HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0307.000 2006-2008 MtY h~~
Harry Kim ^ ~ Dixie Kaetsu
,Llaynr Mnnnging Director
Barbara Koslow
r~ oi'M~'+ Deputy Mnnuging Director
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Shee[, Room 215 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-0252 • (808) 961,821 I Fax (808) 961 b553
KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
(808) 329-5226 Fax (808) 326-5663
April 3, 2007 <;;
Honorable Pete Hoffinann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
333 Kilauea Avenue
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Hoffinann and Members: v
Change of Zone (REZ 655)
Applicant: Elwin F. Hussey
Request: Amend Ordinance No. 02-21 -Time Extension to
Condition C (Subdivision Approval)
Tax Map Key: 5-9-7:7
initiator: County Council
Review and Comment on a Draft Ordinance (Bi11318) Amending
Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983
(2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Change of Zone
Initiator: County Council
Review and Comment on a Draft Ordinance (Bi11319) Amending
Chapter 23 (Subdivision Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983
(2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Large Scale Developments
J~nitiator: County Council
Review and Comment on a Draft Ordinance (Bill 328) Amending
The Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) by
Adding a New Chapter Relating to Concurrency
~nitiator: County Council
Review and Comment on a Drag Ordinance (Bi11329) Amending
The Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended) by
Adding a New Chapter Relating to Adequate Public Facilities T
Comm. No.__~ y6-u.k~C-~ I
Ref. To: _
Ref. Date APB
Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
Page 2
April 3, 2007
As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the
County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures
regarding the above-referenced requests.
Sin)cererlyQ,,~,,
C_~~I\-f~~0
Harry Kim
Mayor
Enclosures
cc: Planning Department
,,,N!~v w y__
County of Hawaii
PLANNING COMMISSION
Aupuni Center • 10I Pauahi Street, Sui[e 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone (808) 961-8288 • Faz (808) 961-8742
r,:.
e=
a
April 3, 2007
U
e
Pete Hoffmann, Chairman `J'
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
333 Kilauea Avenue, 2"d Floor
Hilo, HI 96720 -
~a
Dear Chairman Hoffmann and Council Members:
Initiator: County Council
Review and Comment on a Draft Ordinance (Bi11318) Amending
Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983
(2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Change of Zone
Initiator: County Council
Review and Comment on a Draft Ordinance (Bi11319) Amending
Chapter 23 (Subdivision Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983
(2005 Edition, as amended) Relating to Large Scale Developments
Initiator: County Council
Review and Comment on a Draft Ordinance (Bi11328) Amending
The Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) by
Adding a New Chapter Relating to Concurrency
Initiator: County Council
Review and Comment on a Draft Ordinance (Bi11329) Amending
The Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended) by
Addine a New Chanter Relating to Adequate Public Facilities
The Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on March 16, 2007, reviewed
and acted on the above-referenced County Council Initiated Bill Nos. 318, 319, 328, and
329. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's recommendation for an
unfavorable action on Bill Nos. 318, 319, 328, and 329, and a favorable recommendation
on the Planning Director's proposed modification to Bill No. 318. Their decision is
based on the following reasons as outlined by the Planning Director:
Hawai `i County is an Egua[ Opportunity Provider and Employer
Pete Hoffmann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
Stated as a general principle, it is impossible to disagree with the concept
of concurrency. The difficulty is in putting it into practice, particulazly with the
conditions that exist in Hawaii County, and coming out with policies that have
the intended results. It is especially difficult to establish a concurrency policy by
ordinance that has to apply generally to a wide range of situations, rather than as a
general principle to be applied to rezonings, and possibly to subdivisions and
other post-zoning approvals, on the circumstances of an individual application.
This recommendation will discuss the bills primarily with reference to roads.
Water is not that urgent an issue from a concurrency standpoint. Although some
rezonings have been granted for properties for which there was not an assured
supply of water, the subdivision code and plan approval processes, as well as
Department of Water Supply regulations, prevent actual development and
occupancy from occurring without a water supply. The major exception is the
availability of water variances, although there is at least some consistency now in
the treatment of this due to the adoption of an administrative rule, Planning
Department Rule 22. The same is generally true for sewers and individual
wastewater systems. (Bill 329 appeazs to prohibit development using individual
wastewater systems, even though these are allowed in many circumstances by the
Department of Health.)
The four bills in question all have the basic strategy of delaying or
denying development approvals until public facilities are at a desirable level of
service. There aze two basic difficulties with this strategy: first, that it does not
necessarily lead to the construction of the public facilities, and second, that it will
not affect development that is occurring on already-subdivided land, such as in
the Puna and Ka'u subdivisions that were created from the 1950's to the late
1960's, and some other development that will create the same or worse traffic and
other impacts.
Taking the first point: most private developments, since the era in the
1950's and 60's that resulted in the creation of more than 60,000 lots with poor
roads and no water supply, have incorporated decent on-site infrastructure. They
typically have good roads within the subdivisions, and county water systems or
equivalent private water systems. The public facilities outside the private
developments -the regional roads, the community pazks, the schools -have not
kept up. The difficulty for the private developer is that, except perhaps for some
large developments, the necessary regional road improvements aze too large for
their project to beaz the costs. For example, the current congestion problem on
the Queen Kaahumanu Highway can probably only be cured by its widening to
four lanes. This is currently underway between Henry Street and Kealakehe
Parkway, but even after this section is widened, the remaining areas may still be
at an undesirable level of service. Generally, it is not practical, and makes little
sense, to have a private developer do a project like widening their "fair share" of
something like Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The rezonings discussed earlier
which had road construction requirements involved fairly large projects, and, in
Pete Hoffinann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 3
the case of the Honokohau Business Park and Pua'a rezonings, relatively short
sections of road.
