Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-20 TTotah PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT January 20, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called JOHN TOTAH (REZ 05-021) to order at 3:00 p.m. at the Outrigger Keauhou Beach Resort, 78-6740 Alii Drive, Keauhou, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Allen Salavea Jeffrey McCall Rene€ Siracusa Hannah Springer Fred Galdones Chris Yuen, DeputyPlanning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: JOHN TOTAH (REZ 05-021) Change of Zone from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to an Agricultural 10-acre (A-10a) district for 21.474 acres of land. The property is located along the southwest side of Kaloko Drive, approximately 900 feet south of the Kaloko Drive  Haleamau Street intersection,Kaloko Mauka Subdivision,Kaloko,NorthKona,Hawaii,TMK:7-3-26:13. ALAMEDA:WilltheHawaiiCountyPlanningCommissionnowcomebackinorder. All right moving right along. New business. Agenda item number 4. Applicant John Totah. Rezoning05-021.Staff? HAYASHI:ThankyouMr.Chair,membersoftheCommission.Goodafternoon. Directing your attention to the overall location map. Thisis the Kaloka mauka subdivision and it€s laid out in this general configuration. This is the Hawaii, Mamalahoa Highway or Hawaii Belt Road, Highway 190 going in the Captain Cook direction and this would be towards the Waimea area, going towards the Palani Road intersection. Excuse me, the Waimea area. The Kaloko Drive is laid out in this general configuration. The subject property is indicated by this orange dot. It is located along the southeast side of Kaloko Drive and that€s at this particular location. Just for your information this red dot here is the next application, the Gesling application. The colors on the map indicate the various zoning districts. Within the Kaloko mauka subdivision you have several types of zoning in that area. The higher elevation areas are-. EXHIBIT C 1 Well the original zoning for the area was agricultural 20 acres for many of the lots and some of the lots are still zoned for agricultural 20 acres as indicated by these green shaded areas. There have been numerous rezonings in the area to agricultural 10 acres and this would be in this darker shaded blue areas. We also have areas zoned for agricultural 5 acre and these would the lighter green areas. We also have agricultural 3 acre zoning, which would be the lighter blue areas and even lighter blue area would be family agricultural 3-acre zoned lands. We have a agricultural 7-acre zoning at this particular location. The applicant intends to subdivide the property into 2 lots, 2 10-acre size lots in this general configuration. The lots would be laid out so that access for both lots would be from Kaloko Drive. There is an existing single family dwelling on one of the proposed lot and that€s indicated right here and that would be lot B. The property is at the elevation 3,400 feet and the general plan land use designation is important agricultural land. The property is heavily forested with ohia, tree fern and other vegetation. As I indicated earlier access is from Kaloko Drive which has an 80-foot right of way with a 20-foot wide pavement. Also water is available to the subject property. The Planning Director is recommendingapprovaloftherequestsubjecttoconditionsandthesearestandardconditions that are normally imposed for previous zone changes, agricultural 10-acre zone changes for this area. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Commissioners any questions for Mr. Hayashi? Seeing none will the applicant please step forward? Or its representative? Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? MOOERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Please state your name and address for the record and you may proceed. MOOERS:My name is Greg Mooers. I€m a planning consultant for the applicant. My address is P.O. Box 1101, Kamuela. ALAMEDA:Did you get a chance to review the Department€s report and recommendations? MOOERS:Yes I have. ALAMEDA:You have any problems with the conditions stated? MOOERS:No, these are the standard conditions applied in this area. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners do you have any questions for our applicant? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes, on page 7 of the recommendations it says no formal archaeological reconnaissance survey, oral history of kamaaina accounts of the area, historical survey of documentary records, or botanical study was included in the application. And then two bullets down it says according to the applicant there€s no evidence that the flora in the area are particularly desired or used for cultural practices. So I want to know if the applicant has any EXHIBIT C 2 background in botany or native plants that would make him an expert to be able to make such an unqualified statement? MOOERS:I do not believe that the applicant has a degree in Botany. I think is a conclusion that was drawn by many previous applications that have taken place in this area. I think there€s a recognition for the importance of the native forest and that the preservation of the forest is the purpose for the resolutions the Council passed supporting these change of zone applications. So in that regard I think it€s safe to say that the applicant recognizes the importance of the forest and the preservation of forests and the conditions that are applied that are designed to