Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-03 TKABUMOTO PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT July 3, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on the applications of CLIFFORD KABUMOTO (SLU 03-002/REZ 03-007) was called to order at 9:20 a.m. in the Ohana Keauhou Beach Resort, Kahalu`u Ballroom, 78-6740 Ali`i Drive, North Kona, Hawai`i, with Chairperson Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred Galdones ABSENT & EXCUSED: Francis Smith Earl Fujikawa Bill Graham Florence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner And approximately 16 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CLIFFORD KABUMOTO (SLU 03-002/REZ 03-007) Î Applications for a State Land Use boundary amendment from the Agricultural to the Rural District and a Change of Zone from the Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to the Residential and Agricultural 1-acre (RA-1a) district for approximately 7.315 acres of land. The property is located on the west (makai) side of Mmalahoa Highway, approximately 150 feet northwest of the Mmalahoa Highway Î Kaloko Drive intersection, Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawai`i, TMK: 7-3-19:21 and 30. GALDONES:Commissioners, New Business, Item No. 2, Applicant is Clifford Kabumoto (SLU 03-002/REZ 03-007). This is an application for a State Land Use boundary amendment from the Agricultural to the Rural District and a Change of Zone from the Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to the Residential and Agricultural 1-acre (RA-1a) district for approximately 7.315 acres of land. Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, to the presentation map on the board. First of all, the location, area location map, the subject property is indicated in red. This is ` Hawaii Belt Highway, also referred to Mmalahoa Highway, and State Highway 190. This would be towards Waimea and this would be going towards Kailua-Kona. Kaloko Drive and Kaloko Mauka Subdivision is in this area. This would be the intersection of Kaloko Drive with Highway 190. And if I go to -. The zoning on the, the colored zone map indicates the 1 EXHIBIT A various zoning. The blue shaded areas are currently zoned Agriculture 3-acre. We also have some Agriculture 5-acre zoning in this, excuse me, Agriculture 1-acre in these green shaded areas, Agriculture 5-acres in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision in this darker green area. We also have Agriculture 20-acre zoned areas which is this, I guess, chartreuse or darker green area. There are some Single Family Residential zones indicated in yellow. The subject property is located off of Old Government Road. This particular road has a pavement width of eight feet. This, again, is Highway 190 and Kaloko Drive. Also referred today in the Background is Homestead Road, and Homestead Road also has an eight-foot concrete pavement; it's steep. The subject property again is indicated in blue. The Applicant intends to subdivide the property into four lots consist -, ranging from 1.5 to 2 acres in size. Single family dwellings will be constructed on the property. Staff is recommending approval of this particular rezoning request with conditions. We previously sent out the proposed recommendation and proposed conditions. We -, this morning we circulated amendments to that recommendation to you, and it's revised Condition E. And I believe all of you had a chance to review the proposed amendment. Are there any questions regarding this request? GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Norman? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Norman, in the Background Report, there was some reference to another rezoning request in the area and that maybe that depending on what the other rezoning request did or whether it got approved the roads would go this way or that way. Can you show us where that is? HAYASHI:What page are you looking at? GRAHAM:I got to find it again. I just remember reading it. HAYASHI:I think it may have been something that the Applicant brought up about a future application or pending application in our office. If that is the application, then that particular property would be located right here off of Homestead Road, and that would be this particular property here, and that will be coming before the Planning Commission within the next couple months. GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions of Norman? If not -. KUBOTA:I have one. 2 GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Norm, the correction that was made in today's passing out of the paper, is that Condition E only, the rewording of Condition E? HAYASHI:Yes. KUBOTA:And you left F intact? HAYASHI:That's correct. And this particular condition, revised condition, as well as Condition F, would give the Applicant the alternative of perhaps redesigning their, or gaining access off of Homestead Road should other alternatives present itself. So that would give them the option of either coming off of Old Government Road. If they were to do that, they would have to make intersection improvements here. Or, as an alternative, they could use the Homestead Road for access. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:I think it was about six months ago the County did a traffic study on that particular intersection there. Do you know the results of it? HAYASHI:I'm not sure as to what the results were regarding that intersection improvement. FUJIKAWA:Was -? HAYASHI:But it's my understanding that improvements will be made to this particular intersection by the County with funds, with some of the funds that were collected for conditions that were imposed within the properties in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Norm, getting back to the new E. HAYASHI:Yes. KUBOTA:It says access to the property shall be in accordance with DPW. Am I to assume then that DPW then says which egress/ingress the Applicant shall take? HAYASHI:No. KUBOTA:Is it their prerogative to do that? 3 HAYASHI:No. What we're basically saying in this particular condition is that if the Applicant intends to utilize the Old Government Road as its access rather than Homestead Road -. KUBOTA:Yes. HAYASHI:Then they would have to get approval from Public Works to make certain improvements within this Old Government Road right-of-way. YUEN:Could I follow up on a previous question on the improvement of Kaloko Drive in the study? A number of the rezoning applications for Kaloko Mauka have a fair share assessment for road improvements. The figure that's in my head of what has been collected so far is about $150,000. The most recent fair share assessment said that that -, the money from that rezoning will be used to do a study as to what improvements could be made. That has not been completed. KUBOTA:I guess -. YUEN:So there are no actual plans in place to improve the intersection, nor do we know whether there is enough money to do what improvements that study would call for. KUBOTA:Oh, I see -. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I was reading the first sentence and reading into it with a different meaning. I thought it says, to me, that the DPW tells the Applicant where the, where he shall take the exit or ingrerr`mcdfqdrreqnl+nhm`bbnqc`mbdwith the Department of Public Vnqjr+ohsr`xrsgdqd-Atshsld`mrsnsgdhqrsandards. If they take it off of Old Government Road, the Applicant shall fix the entryway to the specifications of DPW, is what it's saying. Is that what this new E is saying? YUEN:Well, it means -. KUBOTA:Or am I reading -? YUEN:Either. Yeah, it means that either -, if they decide to take, whichever road they decide to take access, they will have to meet with the requirements of the Department of Public Works for the intersection improvements. KUBOTA:Am I the only one that's reading it in that skewed way? 4 HAYASHI:Well, actually, I think you may be reading it correctly if you do it the way it's written. Perhaps we could just delete that first sentence, and it still would give the Applicant the alternative of either going toward, using the Old Government Road as access or the Homestead Road. YUEN:Although if we delete the first sentence, we do need to say something about what they do, what they have to do, and specify that they, that if they use Homestead Road, then improvements to Homestead Road and to the intersection would have to meet with the requirements of the Department of Public Works. Because E currently does not say that, if you delete the first sentence. KUBOTA:I hate to argue this -. YUEN:This -. KUBOTA:Belabor this point, Mr. Chair, but it doesn't say that to begin with, to me. HAYASHI:Well, maybe just to further clarify -. On Condition F, if you notice Condition F says that Homestead Road, and again this would be Homestead Road, if that is used as an access, then it would have to meet with the requirements of the Department of Public Works. YUEN:That's right, it's already in F. HAYASHI:Yes. GALDONES:Commissioner -. HAYASHI:So if the Director agrees, then we can take that first sentence out on Condition E. YUEN:Yeah, I think F is, F will work. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:So, Norman, the first sentence in the revised E will be stricken? HAYASHI:Correct. And it will start with "should the access for the subdivision." YUEN:No, but I think, you know, reading it again, I think F then would need an additional sentence referring to the intersection because F only saysnGnldrsd`cQn`c+he used to provide access, shall be widened and improved along the property frontage meeting with the requirements of the Department of Public Works.o@mcGnldrsd`cQn`ccndrmns 5 go, the frontage does not go all the way to the Mmalahoa Highway. I think we would then, we should say Homestead Road, if used to provide access, shall be widened and improved, including the Mmalahoa Highway intersection to the -, meeting with the requirements of the Department of Public Works. GALDONES:Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE:No, just noting that Condition E, where it says at the end of that sentence sg`srs`qsrnRgntkcsgd`bbdrr+o`mchsr`xrsgdapplicant shall improve the intersection at the Old Government Road and State Highway 190, Mmalahoa Highway/Kaloko Drive, in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Public Works and the State Department of Transportation prior to receipt of final subdivision approval. That doesn't cover that? YUEN:Well, that only covers Old Government Road, not the Homestead Road. So I think we would say the same thing, use the same language, but also that the Homestead Road itself be improved along the property frontage. F should say basically the same thing as E, except that we would say Homestead Road instead of Old Government Road, and add that the Homestead Road should be improved along the property frontage, as well. KUBOTA:F is there. Excuse me, Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Isn't F what Director Yuen is referring to? YUEN:In re-reading F, the problem with F is it says, what it says right now in its entirety is Homestead Road, if used to provide access, shall be widened and improved along the property frontage. KUBOTA:Yeah. YUEN:Meeting with the requirements of the Department of Public Works. KUBOTA:Right. YUEN:If you'll notice, easiest to look at the map up there, Homestead Road, the property frontage is only what's outlined in blue there. So then we would make them, if all we had was F, then we, they would have to widen Homestead Road along the property frontage, but they wouldn't have to do anything between the property and the highway and wouldn't have to do anything at the intersection. So we need to say that they have to improve up to and including the intersection, if they use Homestead Road as the access. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? 6 GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Is that a burden we require of all applicants that if they use, if they take egress or ingress from a unmanned or unstable road, they need to fix every inch of the usage or just the frontage area? Is that a burden we generally put on? YUEN:If they are asking for a rezoning at a substandard intersection, we should make them fix the intersection. And if they are using a substandard County road for access, we should make them fix the road. KUBOTA:I see. YUEN:And we have done that in -. KUBOTA:We have done that? YUEN:Most instances, yes. GALDONES:Norman, did you get the amendments to Condition F? HAYASHI:I think it could read as "Homestead Road, if used to provide access, shall be widened and improved from the west end of the subject property to the intersection with Highway 190, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works." GALDONES:Okay. Commissioners? Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Those oddly shaped parcels between the sections of Old Government Road and the Mmalahoa Highway, are those privately owned or publicly owned? HAYASHI:These are privately owned, and there are single family dwellings on -, I know there are single family dwellings on this side. SPRINGER:Thank you. Also, another question. At the lower side of the subject property, there's a 30-foot road. Is that a possible access to the property? HAYASHI:They don't have any direct access. These are individual lots -. SPRINGER:I see. HAYASHI:Along the 30-foot road. And the 30-foot road is, that Commissioner Springer referred to, is in this location. SPRINGER:Does that 30-foot road and the Old Government, sorry, the Homestead Road intersect? 7 HAYASHI:It hooks up to the Homestead Road. SPRINGER:So might that be another route that residents on the subject property could take to exit their property? HAYASHI:Except that they don't have any direct access to this road since these lots were, are already created. These are individual lots and not lots -. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:I have a question of the Director. You know, continuing on with the request that the Applicants improve the Old Homestead Road to standard -, what about those families that are down there on the 30-foot road that are now taking egress or entry and exit from Homestead Road? Do they come in on the benefits of the improvement or do they have to pay also for their fair share? YUEN:Well, they have legal, they have legal existing lots, and there is no mechanism to impose any kind of requirement on them. They would piggyback, and it would be to their advantage, yes. I mean they would have an improved road to get in and out of, that's right. KUBOTA:So they clearly benefit from that? YUEN:Yes, they would. KUBOTA:I see. Okay. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions of Norman? If not, could we have the Applicant or representative please step forward. Good morning, Mr. Mooers. Could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell truth on this matter now before ` the Hawaii County Planning Commission? MOOERS:I do. GALDONES:Please state your name and residence address, please. MOOERS:My name is Gregory Mooers. My address is Box 1101, Kamuela, ` Hawaii. GALDONES:Mr. Mooers, you have received a copy of the Background Report and the Recommendations? MOOERS:Yes, I have. 8 GALDONES:You have been listening to the discussion that has been ongoing regarding some amendments. Do you have any comments? MOOERS:Yes, I do, several actually. First, I'd like to point out an error in the application, which indicates that the roadway improvements are not necessary. Clearly, they are. I think the Applicant understands that the access to this property is substandard. There are two potential access points to this property. One is off of the Old Government Road, which is the intersection, the makai intersection of Kaloko Drive and Mmalahoa Highway. The other access is off of the Homestead Road on the north side of the property. Both of those intersections are substandard. There are two initiatives in the community right now that I'd like to make reference to that I think points out the Applicant's desire to really be part of the solution instead of part of exacerbating the problem. The first, as the Director had indicated, is that the Kaloko Mauka intersection has been identified as an intersection that does need improvement, and you'll recall that all rezonings in that Kaloko Mauka Subdivision have come with the condition that requires funds be collected to be used toward the improvement of that intersection. So, certainly, one possibility for improving the access to this proposed subdivision would be for that intersection improvements to take place; and I think Condition E speaks to that. And it says that the Applicant, if he chooses to use this access, would either need to improve the intersection, or if the intersection improvements are underway, pay his fair share toward those improvements. So if that intersection is improved into a T intersection, then clearly the access onto the highway would be in a manner that would be safe and meet with the requirements of not only Department of Transportation but the Department of Public Works. If that takes place, then the Applicant can reconfigure the four lots so that all accesses would be taken through that intersection. The other possibility, and if you don't mind, I'd like to go to the map and address this. As Mr. Hayashi indicated, there is a proposed change of zone amendment to the north of this property over here in this area, one lot, let's see, removed from here. So it would be this area right here, and there's one lot, and then the Old Homestead Road would be here. So the Homestead Road, there's a lot, and there's a 55-acre piece here. That 55-acre piece is going to be before this body on the August 1 st agenda. One of the things we're looking at is trying to create an intersection there, close this intersection of the Old Homestead Road here, and direct the traffic to the north, and use a brand new channelized intersection at this point. So if that change of zone is successful, as conditioned now, there would be an opportunity to have all of the people that presently use the Homestead Road, instead of using this intersection, which is very unsafe, is that they would be able to come out and use a channelized intersection for their ingress and egress. So that's why there is the possibility that's raised under Condition F. So the Applicant recognizes that access to the -, or to the property has got to be improved, and all we're trying to do is keep the options open as to which one of those improvements would best suit them. If this proceeds, then that could provide access to this subdivision. If this 9 proceeds, this could provide access to the subdivision. In either case, the Applicant, as presently conditioned, could not subdivide the property, even if the zoning is granted, he cannot subdivide the property until the access is improved. But, as Mrs. Kubota points out, clearly the people who live off this 30-foot road would benefit if this intersection or this roadway were improved. GALDONES:Mr. Mooers, are you ready for questions, or you have more to testify? MOOERS:No. GALDONES:Okay. MOOERS:I'm ready for any questions you may have. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Mooers, in that scenario that you sketched out to us following the next application that we may be hearing, would the Old Government Road then be used to travel towards the north, to that channelized, proposed channelized intersection? MOOERS:No, the -, it would be another road. It would go through some private property. We're in conversation with the property owner of thatoqnodqsxsnrddhesgdxkkk indicate their willingness to participate, because the proposed rezoning is one property removed from that Homestead Road. So we need the cooperation of that property owner in order to make that -. But the Old Government Road actually loops up and does not extend any further to the north, so that would not be able to be used. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Mr. Hayashi, I assume that you, our office has been in consultation with Mr. Mooers and have already discussed the scenario that he brought forth to us this morning. And do you feel that the conditions, as written now, for this project, covers those options that Mr. Mooers was referring to? HAYASHI:In response to your question as to whether we did, as to whether we consulted with Mr. Mooers, yes, we did. As far as the conditions, I think the conditions as -, the proposed Condition E, as amended, as well as Condition F, as I indicated earlier, with some modification, can -, would be, would be able to address the concerns that you have. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham. 10 GRAHAM:Mr. Mooers, Commissioner Fujikawa, a little while ago, said a traffic study had been conducted six months ago, but we didn't have any specifics of it here. Do you know more about that traffic study, specifics? MOOERS:No, I do not. I suspect that if the applicant to the north is required to install an intersection that they will have to do a traffic impact analysis report at that proposed intersection site, so that work would be done. I don't know what the results of the intersection study at Kaloko are. GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Norman, perhaps you can refresh our memories. Is that what is being, Mr. Fujikawa is referring to? I wonder if those are the, if that's the video that Daryn made previously? ETIHJ@V@9Sg`slrvg`sHv`rqdedqqhmfsn- SPRINGER:Yes, that's what Commissioner Fujikawa is referring to. HAYASHI:No, I haven't seen any video, so I'm not aware. SPRINGER:Yes. Part of a previous application in the Kaloko Mauka area, Staff went out and established a photo point and collected video from both the morning and the afternoon peak traffic times. HAYASHI:Unfortunately, I wasn't aware of such a video. GALDONES:Any further questions of Norman or of Mr. Mooers? If not, there are two individuals from the public who wish to testify on the subject matter, Elizabeth Theriault, I hope I pronounced your last name okay, and Curtis Tyler III. Could you please step forward. Could 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? TYLER:I do. THERIAULT:Yes. GALDONES:Could you please state your name and resident address. We'll start with you, Elizabeth. THERIAULT:My name's Elizabeth Theriault, and I live at -. 