It is not necessarily a bad thing that a concunency ordinance will delay or
deny development in areas that are already experiencing road congestion or
otherwise do not have adequate public facilities, but this leads to the second point:
that there is a great deal of potential development that will escape concurrency
controls, but still have an impact on the roads, parks, and other public facilities in
the areas where the concurrency controls apply. The most important sources of
development that will not be affected by concurrency controls are the lots created
by the 1950's and 1960's subdivisions. About 50% of the home construction in
Hawaii County is occurring on these lots, mostly in Puna, but there is significant
activity in the Hawaiian Ocean View-Hawaiian Ranchos area, where about 450
building permits were issued for new homes in 2005-2006 -about half as many as
in all of North Kona. If there are no options for workforce housing closer to the
employment centers in West Hawaii, workers will continue to have to commute
from long distances, putting additional strain on roads. While a concurrency
ordinance could have the result of delaying further subdivision or other
development in the Kailua-Kona azea, it will not prevent traffic growth from
people who have to commute through Kailua-Kona on their way to work.
The only type of land use regulation that would affect development in the
already-approved subdivisions would be a moratorium on building permits. The
county administration has not been in favor of this because the homes being built
in these subdivisions constitute almost all of the new middle-income housing
created on the island during a time when rapid price increases have pushed
housing beyond the reach of many families. A building permit moratorium would
mostly hurt individuals and small landowners. In addition to the lots in the rural
subdivisions, development on the major resorts north of the Kona International
Airport at Keahole would also probably continue in spite of a concurrency
ordinance. These do not need rezoning, and are generally outside the area where
the Queen Kaahumanu Highway is currently below a desirable level of service.
As a practical matter, the azea that would most likely be affected by a concunency
ordinance would be the area between Keauhou and the Kona International Airport
at Keahole, because the highways aze already badly congested. A concurrency
ordinance could prevent rezoning in this area, and, if applied at the subdivision
level, further residential subdivisions, at least until the next phase of the Queen
Kaahumanu widening has been completed, when the level-of-service might
improve enough that concurrency would be satisfied. This area is, however, also
the prime area in North Kona where the General Plan encourages growth, and the
results of the community development plan process so far also direct growth to
this general area.
A concurrency policy should not choke off the development of affordable
housing in this area. On the other hand, current zoning for commercial
Pete Hoffinann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 4
development already far exceeds probable demand in the North Kona area, so
there is no pressing need for additional commercial zoning, except perhaps for
truly neighborhood-oriented projects that give shopping opportunities to people
close to their homes. There aze vacant commercially-zoned sites across from
Pualani Estates, along Henry Street south of the current Lanihau Shopping Center,
next to the Kona Industrial azea on Queen Liliuokalani Trust estate land, in the
recently-rezoned Honokohau Business Pazk, in TSA Increment IV above the
current Kaloko Industrial Park, and more than 200 acres of vacant commercial
zoning around Makalapua Center. On the east side of the island, while there are
severe traffic problems on Highway 130 from Pahoa to Kea'au, and the situation
on Highway 11 is getting worse, controls on further subdivision or rezoning will
not help the situation because almost all development is occurring on existing lots
and there is such a lazge potential for future development on those lots. On the
other hand, some new commercial zoning might alleviate traffic congestion by
providing places for people to shop closer to their homes.
Specifically, the Planning Director recommends the following:
1. Bill 318: Bi11318 applies to new zoning. It states that if a new development
would cause the road level of service to fall (or remain) below "D", the rezoning
shall not be approved, unless "transportation improvements or strategies to
accommodate the impacts of the development will be made concurrent with the
development." The requirement for "improvements or strategies" is vague, and
does not give any guidance to what would be enough.
The Planning Director does believe that the Zoning Code should contain
guidance on how traffic is handled in major new zonings, and that mitigation
should be required when the traffic is already bad, or will likely become bad in
the near future. The director also believes that current practices that assure water
supply should be part of the Zoning Code. As an alternative to Bi11318, the
director recommends the bill attached as Exhibit 5 be recommended for approval
as a modification of Bill 318.
Bill 318 would require a traffic impact analysis report (TIAR) when a
project would result in additional traffic demand of 100 trips or more at the peak
hour. This "100 trips hour" standard is recommended as the threshold for
requiring a TIAR by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). There aze
nationally-recognized guidelines, including the "Trip Generation Handbook", that
give estimates of peak trips/hour generated by various land uses. Examples of
projects that would generate 100 trips/hour at the peak hour include 150 single-
family homes, 225 apartments, or a 15,500 square foot shopping center.
Often, the final uses on a property are not clear at the time of zoning. For
example, commercial zoning allows a wide range of uses that generate different
traffic demands, including homes, fast-food restaurants, offices, and gas stations.
Pete Hoffinann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 5
All of these have different trip generation rates given by the Trip Generation
Handbook. To handle this, the bill would permit some averaging.
The TIAR would have to cover traffic impacts to the affected collector and
arterial roads, in addition to the intersections. This is important to specify,
because in practice, many TIAR's only study intersections. For example, for a
commercial rezoning on Hina Lani Street the TIAR should study the project
intersection with Hina Lani, the Hina Lani intersections with Queen Kaahumanu
and Mamalahoa, and the overall flow of traffic on Queen Kaahumanu and
Mamalahoa in the vicinity of the Hina Lani intersection. The TIAR would have
to estimate increases in traffic for at least five years.
The director's bill then follows Bill 318 in identifying a level of service of
"E" or "F" as triggering additional scrutiny and mitigation requirements. There
are nationally-recognized guidelines for determining level of service for
intersections and for highways. "E" is considered "undesirable" and "F" is
considered "unacceptable" in these guidelines. "F" is anear-gridlock situation,
where, on a highway, there is continual stop-and-go. In lieu of requiring a TIAR
for regional roads, the director can also simply determine that the roads are at "E"
or worse based on available studies. For example, portions of Queen Kaahumanu,
Palani, and Mamalahoa are already at "E"based on recent traffic studies.
