Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-24 TSmith_REZ05027 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT February 24, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was DENNIS D. SMITH (REZ 05-027) called to order at 9:05 a.m. at the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, 69-275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii with Vice-Chairman William R. Graham presiding. PRESENT:ABSENT & EXCUSED: Allen Salavea C. Kimo Alameda Hannah Springer Andrew Iwashita Fred Galdones Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner JeffDarrow, Staff Planner Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. Change of Zone from Agricultural 20-acre APPLICANT: DENNIS D. SMITH (REZ 05-027) (A-20a) to Family Agricultural 3-acre (FA-3a) for 21.992 acres of land. Theproperty is located along the south side of Kaloko Drive at the northeastern corner of Kaloko Drive and Hao Street, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-24:8. GRAHAM:The first item on the agenda today is new business applicant is Dennis Smith.Theapplicationisrezoning05-027.Thisisachangeofzonefromagricultural20acreto family agricultural 3-acre for 21.992 acres of land. The property is located along the south side of Kaloko Drive at the northeastern corner of Kaloko Drive and Hao Street in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii. TMK is 7-3-24:8. We have maps on the wall and Norman could you continue with the staff presentation. HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chair and good morning Commissioners. Directing your attention tot he maps on the wall, first of all the overall location map. The subject property is indicated by this red dot. It is situated within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision and that would be in this general configuration. This is Mamalahoa Highway or Highway 190 going towards Waimea and this would be towards Palani Road. Kaloko Drive accesses is off of Highway 190 and it goes in this configuration. The colors on the map indicate the various zoning districts. The lighter shaded bluer areas are zoned for agricultural 3 acres. Former agricultural 3 acres would be in this grayish blue areas. And we also have agricultural 5 acres indicated by this lighter green shaded areas. We also have family agricultural 5 acre, this darker blue area and the EXHIBIT A 1 areas that are around the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision are zoned for agricultural 20 acres. We do have several other agricultural 20 acre zoned properties along the, on the mauka side of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. As you€ll notice this would be one of the last remaining agricultural 20 acres makai of the, I believe it€s the 3500 feet elevation. The applicant intends to subdivide the property into several lots. This is Kaloko Drive and this is Hao Street. The access will be a private roadway will be created to serve, provide access to the extra lots. And that is, that roadway would be directly across of Apela Drive and that would be this particular road here or Apela Street. Proposal is to construct, excuse me develop the property to several lots again. These lots would be 3 acres in size. And the applicant intends to construct a single-family dwelling on one of the lots. The property is currently vacant. It is general planned for important Ag land and the elevation of the property is 2,200 feet. Access to the property again would be from Kaloko Drive and water is available. Planning Director€s recommending approval of the application with conditions similar to those that were granted for this, for rezoning within this particular area of Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. We also submitted to you the yellow copies. Thesearerevisedconditions.RevisedConditionK,wejustaddedasentencewewanteda drainage. And also Condition K regarding the fair share contribution. There was a typo error and it shows instead of 1, if you look at it, 1 additional lot it should be 6 additional lots. Are there any questions? Yes. GRAHAM:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. I€m looking at page 3 of the conditions at G3. Is G3 a pro- forma condition or have 20% of the subject property lands been cleared. HAYASHI:(inaudible) SPRINGER:Condition G3 is that a standard condition or is it particular to this lot? It says if more than 20%. Has there been grubbing on this property? HAYASHI:Okay these are our standard conditions that we use. SPRINGER:They are standard. Thank you. GRAHAM:Any other questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Yuen? YUEN:It looks like we didn€t include affordable housing condition. This would trigger an affordable housing condition because it would result in 5 or more lots to an FAA zoning. HAYASHI:Okay we can include that, we can include that as a new condition. The standard affordable housing condition. GRAHAM:Any further questions of staff? May I have the applicant or applicant€s representative please come forward? Could you raise your right hand please? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? EXHIBIT A 2 MOOERS:I do. GRAHAM:Thank you. Please state your name, residence address and then proceed and speak into the microphone. MOOERS:My name is Greg Mooers. I€m a planning consultant. My address is P.O. Box 1101, Kamuela, Hawaii. We did receive the background report recommendation and concur with the proposed conditions as presented by the Department and the Director. I would like to point out that as Mr. Hayashi did this is one of the last remaining lots in the 3-acre band that has not yet been subject to a change of zone. This change of zone is advocated by the Council resolution 33096, in which they designate certain elevations and indicate what zonings they would support. And the purpose of course for this resolution is the forest preservation conditions that are attached so that these lands do remain in native forest. In response Commissioner Springer€s statement that this site has not been disturbed. There€s been a little grubbing along oneofthecornerswhereasignwasputupprobably20yearsagoprobablyannounced3-acre lots for sale although not quite sure how they were going to sell 3-acre lots since it hadn€t been rezoned. But an ambitious realtor had the sign there for many years so, but other than that the site is intact. GRAHAM:Mr. Mooers are you in conformity with Mr. Yuen€s comment regarding the affordable housing condition being added? MOOERS:That€s my understanding and it does apply. GRAHAM:Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners for Mr. Mooers? All right thank you. We have one person signed up to testify that€s Joel Gimpel. If anyone else wishes to testify you may come up at this time. Joel will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? GIMPEL:I do. GRAHAM:Thank you. Could you state your name, address and go ahead with your testimony? GIMPEL:Yes. I€m Joel Gimpel. I reside at 73-4686 Hina Lani Street in Kailua- Kona. Good morning and aloha. When we testified last month on the Totah and Gesling rezoning applications for property in Kaloko Mauka, we urged that although those rezonings would probably have only minimal effect on traffic in the area, you should carefully consider the cumulative effect of Kaloko Mauka rezonings on traffic volume and safety. And with the filing of this application to permit subdivision of nearly 22 acres into seven, 3-acre lots, the other shoe, or in this case the other boot, has dropped. The Kona Traffic Safety Committee has reviewed this application that like the others has correctly observed that the Kaloko Drive/Rte 190 intersection needs to be improved and promises participation in those improvements. Last month, we learned that more than $400,000 in fair share assessments has been collected by the County, and that improvement of the sight lines, restriping and creation of turn and acceleration EXHIBIT A 3 lanes would cost a bit more than $300,000. You also heard testimony urging installation of a traffic signal, which would improve the level of service at theintersection and help regulate traffic on Hwy 190. But, we€ve not yet learned if there is any timetable or plan for the needed improvements. So, what to do? Should we conduct business as usual and approve the rezoning, hoping that the County and State will sometime in the future perhaps after a fatal collision, decide that it€s time to do something? Or, should we say, stop. No occupancy permits will issue in Kaloko Mauka until the needed traffic signal is installed and operating. Or better yet, we recommend that no subdivision approvals be granted until the County Council enacts an ordinance to require payment of impact fees. The County is out of compliance with the Statute that has required the ordinance for over 10 years. That, we believe, is the way to assure that vital infrastructure improvements that improve safety will be provided. We note also that rezoning is not a right, it€s a privilege. A privilege that should be granted only if the benefit to the community outweighs the disadvantages. In this case, until the Kaloko Drive/Hwy 190 intersection is made safe, we fail to see the benefit to the community. Thank you for the opportunitytocomment. GRAHAM:ThankyouMr.Gimpel.Ifyouwillstaythereforasecondincasewe have questions. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you Mr. Gimpel good morning. GIMPEL:Good morning to you. SPRINGER:Thank you. And your comments in any way tempered by any ongoing highway improvements on the Mamalahoa Highway in the vicinity of Palani junction? GIMPEL:Well we recognize that there€s a stoplight at the intersection of Hina Lani with Highway 190 that is being installed and also that there will be some turn lane improvements at the Route 180 junction with Route 190 and that€s fine. But this intersection is close to a mile to the north and from personal experience I€ve observed that the Route 190 traffic certainly in the morning and often in the afternoon going toward Kailua-Kona town is backed up that far. And people trying to get onto the Highway from Kaloko Drive have long waits and it€s