11 GALDONES:Could you speak in the microphone so that we have a recording. THERIAULT:My name is Elizabeth Theriault. I live at 4552 Mmalahoa Highway, which is the Lot 17 on the 30-foot access below the property. So I'm at the very end, south, right there where your pinky finger is, yeah. GALDONES:You may begin your testimony. THERAULT:Okay. First, I want to just acknowledge really the thoughtful considerations to the Homestead Road because that is a very high stress point for those of us living down there. And if I understand correctly that, that access to the highway would need to be improved before it was developed, as you are considering now, is that correct? Because as it is now, a fire truck can't even get down there to access our houses; and that's really a concern. And we've done a lot of work, as a community, to try and have that improved. And as I understand, it's in the County Finance Department, and there's no responsibility being taken for that road. So my great concern is having that, more -. It cannot bear any more weight of heavy equipment going down there, so I would really like to see that addressed. The other thing that I have a concern about is the original landscape of that area is rainforest from the lower Kaloko area, and I've been really impressed with the owner's consideration of `` that in maintaining the ohia trees on that lot. And my concern is with the rezoning and mo `` housing that those, that rainforest ohia tree life will be removed. There are hawks nesting in that area. And the location where I am, I'm reforesting my property, and I value the cultural impact, the wildlife impact, and I would really like to see something protected in that area. I know in the Kaloko area above, that when rezoning was applied for, that there were buffer zones required on property lines to maintain the rainforest natural landscape of the area. And the Applicant, being so aware of maintaining that already, I think that he would be willing to work with the community and the Commission to maintain that. And I would like that addressed, if possible, and for the watershed, besides the other issues. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, are there any questions of Elizabeth? Mr. Tyler. TYLER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good morning and good morning to all the Commissioners. Thank you for being here today, and thank you for the opportunity to provide some brief comments regarding the application. My name is Curtis Tyler, and I come this morning as the Council 8, Council District 8 Council member or representative, and Mrs. Theriault and Mr. Kabumoto are both constituents of mine, and I know them both personally. I appreciate Mrs. Theriault's comments this morning, especially relating to her knowledge of the Church of God Road or the Homestead Road, as she knows it, as we have also referred to it today. I wanted to let the Commissioners know that I have met with Mr. Kabumoto regarding his proposal. He first called me about this, and I told him that as a Council Member, I was unable 12 to be directly involved in this. But then I referred him to a number of people, one of whom was Mr. Mooers, and I am assuming that's one of the reasons why he is here this morning. I wanted to again thank the Council, excuse me, the Commission for your ongoing concern regarding the intersections of the Homestead Road, also known as Church of God Road, and the Old Government Road with Highway 190, or Mmalahoa Highway. This Commission has consistently queried Staff as well as applicants or their representatives regarding the conditions of these intersections. In fact, the Commission, at one point, suggested to the Council that no further rezonings be done in Kaloko Mauka until that intersection was improved. Mr. Mooers has given you some background information regarding the Kaloko rezonings, as has Director Yuen. I can tell you that I have personally worked on this, that particular project, ever since I came into office. We have had some ongoing difficulties, not the least of which is insufficient funds, to complete it, but also a fair amount of finger-pointing. And I am hopeful that with Director Yuen's help and the Council's help, we will be able to redirect present and future roadway fair share assessments to allow for a four-way traffic signal at this location. If we go to a channelized intersection, there will be substantial condemnation of the properties, including the former home that I used to live in, and which my sister now lives in, which our family lived in. And this is going to cost probably millions of dollars, also, on the makai side, and that owner is Mr. Ferreira, Perreira, excuse me, who is in the audience this morning, as well. But I wanted to let you know that we are working with the Kaloko landowners regarding this traffic study. We are working with Mr. Mooers, as well as Public Works, to try to come up with a solution there. And, heretofore, there has been little consideration for the four-way intersection, merely a T intersection with Kaloko Drive. And if anybody is familiar with this, and I know some or perhaps all of the Commissioners are very familiar with this since you drive by it, that would be a huge mistake. So we'll try to do this in a cost effective way. With respect to the Church of God Road or the Homestead Road, as it has been called, there has already been one death there which left, I think, three children orphaned, and a substantial number of accidents. And I approached Mr. Mooers and the adjacent property owners to try to come up with a solution that would take four potential intersections onto Highway 190, within a very short period. There are two existing ones right now. There's one to the north of the 55 acres. There's the 55-acre, which has access. There's the next one that Mr. Mooers mentioned, and then there's the Church of God Road. And what I'm attempting to do, and working with the adjacent landowners and Mr. Mooers, in particular, and I thank him for helping with this effort, is to bring four of those down to one. And it would be a parallel road where it would all connect in, and there seems to be some agreement. We're waiting on, as Mr. Mooers explained, one adjacent landowner. Because it's virtually impossible to improve the Church of God Road from a sight distance standpoint because of the massiveness of the lava that's there. In fact, we'd probably have to take another house. If you're not familiar, there's a house up in there. So, anyway, it's not quite as simple as one would think. In any case, I wanted to provide that to you as background. 13 I also wanted to, I noted in the back, I want to thank the Staff for providing me with the Background Report and Recommendations. I noticed that in there the, it is stated that the Old Government Road fronting the subject, the Applicant's property, is owned by the State, and I don't believe that's true. I believe that the County owns this road. It continues to say it does not. But if you look across the street to the north, excuse me, to the east, you will notice that, ` or if you've driven there, that there is the old, the Hawaii Belt Road, formerly known as Mmalahoa Highway. It runs roughly parallel to Highway 190, and it is maintained by the County. And this Commission, in prior sessions, in prior years, has done a lot of rezoning along that road, and has never once ever required any applicant to improve an intersection. As a matter of fact, the last rezoning along there that I recall, I think it was for six or eight required only that there be a, I think it was a five-foot or a 10-foot widening, and that didn't even have to be paved. So that is a County road. And I'm not saying the road doesn't need to be improved. What I want to point out is that this is one of those roads that some people in the County would call a road in limbo; and I believe the State gave this road to the County, the legislature actually did it. So, and as a matter of fact, the Department of Public Works has provided me with a map indicating that it is a County road and what they call a road in limbo, as is the Homestead Road, the Church of God Road. Before I leave today, I'd like to get a copy of the, if I could be provided it, with the new Condition E and the proposed new language for Condition F so I can just review it. Condition F, as I understood it, you were, I'm sorry, you were asking, if I understood correctly, that your conversations, for improvements not only of the road frontage but the entire roadway all the way up to the intersection and including the intersection. And just as an observation, and I think Commissioner Kubota was asking some very pertinent questions, there are currently two lots on this property. One lot has an access, a legal access on the Homestead