Traffic problems and their mitigation can be divided into two types: the
local and the regional. Local problems are those that are in the immediate vicinity
of the proposed project, and maybe solved by improvements in the vicinity.
Examples would include turn lanes in and out of a project. Generally, a project
should be required to pay for its own local mitigation. These kinds of
improvements might be required for safety and convenience even if not strictly
required by the congestion at a particular site.
Regional traffic problems are those that are on the arterial and collector
roads that ultimately carry traffic to and from the project, like Mamalahoa and
Queen Kaahumanu in the example given above. In most cases, congestion on
these roads results from many factors and any one project will have only a limited
effect. The idea behind the director's modification of Bill 318 is that when a new
rezoning is considered for an area where the arterial and collector roads are
already above capacity, or will be in the near future, and it may add significant
new traffic to the roads, that the occupancy of the area to be rezoned should wait
for improvements that mitigate this problem. These improvements can be public
improvements, such as the Queen Kaahumanu Highway widening, or private
improvements, such as those required with the Palamanui rezoning.
In order for this policy not to have the adverse effects on the county's
overall growth policy and the desire to have workforce and other affordable
housing near urban centers (which are also often the areas of the worst traffic
Pete Hoffmann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 6
congestion), the bill would have some exceptions where regional mitigation
would not be required. The main one is for rezoning where the developer
commits to provide at least twice the level of affordable housing normally
required under the county's affordable housing policy. The basic level is 20% of
the total units being affordable at 120% of median; to get the exemption from
regional mitigation, the developer would have to provide at least double that
figure. The developer would still have to provide local mitigation, such as turn
lanes into the project, but this is a normal safety/convenience requirement.
The second major exception to regional mitigation allows commercial
areas that serve a neighborhood area. For example, additional commercial zoning
between Kea'au and Pahoa may provide places where people can buy groceries
closer to their homes and avoid commuting to either town and reduce overall
traffic problems. If the Council finds that they will reduce regional traffic
problems, they can be exempted from regional mitigation.
There is also an exemption for projects that conform to an adopted
community development plan (CDP). The community development plans should
include basic infrastructure requirements for new azeas to be developed. For
example, it is our expectation that the Kona Community Development Plan would
require that new zoning between the end of Kealaka'a Street and Hina Lani Street
would need the extension of Kealaka'a Street all the way to Hina Lani Street,
creating a through road (rather than allowing housing to be built along
incremental extensions of Kealaka'a). Projects built in conformance with a CDP
should be deemed to conform to regional mitigation requirements.
The revised Bi11318 also contains basic requirements for water. It would
require that either the water commitments be available, or that there be specific
improvements that will make it available. It would not be enough for the
developer to simply say that they would wait for water to be available. There is
an exception to the water requirement for commercial and light industrial areas in
rural areas identified for such uses in the General Plan, but where there is no
public water service and no prospect of such service. The prime examples would
be the areas identified as Alternate Urban Expansion in the Hawaiian Ocean
View-Ranchos azea, and in the "Medium Density" azea in Volcano. In the
HOVE-Ranchos azea, there has already been quite a bit of commercial
development allowed by Special Permit where water is supplied through storage
tanks or reservoirs. Further expansion of this azea should be allowed by zoning,
but developing a water system is financially infeasible for the typical commercial
development, and may not be physically possible. In Volcano, the same is true
with respect to the water system, and commercial zoning has been allowed with
fire flow and sanitation requirements being met by storage.
2. Bi11319: The Planning Director has a negative recommendation on Bi11319.
This would apply at the subdivision stage. Because portions of the Queen
Pete Hoffmann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 7
Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway in the Kailua-Kona area are
already at LOS "E", subdivisions in these areas would have to come up with
"transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of the
development and be made concurrent with the development," or the subdivision
would have to wait for traffic to improve. Again, the requirement for
"improvements or strategies" is vague, and does not give any guidance to what
would be enough. The Planning Director would have to engage in negotiations
with various subdividers to determine whether they could go forward, without any
standards to guide what is fair.
Property that is zoned but not subdivided has a different status than
unzoned property. Normally, such property can be subdivided in accordance with
the subdivision code. The owner is not asking for a new entitlement as in the case
of zoning. Most subdivisions aze too small to support any meaningful
improvement in traffic conditions. With respect to the larger subdivisions,
properties have very different histories. For example, the lazgest pending
residential subdivision in North Kona is the "Kaloko Heights" project, on the
upper portion of Hina Lani Street. The owners of this property, as well as some
others, paid into an improvement district that created Hina Lani Street in the
1980's. It wouldn't be fair to hold up this subdivision based upon current bad
traffic conditions when the prior owners helped create a major road improvement
years ago.
3. Bills 328 and 329: The Planning Director recommends denial of these bills.
Both are very far-reaching and would result in a very profound change in the land
use system, but both aze very sketchy on the implementation.
• Bi11328 has the widest scope of the four bills. It requires that the Planning
Director establish level of service standards for parks, roads, fire, water,
police, solid waste, and wastewater systems. The director would have to
deny development approvals unless the level of service is adequate, unless
the developer constructed the necessary facilities. This poses a dilemma.
On the one hand, you would not want to say that the current conditions in
many parts of the county are adequate. On the other hand, if the director
determines that the current level of service is too low, it results in a
moratorium on new subdivisions, and possibly multi-family buildings, but
development in the existing subdivisions can continue. For example, if
the director determined that there weren't enough parks on the island, the
development of new subdivisions, shopping centers, and apartment
buildings could be stopped, but people could continue building in the older
subdivisions, which maybe the areas that have the worst shortage of
pazks. While lazger developers could proceed by building the necessary
park space, it would not be practical for developers of small subdivisions
and apartment buildings to do so, and their projects would be on hold until
the county built enough parks to catch up to the required level of service.