a very dangerous intersection to try and make a left turn onto that. So, no they€re not tempered by that. I€m hoping that the Hina Lani Drive light will improve safety at that intersection for cars trying to make a right turn from Hina Lani onto Route 190 which is it€s a blind turn right now without the light. So that will help that. But we need more regulated traffic along Kaloko, along the Mamalahoa there. SPRINGER:Thank you. GRAHAM:Follow up Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes I€m wondering if Commissioner, if the Planning Director could respond to some of Mr. Gimpel€s comments? In particular the compliance issue that he raised. EXHIBIT A 4 YUEN:We have a project to create a impact fee ordinance in conforming with State law. We have a consultant that€s working with us. And I think next month, we have a workshop with the Planning Commission next month on that? HAYASHI:That€s correct the next Hilo meeting. YUEN:Okay we€ll. Next meeting we will brief you on what we€re doing with that. GRAHAM:Yes continue. SPRINGER:And, Director Yuen do you have any sense of a timetable on traffic signals at the Kaloko Mamalahoa Intersection? YUEN:Thatwe-.DepartmentofPublicWorkshastonowtakethisreportand make a decision whether to proceed with a project at the intersection. SPRINGER:Thank you. GRAHAM: Commissioner McCall did you have a question? MCCALL:Well, yeah maybe just a follow up. Could you give a, is there any time, could you, I, your guesstimate on the timeframe? YUEN:No I don€t have a guesstimate. MCCALL:I mean 5 years? 1 year? YUEN:Well if it€s feasible with, if its feasible with the current funds we€re not talking 5 years I hope. I can€t give you an estimate though because that would. Planning Department doesn€t do the actual projects; Public Works would do the project. They would also have to get concurrence with State DOT because it, the project involves work within the State right-of-way. MCCALL:Thanks. GRAHAM:Any other questions from the Commissioners? IWASHITA:Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Yes Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you for being here this morning. I guess my question goes more to trying to clarify the extent of your testimony. And it sounds to me like your testimony today apply to any proposed subdivision up along the mauka highway there. You know between Kaloko and all the way down back to Palani Road and moving in all the way towards like EXHIBIT A 5 Makalei and anything in between that area. Would your comments apply to any proposed subdivision within that length of the road? GIMPEL:Not really. We€re concerned primarily about the Kaloko, Route 190 intersection. There have been over the past year at least 3 or 4 or so subdivisions in Kaloko mauka, in the Kaloko mauka area, rezonings in the Kaloko mauka area that have added lots up there. In fact there is another one that the Planning Department has asked the Kona Traffic Safety Committee to comment on that I have at home and we€re preparing comments. It€s another one. So, looking at the cumulative effect of all those Kaloko mauka subdivisions some of them are, make one lot into 2, some of them make 2 lots into, or one lot into 3. This one is making one lot into 7, they all add up. And you have a very dangerous intersection there anyway with bad sight lines and almost impossible to get onto Mamalahoa Highway from Kaloko Drive because of the morning and afternoon traffic that€s on Mamalahoa Highway. Some people have told me that they wait between 10 and 15 minutes to make that turn onto the drive. And because ofthesightlinesandtheoncomingtrafficthatyoucan€tseeatrelative,sometimesrelatively high speed even when there€s no traffic in the middle of the day, it€s very dangerous. So that€s what we€re commenting on, we need a traffic light at that intersection when are we going to get it? We have over $400,000 in the pot, in the County€s pot, hopefully earning interest. Why don€t we have a traffic signal and what can we do to make sure that it happens sooner rather than later? If we keep on approving subdivisions in Kaloko mauka and say well pay into the fund that€s fine. When are we going to get a traffic light? Are we going to wait for a fatal accident? What I€m suggesting is say stop. Let€s not approve the subdivision until we get a timetable from the County and the State saying yes you€ll have a traffic light. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Gimpel. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you Bill. I understood that part of the testimony. I guess why in considering how to weigh your suggestion I€m looking at the I guess precedencial effect if we do give your testimony weight. And I can see an argument that well sure it applies to Kaloko Mauka Subdivision approvals but what about subdivisions further north that would add to traffic on Mamalahoa Highway which you know obviously would aggravate and make the waits longer for those people and therefore make it arguably more dangerous. Should we not apply the same logic to you know to those applications? GIMPEL:The Kona Traffic Safety Committee when asked to comment on any other subdivision applications in that area will be happy to provide that testimony and if we feel that they too should wait until their appropriate infrastructure improvements that would be our testimony. IWASHITA:Thank you very much. GRAHAM:Any further questions for this testifier? Thank you Mr. Gimpel. GIMPEL: Thank you. EXHIBIT A 6 GRAHAM:Since we don€t have anyone else from the public to testify will Mr. Mooers theapplicant€s representative please come forward again? And basically this is your opportunity to respond to what€s come up since you were before us a few minutes ago. MOOERS:Well thank you Commissioner Graham. Much of what Mr. Gimpel has said I€m in agreement with, it is a dangerous intersection. I think we€ve acknowledged that for some time. I do take issues with some of his proposed solutions. The government both State and the County have taken the position over the last couple of years that the solution to this intersection is to impose and collect impact related fees from the applicant€s in this area. And that has been the policy and that has been done. As far as I know every applicant who has received a change of zone and subsequently rezoned has paid his share the money has been collected. The problem that I have is to advocate a moratorium in Kaloko as far as rezonings is misplaced because it€s not the applicants or the landowners who are not doing their part. It€s been the problem, the government has not come up with a agreed solution between the County andtheStateandwhatyou€redoingnowisthatyou€regoingtopenalizeanapplicantwhois basically agreeing with the County that there is a problem. It is agreeing with the County as far as what the solution is we€ll pay our money. And now you€re saying well no that€s not good enough. It€s certainly unreasonable to expect Mr. Smith to fix the intersection on his own. You are assessing him ineffectively $60,000 to go toward the cost of improving that intersection. And he€s accepted that. I think the solution is to have you know government make those improvements. Previously I think about 5 years ago there was a change of zone application that was approved for a gentleman in Kaloko and there was a condition applied that said he would not be allowed to subdivide his property until that intersection was approved. And that condition is in effect at this time. It was accepted by that applicant because he was rezoning his property and more of an estate planning method for his children and he was not in any particular rush to have it done. But, in a situation like this I think we have to basically assess responsibility where it belongs. You know if the money is there and the applicant€s are paying their share they have stepped up and done their part. I think it€s the responsibility of the government to identify what the improvements will be and make those improvements. In this case Mr. Smith, he€s probably 2 years away from having subdivided lots. Realistically once he finishes the change of zone application he would then have to file a subdivision application which are quite timely, time consuming I should say at this time. And once a tentative approval would be granted he would then have the engineer have those plans reviewed and the improvement for that roadway would have to be made before he would ever be able to create lots. And after that time and then you€d have a situation of marking the lots, developing his one lot into a house, you know you€re now looking at 3 possibly 4 years down the line before there€s any additional traffic being generated. I think the solution identified by government has been that these people pay a fair share, they€ve agreed to do that. I would hope the government would then do their part and take the money and spend it and install the signal at this drive. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Mooers. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Mooers in reference to the timeline that you had mentioned 3 to 4 years. Is that 3 to 4 years from if it is approved today is that going to be 3 to 4 years down? EXHIBIT A 7 MOOERS:That€s a rough timeline yes. GALDONES:Okay thank you. GRAHAM:Any other questions? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I have a question for Mr. Emler from Department of Public Works. Good morning Mr. Emler. EMLER:Good morning. SPRINGER:Can you give us any insite into a possible timeline for improvements at this intersection? EMLER:No. SPRINGER:Thankyou.Ihaveafollow-upquestionthenforthePlanningDirector. I€m looking at the communication from the State Department of Transportation dated January h 18twhere they suggest 3 improvements to the intersection. Is the intersection not already illuminated at night? YUEN:I€m sorry I€m having a little trouble finding that. Which exhibit is that? SPRINGER:It€s a letter from the State Department of Transportation. YUEN:I thought there was a light there but maybe (inaudible) better than I do. SPRINGER:So it may be to increase the brightness of the intersection