Road. The other lot has substantial frontage on, as both of them do, substantial frontage on the Old Government Road; and so there's a legal access there. The proposal, as I understand it, that is before you today would be to add two additional lots, each of which would contain a provision for, that would prohibit any further dwellings from being constructed, including CPR units. And I applaud the Director and the Staff, and I thank the Commission for considering that. That, in itself, will mean only two more. Mr. Kabumoto has indicated to me that he is very concerned about clear cutting and that he wants to preserve it and has grubbed, as you can see from your -, from this, but he has grubbed the land and tried to save most of the trees, as I think Mrs. Theriault has pointed out. I think that's his intention. He told me that one of these lots was going to be his personal residence. I'm just about done, Mr. Chairman. The makai lot owners, of which Mrs. Theriault is one, have already paid substantial monies to improve, personal funds now, with no help really from the County, except a little bit at the top, to improve the Homestead Road. I've spoken with Mr. McClure and Mr. Nakasone, and I have strongly suggested to them that since the County in past times has approved rezonings in this area, in particular your Kohanaiki Homesteads, which Mrs. Theriault lives, and since 14 those people have complained for literally decades about the condition of the County public road and, in fact, have spent their own money in order to afford emergency vehicles to come down there, that it's now time for the County to step up to the plate and maintain that road. Mr. Kabumoto has indicated to me that he's willing to provide some turnouts, because that's one of the problems. There's some senior citizens that live down there and occasionally they have to back down, and it's very difficult. So I wanted to let you know that we are working diligently on this, and hopefully the County will finally assume the responsibility that it has had for a long time in that regard. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think as we look around this area, we see that there are properties that have been rezoned, in some cases smaller than 10,000 square feet. We have seen some that are three acres, as noted by Staff. And we know that there are going to be others because of the urban expansion designations of this area makai of Mmalahoa Highway. And it seems to me that any efforts that are brought forward by landowners to minimize the, minimize increasing impacts to our already strained infrastructure would be good ones, and I speak personally, of course, I don't speak for the Council. And I would just say that your maps indicate that the 30-foot road, off of which Mrs. Theriault lives, continues to the south. It used to continue to the south, and some Commissioners may remember a contested case that came, actually went to court. And now it does not only, not continue to the south but the adjacent property owner has seen fit to cut the land so substantially that no emergency vehicles, unless you had an M1A2 Abrams tank or perhaps a striker or, you know, an AAV, or something like that, would be able to negotiate this. I don't even think a hummer could go up there. So that was, that wonderful opportunity was foreclosed. I would also point out to you that there is a mauka-makai road which runs along the southern, outside of but south of the southern boundary of Mr. Kabumoto's property, and that road has seen considerable activity, including some very massive houses being built on there. And as far as I know, there hasn't been one single improvement to the road as a result of those. So I thank you very much for your consideration, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions. I hope this information was not boring. I hope it was not -, I hope it gives you some perspective. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Tyler. TYLER:You're welcome, sir. GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Tyler? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I have one real specific question, Curtis. When the representative, Mr. Mooers, gave the different road possibilities that could happen, I found it very helpful; and it certainly seems like one possibility of improving the Homestead Road access would be a benefit of substantial value. Also, if you were coordinating with the other pending application farther to the north, and moved all the traffic from that 30-foot road onto a new intersection, 15 that also would seem beneficial. Given the Planning Director's comments regarding the status of the intersection at Kaloko Drive, not having moved very rapidly as far as I can tell, it seems to me that if this Applicant were to go ahead with his subdivision, not subdivision but the rezoning to the four parcels in the near future, the most likely option he would take would be just to improve that Old Government Road intersection with Kaloko Drive before anything major gets done coming down Kaloko Drive. So my question to you just is if that is, in fact, the specific course that is taken to make the access to the Mmalahoa Highway from that Old Government Road for these four parcels, does that feel to you like that is a net plus for the community as opposed to just, you know, adding extra traffic and not a net plus? TYLER:May I respond, Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Go ahead, Mr. Tyler. TYLER:Thank you. Indeed, it would certainly improve the intersection because of sight distance. On the other hand, it would be about as draconian a condition as I could possibly imagine imposed on any landowner. And I don't say that in a flippant way, Mr. Graham. If you will notice, Mr. Kabumoto does not own the intervening properties on either side of the road. And for him to improve those roadways to County dedicable standards, which I think I saw here in one of the conditions, would entail acquiring a substantial amount of property. It would entail a huge expenditure at the intersections, both intersections along the Department of Transportation's corridor of Highway 190. And it seems to me to be a rather unusual condition for an addition of two lots for a total of four, two of which already have legal access to utilize the road. Mr. Kabumoto has told me in conversations that we've had that he's very committed to being a good neighbor, he's very committed to doing his fair share, and he will be more than happy to do that. He does not feel, and I, he's not here, so it is my understanding, let me put it this way, since I can't speak for him and don't presume to -. It is my belief that to require any landowner to improve a roadway that is not on his property or her property is, when the impact seems to be so minimal, and not do it for others whose impact is significantly more is not consistent. And I don't believe it's fair. And I hope none of you take that as a critical, I don't mean to make a criticism. What I have always tried to do, and I think this Commission has tried to do as well, and I applaud you for it, is to be fair and consistent and to -. We all agree. I can't imagine anyone would disagree that those roads need improvement. However, every citizen pays fuel tax monies to maintain the County roads, both of which these are. I think Mr. Kabumoto and any applicant who improves their property should have some responsibility to provide a fair share or to provide some kind of improvement in lieu of that, and I believe they have stated they are willing to do that. Mr. Graham, that was a long answer. I hope I answered your question. But did I? GRAHAM:Okay. TYLER:Thank you, sir. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Tyler. Commissioner Fujikawa, you had a question? 