do that. SIRACUSA:Are you saying then that when the area was studied back in what 1970 or so that, that would have constituted the botanical study? MOOERS:IthinktheCouncil€sResolutionwere1996and1997.Ithinktherewas2 or 3 resolutions were passed and work was done at that time. So I would, the assumption that the forest is important has been stipulated to by the applicant. So I don€t recall there€s anything in our application itself that says that there€s no significant flaw there. I think that was the conclusion drawn by the staff. There was not an archaeological inventory survey done, nor has there been done for many. There was an original archaeological survey done for the area and they, I didn€t identify above the I think the 3500 foot level. And you have kind of a situation here where really in order to do an inventory survey you pretty much have to take the forest out to do the survey. And what we€ve done over the past number of years is to send a request to the State Historic Preservation Division asking them for a no effect letter. And up until about a year and a half ago they were issuing those letters now they€re not responding to the letters. I think it has to do with the amount of work or their workload whatever but they€re put on notice that we€re requesting this no effect letter and they, I think they started not coming about a year ago. There€s no response to those but they have always responded in the past that they don€t want an inventory survey done and that they understand that the initial work was done that identified you know the field system up till about 3500 feet was adequate. So we do make the request and I think you€ll find the request is part of the application that the Historic Preservation Division indicate there be no effect from the proposed action. SIRACUSA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners questions for our applicant, its representative? You have any other additional comments to make before we go ahead and accept public testimony? MOOERS:Not at this time. ALAMEDA:Thank you, you may be seated. There is a testifier. Mr. Joel Gimpel would you please step forward? Mr. Gimpel could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? GIMPEL:I do. EXHIBIT C 3 ALAMEDA:Thank you. Couldyou please state your name and address for the record. GIMPEL:Yes my name is Joel Gimpel, G-I-M-P-E-L and I live at 73-4686 Hina Lani Street in Kailua Kona. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Gimpel. Now everyone received a copy of your letter. Fellow Commissioners? GIMPEL:I had submitted, we have submitted a letter on behalf of the Kona Traffic Safety Committee and I have a testimony today I did staff one copy so I don€t think you all have that. The testimony adds to the letter a bit. We€ve reviewed this application for change of zone for approximately 21 acres that was filed by Mr. Totah. Along with that filed by Scott Gesling for a change of zone of over 23 acres also in Kaloko mauka to A-5a. And because both applications are on your agenda today and our comments and concerns apply to both with your permissionI€llsavesometimeandcommentonbothatthistime. ALAMEDA:FellowCommissionersanyobjectionstothat?VerygoodthankyouMr. Gimpel continue. GIMPEL:Thank you. Your consideration of both applications today is fortuitous because it highlights the cumulative of these rezonings in Kaloko mauka and signals the need to consider that cumulative effect. You€re probably aware that you and the County Council have reviewed and approved many Kaloko mauka-rezoning applications over the past several years. Including one filed by Donald Yim and approved by the Council earlier this month. And I should draw to your attention that the Planning Department has asked our committee to comment on yet another filed by Dennis Smith requesting rezoning of 22 acres to F-3a. Therefore if the 2 applications before you today and the third already filed are also approved, we€ll have 11 additional lots created this year alone accounting for between 44 and 88 vehicle trips per day trying to negotiate the steep grade on Kaloko Drive and the dangerous Kaloko Drive, Highway 190 intersection. And adding to the congestion on Palani Road that€s already pretty much a parking lot. In addition to that last year at this time you approved an application by a Mr. Glover as I recall and that was approved by the County Council in June of 1905 for yet another application of rezoning in Kaloka mauka. And there have been others. So those numbers don€t take into account the effect of the many other rezonings in the area that you and the Council have approved over the past several years. Or the trips that will be generated by additional ohana residences for each of these lots that you approve. The applicants have something else in common. All of them observe that rezoning will have minimal effect on traffic in the area and that the intersection of Kaloka Drive and Highway 190 needs to be improved. Accordingly they state that they€ll participate in new improvements. We agree improvements are needed because that intersection is unsafe with limited sight lines and the level of service is already poor. We applaud their attention to participate but we disagree with their assertion that rezoning will have minimal effect on traffic in the area. As we stated the cumulative effect of these and other recent rezonings and the pending applications will greatly effect traffic volume and safety in the area and