Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-24 TWAIKOLOAMAUKA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT May 24, 2007 WAIKOLOA MAUKA, LLC (REZ 678) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 1:30 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: Takashi Domingo ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda William Graham Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 5 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WAIKOLOA MAUKA, LLC (REZ 678) Amendments to Conditions B (Final Subdivision Approval), C (Access) and I (Fair Share Contribution) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05 157, which rezoned approximately 761 acres from Agricultural 5-acre (formerly Unplanned) and Multiple-Family Residential 1,500-square foot (RM-1.5) districts to a Residential and Agricultural 1-acre (RA-1a) district. The property, referred to as the proposed Waikoloa Highlands Subdivision, is located along the south side of Waikoloa Road and south - southeast of Waikoloa Village, Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-8-2: portion of 16 and TMK: 6-8-3: portion of 32. GRAHAM: We’re entering the New Business segment of our agenda today. Applicant is Waikoloa Mauka, LLC, and the request is for amendments to Conditions B, C and I of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-157, which rezoned approximately 761 acres from Ag-5 and Multi- Family Residential to a Residential and Agricultural 1-acre district. Property was referred to as Waikoloa Highlands, and is on the south side of Waikoloa Road and south-southeast of Waikoloa Village in South Kohala. Since this is a rezoning Ordinance, we’re just going to be doing a recommendation to the County Council. Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could direct the Planning Commission’s attention to the location map, the area of this application is within the South Kohala District of Hawaii, more specifically we are looking in the Waikoloa area. This white line moving in a mauka-makai direction or basically northerly-southerly is Waikoloa Road. We have the intersection of Waikoloa Road and Paniolo Avenue, which is the entrance to the Waikoloa Village identified in yellow with the small lots listed. The area of this application is identified with the blue dot, which also identifies the color of the zoning. The brown represents the EXHIBIT C 1 Residential-Agricultural 1-acre zoning; the green represents the Open zoning for the golf course that was proposed within the Waikoloa Highlands Golf Estates Subdivision. The applicant in this case, Waikoloa Mauka, LLC, is requesting an amendment to Conditions of Change of Zone Ordinance 05-157, more specifically, an amendment to Condition B which requires the applicant to construct intersection improvements at the intersection of Pua Melia and Waikoloa Road prior to final subdivision approval. The applicant has been in discussion with the community, and the option of a roundabout has been also requested to be an option for these intersection improvements. And so that’s mainly the request on the amendment for Condition B. Condition C is requesting an amendment to allow a second access onto Waikoloa Road; at this time it only allows for one access. The applicant is requesting an additional access on the mauka portion of the subdivision because of the fact that mainly the entire subdivision would be limited to these accesses on the lower portion of the subdivision. The applicant is also, just for your information, is proposing to do this subdivision in two increments. Phase One, which is identified in this location, and Phase Two; Phase One consisting of approximately 149 lots, Phase Two with an additional 249 lots. Lastly, the applicant is also proposing again in conjunction with working with the community to be able to incorporate the construction cost for a proposed multi-purpose community center as being part of the fair share requirements; that the construction of this facility would be placed on fair share requirements, so that they would be able to utilize those construction costs for that requirement. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for these particular conditions. Since these conditions did come to the Planning Commission, there have been amendments proposed to Conditions B and C, and those have been passed out. They should be identified with a yellow sheet. And mainly that’s in response to concerns brought up by the Department of Public Works in their memo dated May 8, 2007. Additionally the applicant has responded to that, and these conditions are basically in response to the applicant’s response to the Department of Public Works’ concerns. Are there any questions? SIRACUSA: Yes. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: So first the Planning Director issued a set of revised conditions, and then the developer issued their own in response. And what is the Director’s response to the developer’s response to the Director’s response? DARROW: That would be this yellow sheet that you see here. This yellow sheet is from the Planning Department. SIRACUSA: This one? DARROW: Correct. SIRACUSA: Oh, I thought this one was from the Department. EXHIBIT C 2 DARROW: That one was, at first. And then we issued a revised -. That’s my understanding – is this from us? Yes, this is from the Planning Department. SIRACUSA: So it is from the Department -. DARROW: Correct. SIRACUSA: This is not Waikoloa’s -. Okay. DARROW: We do have -, you should have received a copy of the proposed amendments by the applicant as well, and that pretty much follows along those guidelines. SIRACUSA: Okay, I have another follow-up question, if I may. And that is this was originally the Change of Zone went through in 2005, so -. DARROW: Originally went through -, if you could look at -. SIRACUSA: The Change of Zone. DARROW: Yeah. The Change of Zone originally was in 1990, and it’s gone through several amendments. And this is listed under the Background Information in the Background Report. SIRACUSA: Okay. I was just looking at the number on it. Has any ground been broken on this? DARROW: I do see a fence there, but other than that I don’t think that there have been any improvements. SIRACUSA: I’ll wait on Sidney -. DARROW: Sure. SIRACUSA: Is that your baby, Sidney? FUKE: Yes. SIRACUSA: Okay. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, I’d just like to thank you, Jeff, for providing the yellow sheet, which is a -. ’Cause I had some concerns with regard to the channelization of the mauka access, the second access, and it’s good that you all were able to work that out already. DARROW: Thank you. EXHIBIT C 3 GRAHAM: Any other questions from the Commissioners? I don’t have any record of public testimony on this, so if anybody in the public wants to testify, please go over to the front table there and sign up, if you would. Mr. Fuke? Excuse me. Jeff? DARROW: Sorry about that. If we get a chance, I’m not sure if the applicant’s going to address this, but we did have one minor request from the representative from the Department of Public Works to add in a little change. Maybe at some point in the hearing we can ask the representative from the Department of Public Works to come forward and present that change. GRAHAM: Okay. DARROW: Thank you. GRAHAM: Mr. Fuke, I believe I swore you in earlier, so you can go ahead and testify for us. And give your name and address again, please. FUKE: Sure, thank you very much. I swear and affirm on the truthfulness aspect. My name is Sidney Fuke. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street in Hilo, Hawaii. Just to give you some general background, and in partial response to Commissioner Siracusa’s question, my client who is Waikoloa Mauka, LLC purchased the property in – I think it was October – excuse me, August or September of 2005. I think some of the older Commissioners, maybe perhaps yourself and Commissioner Siracusa, may have remembered that there was this great debate between the former owner, which was Waikoloa Land, and the Planning Department in insistence on having -. When Waikoloa Land, the former owner, came in for their time extension request, the Planning Director had recommended and I think the Planning Commission also concurred with the Director’s recommendation, which required several things. One was that in light of this being a golf course with 1-acre lots in the State Land Use Agricultural District and in light of the recent Hokulia decision relative to the Judge Ibarra’s decision, The Planning Director had recommended that before final subdivision can be approved, the property must be reclassified into the State Land Use Urban or Rural District. The other two conditions which the Director recommended and the Commission agreed, and ultimately became the Council’s position too, was that there would also be an affordable housing requirement and there would also be a fair share impact fee requirement. All of those conditions were strenuously objected to by the former owner. But when Waikoloa Mauka acquired the property and then we had to kind of assume the responsibility of getting the time extension through the County Council, the decision was made by Waikoloa Mauka to agree to all of those changes. So specifically in relation to where the project is right now, we are still doing the subdivision, but we know that we cannot get final subdivision approval until such time that the lands are reclassified into the Rural District. That petition has already been filed with the Land Use Commission, and a draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared. The Land Use Commission will be actually visiting the site next week Thursday, I think next week Thursday.If next week Thursday is June th 7, two Thursdays from now, I’m sorry. So hopefully, if everything goes according to plan, the idea was to have the Land Use Commission hopefully favorably act on it the latter part of this year or the first quarter of next year. As, subsequent to the Waikoloa Mauka’s purchasing the property, then they had to introduce themselves into the community, because they purchased not necessarily only this property but also a number of other properties; actually they purchased in excess of 13,000 acres of land, so EXHIBIT C 4 essentially all of the major property that was previously held by Waikoloa Land. So we’ve been kind of like meeting with the community along the way, and trying best to see as neighbors how we can best – you know, how this project and other things that Waikoloa Mauka has or may have in mind for this area – how they can kind of fit in with the community. So we’ve been kind of