. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely your Denise L�— Deni o Soil Conservationist • Our People...Our Islands...In Harmony EXHIBIT 1/25/00 The Natural Resources Conservation Service works hand -in -hand with the American people to conserve natural resources on private lands. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . ,•,E . \ 7 , ' ' :• '; ,i' 1) ://:.:::::1111::::::71: . '''. y.:)./.....::::04,://(,/,,,./..c.-7%-,(7,-.„— i______.:_x;_—_,----- r„....i.,(..,,,, ,,,, 4 ,,, :„:47:y.::.....cii...y.,:::: 7::-.:::::.: .,' /(// .,/ f; ';',./i 2 ''c if c -- - ,_ _,/ '.../,/- --- .e0.4, ,,) „,,,,0::::.:::.;:...b..:::::::::;:::::27,......?..}.:::.,Hi( 1......:i.L.,/..p,$).; ,\../(//:-(/((;(- N 7 7 {,,,,, ( y‘,, m k, ),,,:.:,::::::::„:„„„„:„.,,;:::::: ::7 0 LI i' ( ,:i \ iA N'{{{)a{LeN f _________ / - 2.. ; ;,, i , 2 , , .,.:::::::::::,„:::.:g.::::::..„.„.:::::::::„,:.,:::::::7„..,:,.::.,:.:7„,.,:„.::::.,.,,,,,,,, ,,:: ,, ,';',-,,,, ,,,,,,),'„-•-_-„, c i , ,, , „„, ,,,, ,,,\ , ,, ...„..,::....:„..„.„:„..:::„,„:::::://:„..,,,:::::::,:::::„,...:::::::,,::::::::yt...,,,,,„\,'„.: ,„/ „, , ( ,,,.., , f) - • ,- 2-ii5 , ,,2,,,,,( ,,,,.\, ; i , , , ,, ., :: , , , z7L , ., : ,,, , , .,,, .- ,,,-„ \k':- 5 0 ( ) , .....:::„..,:..)„../.47:.,,:„:„..,.,,.:„..„.,::::,.,.:N.:,..:::::.„);:,..„..),:?„:1,:.:::::.:,:::iim,:::...).;K::yi:/:-......:ri:::::::4:::%!-.9-i, , ,\\_,---, `---, :::::::::::::;:regz:::::::it4c.:4,:::::::::4;2:v:::::::?!..;N:::::::;::::::::$11:,.: :Nif::-4:1'.:;'::N::"';'''N'::2"''''''''Y:...:.::i-i.k.r.:::1:::::'::\ raze- 1/ ' . 1,, iti\ ...::::::::::::;:".„,,pit,y.:.:5:,..?)..:4,4:::::::::.v:gp.....///,::::::-4.:://z:::::A;;:::::-::::::::::;/....,":,;.:::§,bc..):::::::E:4'';:1,:"!;,::::::1):7.:Yfi;::iii.::•::::::::17::',ii:111:-- • i ' I 2 < "1.1 :..............::::::::::::;;:::..,....E.i.:,...ciliz.....:ii...........:.../..;;;:i:::::;;;:i.......it:::::...ii../........:::::‘;:oty::(1/..b.c.;:i.::;.;.:;,,;;;.......:%.:.4:::...;:;:iz;:::::;*i://: :;:iitiiitAlfitsilegt://:;.:::111i.74..:4/Nifti...../4;.: ./;"; ; ' '90 000 N ag 7 'J0' Well i LINEi\ ph;4? U W Water t2 FEET 15 NOTE: Bose U 5 Quadrangle Map. Polyconic projection. Old Hawaiian datum. 10,000 -foot grid based on Hawaiian coordinate system, zone 1 1000 - meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks, zone 5 LEGEND: PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND - Land which has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed sustained high yields of crops economically when treated and managed according to modern farming UNIQUE AGRICULTURAL LAND - Land that has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing se 'moisture supply, and is used to produce sustained high quality and or high yields of a specific - when treated and.anaged according to modern farming methods. OTHER IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL LAND - Land other than Prime or Unique Agricultural Land that is also of Ode . gt 1 1ocal importance for agricultural use. EJ(ISTING.URBAN'UYELOPMEHT - Land which has been developed for urban type use. ES GOVERNMENt y'Ltiildv which is.cur -r ently, under the luri sdlctl on of the U.S. Government. 0000 FEET Water \ c , NE Map token from photo copy of the pubitshed Department of Interior Geological Survey KEAUHOU 5 M/ K£ALAKEKUA 9.1 MI ce 0 U 0 e APPROXIMATE MEAN DECLINATION, 1959 Cemetert, I \ 5T e 57'30" i February 7, 2000 Ms Virginia Goldstein, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST (REZ 99 -031) A -20a to A -10a APPLICANTS: Morton Associates Holdings (Limited Partnership) TAX MAP KEY (3) 7 -3 -26:19 Dear Ms. Goldstein: • • MOOERS ENTERPRISES, LLC P.O. Box 1101 KAMUELA, HAWAII 96743 Your letter of January 21, 2000, transmitted agency comments to me for the application identified above. Please fmd my responses below. Office of Housing and Community Development: Since this proposed subdivision is less than 9 units there is no requirement for affordable housing per Section 11 -4 of the present code. Police Department: The issue of additional traffic generated by the proposed two additional lots will be addressed at the Council level with the applicant being required to pay impact fees that will be combined with funds from other change of zones in this subdivision to address traffic concerns at the intersection of Mamalahoa Highway and Kaloko Drive. Fire Department: These comments are provisions of the fire code. The applicant will comply with ail provisions of this code. If you or your staff require additional information or have any questions, please contact me directly. Y J v� y Gregory R. ooers President GRM:sp copy: Office of Housing and Community Development Police Department Fire Department Es6Hn nT _ t�l PHONE: (808) 885-6839 FAX: (808) 885 -1574 EMAIL: GMOOERS @IBM.NET P• 4 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT March 3, 2000 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of MORTON ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS was called to order at 9:04 a.m. in the Kona Surf Hotel, Kamehameha Ballroom, 78 -128 Ehukai Street, Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Richard Baker presiding. PRESENT: Richard Baker, Jr. Earl Fujikawa Geraldine Giffin Florence Kubota Mildred Mosher James Souza Francis Smith Grant Togashi Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Eleanor Mirikitani, Staff Planner Pam Harlow, Staff Planner ABSENT & EXCUSED: Robert Yanabu, Public Works Fred Giannini, Deputy Corporation Counsel Glenn Ahuna representing Department of Water Supply And approximately 40 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: MORTON ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS - Application for a Change of Zone by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A -20a) to Agricultural (A -10a) for approximately 33.461 acres of land. The property is located in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision on the north side of Kaloko Drive and west side of Makahi Street at approximately the 3,200 -foot elevation, Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7- 3- 26:19. TANAK A: Onr first item on the agenda is the application of Morton Associates Holdings. It is an application for a change of zone by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A -20a) to Agricultural (A -10a) for approximately 33.461 acres of land MIRIKITANI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The application of Morton Associates Holdings is an application for a change of zone to change the district classification from Ag -20 to Agricultural -10 acres. The applicants are requesting an Agricultural -10 acre zone designation in order to subdivide the subject property into a total of three acres 1 C.