Pete Hoffmann, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 8
• Bi11329 has requirements for roads, water supply, and sewer systems, and
would apply to projects at the subdivision and plan approval level, as well
as the rezoning level. The road requirements are not well formulated.
They do not have any standard for determining adequacy. As stated
earlier, the present system with respect to water prevents significant
development without water (except for variances). Bill 329 also appeazs
to make a sewer system a requirement of further development, which
would greatly limit where future development can occur.
For the reasons cited above, the Planning Commission transmits this unfavorable
recommendation to the County Council on Bill Nos. 318, 319, 328, and 329, and a
favorable recommendation on the Planning Director's proposed modifications to Bil]
No. 318.
We have enclosed copies of the Planning Department's Background and
Recommendation Reports as well as the hearing transcripts for your information.
Should you have questions regarding the above, please contact Norman Hayashi of the
Planning Department at 961-8288, x205.
Sincerely,
Willi , Chairm
Planning Commission
LBiIls318329concurrency0l pc
cc: Lincoln Ashida, Esq.
Planning Department-Kona
~o~MtY or y~
Ali.
COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, HAWAII
COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION) BY ADDING A NEW SECTION RELATED
TO CONCURRENCY CONDITIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Purpose and findings. The Council finds that because of road
congestion in Hawaii County, it is necessary to assess the traffic impacts of major
developments, and if they will add traffic to roads that are now too congested, or will be
too congested in the future, that the rezoning should not take effect unless improvements
to the traffic situation occur at or before the occupancy of the project. At the same time,
the Council recognizes that the lack of affordable housing near employment centers is
one of the factors that creates traffic problems, by forcing workers to commute long
distances, and does not want to inhibit the supply of affordable housing. In addition,
there are situations where commercial or light industrial rezoning may be desirable to
reduce traffic. For example, thousands of homes are being built in rural subdivisions
approved in the 1950's and 1960's, mostly in Puna and Ka'u. These generally have no
areas zoned for commercial and light industrial uses, and development of these necessazy
services has not kept pace with the movement of population to these azeas. The Council
also finds that it is desirable to have standard expectations for water supply for new
rezonings. In some rural areas, however, there is no reasonable prospect of a public
water system, but the county may wish to allow some commercial and possibly light
industrial rezoning to serve the growing rural population. The water supply necessary for
sanitation and firefighting, in these circumstances, can be handled by requiring adequate
storage facilities.
SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 2, division 4, Hawaii County Code, is amended
by adding a new section 25-2-46 to read as follows:
"Section 25-2-46. Concurrence requirements.
(a) Purpose. In addition to requirements otherwise imposed, this section creates
concurrence standards for roads and water supply in chance of zone actions.
(b) Applicability. This section applies to any application for rezoning, or for an
extension of time to perform conditions of zoning, received by the Planning Department
after the effective date of this ordinance, except for rezonings that reduce the amount of
development allowed under existing zoning, or which amend zoning conditions without
changing the amount of development allowed or extending time for performance.
(c) Definitions. As used in this section:
`Acceptable level of service' means that the level of service of a hi way or intersection
at the AM or PM peak hour is "D" or better.
`Critical road area' means a geographical area where the arterial and/or collector roads
serving the area have been determined by the Council to be worse than the acceptable
level of service, based on professional studies.
`Level of service, or LOS' means a qualitative measure describing operational conditions
within a traffic stream, and shall be determined using the procedures in the latest edition
of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board.
`Mitigation' means specific actions to reduce traffic congestion. Mitigation is of two
types: `local mitigation' which consists of improvements to roads and intersections that
are in the immediate vicinity of a project, including channelization of intersections, turn
lanes into a protect and similar improvements, and `regional mitigation' which consists of
2
improvements which increase the capacity of an arterial or major road, such as additional
lanes, in the general region containing the project, or construction of a new arterial or
collector road in the general region containing the project, and which is shown on the
General Plan facilities map, or improvements to public transportation such as buses or
park and ride facilities, sufficient to offset the traffic demand generated by the proiect.
`Occupancy' means (I l the issuance of a certificate of occupancv for a commercial,
multifamily, industrial building, hotel or other structure requiring a certificate of
occupancv: (21 the issuance of a building permit for residential buildings that do not
require a certificate of occupancv: or (3) final subdivision approval for subdivisions
where dwellings aze allowed, but dwellings are not being constructed before sale of the
lots.
`Worse than the acceptable level of service' means that the level of service at the AM or
PM peak is "E" or "F".
(dl TIAR Required.
(1) A traffic impact analysis report (TIAR1, prepared or updated within twelve
months of the submission of the application, shall be included with the application for
any change of zone that can generate 100 or more peak hour trips, above the level
allowed by existing zoning. The determination of peak hour trips shall be based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation Handbook", or any other
nationally recognized source. When the number of trips depends upon the exact future
uses of the site, and those are unknown at the time of rezoning (for example, the types of
commercial usesj, the determination shall be based upon a typical mix of uses found in
that zoning type in the community.
(2) The TIAR shall assess impacts to public roads and intersections in the
immediate vicinity, and to the general traffic level on arterial and collector roads serving
the protect area.
3
(31 The TIAR shall include proiections for future growth in traffic, for a minimum
of five years, and shall include other approved development in the area, with reasonable
assumptions about the build-out of such development.
(4) In lieu of requirine the TIAR to assess the general traffic level on arterial and
collector roads serving the project area, the director may determine that the current traffic
level is worse than the acceptable level of service based on other available studies.
(e) Mitigation Required.