having a lot of these meetings with the community. Along the way we here were discussing with Councilman Pete Hoffman, and two primary issues came up as it relates to the proposed amendment. One was that just trying to see whether this developer as well as maybe other developers – and the other developer that we’re working with right now is called Bridge Aina`lea that has a project off of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Both of these projects have a fair share impact fee obligation. And in talking with the community, we are just trying to see how both of these developers can collaborate, use the fair share impact fee and actually do a turnkey for the community, and in that regard to kind of facilitate and accelerate the construction of a much- needed community center in the Waikoloa Village area. So we’ve been working very hard on that in that vane. And from this developer’s standpoint – Council Hoffman has no problem in providing a generous interpretation to say that if you have a community center, then that will fulfill your recreational impact fee obligation – but we just want to make sure that if they do that, then in fact down the road they will be able to get credit. So I think that this is what it’s designed to do. The idea is that once the community center is constructed, then it would be turned over to the Department of Parks and Recreation for operation. So that’s the first amendment. The other one is as, again during the course of the discussions, the concern raised about, especially from Councilman Hoffman and a few others within the community, saying that since there is going to be a traffic light, where the Castle & Cooke Wehilani’s project is at the lower end of Waikoloa Village, is going to be constructed at that intersection, to have another traffic light at the Pua Melia/ Waikoloa Road or the Paniolo Road intersection may be counterproductive, especially for trucks going mauka. And so as a result they suggested perhaps it might be better to do a roundabout rather than a stand-alone traffic light which is the developer’s obligation and they’re prepared to do that. From the developer’s standpoint, they are saying, I don’t care, if you want a roundabout, that’s fine; if you want a stand-alone traffic light, we can do that too. But we just need some kind of direction. The existing Ordinance right now limits the option only to -, you don’t have any option, you’ve got to do a traffic light. So what this proposed amendment does is like it provides the option for a roundabout in that area. We had to have our engineers look at this intersection to see whether a roundabout is feasible in that area from the engineering and geometric perspective. The engineers, R. M. Towill, looked at it and found that it was doable. And so as a result we said, fine, we’ll do it because it does not involve any acquisition of properties. So that’s the other part of the amendment. Tied in with that is that the entire stretch of the project along Waikoloa Road is in excess of one mile, and right now the existing condition limits access on Waikoloa Road to just one point. And in light of the kind of problems that have been associated with fire in a major cul-de-sac area like in Waikoloa Village, the wisdom of having another access point at least a mile away from the current access would be much more prudent. So we realize that having another access may mean potential for accidents. So as to minimize that accident, what the Public Works has recommended was that they be also required to have -, the developer be required to have a fully channelized intersection at the second access point to which the developer is saying – based on their comments and in our response – saying fine they’ll do that. In terms of where the project is right now, the plans for the onsite infrastructure have already been filed and they are under review right now by the County. Let’s see. As your staff indicated that the tentative plan is to EXHIBIT C 5 develop the project in phases; the first phase would consist of the makai portion, which would be about 149, the balance would be as the market demands and hopefully within a 5-year period. But the reason why the condition was written as the staff had proposed, “The second channelized intersection improvements shall be provided prior to its use,” and we need to clarify, we have some clarifying language to that, is that the tentative plan right now is that to provide the appropriate water infrastructure to the site they basically need to construct major spine road that goes all the way up over there; and then they’re going to bring the water tank down. But they will not have a connection at the mauka end. And so the intent behind this condition was just to say when and if they do the mauka subdivision and they’re going to actually punch through and utilize that access point, then before they can actually use it, then the channelized intersection has to be fully improved. So that’s was the intent. So in that regard, what we were going to suggest was that the second page of the current recommendation that was provided by the Planning Department, the last sentence would be amended to read as follows: it would read, “The second channelized intersection improvements shall be provided prior to or in conjunction with the opening or use