- 702 ( 214) Pc, 1' 6 GOLDSTEIN: No. • • consisting of 10 -acres or larger. The applicants built two homes and an Ag shed on the subject property. If I could direct your attention to the site map, this area in red is the project site. MOSHER Eleanor, could you move that because we can't see. MIRIKITANI: Stand this way? MOSHER: No, I mean the podium. MIRIKITANI: Oh. MOSHER: Because we are unable to see the bulletin board. Yeah, thank you. MIRIKITANI: This area in red is the project site. This is Kaloko Drive, Hao Street. The property accesses off of Kaloko Drive. The smaller properties in the light green are Ag -20. PUBLIC: We can't see at all. Excuse me, we can't see. MIRIKITANI: I'm sorry. BAKER: This explanation right now is for the Commissioners, but if you want to -. PUBLIC: Does it not pertain to -? BAKER: If you want to come and you can stand on the side here. PUBLIC: Does it not pertain to all the people? BAKER: Yes, I understand. But if we're going to turn it that way, then the Commissioners cannot see it. And right now, the Commissioners have to, don't know the explanation from staff, an the staff would have to explain it. Later on, if we need to we can turn it that way, after the explanation, for the public to see it. MIRIKITANI: Mr. Chairman, the light shaded areas are Ag -20. This lighter, marker green are zoned Ag-1 fl Ag -7 bright green is Ag -`. As w go bower, this ?Lahr t blue is Ag -3a. This is Mamalahoa Highway. BAKER: Commissioners, any questions? Oh, she's not done? 2 a g BAKER: Okay. so • MIRIKITANI: And if you will go to the site map here, this is Makahi Street, Kaloko Drive. These little squares with the black are the houses that are there right now. And this little tiny one here is the Ag shed. There are two accesses presently onto the property. One takes access from the lower part of Kaloko Drive and it goes up to this house here. This ones takes their access off Kaloko Drive, right about the middle of the property. The staff's background and recommendation have been prepared and distributed to you with the corresponding supportive documents that have been prepared by the applicant and its representatives. Upon reviewing the information that has been prepared for this application, the Planning Director is recommending this change of zone be given a favorable recommendation and forwarded to the County Council. If I could, for your information, turn to page 5 on your background report, on Public Utilities and Services, No. 23, Roads. On the fourth line down, it says there is approximately $133,550 collected. We recalculated our figures out. As of February 23` there was $133,550, plus on February 29 there was an additional $152,160.70, for a total of $229,117. Mr. Chairman. BAKER: Mosher, Okay. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Commissioner MOSHER: Does that include the additional $48,000 that was appropriated by Ordinance No. 94 -92? MIRIKITANI: That is correct, it includes the $48,000. MOSHER: So that is the total amount in that account now? MIRIKITANI: It's two two nine, one one seven, which includes the $48,000. BAKER: Commissioner Giffin. Ulf FIN: Eleanor, maybe 1 missed this part of your presentation, and 1 apologize if I did, but that little Ag shed that's on the top part of the property - ? Noy TIC TT ANT: Yes. GIFFIN: Did you say where the entrance to that -? MIRIKITANI: The access is off Makahi Street. 3 e• • GIFFIN: I see, okay. Thank you. MIRIKITANI: There is presently a little garage pad, but it's not used right now at this time. GIFFIN: Thank you. MOSHER I have a question. BAKER: Commissioner Mosher, go ahead. MOSHER: Are three access, are these permitted accesses to the property, or don't you need permits to get onto the property, driveway -wise? MIRIKITANI: At the time these houses were built, the Department of Public Works Engineering Division approved the driveway accesses. MOSHER: Those were to the two homes? MIRIKITANI: That's correct. MOSHER: Not the garden shed? MIRIKITANI: And to the garden shed, as well, I suppose. I'm sure that the Department of Works also allowed the access off Makahi Street because there is a garage back there now. BAKER: Any further questions from staff? Hearing none, will the applicants and its representatives please come forward. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that you will testify truthfully before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? MOOERS: I do. BAKER: Please give us your name and your address. Did you get the hackgrotutd report and the recommendations? MOOERS: My name is Gregory Mooers. I am a planning consultant/agent for the owner, Ron Morton, Morton Associates. My address is P. O. Box 1101, Kamuela, Hawaii. We did receive the background report and recommendations. BAKER: Please, can you give us an -. MOOERS: Yes. 4 e BAKER: Explanation on the -. MOOERS: Morton Associates Holding is a family trust that is held by Mr. Ron Morton for his children; and his goal is, at some point in the future, to create three lots for his children. This proposed subdivision is consistent with the Council's Ordinance 58 -97, which identifies the zonings that the County Council would like to see at the various elevations of Kaloko Mauka; and for this area, that recommended density is Ag -10. The property was developed by a previous owner who built the first home and the garden shed and, at that time, had cleared the property substantially of the native forest. When Mr. Morton acquired the property, he has since reforested in conjunction with the State tree nursery and has planted a number of koa trees and tsuji pines, and later built his home on the, the middle home that accesses off the bottom of Kaloko. In regard to the accesses, all the access points were permitted by the Department of Public Works at the times the homes were constructed. The applicant has reviewed the background report and recommendation and is in agreement with the Department's recommendations. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Commissioners may have. BAKER: question? MOSHER: Another question -. BAKER: Go ahead. e Okay. Commissioners? Commissioner Mosher, you have a MOSHER: Is the elevation 3,200 or 3,400? I see we said, the Planning Department says 3,200, and somewhere I read, oh, with the Historic Preservation letter, they said it was a 3,400 foot elevation. MOOERS: I believe it's 3,200; there's a topo map in the application. MOSHER: I couldn't read that. MOOERS: Yeah. MOSHER: I couldn't read the numbers. MOOERS: The property, the 3,000 -foot elevation runs right through the bottom portion of the property, just below the houses, so it probably varies from about 2,900 to about 3,100. But the 3,000 -foot elevation line passes right through the middle of the property. 5 4 • • MOSHER: That I have. The, I read the Resolution 58 -97 as calling for two dwellings per, is this on, two dwellings for 20 acres. BAKER: Yeah. MOSHER: Does this mean that one lot will have no dwelling? MOOERS: This is a 30 -acre lot, so that -. MOSHER: Yeah, but is this -? MOOERS: The two acres per 20 is interpreted to mean a density of Ag -10. So my interpretation from staff and Council, when I asked that question, was that they would, if you have a 30 -acre lot, that they would, the density would still be one per ten or two per 20 or three for 30, and that was the intent of the resolution. MOSHER: Oh, that was the intent. So it wasn't written in good English. MOOERS: Well, that -. MOSHER: Instead of saying one per ten, it said two per twenty, so I was -. MOOERS: At that time, most of the lots, most of the lots in the subdivision are 20 -acre lots, so I think that was the intention. The density was, is one per ten. Below that, it's Ag -5, and then below that -. MOSHER: Okay. MOOERS: It's Ag -3. MOSHER: So that was the intent? MOOERS: That's correct. MOSHER: Okay. BAKER: Commissioner Souza, you had a question! SOUZA: I'll wait for -. BAKER: Okay. SOUZA: Testimony. 