16 FUJIKAWA:Yeah, a question with Councilman Tyler. TYLER:Yes, sir. FUJIKAWA:I noticed that all this time that the County is waiting for the developer to foot the bill in the road improvement. Now why isn't the County concentrating on the Kona side for a road improvement like this? TYLER:Well, Mr. Fujikawa, that's a good question. You know, if I could answer that question, I probably could run for king. But unfortunately, sir, I have pursued this same question for almost seven years, well, no actually a lot more than seven years, but as your elected Council Member for almost seven years. I am told that the County does not build the roads and that with the exception of the, excuse me, what's it, Mohouli in Hilo, that's the first road the County has built in 30 years, and they acknowledge that. That's shameful, especially since they have so many roads over there and we have virtually none over here. I'm sure everyone read the letter to the editor yesterday that there's 20,000 tons of AC purchased `` in East Hawaii and only 2,000 in West HawaiI; and of course we understand that it costs twice as much over here, but it still doesn't seem equitable. I'm not trying to be flippant, sir, ` but I think that some of us are working very hard to ensure that West Hawaii gets its fair share. And some of you on this Council, as well as me, personally, on this Commission, as well as others, many of the public, are concerned that this County does not have an impact fee ordinance, that perhaps the fair shares are inadequate; and I would agree that some of the numbers are pretty low. The, I understand there are some inherent problems with a fair share, in that we can't use fair share assessments to correct deficits, unless those deficits are exacerbated by the new development, and that putrtrhm`b`sbg,11rhst`shnm-@mcHllmns sure how to remedy that, but I'm sure that Mr. Yuen, Mr. McClure, and others will be able to work together with us to assist us in that. It's a long answer to a very important question. And I think that each one of us who lives here on this Island needs to work together to come ` up with a viable solution. I'm not suggesting that we abandon East Hawaii or that, or vice versa. That we are one Island, I believe in one County, and I think that it's important we, as you are trying to do today, to be fair and equitable. I assure you I'll do my part. And, Mr. Fujikawa, if you have any ideas personally, I'll be happy to hear from you, sir. FUJIKAWA:Well, the reason why I brought this up is I've been doing a lot of comparison over on the mainland. In the mainland, the county and the city would put in their infrastructure first and then zone, you know, put in their subdivision or development. But we seem to be putting the development in first and then the infrastructure after. TYLER:Yes. Some of us have spoken with the Director, as well as the previous director, as well as the Director of Public Works regarding concurrency of infrastructure ordinance, and I have provided one in the past. I believe other Council Members are pursuing this, as well. Certainly other areas have done it. And the question, the real question, Mr. Fujikawa, and fellow Commissioners, is that the deficit is so great it's, if you look at the 17 CIP, how -, not that we shouldn't start, but there's so many needs on this Island, we're growing so quickly, that sometimes the numbers are just mind boggling. And I think there's no time like the present, and we should all work together and start tomorrow, or today, actually. Thank you for the question, sir. FUJIKAWA:Okay. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Tyler. TYLER:You're welcome, sir. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions -? FUJIKAWA:No. GALDONES:Of Mrs. Theriault or Mr. Tyler? None? Thank you very much. Mr. Mooers? Mr. Mooers, do you have any further comments? MOOERS:Just a general point. I think Mr. Tyler was speaking to one part of Condition E regarding, I think, the words used were draconian condition. I think the practical application is just quite simple. The only way this project can be developed and subdivided as presently conditioned would be if (a) either the intersection at Kaloko was improved as part of a public project, or (b) the other improvement to the north is made. It would be financially infeasible for the gentleman adding two additional lots to go to the expenditure of improving that intersection on his own. So even though that's part of the condition, essentially the way I read it is that you shall not proceed until these improvements are made. So that is not going to happen. I mean Mr. Kabumoto will not unilaterally improve that intersection. So one of two things will happen. For these two additional lots to be created, either he will cooperate at the Kaloko intersection, or he will cooperate to improve not only the intersection but including the roadway on the Old Homestead Road. In either case, I think there will be substantial improvement to the public. I think the point that Mr. Fujikawa brings up regarding the lack of infrastructure and having worked both inside government and outside government on this County, I can tell you that, you know, the County does not have the funds to install infrastructure first. And primarily roads are built by developers, and normally by large developers; because small lot developers simply can't afford it, so they tend to piggyback on things. We have a number of lots that are developed because of existing zoning that occurred many years ago and are not subject to conditions. I think what I try to accomplish with the projects that I work on, particularly in the North Kona area, is to look at ways in which we can be innovative to combine different developers together so that small developers can, in fact, coordinate their efforts in a manner similar to a large developer, and they do have the resources, either through direct contributions or through impact related fees, that they can pool their resources and create improved intersections, or roadways, or water systems. And that, I think, is the challenge for those of 18 us that are in the business that I am, is to find those opportunities so that when we come forward like an application like this, is that simply, instead of simply saying, hey, let us have two more lots because, you know, it's only two more lots, is that we try to find a way to say, okay, yeah, we want two additional lots, but we can be part of the solution. Yeah, we're willing to pay our funds to improve Kaloko intersection, or we're willing to cooperate to improve this intersection. And I think those are the types of things that we need to provide in order to justify a change of zone. Because if you can't, it makes it far more difficult. And I'd feel, frankly, very uncomfortable to come forward with that to you. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Mooers. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Mooers. Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Regarding the testifiers' comments and concerns regarding the native plant species, I'm looking at the report by Drs. Terry and Hart and I see that their recommendations included the landscaping plan, incorporate preservation of some individuals `` of the native tree species, ohia, hala, lama and/or small areas containing these species. Is the Applicant committed to this recommendation? MOOERS:The Applicant is, yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? FUJIKAWA:No. GALDONES:Commissioners, Staff recommended approval. There's two parts to it, one is the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and the other is the Change in Zone. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify. Looking at Condition E again, the way it's written, it seems pretty absolute that the Applicants shall improve the intersection at Old Government Road and State Highway 190, Kaloko Drive, prior to receipt of final subdivision approval. Is that the intent that -? MOOERS:I think that was the original condition. The proposed amendment that I received had the, even if the first sentence is omitted, it should starsvhsgnRgntkcsgd`bbdrr for the subdivision be taken from the Old Government Road at its intersection, then those hloqnudldmsr,-oRnHsghmjsg`sv`s the amendment that I'm operating under. TORIGOE:Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. 19 KUBOTA:Mr. Chair, not to belabor the point again, but, you know, this Condition E as it's written, as I said earlier, it seems a very, well, Mr. Tyler used the word draconian, but it seems extremely harsh or demanding; and, therefore, I questioned Mr. Yuen about the prevalence of these kinds of wording in conditions. Because I don't -, I may be wrong, I forget things very easily, but I don't remember our demanding improvements of this nature to be made by an Applicant requesting a small subdivision of land. And I know you gave me an answer to that, but I still feel very uncomfortable about it because I think it is a massive -. Although we say we're giving the Applicants a choice, I don't think he has much of a choice. YUEN:Yeah, I'd like to address that question. This is a common situation. We are dealing -, we have an infrastructure that was, in these homesteads areas and these areas where you have small fragmented ownerships that was really built, it wasn't very good even for the time that it was built and is way out of date today. You have an intersection that is very seriously substandard. You have an eight-foot paved lane. You don't even have a sufficient pavement for two cars to pass. You have a number of homes, a number of properties that are using that intersection. Now we have someone come in for a rezoning that would intensify their use of their land. It would increase the number of properties that would be able to -, if they took the access off of this intersection, they would be able to use that intersection. What do we make them do? My belief and my opinion is that we should make people have safe access when they rezone their property to a higher intensity use, that people should solve the site specific problems that come with their site if they want a rezoning. If it is infeasible for them to do that, if it doesn't pay off, then I think we should not make the problem worse by rezoning the property. We are looking here at, sure, two lots. But if we say, well, it's only two lots, then if you look at the map, there are a number of other properties, there are a number of three-acre properties further down, further makai from this that are presently zoned for three-acre lots. They could come in for one-acre rezoning. And if you've said yes to one, then you say yes to the next, and you say yes to the next, and pretty soon you have a lot of people coming out of a very, very substandard intersection. We back ourselves into this problem when we don't deal with it up front at the beginning. If we take, say, the Kaloko Mauka situation, I'm uncomfortable -, we have recommended approval of a couple of rezoning on Kaloko Mauka -. KUBOTA:Ah, we sure did. YUEN:With simply individual -, with payments, basically, rather than you need, your subdivision needs to fix the intersection. It was, it is difficult to recommend anything otherwise because people would come in with -, they have a 21-acre lot zoned for 20 acres. They want to rezone for three-acre lots, and then we're looking at a situation where the properties above them, to either side of them, and below them were rezoned to three-acre lots. So my take on that has been, okay, we're not going to stop now, and we're going to recommend a rezoning to three-acre lots and try to deal with that intersection through an accumulation of payments. 20 But in this situation here where you currently have a highly substandard intersection and an unsafe intersection, I don't think it's responsible to simply say,nVdkk+hs&rnmkxsvnlnqdknsr that are going to use it, amckds&ritrskdshsfn-o GALDONES:Okay. Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Commissioners, any further questions or comments? Commissioner Mina. MINA:Right now, the County doesn't have anything as far as assessing people for improvement of the road, right? YUEN:The County has nothing in -, currently planned to improve those intersections or those roads. MINA:No, I'm talking about the monetary value of maintaining the road. I mean they don't pay to maintain the road, right, I mean, the people? YUEN:Except for paying their property taxes and their fuel taxes, they don't have any special assessment to maintain the road. MINA:Because, right now, I don't think that it's fair for he making the whole thing all the way up to the, to Mmalahoa Highway. Because what about the two properties right next to, on the left side? Because if anybody is going to improve one, I mean, make a subdivision, and they improve the road, the guys right next to make another subdivision, they're going to use the access on the same road. So how they're going to give the guy back the money? YUEN:If you're talking about the Homestead Road -. MINA:Yeah, the Homestead Road. YUEN:On the left-hand side that -. MINA:I'm talking about Homestead Road. YUEN:Our -, I discussed it with Mr. Hayashi. Our recommendation would be not that they have to improve -, if they did use that road, not that they have to improve it all the way to the makai boundary at the bottom, but they would have to improve it to the point at which their subdivision road came in. You know, in other words, the portion of the road that they would use for their own access. So -, and it is true that you have this, what economists call free rider problem in some of these situations where if the first person makes the improvement, the later person can get the benefit of it; and we don't have a mechanism in the County for reimbursement. Like electric poles, they have a mechanism where you can get reimbursed. The Water Department has a mechanism for you to be reimbursed if you put a 21 new pipeline that's at least eight inches in. We don't have a mechanism for roads. It's something that we could work on. It wouldn't be a bad idea. MINA:They should look into that because then it would be equal share, you know, not that everybody takes the whole expense at one time and then not get reimbursed. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Mina. Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:Question with the staff. The Mmalahoa Highway, is that a State highway? HAYASHI:Mmaloha Highway or Highway 119 is a State highway. FUJIKAWA:It is the State? HAYASHI:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Now why isn't the State involved into this addressing the intersection? Let them pay for it. HAYASHI:We did send comments to the State Department of Transportation. FUJIKAWA:They don't have the money, too.Vdkk+`mxv`x+Hllmns`f`hmrssgd development, I'm for the development, but see what the County could do to help the Applicant on this. GALDONES:Okay. Commissioners, any further questions or comments? If not, Commissioners, there is a recommendation from Staff to approve the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and also for the change of zoning. Of course, there are some amendments to the change of zone application. What is the wishes of the Commissioners? HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, we do have specific language for proposed condition, revised Condition F. GALDONES:Okay. Could you state that. HAYASHI:Yes. But before I do that, Mr. Tyler had indicated earlier that the Old Government Road is owned, not owned by the State