(1) If the LOS for any public road or intersection in the study area is (11 currently
worse than the acceptable level of service, or (2) proiected to become worse than the
acceptable level of service during the five year period, any rezoning of the property, if
improved, shall contain conditions that require mitigation of adverse traffic effects before
occupancy of the proiect is permitted, or that occupancy be delayed until the level of
service has reached the acceptable level and is no longer proiected to be worse than the
acceptable level.
(2) Where the LOS deficiency is due to roadway or intersection deficiencies in
the immediate vicinityLthe conditions of zoning shall require local mitigation. Where the
deficiency in LOS is due to insufficient capacity in the arterial or collector roads serving
the proiect, the conditions of zoning shall require regional miti atg ion.
(fl Mitigation requirements will be deemed satisfied when:
(1) a public agency has committed funds for regional mitigation that will remove
the LOS deficiency. In the case of the State, commitment of funds means that the
Governor has released funds to complete the improvement. In the case of the County,
commitment of funds means that the Council has appropriated funds to complete the
improvement; or
4
.
(21 the private developer's commitment to implement mitigation has been
secured by bond or equivalent security, or mandator participation in an improvement
district, community facilities district, or other equivalent means of guaranteeing
performance.
(g) A developer's regional mitigation expenses shall be credited against any fair share or
similar fee requirement for roads. A developer's local mitigation expenses shall be
credited against any fair shaze or similaz fee requirement for roads if the Council
determines that the mitigation substantially benefits the eg neral public and was not
necessaryprimarilyfnr the benefit of the proiect. In general, turn lanes for a private
proiect shall not qualify for fair share credit.
(h) The following types of rezoning applications are not required to perform re ig opal
miti atg ion:
~1) Residential rezonings where the applicant commits, and the conditions of zoning
require, that the proiect eazn at least two times the number of affordable housing
credits otherwise required under Chapter 11, County Affordable Housing PolicX
(2) Rezoning to CV, CN, MCX, PD, or ML where the Council determines that the
project will reduce overall traffic by providing necessary commercial or light
industrial opportunities to serve an azea where there is a shortage of available space
zoned for such uses, and substantial residential development has already been
approved, provided that conditions of zoning shall ensure that any commercial
development be of a scale consistent with the standards of a "neighborhood center" as
described in the Genera] Plan.
(3) Rezonings that conform to a community development plan adopted by ordinance
and which provide all improvements required under the community development
plan.
5
(i) The Council may waive or reduce regional mitigation requirements for proiects which
primarilyprovide public services, such as rezonings which allow private or public
hospitals, schools, or universities.
(il The restrictions on occupancy shall not apply to the construction of model homes or
infrastructure such as water tanks, roads, sewage treatment plants, or other project
elements that do not generate substantial traffic.
(k) The Council may designate critical road areas by ordinance. The procedure for
desi ll~g a critical road area shall follow the procedure for amending this chapter,
except that individual notice to landowners and lessees within and adiacent to the
proposed critical road area shall not be required.
(1) In a critical road area, all rezonings shall be subject to local and regional miti atg ion,
except as stated in subsection (h) or (i).
(m) In a critical road area, a TIAR shall be required only to determine the extent of local
mitigation.
(n) In order to determine whether a rezoning application meets the TIAR threshold, and
to prevent applicants from going below the TIAR threshold by dividing a proiect into
segments, the director shall review other rezoning applications on the same or adjacent
properties, and shall include traffic that maybe generated by any rezoning application
approved after the effective date of this ordinance, or by any other pending rezoning
application, if it is on a portion of the same lot or tax map key parcel, or an adjoining lot
or tax map key parcel that had or has a substantially related ownership.
(o) A change of zone application shall not be granted unless: (1) the Department of
Water Supply has determined that it can meet the water requirements of the project and
issue water commitments using its existing system; or (2) specific improvements to the
6
existingpublic water system, or a private water system equivalent to the requirements of
the Department of Water Supply will meet the water needs of the project and conditions
of zoning delay occupancy until the necessary improvements are actually constructed.
(p) To facilitate the development of village centers in rural aeeas that are not cunently
served by a public water system, the Council may waive the water supply requirements
for rezonings for commercial or light industrial uses in areas that do not currently have a
public water system, and where the Department of Water Supply has no plans to build a
public water system, and which aze (1) designated as an "urban and rural center" or
"industrial azea" on Table 14-5 of the General Plan and (2) designated for urban use on
the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map of the General Plan; provided that conditions
of zoning shall require water supply consistent with public health and safety needs such
as sanitation and fire-fighting
fig) Nothing in this section shall limit the ability of the Council to impose reasonable
roadway or water improvement requirements on changes of zone or to deny change of
zone applications to the extent otherwise allowed by law.
SECTION 3. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is
underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed material, and
underscoring need not be included.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity does not affect
other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the
invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be severable.
7
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII
Hawaii
Date of Introduction:
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
8
• BCClnitiatedCBilla.doc-2/26iG7
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND REPORT
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIIU+
DRAFT ORDINANCE -BILLS 318.319.328 AND 329 (CONCURRENCYI
The County Council submitted the following draft ordinances for review and comment by
the Planning Director and Planning Commission:
1. Bill 318 -amending Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-44,
Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) relating to conditions of change of
zone (adds requirements to existing provisions within the Zoning Code relating to
conditions on change of zone ordinances regarding water supply and transportation
improvements or strategies be made concurrent with development associated with any
change of zone in order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government
services).
2. Bill 319 -amending Chapter 23 (Subdivision Code), Article 2, Division 1, Section 23-13,
Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) relating to Large Scale
Developments (adds requirements to existing provisions within the Subdivision Code
relating to lazge scale developments regazding water supply and transportation
improvements or strategies be made concurrent with development in order to manage
growth and coordinate the delivery of government services).