6 • so BAKER: Okay. Any, Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant? If not, then from the public wishing to testify, could you please come forward. There's none? Okay. Commissioner Souza, would you like to ask your question at this time? SOUZA: Did you say there's no public testimony? BAKER: No one came forward. SOUZA: I am, this is, if I recall, the third subdivision request from this subdivision that came before the Planning Commission while I served on it; and for the third time, there are concerns from the Department of Transportation on the intersection, the same concerns, as I recall. And I recall, at the last meeting, I said that unless those concerns were taken care of, that I couldn't support the additional subdivisions in Kaloko Subdivision. On page 5, the Police Department, page 5, the Police Department also writes of their opposition to additional subdivision at that subdivision. And then it says, "If all these applications are approved, this subdivision could contain three to four times more subdivision lots than were originally planned for. In this light, it is our opinion that the roads are not adequate to handle the traffic that would result should all of these applications for zoning be approved." Also, the indication I get from this statement is that there may be additional applications for that subdivision, and maybe staff can answer if there are any other applications pending for this subdivision that hasn't, is being processed now. MIRIKITANI: At this very moment, there are no applications for this subdivision. SOUZA: Okay, that clarifies it for the Police Department. But the Police Department has those concerns. Department of Transportation, in Exhibit E, says without, it doesn't say should, it says, "The intersection must be improved due to the cumulative impact of these land use changes." And it says what's wrong with the intersection. Also, I see that there is a impact fee fund that we have set aside of $200, what was that figure? MTRTKTTANT: Two hundred twenty -nine thousand, SOUZA: Two hundred twenty -nine thousand dollars to improve this intersection. And I really believe that something, as I said, this is the third time, somethmfc_z should start rolling or some assurances be given that that impact fee., in fact, can be used very shortly, not three or five years down the road until more subdivisions come in, but now to improve the highway. Also, on the Exhibit F, from the United States Department of Agriculture, it's a correction to say that the, there's an error on soil classification. Soils are classified as 7 $ • other important agricultural land and not unique, as, that was on the application. And, again, if you read that letter, I'm not sure that Mr. Mooers gave us the right correction, I'm sure he gave it right as his perception. But according to the United States Department of Agriculture, that if we do approve this subdivision, that we would not be following the intent of the Resolution 58 -97. So unless somebody comes forward and give me some assurances that something's going to be done with the intersection and the traffic, the inadequacy of the road, I'm sorry but I cannot support this application. Because, as I said, this is the third time something has come up from this subdivision. And in the past, there is always, "Well, let's do this one. We have the impact fee." But nothing has happened. Nobody is here to say that we're ever going to even use that impact fee. So unless somebody can say something differently, I'm sorry, I just cannot support this application. BAKER: Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: I'm not sure if the applicant wanted to address some of those concerns first before I ask my question or, we seem to be full of questions this morning. Go ahead. MOOERS: BAKER: Yeah -. Maybe you can help us, Mr. Mooers, by -. MOOERS: Yeah, I would like to address the issue of the traffic. I don't think there has been any question by any of the applicants that have applied for subdivision that there is a need to improve that intersection. That's been stipulated, I believe, in every application that has come before this Commission. I think the other thing that should be considered is that there are a number of change of zone applications that have been processed in which the impact fees, I believe, have not yet been connected , or collected, because they have not filed subdivision applications. So the amount of money that is available may, in fact, far exceed the $229,000 that is presently in that account. T share ynnr c oncern f the fact that there seems to have beer nn action or the part of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transportation to develop a strategy in which to implement improvements to that intersection. I think it's an unusual situation in which you have the County of Hawaii collecting funds for an improvement on a State highway. And I thinly [here should he some coordination between those two departments to determine when and how that, those improvements will be engineered and then, in fact, installed. I think the applicants have, in all good faith, agreed to pay an impact fee that really far exceeds anything that's being done. Policy -wise, there are no other agricultural 8 to 4 • • subdivisions that are assessed an impact - related fee. So the subdivision, in this case, is paying $7,500 per additional lot that all other Ag subdivisions do not pay. I would be happy to work with the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transportation, to find out and develop a strategy on how that could be done. But the reality is is that the applicants, as they come forward, are paying their fair share for these improvements. And in some minds, maybe they're paying more than their fair share because we're collecting $7,500, which should be for a full array of impact related services, and that that money is being directed toward one particular account. So I believe that it's a very rational and appropriate way to address the needs for that intersection. Because, quite frankly, given the needs in West Hawaii for other roadway improvements, if we're waiting for funding to come from the County's fees, I don't believe that this subdivision is anywhere near as perilous as a number of other subdivisions. And I think that's the problem. So I think there's money being generated, there's money there; and I think there needs to be a strategy to develop it, and I would agree with that. I don't think, I would hope that you would not think that it's this applicant's responsibility to build those improvements. I think this applicant is proposing to pay his fair share, and probably in excess of a fair share towards those improvements, and the monies are being collected. And, as I say, I share your concern for the fact that there isn't, at present, strategy to develop the improvements for that intersection. GIFFIN: BAKER: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Giffin, yeah. GIFFIN: I appreciate the concern; and I think that what Commissioner Souza and you were both saying reflects the whole Commission's attitude towards this whole problem. I think I want to ask, staff, how do we go about initiating the utilization of this whole impact fee towards improving that intersection? GOLDSTEIN: Do you want me to go -? T.4TRTTCTTA,NT• Y GOLDSTEIN: I think they're (microphone chords) all short. <MFN` They have,, its on a short i ash today GOLDSTEIN: Yeah. This is an unusual situation. It is true that it is the County that is imposing the impact fee and also collecting it. As Mr. Mooers has said, we collect, the imposition is placed at the time of the rezoning, nevertheless, it is collected when the subdivision actually gets finalized. We have been collecting the monies. 