of the project’s second access.” In so doing this allows the developer to actually construct the road as close as they can to that area, so that they can get access to the water system, but yet not be obligated at that point in time to put in a channelized intersection. But they will put in a channelized intersection before they actually utilize it for the subdivision. So that was the intent, Mr. Chairman. Prior to the meeting too, I discussed it also with Ki Emler, your Department of Public Works’ Engineering representative; and what we would like to suggest would be on Condition B, near the end of the Condition B, the second to the last sentence would read, “Upon execution of such agreement and/or filing of the security with the County, final subdivision approval for the subject property or portions thereof shall be granted” – and this is really more grammatical – “in lieu of the actual construction of required infrastructural improvements.” ’Cause I think that grammatically it’s not correct. And then on the last new proposed amendment it would read, “No occupancy shall occur until all of the infrastructure improvements covered by the bond or surety have been constructed and approved by the County.” GRAHAM: Okay. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: So that final one, instead of “no occupancy permit”, you’re saying “no occupancy.” So the permit could be issued, and yet you still would not have anybody occupy those homes until such time, right? FUKE: Correct. You know, like the Zoning Code presently allows for -, when you have a bonded agreement in place, what you’re doing is guaranteeing to the County that the improvements all will be in by a certain period of time. However, you can start constructing homes on that, but the Zoning Code says specifically that you cannot occupy the dwelling until such time that all of the improvements have been completed. The reference here was to occupancy permit, was after confirming with Mr. Emler, there is no such thing as occupancy permit per se, so that’s the reason why for its deletion. SIRACUSA: Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. Are we talking about a single-lane or two-lane roundabout? EXHIBIT C 6 FUKE: The plan’s got to be designed and they’ve got to review it, but from our standpoint we’re really begging the County to make a decision. Let us know very quickly, the sooner the better, on whether you want to do a roundabout or a standard traffic light, because we can’t do the design, we can’t finalize our bonding system until they let us know, and we can’t get subdivision approval until those improvements are in. So we are actually begging the County to make up its mind. SIRACUSA: Okay, but that’s not our kuleana. That’s Public Works’, right? FUKE: They’re going to have to decide, correct. Yes. GRAHAM: Mr. Fuke, for clarity, I’m not as familiar with Waikoloa as I should be, but the first intersection is right there where Paniolo Drive is right now, and you’re going to be intersecting it from across the street, from Paniolo Drive. Is that right, or -? FUKE: The principal access will be -, if you go up on Waikoloa Road, you can see where it says like “The Highlands Estates Golf Course” or whatever, it’s like there is a big stone wall and it’s just a stone wall -. GRAHAM: So it’s up mauka from Paniolo Drive? FUKE: Correct, yes. So the secondary -, there will be a secondary access coming in directly across from the existing Post Office off of Pua Melia Street. That’s the secondary access. But the access that we’re talking about in allowing for a second access would be the second access on Waikoloa Road, which would be approximately one mile from the existing proposed, I mean, from the proposed access. GRAHAM: So does that mean we really have three access? FUKE: Correct. GRAHAM: The most makai one is across from Paniolo and that’s what’s called Pua Melia where the Post Office is? FUKE: Correct. GRAHAM: And then the main access for the subdivision is a little bit mauka from that and that’s where we’re talking about a potential traffic light or a roundabout? FUKE: No, no, no. GRAHAM: No. FUKE: The traffic light/roundabout would be at the Pua Melia -. See, it’s funny; Waikoloa Road, and if you head Kohala side, that’s Paniolo Drive. GRAHAM: Right. EXHIBIT C 7 FUKE: That intersection, if you head Kona on the south side, then that road then turns out to be Pua Melia Road. GRAHAM: Right. FUKE: Yeah. So it’s at that intersection; that’s the primary intersection that takes you into the village. GRAHAM: Okay, takes you into the existing village. But is that the primary one that takes you into your subdivision. No, huh? FUKE: No. The -. GRAHAM: That’ll be up mauka more. FUKE: Correct. The primary entrance to the project would be off of Waikoloa Road. GRAHAM: Okay. And is there signalization proposed for that? FUKE: No. GRAHAM: No. And the secondary one you are talking about is another one farther mauka that you would say before Phase Two we’d like to have access for water maybe. But as soon as Phase Two comes in, then it’ll have to be a channelized intersection and all? FUKE: That’s correct as we read, yeah. GRAHAM: All right, thank you very much. Other Commissioners? All right. Anybody new come in for public testimony on this? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Maybe we should ask Ki to comment about some of the changes just for the record to see that the Public Works is in agreement. I think the revised version looks a lot better than the initial one; especially since they did include what you guys requested, yeah, the specific channelization. GRAHAM: Yeah, Ki, and I think another issue is the bonding, so maybe you can speak to the bonding aspect also. Can I swear you in first, or do I need to that? Ivan? No. Go ahead. EMLER: Yeah. I apologize for the late comments we made on this. So we did have some concerns about the proposed amendments in that the previous conditions didn’t allow for bonding of the improvements that are required under Condition C – if you notice that – the intersection improvements; the original zone change did not allow for bonding of those improvements. And so we looked at that and tried to figure out why. So I started looking at how many dwellings were going to be allowed to be possibly occupied prior to all these improvements actually being done or being constructed. And so I wanted something that was a little bit more secure, so I contacted the Traffic Division about this issue of when the -, because EXHIBIT C 8 there was also a provision in the original Ordinance that said it would be required, or the intersection improvements would be required, if they were warranted prior to a certain level of development being done. So that means if, let’s say, it was warranted now, then they would have to do it now. And so I did contact the Traffic Division and checked, and they said, yeah, they’d done a study on it and it already met two of the three traffic signal warrants, and they considered it important for this project to begin as soon as possible. So I know there was some negotiation in between – or even before I got involved in this, I guess – between the Traffic Division chief and the developer’s representatives, so -. I wasn’t aware of that; it was happening on a different level, so -. Yeah, he concurred with the changes that were being proposed then by the developer’s representative, by Sidney. And I also -, other than these changes that have been brought in to this, the last few changes that Sidney brought in, I have no objection to it. The issue of bonding – no occupancy shall occur until all the infrastructure covered by the bond or surety has been constructed and approved – I didn’t realize this, and in my comments I had been concerned that the occupancy could be allowed prior to that being done. But it turns out that there is already a provision in the Zoning Code that doesn’t allow for occupancy prior to improvements under that portion of the bond, or the improvements that are bonded to be done; they are required to be constructed before they are supposed to be able to occupy, so -. I wasn’t aware of that it’s in the Zoning Code. And it’s just being brought forward in this Ordinance as part of the condition. It could be somewhat redundant, but it does clarify the issue. The question of whether it should be before building permits are issued or not was something Commissioner Siracusa brought up. I haven’t really thought about that -. SIRACUSA: Occupancy permits, it says. Not building permits, but occupancy permits. EMLER: Yeah. Right. And I had an objection to this wording because there is no such thing as an occupancy permit for dwelling, and so either they should have been changed to building permit or changed to something that doesn’t -, or occupancy, period, should not occur. WATANABE: Follow-up. GRAHAM: Follow-up, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Well, that was in answer to your original question, so you should follow up first. WATANABE: Oh, okay. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Well, the short of it though is as revised the conditions meet the concerns of the Department of Public Works, and really I think your main concern, as you stated earlier, is that the improvements be in prior to occupancy of the units, not necessarily prior to building of the units, right? EMLER: I have some reservations, and I hope maybe Sidney will put it on the record their intentions, because the enforceability or the practical matter of -. You know, once a building permit is issued to a lot owner, if you are selling to individual lot owners, once you EXHIBIT C 9 issue the permit to the lot owner – and there is nothing in this that stops him from getting a building permit – once that permit is in the hands of the individual lot owner, it’s going to be very difficult to stop them from occupying, having enjoyment of their property over a condition that is the developer’s condition.So it’s something to consider, and I didn’t want to -. Given this opportunity, I thought I should bring it up. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Ki. Follow-up, Commissioner Watanabe, or -? WATANABE: Maybe we can have the representative clear it out. Sidney? GRAHAM: Mr. Fuke? FUKE: Sure. You look at all subdivisions that have been bonded and approved: Two major ones that are kind of like doing house and lot deals, for example, and where the subdivisions have been bonded with an agreement, Lualai for example in Waimea and the other one is Pualani. You’ve got subdivisions that are approved, lots have been sold and homes are being constructed, but no occupancy is allowed; or like the Water Department will not provide you with water service until such time that all the improvements are in. The Corporation Counsel’s office must review and approve the dedication document, they’ve got to then be approved by the Water Commission; and only after that is done, will the Water Department grant you a meter. So effectively you don’t have any water. You can’t occupy it. So whether the Planning Department enforces it or not, there are other controlling mechanisms that would prevent a person from physically occupying a building without getting all the required infrastructure. GRAHAM: So then maybe in respect to Mr. Emler’s comment, anybody who purchases the land would have to be put on notice of that to begin with, so he can’t go building expecting to occupy a house. FUKE: Well, as Mr. Emler had noted, I pointed out to him a section of the existing Zoning Code which already provides this restriction, that when you have a subdivision that’s approved with a bond and an agreement, it’s clear that you cannot occupy until such time that all of the improvements have been in place. And that’s Section 25-4-2(b)(2). I mean that’s the Code. So what we’re stating over here is kind like double whammy. The other thing to bear in mind is about the bonding and agreement for these improvements over here; I mean if it weren’t for the community, if it weren’t for Councilman Hoffman and others, saying that, hey, do a roundabout and forget about the traffic lights, you know, we would not be here essentially. Because – the second access is very critical, but – you know, doing the roundabout one, maybe definitely cannot do the roundabout unless this Code is amended. If we wanted to just do a standard intersection like six or eight months ago, we could have done that. But we are trying to do this to accommodate what some of the community members are saying, and what the Public Works like Ron Thiel at the Traffic Division, and Bruce McClure and I, you know, all the discussions we’re saying to kind of hold off, so that’s the reason why we are here. We are not asking for any concessions that would compromise the overall intent of the project. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Commissioner Siracusa? EXHIBIT C 10 SIRACUSA: Yes. My question was about this roundabout, so I’ll ask you, Sidney, but I have a feeling that I’m going to have to ask Ki to come back up again. Because the question was if the community seems to want a roundabout and the ball is now, the decision- making ball is now on the hands of the Public Works, what is Public Works’ position about that? Have they had a chance to look at it yet, are they in general in favor or not in favor of roundabouts, you know, philosophically or whatever? I know in some cases there have been situations where the Department just did not approve something in general, and not necessarily here but elsewhere where engineers did not like the idea of roundabouts. I went to a workshop about roundabouts that some guy from Federal Highways gave in Puna several months ago, and it was very enlightening. So I know that there are certain places where you can’t; there are definitive criteria. So, Ki, could you give me some kind of indication as to whether the Department would approve a roundabout in this particular situation, whether it meets the criteria of what we’re talking about in terms of ample space and sight distance and all those goodies? EMLER: I personally have not studied the intersection myself. From speaking with the Traffic Division chief, it does seem like they are leaning toward a roundabout. But I can’t say that for sure. I’m not the last word; and part of the reason for that is because the County Council was asked, for new intersections, that roundabouts be considered, so -. SIRACUSA: So then would you say that if we leave the door open in the rewording of the conditions, then we are covering all basis? EMLER: I think so. SIRACUSA: Okay. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: You have no problem with that, Sidney? FUKE: On hindsight. But you know, we didn’t suggest this, but -. SIRACUSA: You know like i.e. signalized or a roundabout. FUKE: Well, on hindsight, we would want to have like the County make a decision sooner than later ’cause it’s going to take us some time to develop the appropriate construction plans; and until this is done, we can’t get subdivision approval. And we’ve been held up really because the County is not telling us what they want. So the quicker the County can tell us what they want, then it will be better; I think that’s fair for the developer. SIRACUSA: Yeah, so we are Step One here; and as long as we leave the door open in terms of wording, then it won’t create an extra time constraint or obstacle for you. Is that right? FUKE: Generally correct. What it just says, when I kind of like re-read it further, just says, “plans for the roundabout”, or whatever, “no later than six months after a determination of the type of improvements is made by the Director of the Department of Public Works”; I mean what it does is gives the Public Works an open-ended window. That’s what -. When I re- read it, I was thinking, oh yeah, conceivably they could make up their mind like five years from EXHIBIT C 11 now. I mean just the way it’s worded, so -. Because once they decide, then we have six months within which to turn in the plans. WATANABE: I, I -. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I understand your concern where it’s, shall we say, one-sided in that you have a timeframe, but not the Public Works, although I don’t know that we could really craft the wording such that we would put a time frame on the Public Works. Hopefully, according to Mr. Emler’s testimony, the Traffic Division already indicated that two – I believe – out of the three indicators warrant signalization, so I would think that that in itself would be something that would urge the Public Works to put this at the top of their list. GRAHAM: Thank you. Do we have any further questions? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I -, just one comment that I just want to put on record to say, you know, I appreciate the fact that you and the developer work so hard with the community and the Council and etc. to amend these in such a way that this had sufficient input; and I suspect their support. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. Since we don’t have public testimony, and we’ve heard from the applicant, and we’ve got questions answered, I presume now is an okay time for us to go forward with taking action on this agenda item, which is a request for recommendation to the Council on this modification of the Change of Zone Ordinance. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Okay. I move that we forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for Change of Zone Ordinance No. 05-157, REZ 678, based on the Director’s recommendations and as revised for Conditions B and C. DOMINGO: Second. GRAHAM: Thank you. So we have motion for a favorable recommendation from Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Any discussion from the Commissioners? WOODWARD: I just have a -. GRAHAM: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Quick question. There was a mention of Condition I that I don’t see on here. GRAHAM: I think the Condition I is on the original Recommendation, but it was not modified with this light yellow one. WOODWARD: Okay. EXHIBIT C 12 WATANABE: I think it’s still a part of this; the yellow sheet only revises Conditions B and C. WOODWARD: Right. But we’ve been asked to revise Condition I also according to the other orange sheet we got. GRAHAM: I believe that’s correct. Mr. Fuke? FUKE: I might add. I think that the recommendation, if I understand it correct, would be the Director’s recommendation as originally presented and as further amended by his yellow sheet, because the other – I think that’s a very germane question, though, just for clarity – because there are other editorial changes being recommended by the Director including the one relating to the recreational impact fee; so I think that’s supposed to be taken in tandem. GRAHAM: Yes, I think that’s intention of the motion. Is that correct? WATANABE: Yes. Maybe I should have stated, “as proposed by the Director with his amendments,” yeah? GRAHAM: I think you did -. WATANABE: Because this application really was to amend certain conditions for this zoning. GRAHAM: Okay. Any other comments from the Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Just to make sure, so we are saying basically that the motion is to approve all the Director’s recommendations; but as far as Conditions B and C, the revised recommendations. Is that -. So that would include “I”, the multi-purpose community center as the -, in lieu of the impact fee. WATANABE: That’s correct. SIRACUSA: Yeah, okay. I just wanted to clarify that. And I’m glad to see that you’re going to put another access on the far right-hand part of the map there, because for that many units it’s real important not to have a cul-de-sac community.I live in a cul-de-sac community, and we have big concerns about emergency evacuation. So I’m glad to see that that’s going to be attended to, so that they don’t have problems evacuating; fire engines can get in one way and people can get out the other way.That’s always nice. Thank you. GRAHAM: All right, Commissioner Siracusa. I think we can go ahead, then. Jeff, would you take the vote on the motion? DARROW: Sure. Just so I can summarize, the motion before us is to approve the amendments as recommended by the Planning Director with the Planning Director’s proposed amendments to Conditions B and C, as well as the proposed amendments to Condition B from Ki Emler, which states on the second to the last line on Condition B, it states, “shall be granted in EXHIBIT C 13 lieu of ”, instead of the word “to”, as well as in the last sentence of Condition B to add in the words, “and approved by the County.” On Condition C, we would be adding in revised wording recommended by the applicant’s representative to state, “the second channelized intersection improvements shall be provided prior” – and we will be adding in – “to and in conjunction with the opening and use of the project’s second access”, and we would be deleting the remainder of the sentence. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, seven to zero. GRAHAM: Fine. Thank you for keeping good track of everything there, Jeff. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. We’ll notify you in writing. The discussion ended at 2:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT C 14