then. With regard to his recommendation is this what the assessed fees would be going towards? YUEN:The report that we got I think was received about a month ago. HAYASHI:That€s correct. YUEN:And it€s, there were a number of suggested improvements including turn lanes and chipping away at the lava on the side of the road there cause there is a, it creates a sight distance problem. I can€t remember the details of it. But the reports currently being reviewed by the Department of Public Works. I can€t tell you what the details were. I remember that we did report on it last time. GRAHAM:Thank you Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Norman would you know if there are other applications in Kaloko mauka that is being considered before the Planning Department? EXHIBIT A 8 HAYASHI:We have one other pending application in this particular subdivision. There are numerous rezonings as you€re aware in this subdivision that still needs to comply that condition of providing monies for that intersection. That occurs when they come in for a subdivision. GALDONES:Any that will be coming before the Planning Commissioners for action in the future? HAYASHI:There€s only 1 outstanding new application. I mean its one pending application that we have that€s going to come before the Planning Commission. As far as subdivision application as you€re well aware those are administratively processed. YUEN:If I can make a prediction about the future in the area. Most of the, though the Council report of resolutions that we€ve been following that are also incorporated in the generalplancallforAg-3uptoacertainelevationandthenAg-10abovethat.So,thisisoneof the last if not the, I think there€s maybe one more twenty acre parcel that€s not been rezoned to either 3 or 5 acre lots. Then after you would expect to see more of the mauka lots perhaps come in before rezoning from Ag-20 to Ag-10 but that€s only going to create one additional lot per rezoning. So the bulk of the lots to be created by rezoning have happened. Not all the money has been collected as Mr. Hayashi says because that€s to be collected when they come in for final subdivision approval and there€s some that are in process. So there is going to be some more money collected. This rezoning would be 60,000 or something at final subdivision approval. But the bulk of the rezoning has happened in Kaloko Mauka. GRAHAM:Yes Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:My question would be to the Director. You know with regards to that $400,000 amount that we say we have in the pot for improvement of that intersection. Is that total what€s collected or what€s been promised? YUEN:That€s just collected. Yes, Norm right? HAYASHI:That€s correct, that€s what€s been collected thus far. WATANABE:So then that would mean that we have the potential to hit in excess of $500,000 then to make the improvements? YUEN:Yeah. WATANABE:Thank you. GRAHAM:Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Chair. Question to Ki. The delay in the improvements to the intersection is it because of money or is it just that the department has not put it on its books yet? EXHIBIT A 9 EMLER:The issue would be identifying it as a priority County project before doing it as a project. In other words somebody needs to say it€s a priority for us, for the County to do this work. You know we€ve had recent public meetings identifying needs for County traffic improvements and we€re in the process of doing some of those. Even up in this area where County is doing or paying for the intersection improvements at Kilohane and a turn lane at Mamalahoa and, the old Mamalahoa Highway and the State right-of-way in that area. For this intersection it hasn€t been identified as a project that is going to be immediately done or its not on the time schedule like I said so. That€s what needs to be done. The administration would have to identify it as a priority project or the County Council would have to initiate a CIP project for it. If they wanted to do that they could do that. As far as the extent or the level of improvements that would be needed there the County would defer that to the Department of Transportation. The County would not be making the decision as to the extent of the improvements needed. GALDONES:Thank you. EMLER:Okay. GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have a question, follow-up question for Ki. So it sounded like the State has already given you some suggestions then so. You know I guess you guys are already kind of looking at it although its not a priority project as of yet? EMLER:Well we€re looking at it because of the previous condition that was put on a previous rezoning and required a submittal of a conceptual plan. That€s the only reason why we are now looking at it the present time. And again the comments having to do with the level of improvements at the intersection will need to be moved or deferred to the State for that. Because it is a State Highway intersection we do that. WATANABE:I understand. Thank you. GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I just