9 v 6- • so Now in terms of expending those funds, again, because this is also, this is a State highway and, therefore, the monies will have to be expended by the State. What will happen would be that we would initiate it as a project request, the DOT to initiate the improvements, and then, essentially, turn over the funds to them. It is, also, I believe if we do it that way, it may be also eligible for matching federal monies so that, I think, the monies can go a long way. We have tried to get it on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Project list and, so far, we have not really been successful in getting it on the top of the list for this Island. I think it might be helpful if you want to also maybe submit your request to the Department of Transportation that they also take a look at using this money and putting in the improvements. BAKER: Commissioner Souza. SOUZA: Mr. Chairman, even if we don't talk about the impact fee, even if we don't talk about using the monies because it's insufficient or whatever reason of the impact fee, the fact remains that the intersection is bad The fact remains that when the State highway put that intersection, they didn't anticipate the kind of growth up there which is creating a problem now. Now whether it's the impact fee that will correct the intersection problem and traffic or whether it's going to be the State Highway Fund, and I think the State Highway Fund, in my opinion, has the first responsibility -. But no matter what, unless that intersection is fixed -. It's obvious that both the Police Department and the Department of Transportation said the intersection is not right for continued growth in that subdivision. So even if you remove the impact fee, it doesn't change the fact that the intersection is bad BAKER: That is correct. And maybe Mr. Moore, have you, in your discussion with the proper agencies, have any time zone as far as when they're going to do that, if there was any discussion of that? MOOERS: I've had no indication from either Department of Transportation or Department of Public Works of what their time frame might be for improvements. I think the, if you read the comments from the Police Department, they are anticipating if every lot in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision were developed or rezoned, that it would increase the density by three to four times. I don't believe that has been the case, as yet; -Ind there have been ?. number of rezonings. I think. 1 wou ld like t see, a t some point, maybe a tally of the number of pending rezonings and the amount of money that might be available if those subdivisions actually did occur, because there are a number of lots. For example, in this ordinance, the proposal is that final subdivision approval shall be secured iii five years, so potentially there's a five -year lag of projects up there. 1' s,e pesonaliy been involved with two other rezonings in the area, and neither one of those have resulted in the creation of any additional lots as of yet. I think the appropriate action is to try to determine what could be done to initiate action between DOT and Department of Public Works so they can come up with a maybe 10 • so initially an illumination plan. Eventually, they've got, yeah, but I don't think anybody has even designed what it is that they see as a long -term solution here. I have never heard signalization. So my assumption is that they're talking about channelizing the intersection and illuminating it, but, which would increase the sight distance and avoid some of the problems that are perceived there. And I think that's appropriate. But I don't think there is, I don't think the Department of Transportation, and if you read their comments, I think they're very clear that they're not going to initiate anything on their own part to do that. So maybe there needs to be some cooperation between the Department of Public Works, who will have the ability to get at the funds, to initiate a dialogue so we can at least design this sub -, the intersection so we have some idea what the total costs would be. Because right now, I think, it's all speculation as to, you know, what the costs would be. So we don't know if the funds are adequate or inadequate. BAKER: Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: In that regard, then, Mr. Mooers, would you be willing to initiate that kind of dialogue with those departments that you just mentioned and going ahead and getting it rolling so that concerns like what Commissioner Souza has could be met? MOOERS: I'd be happy to initiate a letter but, quite frankly, I don't think they are too concerned with what Greg Mooers think. I think they'd be far more concerned with what the Hawaii County Planning Commission thinks, or the Planning Department, or the Department of Public Works. I'm a private citizen, and I'm not quite sure it's, I have any authority to initiate any action. I'm happy to be involved, I'm happy to write letters but, quite frankly, I think they would fall on deaf ears. GIFFIN: I appreciate that. And I think maybe concurrently if we could "do, as a matter of course, a condition for our Commission to recommend that there be immediate, you know, discussion and steps taken to begin utilizing the improvement for that intersection, utilizing the impact fees. BAKER: Commissioner Togashi. TOGASHI: I just wanted to add a comment that I think the onus should be on the County Cc moil. Because in v i e w of the fact that we're going to, we are proposing either a no or a yes recommendation to the Council today, that the onus should tall not on perhaps Greg Mooers but on the County Council. rTTFFIN T agree. 1. agree. BAKER: So as we have heard, the recommendation would be that we do set up a condition, and it be recommended to the County Council to look into establishing that as a guideline on working on that intersection. And I think, Mr. Souza, would that be all right as a condition? 11 e to • SOUZA: I cannot agree to that. I, you know, that's just passing the buck . from here to there, in my opinion. I'm not, I cannot approve going along with approval of this subdivision request because, to me, unless we refuse it, nothing will happen. I think by us refusing this request, both the applicant now and further applicants will probably have to put pressure to see the intersection repaired. But I, by just putting it, our request to the County Council is purely a statement. It has no effect of law or legislation or anything, it's just a statement. What good would that do? BAKER: Mr. Mooers? MOOERS: Yeah, I'd just like to make one more comment These applicants, as with other applicants in this Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, have applied for various land use changes based on policies that were established by the County, by the County Council and implemented by the Planning Department. And these applicants have continued to work in conjunction and compliance with those land use plans. They have willingly agreed to pay impact- related fees when other subdivisions have not. I think it would be highly unfair to deny this applicant's request based on the inability of government agencies to coordinate when the funds have been allocated by the individuals and the money has been placed there. The amount of the funds have been determined by the County Council, and in conjunction with the Planning Department. So the applicants, I think, have been doing their part. And I think to place blame on an applicant for complying with a resolution that is very clear -. And I would disagree with the Department of Agriculture, because this is the recommendation that was given from the Planning Department, as three lots in a 30 -acre lot is in compliance with this resolution. So I think the applicant is complying with the law, is committing to the same sorts of conditions that have been applied on other rezonings in the area; and this applicant should not be denied his request based on the inability of two government agencies to figure out how to spend the money that's being collected. And that's my opinion. BAKER: Commissioner Souza. SOUZA: I'd like to respond to that by saying that, you know, the request for a rezoning is why the Planning Commission is here. We look at all the circumstances and then either approve or disapprove. Now, again, remember that the subdivision was planned, at that time. to accommodate a certain amount of lots and houses; that was the vision at that time. Sure, we are having a different vision now, different needs, but the fact that because of these additional needs, the road becomes a hazard, does not mean we have to grant the request. Now I agree with you that the State may have the responsibility to do something as the subdivision grows. But should we allow the subdivision to grow before the infrastructure is in place? And I don't think so, in this case anyway. GIANNINI: Excuse me, if I could just -. 