cause a further deterioration in the already poor level of service at the Kaloko Drive, Highway 190 intersection. With respect to the applicant€s statement that they€ll participate in the improvement to that intersection we question what has happened to the fair share assessments EXHIBIT C 4 levied on and supposedly collected from the many other rezonings in Kaloko mauka that were intended to improve the intersection. We question what improvements if any areplanned for that intersection and when those improvements will be completed. We€ve learned that as of May 21, 2004, that€s nearly 2 years ago, the County has collected $316,353.38 but we believe that the community is entitled to an accounting of the funds collected to date and to report a progress or lack thereof toward improving the intersection. In other words how much money is in the fund, what will be done with it and when. In the meantime we urge caution in evaluating Kaloko mauka rezoning applications because their cumulative effect on traffic volume and safety can be devastating absent needed infrastructure improvements and they are needed. If any of you have driven on Kaloko Drive or Mamalahoa Highway going toward town in the morning you€re in trouble. You€ve got a lot of waiting. Thanks for your attention I€ll be happy to answer any questions you may have. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners questions? Commissioner Springer and then CommissionerSiracusa? SPRINGER:ThisisnottothetestifierbutrathertotheDirectorbasedonthetestifier€s testimony. I€m wondering if there is an accounting of the funds and if there€s a report on the progress toward improving the intersection. YUEN:I think Mr. Hayashi is prepared to answer that. HAYASHI:Thank you. As far as the amount of money that we had collected for that st improvement to that intersection as of December 31 of last year we have a cash of approximately $432,000.00. We recently received a draft copy of the improvements for, cost improvements for the intersection improvement and that was-. It was a letter from Leo Fleming, a engineer here in Kona, dated December 15, 2005 addressed to Mr. Yuen and also attention to Department of Public Works and the State Department of Transportation. And basically this, the letter indicated that studies were done for the intersection improvement. And based on the findings, the engineering study indicated that the most (inaudible) improvement at the intersectionwouldbetoincreasethesightdistancesbytrimmingtherockembankment.So basically it€s one to trim the southeast embankment, trim the northeast embankment, trim the northwestembankmentandtrimthesouthwestembankment.Alsothestudysuggestedthat turnout lanes shall be provided both on left turn lanes from Mamalahoa Highway or Hawaii Belt Road into Kaloko Drive and a left turn lane also from, excuse me, and also from Kaloko Drive to Mamalahoa Highway. The study also indicated that a right turn lane be provided from Kaloko Drive onto Hawaii Belt Road. Other improvements would be rock retaining walls due to the cut in bank along the main highway, I mean Highway 190 and I€m using this interchangeably. They also indicated that signage and striping would have to be redone. They also went beyond that and also indicated that a bus stop should be provided further towards the north along the Hawaii Belt Road for students that are being loaded and unloaded during school hours. And finally the landscaping along the, at the bus stop area. They also indicated that lighting should be increased in that particular intersection. So basically their conclusion was that this design analysis presents a defined low to mid cost solution for the improvements to the Mamalahoa Highway and Kaloko Drive intersection. And the cost that they provided estimated $339,200.00. So basically, and EXHIBIT C 5 this report is now under review by both the Department of Public Works and the State Department of Transportation. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Springer? Does that satisfy your question? SPRINGER:It does. ALAMEDA:I also want to acknowledge that Mr.Gimpel is on a time limit so if anybody has any questions directly for Mr. Gimpel I€m sure he€ll appreciate that. Other Commissioners? SIRACUSA:Okay well I want, first I wanted to say that if the cost estimate is $339,000 and $432,000 has already been received then money for the project is not the issue obviously. Mr. Gimpel were the improvements that Norman stated the ones that you had in mind that were needed.Ordidyouhaveanyotherimprovementsthathedidnotmentionthatyoufeelare important here? GIMPEL:Not being a traffic engineer I will preface my response with that comment. The other improvement that would be probably a mid to high level cost would be a traffic light at the intersection. As I understand it people coming down Kaloko Drive in the morning trying to get to work in downtown Kailua-Kona have a rather long wait at that intersection in order to turn onto Highway 190. A traffic light would probably reduce that wait somewhat. At least it would be from the flow I would imagine. SIRACUSA:How long is long? GIMPEL:10 to 15 minutes to negotiate it safely from what I understand because you have a lot of backed up traffic coming north on Highway 190 in the morning rush hour. ALAMEDA:Other questions for Mr. Gimpel? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Joel thanks. Thanks again for following this stuff closely and giving your testimony. I just, you did make mention I think when you were talking about the impact of the traffic of ohanas on these lots and it is one of the conditions in these rezonings that prohibition on second dwelling on this lot. So there€s, we€re not opening up ohanas. GIMPEL:That€s a second dwelling. You could have a large house with all members of one family in there so you have more than 2 cars per residence. GRAHAM:Right but not ohanas. Or maybe you meant ohana in a different way than what I was thinking. GIMPEL:I meant ohana in a different way. GRAHAM:Excuse me. EXHIBIT C 6 ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners questions for Mr. Gimpel? Seeing none I€d like to thank you for your testimony. GIMPEL:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Will the applicant please come back? Or its representative, Mr. Mooers? Hearing testimony and some of the discussion you have any additional comments or thoughts? MOOERS:Yeah, I would like to respond a little bit. ALAMEDA:Sure. MOOERS:I appreciate Mr. Gimpel€s comments as always he makes a strong case. Just to remind the Commission the resolutions that were grafted to support the change of zone to thisareareallydoonething,wellthey€redesignedtoonethingandthatistopreservetheforest. And because it, there are forest restriction conditions that are pretty stringent in these that restrict the amount of the land that can be used for other than forest activities. The second thing that has been a policy of the Council has been to collect funds for the intersection improvements at Kaloko. And repeatedly we hear from Department of Transportation and from the community that this intersection needs improvement and I think the applicants will always stipulate to the fact that yes it does. And yet for all the comments that come from the Department of Transportation this improvement has never appeared on their STIP program, you know the State Transportation Improvement Program. And I would suppose that they€re not being disingenuous when they make the comment that it€s not a safe intersection I think what they€re saying is that there are other intersections that may be in more dire need of attention. Am I getting louder or? Could happen. So I think the policy has been then is to collect funds from these change of zone applications and apply them towards that intersection and I think that has been the policy. I would have to say that I probably agree with Mr. Gimpel€s statement regarding the level of improvements and I would echo the sentiment that I think signalization should be pursued for 2 reasons. One is I think it will help alleviate the wait for the intersection and the second thing I think what it will do is it will provide a pulse and traffic along Mamalahoa Highway for driveways and other unsignalized intersections that will create gaps in traffic where other people who would then be allowed to get out onto the highway. I have not had the privilege of seeing the study done by Mr. Fleming and the amount of work it does. I€m a little surprised at the cost, having costed other intersections. I€m looking at one on Kawaihae Road right now, a channelized intersection with no signal that€s, our bids are coming in around $600,000. So I hope he€s, his numbers are right. I don€t, as I say I€m not an engineer, I€ve not seen or had the opportunity to look at those. But I€m pleased that Star Market has fulfilled their obligation and has engineered improvements in making recommendations. Cause remember they were one of the applicants who agreed to do this, this study or this analysis at the intersection which is I think something that needs to be done. I did want to echo what Commissioner Graham said about the, there€s no ohanas, we€re not looking at increasing the density. And the fact that we brought up both of these at once I will mention that the Gesling application, the four units are 4 CPR units that presently exist that are going to be converted into subdivided lots if the application is successful. I think that, that€s all the response I would have now than the fact to say that the policy has been for the County to collect these funds and to use those funds, earmark them EXHIBIT C 7 toward these improvements. And I€m not awareof anyother funding mechanism that€s been established to address that intersection improvements. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Mooers. Fellow Commissioners any follow-up questions for Mr. Mooers before I ask him to sit down? Thank you Mr. Mooers you may be seated. Fellow Commissioners before us is a application for rezoning and as you know we basically make the recommendation to the County Council. A motion will be in order at this time and we can move to discussion. Can I entertain a motion? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application of Change of Zone docket number REZ 05-021 based on the Planning Director€s recommendations and proposed conditions. SPRINGER:Second. ALAMEDA:Motion was made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by CommissionerSpringer.Discussion?Seeingnone,Staff? HAYASHI:CommissionerWatanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. EXHIBIT C 8 HAYASHI:Mr. Chair motion carries. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Mr. Mooers your representative will be notified in writing of this decision. This discussion ended at 3:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Marushige, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT C 9