Laserfiche WebLink
Communication 1033 <br /> <br /> Bill No. 328 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> Brenda Ford of Kona testified that Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann's concurrency ordinances (Bills 318 <br /> and 319) was a good start, but was killed in lieu of an ordinance not yet introduced. Ms. Ford stated that <br /> the proposed concurcency ordinance has no set standard for level of service and leaves determination of a <br /> standard to the discretion of the Planning Director and allows for arbitrary decisions unanswerable to the <br /> voters. Ms. Ford suggested that both sets of bills (Mr. Hoffmann's Bills 318 and 319) and Ms. Isbell's <br /> Bills 328 and 329, be forwarded to the Planning Commission. <br /> Cheryl King testified that both sets of concurrency bills have merit and was inclined to think it would be <br /> most sensible to take the best from both sets however, she felt that 180 days was an inadequate amount of <br /> time for review and recommendations. Ms. King stated that with regard to companion No. Bill 329, <br /> although the water provisions were strong, the roads provision was inadequate. Ms. King also questioned <br /> the validity of the developer being charged to complete a traffic study and hoped the council deals with <br /> the concurrency issue by passing legislation, referring it to the Planning Department for review and <br /> encouraged public hearings. <br /> J. Curtis Tyler of Kona stated he was pleased to see Ms. Isbell and Mr. Hoffmann coming from the same <br /> place regarding concurcency and suggested that Chair Higa make a motion for reconsideration and do <br /> what's right for the community. Mr. Tyler stated there is a great lack of specificity in these concurrency <br /> bills that should be addressed and noted that discretion should not be left up to the director but that the <br /> council should set the standazd of cooperation with appropriate experts. Mr. Tyler expressed the need for <br /> accountability and suggested that all four concurrency bills be referred to the Planning Commission <br /> without voting on the measure, and instead make a recommendation to refer. <br /> Mr. Alex Leonard of Kona testified that level of service standazds should not be left to the discretion of <br /> the Planning Director. Mr. Leonard stated there is not enough data on a community specific basis to <br /> determine curcent levels of service and questioned how can impacts be determined if no levels of service <br /> have been determined. With regard to companion Bill No. 329, Mr. Leonard stated that the definition of <br /> "adequate" is ambiguous as there is no reference to an established minimum, nor is there any quidelines <br /> for which to make a determination of adequacy. <br /> Council Member Safarik stated there are issues that specifically face his district as well as other <br /> colleagues in their district and that because of these varying issues, it didn't seem like one size would fit <br /> all. Mr. Safarik stated the need to look at levels of service and various components that would tailor <br /> concurrency issues for specific districts and that in order for the ordinance to be an overall blanket, there <br /> has to be included components that satisfy issues applicable to different areas. <br /> Council Vice Chair Isbell stated there is a need to look at all types of concurrency and that two of Mr. <br /> Hoffmann's and her Bills still have a way to go, but that this was a good beginning. Ms. Isbell said these <br /> bills need to be given to Mr. Yuen to look at a new process or noted the need of finding someone who can <br /> specifically concentrate on concurrency alone. Ms. Isbell said there is now a concentrated effort to move <br /> forward on concurcency and adequate public facilities and suggested that this bill be passed and sent to <br /> the Council for refercal to the Planning Department. Ms. Isbell suggested that to get a fresh outlook, the <br /> proposed ordinances should be looked at by someone from the administration that is outside of the <br /> Planning Department. <br /> Council Member Safarik stated he liked the idea of having someone dedicated to keeping the concurcency <br /> issue moving forward because it will be a complex policy to craft. Mr. Safarik said he supports the notion <br /> of moving forward at committee level, but reserved his right to question or not support if it does not <br /> PC Report No.lll <br /> <br />