12 e • BAKER: Go ahead. GIANNINI: Clarify a little terminology. I just want to remind everybody who's speaking of approving or disapproving the rezoning, actually it's a favorable or unfavorable recommendation. The ultimate decision on approval or disapproval is with the County Council. BAKER: Okay. And that's what I had wanted to touch on when Commissioner Souza said that, you know, we're passing the buck. There are certain conditions that we, or zonings that we take care of as Commissioners, and there are certain zonings that we forward to the County Council. And this one here before us, a change of zoning for this application is going to be forwarded to the County Council. So, in light of our concerns, and this is why I had made a reference that we should address to the County Council these concerns that are being brought up, very good, some good points are being brought up here. And we should bring this up to the County Council so that when they take a look at this and they make the final, that they can be aware of our concerns that we saw. And I think Commissioner Giffin had something to add to that. GIFFIN: I do. I would like to ask staff to please have a letter sent from our Commission to the Hawaii County Council and the Department of Transportation and our County Public Works to address the utilization of the unified impact fees for this particular intersection, raising those concerns from what Commissioner Souza said, and I'm sure many of us here also on the Commission, and asking them to please begin immediately with this kind of dialogue and real concrete utilization of that fee for that particular intersection. MIRIKITANI: We'll be sending out a letter for Mr. Baker's signature after the hearing is finished. GIFFIN: Thank you. BAKER: Any other questions from the other Commissioners? Commissioner Mosher. MOSHER_: 1 tend to agree with Jirnmv in his looking. into this request for subdivision. It bothers me because money is going to be collected and collected and collected, and I think there has to be a time where someone is going to have to take the flak. This is a very hard Commission to serve on. But someone is going to have to either not r.w.nmmend, and then he written about in the newspaper, or vice versa - And T lust think that if we don't send a favorable recommendation to the Council, then everyone can go to the County Council and see if they can get the Council to approve the request for subdivision. But I just get so tired of the requests for these kinds of subdivisions going against the Department of Transportation and knowing how dangerous that intersection 13 e 0 is. Many of the other intersections going into the hotels can be dangerous. So I don't think I'll be able to vote and recommend this subdivision. GIANNINI: Okay. Again, I just wanted to clear up the terminology. She referred to a request for subdivision. MOSHER: Not a -. GIANNINI: It's a, they're trying to -. MOSHER: The recommendation. GIANNINI: Rezoning. MOSHER: Rezoning. GIANNINI: There has been no request for an actual subdivision at this time. MOSHER: Right, rezoning. GIANNINI: It's for a rezoning. MOSHER: Yeah, I'm sorry, it is a rezoning. KUBOTA: Mr. Chairman? BAKER: Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA: I find it difficult, coming from the other perspective, because as Mr. Mooers suggested, or suggested, this applicant has followed all the rules and regs that we put forth on applicants. And I understand that that intersection is a very hazardous one, and I understand the Department of Transportation's concern also. However, we come back to the question of fairness. Do we have, are we being fair to the applicant, denying the request, when the departments, I mean the departments of the State and the County, maybe not the County but the State, is defunct? I mean, it's not the applicant's responsibility to pet the infrastructure there, it's the State's responsibility to get it there, and yet we're -. PUBLIC: No, no, no. KUBOTA: Well, excuse me, that's -. BAKER: Excuse me. KUBOTA: My opinion. 14 9 & BAKER: out of order. PUBLIC: • Excuse me. Please do not interrupt the Commissioners. You're No. KUBOTA: So I just feel very uncomfortable about having the rules and regs there and having the applicants follow it and then say, no, you can't have it. BAKER: Commissioner, Planning Director Goldstein. GOLDSTEIN: I'd like to comment on this question on the collection of the fees and putting in the, actually putting in the improvements. I think that the Council, in the past and through the years, beginning with the first proposed subdivision and change of zone, recognized that there was a problem with the intersection and, therefore, established through the change of zone process, an impact fee; not for original road improvements, but it was specific to this particular intersection. All the monies that are being collected by all of the changes of zone don't go, they aren't being collected for the improvements to Palani Road, or Queen Kaahumanu, or any of these other roads in the region but specifically only for that intersection. We are keeping that money aside, we are, in a fund that will go towards the improvements there. Nevertheless, it is still the responsibility of DOT to actually come out and say, okay, we're going to go ahead with this particular improvement. And, so far, we haven't been able to really get them to really come forward with, even in spite of their own concerns, to come out and say, okay, we will take this money, we will expend it, and perhaps match it and make the improvements. I think it is, in this particular case, it is the responsibility of a government agency to do something, because we've been, the private guys, having put, have been putting up monies for this improvement. BAKER: So what we need to do is find out how we can get the DOT to get moving. Mr. Mooers. MOOERS: I'd just like to make a couple of comments, address maybe some of the groans from the audience. The whole issue of development and impacts related to development is exactly why the County Council developed impact related fees. That's why this applicant and other applicants have been assessed fees, and that's why they're paying fees. And it seems to me to be grossly unfair to ask an applicant to pay for the proposed impacts of his project, to put money up and say, okay, here's my share for the impact to this intersection, and then say, well, we're not going to let you have it, or