COM 0762.019 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Stacy Higa, Chair and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council Page 4 April 27, 2006 It has been suggested that the "waiver" provisions would allow a Planning Director to approve anything. This is not correct. For one thing, all of the actual requirements remain in other sections. For another thing, it makes no sense to approve a subdivision that does not show the lot layout, the streets, and the lot dimensions, because that is what the subdivider needs. Similarly, the waiver provisions for the final subdivision plat affect only technical information, and the subdivider can still be made to correct discrepancies, sec. 23-74(c). The proposed changes also eliminate specific requirements for grades and curves contained in sec. 23-50, and say that these "shall conform to accepted engineering practice as determined by the director of public works." The current sec. 23-50 sets maximum allowable grades, and minimum radii of curvature, for streets of various types, but states that the planning director and the director of public works can permit variations "where advisable to meet unusual conditions." It is not feasible to build mauka-makai streets in many areas of Kona, especially, within these grade limitations because the land is steep. For example, a collector road is not supposed to exceed 10%, but Hina Lam and Haleki'i both have sections of 18-19%. A secondary arterial is not supposed to exceed 8%, but the Kealakehe Parkway is planned by the state to have a maximum grade of 11%. Although it is already possible in the code to waive these "standards" in "unusual conditions", the fact is that there are large areas of the island for which these standards are impractical and have not been followed. The minimum horizontal curvature does not relate to current engineering practice, where the allowable curvature would be a function of design speed and superelevation. The current code inhibits the use of sharper curves as a traffic calming device. For these reasons, the department of public works asked that the specific requirements in sec. 23-50 be eliminated. Some of the public criticism of the bill seems based on a fundamental misconception of the subdivision process, including the comment that allowing the Planning Director to approve subdivisions by himself gives him too much power. (In practice, my staff does most of the work.) The Planning Director has had this power at least since the mid- 1960's. The power was delegated to the Director by ordinances passed by the Council (actually, the old Board of Supervisors.)