need to get a better understanding. You were saying that the County Council, it€s your understanding that the County Council has authority to make the improvement of this intersection a priority for the County CIP document? EMLER:Yes that would be my understanding, yeah. IWASHITA:And other clarification or any amplification I need is, when you say the State Department of Transportation determines what improvements are needed can you just sort of expand on that, what is that process? What you know? Is that going to take the State 10 years to figure out what to do here? EXHIBIT A 10 EMLER:Well the first step that is being taken to have a conceptual plan submitted to the both the County and the State would identify the deficiencies at the intersection. And the one thing I see that wasn€t required as a part of that would be a traffic study to say, determine whether a signal is warranted. I think from some simple counts that could be taken then we could probably identify whether a left turn lane is warranted. But as far as traffic warrant further study would have to be done. A traffic signal warrant. IWASHITA:And you€re saying that€s a call made by the Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii? EMLER:That€s correct. IWASHITA:So can you? And I don€t know if you can. Can you give me an idea about how long that process will take for the Department of Transportation? If we say today, or somebodytellsthemtodaystartdoingithowlongwillittake? EMLER:Wellrightnow,there€snorequirementforanyonetodoatrafficstudyat the intersection. So somebody would need to require that that be done and the question is who€s going to do it. Is the State going to say no we won€t accept this conceptual plan? We won€t comment on it without a traffic study I don€t know. And so as far as telling you how long it would take for us to make a or for the State to make a determination I can€t give you an answer on that. They may not ask for a traffic study. Right now they€ve made comments on this application as you can see. There is a, I think you got the letter from DOT? It gives you a list of items that they would like to see. And it says other safety improvements. Whether that other safety improvements includes a traffic signal or not I don€t know. So its left open. IWASHITA:And its my understanding what you said so far is that those other, determining what those other safety improvements should be is the State Department of Transportation call? EMLER:Well the County could take a lead, take the lead on it if somebody were to, say administration make it a priority for the County to do a traffic study or signal warrant analysis at the intersection. The County could do that. IWASHITA:Can the money we collected be used to start that process Mr. Director? If you know. GRAHAM:Mr. Yuen please. YUEN:Yes. IWASHITA:Thank you. Thank you Ki. EMLER:Okay. EXHIBIT A 11 GRAHAM:We€ve had, we€re in a questioning procedurally but we€re questioning the applicant€s representative here but we€ve asked a lot of questions of Staff. I wondered if Mr. Mooers had any comment he would like to make based on what he€s heard? MOOERS:Well I think the comments from the Commissioners are quite telling because you are now starting to appreciate the frustration that we have. This is a very unique situation. I mean you have a State highway that intersects with the County road. You have an intersection that the State repeatedly says is dangerous and yet they have never placed it on their log term Capital Improvement Budget. Yet the County who says and agrees that it needs improvement and it€s not on their budget either. And yet we€ve collected, if not sufficient funds and there is sufficient funds to make the improvements. So its, its really a coordination problem. The previous Councilman from North Kona, Councilman Tyler made it one of his priorities to try to develop some coordination between the Department of Transportation and Public Works to determine what the improvements would be and then to get it started. But it€s very frustrating fortheapplicantsbecauseyouknowinthiscaseMr.Smithhasproperty.He€stryingtocomply with the General Plan. He€s trying to comply with the Council resolution. He€s willing to accept all the conditions and yet we€re being you know faced with this issue in which there€s really a condition that he can€t comply with. You know he can€t make that improvement. He can do his part but he can€t actually execute it. What I would recommend and I guess as a request to the Commission is of course that you approve the application as is and that you request the Council to direct the Department of Public Works to do traffic counts to coordinate with DOT to do whatever is required to have the intersection improved. It€s unique in the sense that it doesn€t stand up to the other criteria. You don€t go out in North Kona and say well is this worse, a worse intersection than Palani and Mamalahoa? Is it worse than Hina Lani? That€s not the issue because we€re not asking for funding, we have funding. What we€re asking for is that somebody execute the project. And