we're not going to do it beca,nse we didn't spend the money to do the intersection, And I think that the whole idea of creating impact related fees was to create a fair situation where government agencies could look at a proposed development, whether it be two additional lots, as in this case, or 150 additional lots, is to assess a fee that was fairly determined to address the impacts that that development would create for this community. This applicant has agreed with the government agencies to pay that impact - related fee to 15 o ' 8 address the impacts of these two additional lots. I would propose that the applicant has met the challenge by government, where government has said this is the cost of your development impact on our community, you owe us an additional $15,000. And this applicant has said, fine, I will pay the $15,000. BAKER: And I kind of agree with what you are saying as far as a Commissioner because I think -. And that's why I believe that our letter to the Council will give them the authority to go ahead and work on getting the DOT to get something going. Because all we can ask is the applicants to meet their fair share and burden, which is what the fees are intended for. And then if the improvements have got to be made, the DOT has to get into the line of trying to make the improvements. And so this is why the County Council needs to very, take a serious look at the situation that is at hand. MOOERS: I might add one other point. I understand Commissioner Souza's and Commissioner Mosher's concerns. I would point out, as Corporation Counsel did, this is not a request for subdivision, this is a request for change of zone that's appropriate with all land use plans developed by both the State and the County. The applicant is in no real hurry to subdivide this property, because this is a family trust to create lots for his family. If the Commission is so concerned with the status and subdivision of that intersection at this time, this applicant would be happy to agree to a terminology in the ordinance that would not allow subdivision of the property based on the zoning until such time as a strategy is developed for the improvement of that intersection. But I think it's appropriate to say this is the appropriate zoning for the property, it's consistent with the regional plan, it's consistent with the General Plan, it's consistent with the County Council's ordinances that have established these things. Now, if you want to establish some sort of criteria, a performance criteria by the Department of Transportation or the Department of Public Works prior to subdivision, then that would be fine. Because that would be prior, because my, the applicant will not be paying his impact related fees until final subdivision approval. And I'm sure you can say, Mr. Souza, I don't want to see us create a more dangerous situation. But I believe this applicant is doing everything that they can in their power to comply with government policies, not only related to the land use but also to the proposed improvements. BAKER: Is there anyone in the public wishing to discuss or give input on this issue? Okay, hearing -. Please come forward and give your name. Can I swear you in. Please raise ',Tollr ri ht hand. Do you ;`}wear or ?f{irm that you \ *✓'.11 testify trutl'f'.11I`, before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? PISICCHIO: I do. • es BAKER: Your name and address, please. PISICCHIO: My name is Nancy Pisicchio. My address is 78 -7240 Kuakini Highway, Kailua -Kona. 16 o • • I'd just like to make some general observations. I think the Planning Commission's role, recommending or not recommending approval to the Council, and also the Council's job in approving zoning or not approving zoning, is a combination of factors that have to be weighed. I think that we have, for too many years, viewed our roles, the Planning Commission and the Council, as to facilitate approvals; that's my personal opinion, that just, there's just an underlying assumption that that is primarily the purpose of these bodies, is to facilitate approvals. But I think the primary role is to analyze the overall health, welfare, and safety of the community. You get to a point where we're so far behind in infrastructure deficit that just maybe one applicant examining that spot zoning or that spot request -. Maybe, yes, they are following all the rules; but that, in itself, isn't the reason to force you folks to recommend favorable approval to the Council. You have to take the whole picture into account. You know, maybe we're so far behind in infrastructure, hey, enough is enough. Maybe these guys came along at the wrong place and the wrong time. But, you know, taking the whole bigger picture of the planning deficit into consideration, you are passing the buck if you say, well, these folks are following all the rules, so because of that, we're going to recommend a favorable opinion to the Council. I think it would be -. Obviously, this is a concern even to you folks that there is a problem in that area. And I think it would be much more prudent on your part to recommend a negative to the Council and send a message to the Council, send a message to the State Department of Transportation that there's a big problem here. You're just making a recommendation, you're not actually approving or disapproving the zoning. But we have to start sending clear messages that there are bigger pictures besides a particular application. What is going on all around it, you know? And Kona is, as everyone knows, is growing very quickly, and we're in a huge infrastructure deficit. I, personally, feel like the current impact fee process is obviously not addressing the needs for the community health, welfare, and safety regarding the infrastructure. And that's my general observation Thank you very much. BAKER: Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: I just have a question of the Councilwoman. What's your general take, then, in terms of how you're going to vote on this issue? PISICCHIO: I, to be completely honest, from what I'm hearing today, I will probably oppose it but by the ti it goes from here to the Council. I have to 'lo my research. But at this point, based on what Fm learning, 1 will not approve the rezoning. I have another, it's interesting, this is another aside, but this is a very small request -. But it seems to me that enorIl requests, maybe involving a thousand units, which are going to have a far greater impact on the community, seem to go through recommendations, approval recommendations getting far less debate. I think that's sort of interesting. Maybe it's enough is enough. Maybe we're finally coming to that point. I hope so. 17 0 0 • • BAKER: Commissioner Togashi. TOGASHI: I don't want to be putting words into the mouths of Commissioners Souza and Mosher. But getting back to that letter that we're asking staff to prepare as far as our thoughts to the County Council, I'm not sure if both -. It seems as if Commissioners Souza and Mosher would like perhaps a strongly, more strongly worded letter, and perhaps involving the M word, which is moratorium. BAKER: Commissioner Souza? SOUZA: I feel strongly that we should take a position one way or the other. I certainly would agree with Mr. Mooers that if we were to put a condition that there will be no building on the property until the intersection is fixed, I can buy that. Because my concern, I have nothing -. I feel for Mr. Mooers and his client, too, you know. The government set up in the impact fees for a purpose, they're willing