3. Bi11328 -amending the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) by adding
a new chapter relating to concurrency (establishes a concurrency management system and
prepazes a public facilities improvement plan to fund and maintain county-wide facilities
and services).
4. Bi11329 -amending the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) by adding
anew chapter relating to adequate public facilities (relates to adequate public facilities for
the identification of infrastructure and services necessary to support new development and
the establishment of a policy as to when and how these improvements and services will be
constructed and maintained).
ATTACH: Conm. 307 tl
BACKGROUND
The County Council has initiated four bills with the general topic of "concurrency" or
"adequate public facilities." Because these bills amend the Zoning or Subdivision Codes, they
must be reviewed by the Planning Director and Planning Commission and returned to the Council
for action. The bills are numbered 318, 319, 328, and 329.
The general concept behind "concurrency" or "adequate public facilities" is that public
facilities and infrastructue, such as roads, pazks, schools, fire and police stations, water and
sewer systems, should be built at the same time ("concurrent") with development that generates a
demand for those facilities and services. While typical zoning regulations apply to the location,
density, and form of development, concurrency relates to the timing of development.
It is clear that public infrastructure, particularly regional roads and pazks, have not kept up
with population growth on the island of Hawaii. To take one of the most serious examples, the
north-south arterial road capacity in Kona, which depends upon the Queen Kaahumanu and
Mamalahoa Highways, has not increased since the construction of the Queen Kaahumanu
extension (Palani to Kuakini Highway) in the early 1980's, although the population of North
Kona has tripled since that time. There are many reasons for the lack of road construction, some
of which have to do with specific problems encountered in the efforts to build the Kahului-
Keauhou (Alii) Pazkway, or the Mamalahoa Bypass. Part of the reason is the high cost of public
infrastructure; part of the reason is that most growth has occurred in azeas that had small
populations and hence did not have existing schools and parks to the extent of other azeas.
Nevertheless, past history makes it cleaz that one cannot simply assume that necessary public
improvements will follow private development.
Hawaii County has been applying some concurrency principles with respect to major
rezonings for several years, although the term "concurrenc}~' has not always been explicitly used.
The prime examples involve commercial rezonings that depend on the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway, which is currently over-congested. On the Level of Service (LOS) "A" to "F" scale, it
is at "E", which is considered "undesirable", at least between Kuakini Highway and Hina Lani
Street during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The county has required major
commercial rezonings in the past few yeazs that would utilize the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to
-2-
I
build usable portions of alternate roads that should help reduce traffic on the main highway:
• The Honokohau Business Pazk is required to build the section of Kamanu Street from
Costco to Kealakehe Parkway, except for a short section which TSA, the beneficiary of
another rezoning action, has to build;
• the Palamanui rezoning has to build a mauka-makai connection from the Queen
Kaahumanu Highway to Mamalahoa Highway and a section of the "Mid-Level Road";
• the Pua'a rezoning near Pualani Estates has to build a road that would allow mauka-
makal travel from Puapua'anui Street to Kuakini Highway; and
• in Hilo, the "University Terrace" rezoning required specific road improvements,
including the extension of Ponahawai Street to Mohouli Street
All ofthese aze firm requirements of the conditions of zoning. The roads in question are all on the
General Plan Facilities Map.
The Mayor's veto of the O'oma ("Clifto") rezoning in 2004 was based on concurrency.
The Mayor's specific objection was that the commercial portions of the rezoning should be
delayed until the widening of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to four lanes, to the Kona
International Airport at Keahole.
The four bills introduced by the Council would all require concurrency or "adequate public
facilities" before development could occur. They all have the basic effect of delaying or denying
private development if traffic congestion is bad or other public facilities have fallen behind.
1. Bi11318: Bi11318 would apply at the rezoning stage. It would require denial of a change
of zone application if the project, along with other approved development, would cause
the LOS on a state or county highway to decline or remain below "D", unless
"transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of the
development will be made concurrent with the development." Bi11318 would exempt
housing development from this requirement if"100% of the housing units are affordable
for qualified households earning no more than 120% of the median adjusted gross
income." (Exhibit 1- Bi11318)
2. Bill 319: Bi11319 would apply to subdivision of property that is already zoned. It would
also require denial of a subdivision application if the project, along with other approved
-3-
development, would cause the LOS on a state or county highway to decline or remain
below "D", unless "transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the
impacts of the development will be made concurrent with the development " Bill 319
would exempt housing development from this requirement if"100% of the housing units
are affordable for qualified households earning no more than 120% of the median adjusted
gross income." (Exhibit 2 - Bi11319)
3. Bi11328: Bi11328 would apply to changes of zone and new subdivisions. It would require
the Planning Director to set level-of-service standards for county roads, water systems,
public parks, solid waste management, police protection, and fire protection. It provides
that every development would submit an engineering study to demonstrate that the project
will meet the adopted level-of-service standards for parks, roads, wastewater, and water.