Department of Transportation but is owned by the County. We do have comments from the Department of Public Works, and that's your Exhibit A. On Page 2, it does say that the Old Government Road fronting the subject property is under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation. I just wanted to clarify that. 22 Regarding proposed Condition, amended Condition F, and this is how we are proposing that it be amended. Homestead Road, if used to access -. Excuse me. "Homestead Road, if used to provide access, shall be widened and improved from the point of the subdivision access to Highway 190, meeting with the requirements of the Department of Public Works, prior to receipt of final subdivision approval. The improvements shall also include the Homestead Road-Highway 190 intersection." GALDONES:Okay. Thank you, Norman. Commissioners, I realize that there is also some emotions involved in coming to some decisions here regarding having the Applicant be burdened with the cost of improving the Homestead Road and also that intersection at the Mmalahoa Highway. However, what I think we also need to be mindful of at this, the issue of the traffic and the infrastructure that provides traffic is much to be desired out in the west side of this Island. I think at some point we have to make some tough decisions as to who's going to be burdened to do that. If we're going to, it seems like if we're going to continue to ask the County or the State to do it, it might be a long ways down the road before we can see any fruition of that occurring. Unfortunately, Mr. Kabumoto is strapped with this burden. In my understanding in the discussions, as stated by the Director, that this is not something that is new. This has also happened to other developments, also. MOOERS:Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment? GALDONES:Mr. Mooers. MOOERS:I'm concerned with the condition, revised Condition F that Mr. Hayashi just mentioned, specifically the last sentence, which says the improvement shall also include the Homestead Road-190 intersection. It's our intention, if we use that, is that that road, that intersection would not be improved, it would be abandoned, that we would be using a new intersection. And I would prefer if we could have that last sentence after it says that we're going to improve the Homestead Road along the frontage of the property until, you know, the intersection or to the highway, is that the next sentence say simply that the intersection with Highway 190 shall meet the approval of Public Works and DOT, so that that intersection might be there but it probably is going to be further to the north. So, I don't want to have my Applicant be saddled with improving an intersection that we really want to abandon, so I would ask that you amend that last sentence. GALDONES:Mr. Mooers, I understand that that would be abandoned if you do have the approval for the future application. MOOERS:That's correct. GALDONES:That you mentioned. MOOERS:I guess my point would be, is that the existing intersection of the Homestead Road or the Church of God road is, the sight distance is so poor that that 23 intersection will never be improved. The point would be is that if we are going to gain access from that Homestead Road, it would be through a new intersection. So I would simply like the last sentence to say, is that that intersection, a general term, the intersection shall meet with the approval of Department of Public Works and Department of Transportation. So that way it doesn't specify that it's the Homestead Road meeting with that, but just the intersection used for access to the property is going to have to meet with that standard. That's the point that I would like to make. GALDONES:Norman, would that recommendation from Mr. Mooers work? HAYASHI:That will be acceptable to us. GALDONES:Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, if there are no further discussions, the Chair is prepared to entertain a motion. KUBOTA:I have one more question. GALDONES:Mrs. Kubota. KUBOTA:Mr. Mooers, is it your understanding then that this proposed exit from the north, in the northern, towards the northern area will come to fruition soon and that your Applicant does have an alternate route in that direction rather than using the Old Government Road? MOOERS:There are two potential options. One would be to use the Old Government Road and then improve Kaloko intersection. KUBOTA:That's one. MOOERS:And the other option would be to move to the north towards a new and improved channelized intersection. KUBOTA:Supposing that doesn't come -? MOOERS:Then his -. KUBOTA:To fruition? MOOERS:That option -. KUBOTA:Then he's landlocked? MOOERS:No. 24 KUBOTA:Well, he can improve one or the other of the -? MOOERS:That's correct. KUBOTA:The exits. MOOERS:Then he would have to wait until the time that the Kaloko intersection is improved in order to have the additional two lots. KUBOTA:Okay. MOOERS:So then he would only have one option. All I'm trying to do is make sure the conditions give him the option of one or the other, or possibly both. KUBOTA:And your client is in full understanding of those options? MOOERS:Yes. KUBOTA:As well as the limitations? MOOERS:Yes. KUBOTA:And he is agreeable? MOOERS:He accepts the fact that the access will have to be improved, yes. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Having heard all of that, I'm ready to move on, if there are no other -. GALDONES:Chair is prepared to entertain a motion. KUBOTA:Thank you. Land Use, State Land Use first? GALDONES:Yes. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move that the State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 03-002) be forwarded to the County Council. MINA:Second. GALDONES:It's a favorable recommendation to the County Council? 25 KUBOTA:Didn't I say that? I did not say that? GALDONES:No. KUBOTA:I'm sorry. I meant a favorable recommendation -. GALDONES:Thank you. KUBOTA:Be sent. GALDONES:Okay. There has been a motion by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Mina of Clifford Kabumoto, State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 03-002) be given a favorable recommendation and be forwarded to the County Council. Any discussion? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. 26 HAYASHI:And Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. GALDONES:Thank you, Norman. Commissioner Kubota, on the change of zoning application? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, I move the Change of Zone Application be given a favorable recommendation (REZ 03-007) and be sent to the County Council, along with amendments. FUJIKAWA:I second. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:I'm not pau yet. I need to put, I need to say the conditions of approval, new Condition E being added as well as rewording of Condition F as read by Mr. Hayashi. I think that was it. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota, the motion also incorporates the amendment that is proposed by Mr. Mooers? KUBOTA:Yes. Yes. GALDONES:Thank you. KUBOTA:Yes. GALDONES:Okay. FUJIKAWA:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by BnllhrrhnmdqEtihj`v`+BkheenqcJ`atlnsnlrBgange of Zone Application (REZ 03-007) be given a favorable recommendation and be forwarded to the County Council along with the amendment as stated by Commissioner Kubota. Discussion? Hearing none, Norman. HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. 27 HAYASHI:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. GALDONES:Thank you, Norman. Mr. Mooers, you will be informed in writing of today's action. MOOERS:Thank you. GALDONES:You're welcome. The discussion ended at 10:37 a.m. Respectfully submitted, 28 Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Planning Commission 29