to pay, and now they cannot do it. But my concern is, you know, every time we have an application, we send out all these letters to the different State agencies and County agencies asking them for their opinion. They're supposed to be the experts. And as I said, in the Department of Transportation, that's the third time they said that intersection is dangerous. And so, you know, I feel that we should give some weight to the answers that we get back from these departments and agencies. And because the intersection and the road condition is my main concern, I'd certainly go along with Mr. Mooers' suggestion that zoning be approved but the condition be added on that you cannot build until the intersection is repaired. BAKER: Mr. Mooers, can you clarify, before we go further, is that what you said or did we misunderstand you? MOOERS: My statement was not until the intersection was built but until some resolution could be made that satisfied the agencies. I would point out that this proposed action, that the maximum additional dwelling unit that could be added is one. This applicant is not opposed to the condition that I had proposed before, which is that no subdivision of this property be allowed until such time, and I'm not quite sure what the trigger is, but until somebody, whether it's DOT or Public Works or the Planning Department, in most of the cases it's the Planning Department, is satisfied that the issue, the intersection issue is addressed as to who's going to engineer it, who's going to improve it, how much it's going to cost, and when it's going to be done. So we're not opposed to the condition. I would like to see some wording based on that. And perhaps between, if we do get a favorable recommendation on the change of zone, it's that, that's something that can be resolved with the Planning Department prior to it appearing on the Council agenda so that the concerns that Council Member Pisicchio raised are addressed. I think that there are two different issues. The change of zone, we're talking about what is the appropriate land use for this area. And the subdivision, which is the time at which 18 0 0 • • the impact related fees are paid, is the time at which the impacts are, in fact, enhanced, is when an additional family moves into this area. So I think that there are two separate issues. And I think that the change of zone should go forward with a favorable recommendation because it is consistent with all of the land use plans developed by the community and by the government's departments involved. We're talking about an infrastructural concern that this applicant is willing to pay his fair share for. The question becomes is when does that impact take place? And that impact takes place at the time that the additional dwelling unit is added and that family moves in. So I would propose that if there is a criteria to address your concern, that it be placed at the time of final subdivision approval. Perhaps the Planning Director can have some ideas on how that might be worded. BAKER: Planning Director Goldstein. You want to go ahead first? SOUZA: Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest that unless there is any other testimony from the public, that maybe we call a five - minute recess or ten - minute recess and work on some wording to that. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. Okay, that's fine. BAKER: Okay. SOUZA: I so move. GIFFIN: I second. SOUZA: Oh, first of all, there is somebody from the public, so maybe we should hear them first. BAKER: Okay. Hang on. Commissioner Mosher, I saw her and she wanted to say something, and then we'll take public testimony. MOSHER: I just wanted to clarify, I understood you to say, Greg, that your client would be agreeable to include a condition that no subdivision shall take place until the intersection is improved. Is it improved or -? MOOERS: I hat's - . MOSHER: Plans for the improvement? MOOERS: Well, that's the point that I'd like to try to work out with the -. MOSHER: I mean, there is a difference. MOOERS: Oh, big difference, and that's -. 19 0 I MOSHER: Real big difference. • MOOERS: That's what I'd like to see what the, we can come up with some language that addresses everybody's concerns. BAKER: So that's what you would do during the recess, if we take a recess, that you would be working some kind of language? MOOERS: Yes. BAKER: Okay. But anything further for you? MOSHER: No, I would be agreeable to -. BAKER: Okay. MOSHER: The intersection being improved, because improved and to be improved, there could be -. FUJIKAWA: Right. BAKER: Right. MOSHER: A lapse of ten years. BAKER: Right. Okay. Well, let's see what, we have testimony from the public. Please come forward, sir. Please raise your right hand. Ma'am, is there anyone else, anyone else that wants to come forward? Ma'am, please come forward. Let me swear you all in at one time. Anyone else want to testify? Please have a seat, ma'am. Please raise, excuse me. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that you will testify truthfully before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: 1 do. BAKER: Okay Sir, give ynnr name and your address, LAWSON: My name is Tom Lawson. I live in Kona Scenic, Kealakekua. And my Post Office Box is 614, Kealakekua, 96750. Today I'd like to talk a little about this project here, and it is a very small project done by a good neighbor, who seems to be a responsible person for the community; and he is willing to do these concessions in order to get this intersection pushed forward. This is almost like a classic example of the developer wanting to do something for the 20 0 •• • • • community and for his family and yet the government agencies are holding him back. Now this is, he is a good corporate person and association. But let's get into some of these bigger corporations who don't have this good neighbor and aloha spirit for Kona. They're here to make big money. They're investing a lot of money, and they expect to get good returns back, and they should. But at the same time, they should be able to put some of the infrastructure impacts and alleviate them before they get into these big projects. I live at Kona Scenic. This Oceanside 1250 is impacting our roads tremendously with heavy trucks and heavy dump, rear -end dump trucks. We've had to put a light in at the top of Haleki`i now. I call it the realtor light, because as you drive up to it, it immediately flashes green for the people coming up Haleki`i. It's great for the realtors, and it's great for us that live there. But this disrupts the traffic going along the main highway all the way to Ka`u. I'm concerned that this cumulative effect of all of these little divisions such as the, we're talking about today and the very, very big ones that we should be talking about for tomorrow, 11,000 homes going into the Kona area is going to impact this area very drastically. We need to get the developers and the County on the same side with the citizens of this County so that we aren't impacted by other people coming in here and trying to make money on subdivisions and big projects that are even bigger than subdivisions. BAKER: Sir, can -? LAWSON: Yes. BAKER: You stick to this -? LAWSON: Yeah. BAKER: Subject and give us either your -? LAWSON: Certainly. BAKER: You're speaking in favor of it or against it? Kind of -. LAWSON: Uh, 1 would -. BAKER: Confused -. LAWSON: I would say that we should put it off until later. This person is willing to defray or not, just to put off this development until this is resolved. And I'm more concerned