It provides that the Planning Director would issue~subdivision approvals and change of
zone approvals only if they would not cause the level of service to fall below the adopted
standards, or the development would have to be delayed until public facilities were
improved, either by the developer or by public funds. (The reference to the Planning
Director approving change of zones is presumably a technical error and not intended to
take this power away from the Council.) Bi11328 also mandates the Finance Director to
prepare a public facilities improvements plan that would result in the desired level of
service. (Exhibit 3 -Bill 328)
4. Bi11329: Bill 329, although introduced by the same Councilmember, appears to be an
alternative to Bill 328. It applies to "all new subdivision and site plan applications for new
construction received by the Planning Director pursuant to Chapters 23 and 25, Hawaii
County Code." "Site plan application" is not a term that is used in Chapters 23 or 25 of
the Hawaii County Code; it could be that the bill is referring to "Plan Approval". Bi11329
provides that the Planning Director would not issue subdivision or site plan approvals if
the road, sewer, or water systems were inadequate, and gives a process for determining
the adequacy or inadequacy of the road, water, and sewer systems. (Exhibit 4 - Bi11329)
-4-
,,iv os y
COUNTY OF HAWAII - S'L'ATE OF HAWAII
BILL NO. 31ti
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, SECTION 25-2-44,
HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION) RELATING TO CONDITIONS ON
CHANGE OF ZONE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII
SECTION 1. The County administers and enforces vazious regulations to control land
use, including the subdivision code and zoning code. These regulations specify what developers
can and cannot do in the interest of the public's health, safety, or welfare. The County Council
finds that changes of zone proposed in a particular area should be assessed considering a number
of factors, including how much public infrastructure is challenged by recent or anticipated
growth in the azea. The County Council finds that conditions of approval should require that
water supply improvements or strategies as specified by the department of water supply to
accommodate the impacts of development, as well as transportation improvements or strategies
to accommodate the impacts of development on state- orcounty-owned transportation facilities,
be made concurrent with development associated with any change of zone in order to manage
growth and coordinate the delivery of government services in the County.
SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 2, division 4, section 25-2-44, Hawaii County Code
1983 (2005 edition), is amended by adding new subsections to read as follows:
"Section 25-2-44. Conditions on chanee of zone.
(a) Within any ordinance for a change of zone, the council may impose conditions on the
applicant's use of the property subject to the change of zone provided that the council
finds that the conditions are:
(])Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health,
safety and welfare; or
(2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use
proposed with respect to:
(A) Protection of the public from the potential ly deleterious effects of the
proposed use, or
(B) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed
use.
(b) Changes or alterations of conditions of any change of zone ordinance shall be
processed in the same manner as a zone change, unless the council authorizes the
changes or alterations to be made by the director. A request for any change or
alteration of conditions shall be submitted in writing to the director, in lieu of the
application required for an applicant-initiated change of zone. The request shall be
accompanied by a filing fee of $250.
EXHIBIT
(c) Failure to fulfill any conditions of the zone change within the specified time
limitations, or any extensions thereto, may be grounds for the enactment of an
ordinance making further zone changes or for rezoning the affected property back to
its original zoning designation or a more appropriate zoning designation, upon
initiation by either the director or the council in accordance with section 25-2-43.
(d) An application for a chance of zone shall not be approved if the associated
development is within the service limits of the department of water supply, unless the
department of water supply has issued a water commitment for build-out of the
development and the water supply improvements or strategies requited by the
de artment of water su I to accommodate the' im acts of the develo ent will be
made concurrent with the develo ment and in c m liance with the conditions of the
water commitment issued b the de artment of ater su f .
e An a lication for a chan a in zone shall not be roved ifbuild-out ofthe
associated develo ment would cause or contrib a to causin in con'unction with
develo ment associated with build-out of revio 1 a roved subdivisions the level
of service LOS on a state- or coon -owned tr s ortation facilit to decline or
remain below an acceptable level (specifically, low LOS "D" on a scale of LOS
"A" through LOS "F"), unless transportation improvements or strategies to
accommodate the impacts of the development will be made concurrent with the
development. These strategies may include increased public transportation service,
ride sharingproerams, park and ride facilities, demand management, and other
transportation systems management strategies. The level of service shall be calculated
using the methods defined in the most current edition of the Transportation Research
Board, Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C.: National Reseazch Council,
2000, or subsequent updates to this editionl. LOS levels for the state- and county-
owned transportation facilities, including but not limited to, arterial roads, collector
roads, minor roads. and public transportation, which will be impacted by build-out of
the development shall be assessed within six months of the date the application for
change of zone is submitted.
(fl For the purposes of this section, "concurrent with development" shall mean that
improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial
commitment is in place at the time of preliminazv plat approval to complete the
improvements or strateeies within six years of preliminary plat approval. Financial
commitments may include adoption by the county council by ordinance of a six-year
capital improvement program that identifies reasonably anticipated sources of
fundin for the identified improvements or strateeies, agreements with the countyto
implement the identified improvements or strateeies, and agreements with the county
t~av for implementing the identified improvements or strategies. The agreements
called for by this section shall be secured in accordance with section 23-83.
(g) This section does not apply to any application for change of zone for an affordable
housing development or a workforce housing development wherein 100 percent of
the housing units are affordable for qualified households earning no more than 120
percent of the median adjusted gross income for households in Hawaii Counts
reported bythe U S Department of Housing and Urban Development or its
governmental successor in function."
I
2
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 4. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is
underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed material, and underscoring need
not be included.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL MEMB ~R, COUNT 9 AW I`I
Hawaii
Date of Introduction:
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
fx CpBd: 9~R~~+
f
3
,S~V ar
COUl\TTX OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAId
BILL. NO. st g
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 1, SECTION 23-13,
HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION) RELATING TO LARGE SCALE
DEVELOPMENTS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII
SECTION 1. The County administers and enforces vazious regulations to control land
use, including the subdivision code and zoning code. These regulations specify what developers
can and cannot do in the interest of the public's health, safety, or welfaze. The County Council
finds that large scale developments proposed in a particulaz azea should be assessed considering
a number of factors, including how much public infrastructure is challenged by recent or
anticipated growth in the area. The County Council finds that conditions of approval should
require that water supply improvements or strategies as specified by the department of water
supply to accommodate the impacts of development, as well as transportation improvements or
strategies to accommodate the impacts of development on state- orcounty-owned transportation
facilities, be made concurrent with development of large scale subdivisions or condominium
property regimes in order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government services
in the County.
SECTION 2. Chapter 23, article 2, division 1, section 23-13, Hawaii County Code 1983
(2005 edition), is amended by adding new subsections to read as follows:
"Section 23-13. Laree scale developments.