I guess if Public Works doesn€t have the staff Staff perhaps some of the monies being collected could be used to private engineering firm to develop the construction the construction documents and to supervise the construction as well. But I think the community deserves the intersection. The money is there for it and I understand Public Works and Department of Transportation have other issues. Certainly there are many traffic issues in North Kona but this is unique in the sense that the money is there. GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you. I€m not knowledgeable what it will cost to signalize the intersection and do the channelization and do those kinds of things but you know what I mean. Here, I don€t know who to ask this question. I want somebody to say you know, Mr. Mooers comment that there€s enough money to do what needs to be done is that accurate or will it take a million dollars and not half a million to do? YUEN:The report that we had listed some improvements that could be done within approximate budget of what was available and collected. I don€t think it included a signal light but there were some improvements that could be done with it. And I will follow up with Director of Public Works to make sure that they review this. And see what they if they believe that they can do a project with the intersection with the amount of money that€s there and it€s a worthwhile project. EXHIBIT A 12 GRAHAM:Do you we have any other questions from Commissioners? Thank you Mr. Mooers. I want to remind the public whose here that because this is a change of zone application we on the Planning Commission do not make the final decision we only forward a recommendation based on testimony we€ve received and this recommendation goes to the County Council who will make the final decision. GALDONES:Mr. Chair? GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES:Thanks Mr. Chair. I€d like to discuss further discussion on the regarding the intersection and the role that the County Council needs to take in prioritizing this project. First of all, I€m looking at a win-win situation for all the parties here. To kind of put Mr. Mooers mindatease.It€snotfair,Iagreeit€snotfairfortheapplicantthatweplaceamoratoriumatthis point in time that being the last lot there that€s 3 acres. But I also understand the frustration that Mr. Gimpel had brought up before the Commissioners and he has been before us many many times trying to have us address the traffic problem. And I think that it behooves us as Commissioners to do something about that and today is, from the testimony made by or the statement made by Ki Emler. I think it gives us some indication where we could be going. So I€m looking at putting an amendment but I don€t know if it belongs in here because the conditions are for the applicant. But using, taking out of the statement that was made by Ki to have the County Council set this as a priority to have something done at that intersection and Norman I€m not so sure what€s the process in putting something like that because this is going to be going to the County Council and we€d like to instruct the County Council along those lines. HAYASHI:Perhaps what you could do is in your transmittal letter to the County Council we can express that suggestion. YUEN:Yeah that, that€s what I would have said. You know to explain when we send up these ordinances from the Planning Commission to the Council there€s a cover letter. The cover letter normally is, roughly the same as the recommendation that we have here and that explains why. So if there€s anything additional that the Planning Commission specifically wants to say in that then you can make a motion and you can add it to the cover letter. You can€t really put it in a condition of the zoning ordinance because the zoning ordinance is not of the funding. It€s not the same as an appropriation for a project. GRAHAM:Thank you Commissioner Galdones. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:With that in mind this is, would this be the appropriate time to make that motion to include in the transmittal letter to the County Council after the vote is taken. GRAHAM:I believe this would be appropriate. SPRINGER:I€d like to move that the Hawaii County Planning Commission include in its trans, any transmittal letter submitted to the County Council our concerns regarding the traffic EXHIBIT A 13 at the Kaloko Drive, Mamalahoa Highway intersection including the statement that we have from the Department of Transportation, State Department of Transportation that indicates that though have no objection to the proposed change in zoning they are concerned with the past zoning and land use changes in the Kaloko mauka subdivision area and the resultant cumulative impact on the intersection of Mamalahoa Highway and Kaloko Drive. GRAHAM:Can I have a second? MCCALL:Second. GRAHAM:Okay seconded by Commissioner McCall. All right I believe we€re also at a position now where we can take a motion on this specific application if one of the Commissioners would like to make