about these other ones, that this cumulative effect is impacting the citizens of Kona very drastically. Thank you. 21 BAKER: STANBRO: Holualoa. • • Thank you. Ma'am, can you give us your name and address. Yes, good morning, my name is Sammie Stanbro, I live in I use the Palani - Mamalahoa junction almost daily, so I'm talking directly about the Kaloko area. I've talked numerous times to Curtis Tyler about Palani, and the general situation there, and also another one that will be coming up, the Lili`uokalani, later on today. Unfortunately, these meetings are when most people are working, so I wish I could have gotten to a meeting earlier. I feel, generally, the same as the Councilwoman that just spoke earlier. I am real concemed about Palani, that I've seen numerous accidents, I've seen a death. I know there's more that I didn't see at Kealakehe. This puts more, anything you do in Kaloko is putting more stress on this whole area that's not being addressed. HELCO will not do anything about the power lines, the power poles that are along Palani And as far as I'm concerned, a moratorium on anything that is happening anywhere near Palani is in order until the infrastructure is made safe for the children and for the people that live there. If you can imagine, the people that live on Palani, what this does to them. This gentleman that wants to subdivide, and you don't get a zoning change. I own six acres. You know, you don't go for zoning changes unless you're thinking of subdividing. And if he wants to go for a zoning change down the line, then that's something that can be considered down the line; but I don't think a zoning change at this time, until infrastructure is in place for Palani, in general. And I'm going to have to leave, but I think for the next, the Lili'uokalani situation, that is another problem on Palani. And if you could remember my words when they come up, because I won't be here. We're dealt with HELCO, they're putting a big substation on Henry Street. BAKER: Excuse me, ma'am. We cannot address that subject matter. STANBRO: Okay, I'm sorry. BAKER • We need to dierzss this matter STANBRO: It's just that I won't be able to be here. f;4I{ER nn er t nd, STANBRO: But that -. BAKER: I'm sorry that -. 22 o ' • • STANBRO: That's my concern, is -. BAKER: Yeah. STANBRO: Is generally the poor infrastructure of Palani. Something needs to be done. BAKER: Okay. STANBRO: Either the roads that are going down below Kealakehe or, you know, something needs to be done before anything can be built up around Palani. Thank you very much -. BAKER: Okay. STANBRO: For your time. BAKER: Planning Director Goldstein. GOLDSTEIN: Just for your information, since you won't be here for the other one, the Queen Liliuokalani Trust, that has been, they have asked for a continuance, so it will not be heard today. STANBRO: Oh, I see. Okay. Mahalo. BAKER: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners, for the -? Do you want me to call for the recess? Okay. We'll have a recess, ten minutes. RECESSED RECONVENED The Chairman called a short recess at 10:14 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:30 a.m. BAKER: The meeting of the Planning Commission will come back to order. Eleanor, can you give us what you came up with during the recess as far as the wording for the condition. MIRIKITANI: Final subdivision approval shall be effective upon the execution of a construction contract for the improvements of the intersection of Kaloko Drive and Mamalahoa Highway. GOLDSTEIN: And that would be added as another condition. MIRIKITANI: Condition, yes. MOSHER: Q -? 23 • . • • MIRIKITANI: Q. MOSHER: Is that it? BAKER: Any questions from the Commissioners? MOSHER: Read it again, I -. BAKER: Can you please repeat the condition? MIRIKITANI: This is a new condition, Condition Q. TOGASHI: P, P, right? BAKER: Q. TOGASHI: P? GIFFIN: No, M, N, 0, P, oh, P. TOGASHI: P. There is no -. BAKER: P, okay. TOGASHI: P. MIRIKITANI: Thank you. That's right, P. Thank you, Mr. Togashi. GIFFIN: Thank you, Grant. MIRIKITANI: Final subdivision approval shall be effective upon the execution of a construction contract for the improvements of the intersection of Kaloko Drive and Mamalahoa Highway. BAKER: Okay, everybody got that? Commissioner Souza. SOUZA: Mr. Chairman, if I'm in order at this point, I'd like to move that we include that as Condition P. BAKER: P or E? SOUZA: P as in Peter. BAKER: Peter, thank you. 24 GOLDSTEIN: Is there a -? GIFFIN: Oh, I second. • • BAKER: Okay. It has been moved and seconded that we put that as a Condition P. All in favor -? SOUZA: For a while -. BAKER. Waiting to just say all in favor. SOUZA: I was just going to say -. BAKER: Just take a voice vote. SOUZA: For I while I thought I never had friends. BAKER: Okay. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. BAKER: Opposed? MOSHER: No, I'm in favor. BAKER: Okay. MOSHER: But I have a question on -. BAKER: Sure. MOSHER: Condition K. BAKER: Go ahead. MOSHER: It says any portion of the subject property within five years. Doesn't that have to be changed? A fair share contribution shall become due and payable prior to final subdivision approval of any portion of the property or within five years from the effective date of this change of zone. BAKER: MOSHER: Whichever occurs first. Whichever occurs first. 25 • • GOLDSTEIN: That only means that they got to put their money up front. MOSHER: Okay. Okay. BAKER: Okay. Mr. Mooers. MOOERS: I have no problem with the Condition P. I do think then we're going to have to look at Condition C. BAKER: C. MOOERS: Which says final subdivision approval shall be secured from the Planning Director within five years from the effective date of this ordinance. I would propose that instead of saying five years from the effective date of this ordinance, I would say effective five years from the date of compliance with the Condition P. So once Condition P and that contract has been awarded, then the applicant would have five years to secure final subdivision approval. Because up until that time, he can make BAKER: He cannot -. MOOERS: Yeah, he cannot subdivide the property. GIANNINI: Makes sense. BAKER: That sounds sensible. Commissioners? Commissioner Mosher. MOSHER: Because it might take the State ten years. SMITH: Yeah. BAKER: Then he'd be waiting ten years. Any other questions? Any other discussion? Call for the question. Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: Mr Chairman, I move that a favorable recommendation for Change of Zone Application 99 -31 he forwarded to the Connty Council, KUBOTA: I second the motion. GOT,DSTBIN: With -. GIFFIN: Oh, I'm sorry. BAKER: With the conditions. 26 • • GIFFIN: With the conditions as was stated and with revised Condition No. C, and with the addition of Condition P. KUBOTA: I second the motion. BAKER: Okay. It has been moved by Commissioner Giffin and seconded by Commissioner Kubota and with the changes in the conditions and the addition. staff, take the roll call. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Smith? SMITH: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Mosher? MOSHER: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Souza? SOUZA: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Togashi? TOGASIIl: Ave. MIRIKITANI: Chairman Baker? BAKER: Aye, MIRIKITANI: Eight ayes; the motion has been carried. BAKER: Thank you. You will be getting the report in writing. 27 AP MOOERS: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 10:33 a.m. 28 • Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Planning Commission