one. WATANABE:Uh,may? GRAHAM:Excuseme.Weneedtocontinue-. WATANABE:Would? GRAHAM:GoaheadCommissionerWatanabe. WATANABE:Would you consider a friendly amendment? I€d actually like to add in that we the commission strongly recommends that this project or intersection be put on a high priority and remind the Council that there are significant funds already collected to proceed with that project. If you don€t mind? SPRINGER:Of course thank you for the suggestion. GRAHAM:Okay then Commissioner Springer and Commissioner McCall agree with the suggestions that the motion is amended in that sense? Do we have any discussion on the motion? Could we, should we just take an oral vote on this motion? Maybe better for Mr. Hayashi to read the roll call. This is on Commissioner Springer€s motion to include in the cover letter our comments regarding the improvement of the intersection. HAYASHI:Okay, I didn€t get who seconded the motion. GRAHAM:Commissioner McCall. HAYASHI:Thank you. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. EXHIBIT A 14 HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair motion carries. GRAHAM:All right so that will be included when we transmit to the County Council. CouldIhaveamotionoradiscussionontheactualapplicationbeforeus? HAYASHI:Mr. Chair before you do that I€d like to make one other amendment and this is with regard to the concern that or the question Commissioner Springer had regarding condition G3. Since the property has not been cleared we would delete that particular condition and G4 would become G3. Also Condition, the housing condition would be a new condition L. And the other conditions would be re-alphabetized accordingly. And the housing condition would read as follows. To ensure that the goals and policies of the housing development of the general plan are implemented the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11, article 1, Hawaii County Code, relating to affordable housing policy. This requirement shall be approved by the administrator of the Office of Housing and Community Development prior to final subdivision approval. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Hayashi. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair I€d like to make a motion that Dennis D. Smith change of zone application REZ 05-027 be given a favorable recommendation and be forwarded to the County Council as amended, that would be condition G3, condition H, condition K and the new condition L, which references the affordable housing condition. SPRINGER:Second. GRAHAM:Seconded by Commissioner Springer. Do we have any discussion on the motion at this time? All right Mr. Hayashi would you take a roll call? Excuse me Commissioner Iwashita? EXHIBIT A 15 IWASHITA:Thank you I really have seriously thought about the concerns raised by Mr. Gimpel and the Kona Traffic Safety body and I really appreciate now that what we€re trying to do is encourage the Council to be, to actually take action on this. I have reservations, a lot of reservations about whether that€s still going to do any good and the fact that we don€t have any authority now to actually get anything done. So although I see that you know that this property would need to come up again if it€s going to be subdivided for further approval by this body I need that to consider whether that actually will be granted at that time and so this is for the record. It€s a continuing concern and if this particular property comes up for subdivision approval I for one would want to see some actual progress being done before actual subdivision approval would be seriously considered by me. Thank you. GRAHAM:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you. I concur with our colleague and believe that he has spoken wellandI€llbevotinginfavorofthisbutwithreservationsfor,basedonthecumulativeeffects of, that this approval will have on the traffic in this region. GRAHAM:Thank you Commissioner Springer. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:I too concur with, I actually mostly I wanted to just say though that to not vote in favor of this would definitely be detrimental to the preservation of the forest is what the Council resolutions you know from 10 years back really were trying to do. And so I think it is important that we, follow through with what has been you know what has been the policy in the past. GRAHAM:Thank you Commissioner McCall. Any further comments? All right we have our motion for sending a favorable recommendation to the County Council on Dennis Smith€s change of zone application. Norman would you take the roll please? HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chair. On the motion as with the amended conditions. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes with reservations. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye with reservations as previously stated. EXHIBIT A 16 HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair motion carries. GRAHAM:Thank you. This discussion ended at 10:11 a.m. Respectfullysubmitted, Lynette Marushige, West Hawai€i Secretary EXHIBIT A 17