The director may make exceptions to this chapter where a plan and program for a
complete community, a neighborhood unit, alarge-scale shopping center, large industrial
azea development, or large agricultural area development provides adequate public spaces
and improvements for the circulation, recreation, light, air, and service needs of the tract
when fully developed and populated and covenants or other legal provisions are provided
to assure conformity to and achievement of the plan[:]: provided, however that:
(a) A subdivision application or condominium map shall not be approved pursuant to this
chapter, if the associated development is within the service limits of the department of
water supply, unless the department of water supply has issued a water commitment
for build-out of the development and the water supply improvements or strat eies
required by the department of water supply to accommodate the impacts of the
deve~ment are made concurrent with the development and in compliance with the
conditions of the water commitment issued by the department of water supply
EXHIBIT r
fib) A subdivision application or condominium map shall not be approved pursuant to
this chapter, if build-out of the associated development woutd cause or contribute to
causing, in conjunction with development associated with build-out ofpreviously
approved subdivisions the level of service (LOS) on astate- or county-owned
transportation facility to decline or remain below an acceptable level (specifically,
below LOS "D" on a scale of LOS "A" through LOS "F"), unless tra~ortation
improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made
concurrent with the development. These strategies may include increased public
transportation service ride sharing_programs, park and ride facilities, demand
management, and other transportation systems management strafe ieg sThe level of
service shall be calculated using the methods defined in the most current edition of
the Transportation Research Boazd, HiQhway_Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C.:
National Research Council, 2000, or subsequent updates to this edition). LOS ]evels
for the state- and county-owned transportation facilities, including. but not limited to.
arterial roads, collector roads, minor roads and public transportation, which will be
impacted by build-out of the development shall be assessed within six months of the
date the application for subdivision approval or condominium map approval is
submitted,
(c) For the purposes of this section. "concurrent with development" shall mean that
improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial
commitment is in place at the time of preliminary plat or map approval to complete
the improvements or strategies within six years of preliminary plat or ma~aparoval.
Financial commitments may include adoption by the county council by ordinance of a
six-year capital improvement program that identifies reasonably anticipated sources
of funding for the identified improvements or strategies, agreements with the county
to implement the identified improvements or strategies, and agreements with the
county to pay for implementing the identified improvements or strategies. The
agreements called for by this section shall be secured in accordance with section 23-
83.
(d) This section does not apply to any application for subdivision approval or
condominium map approval for an affordable housing development or a workforce
housing development wherein 100 percent of the housing units are affordable for
gualified households earning no more than 120 percent of the median adjusted gross
income for households in Hawaii County as reported by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development or its governmental successor in function."
SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 4. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is
underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed material, and underscoring need
not be included.
I
2
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon approval.
ODU ED
COUNCIL M B R, CO Y HA AI`I
Hawaii
Date of Introduction:
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
1w,.~.NCEI COtr~, 99~wwrwl~ME
W
3
'
COUNTIP OF HA.WAI`I STATE OF HAWAII
.
BILL NO. 32a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HAWAL`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (ZOOS EDITION,
AS AMENDED) BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER RELATING TO CONCURRENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose.
(a) The Council of the County of Hawaii has determined that:
(1) The rapid rate of growth and development in the County of Hawaii has
created a pressing need for capital improvements and has overburdened
County public facilities and services, including public roads, public water,
public wastewater, public parks, solid waste management, police
protection, and fire protection.
(2} Population growth generated by rapid ]and development has increased the
need for these County public facilities and services at a rate exceeding the
County's ability to maintain acceptable levels of service with current and
traditional funding sources.
(3) Acceptable level of service standards need to be established for the
County public facilities and services identified above, and a financially
feasible plan needs to be prepared to fund and maintain acceptable levels
of service county-wide.
(4) New development should not be permitted utiless County public facilities
and services and any necessary capital improvements meet the
EXHIBIT
requirements of the general plan and any regional plans or community
development plans adopted by ordinance, and either meet or exceed the
level of service standards established by the County.
(b) Therefore, it is the purpose of this chapter to:
(1) Promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the
County of Hawaii, and enable the County to better accommodate orderly
growth and development.
(2) Ensure that the general plan and adopted regional plans and community
development plans are implemented.
(3) Provide for the establishment ofcounty-wide level of service standards for
public roads, public water, public wastewater, public parks, solid waste
management, police protection, and fire protection which are managed by
the County.
(4) Provide for the establishment of a concurrency management system to
ensure that County public facilities and services needed to support new
development are available concurrent with the impacts of such new
development.
(5) Provide for the prepazation of a public facilities improvement plan to fund
and maintain established coumy-wide levels of service.
SECTION 2. The Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended
by adding a new chapter to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
2
I
"Chapter
Concurrency.
Article 1. General Provisions.
Section -1. Title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the `Concurrency chapter.'
Section -2. Definitions.
Whenever used in this chapter, the following words and phrases, unless the context
otherwise requires, shall be defined as follows:
"Capital improvements" means the planning, financing, acquisition, and development of
public facilities covered by this chapter, including the costs of land, constnustion, engineering,
adroinistration, and legal and financial consulting fees, but excluding the costs of routine or
periodic maintenance.
"County" means "County" as defined in chapter 1, Hawaii County Code, as amended.
"Developer" means an owner, or other person or legal entity with written authorization
from the owner, who intends to improve or to construct any improvements upon said owner's
property. The term shall also mean a "subdivider" as defined in chapter 23, Hawai `i County
Code, as amended.
"Development agreement" means "development agreement° as de£med in chapter 30,
Hawaii Courrty Code, as amended.
"General plan" means "general plan" as defined in article 3, Hawaii County Charter, as
amended.
"Level of service" means an established minimum functional level of public facilities
that must be provided per unit of demand or other appropriate measure of need.
3
l
"New development" means any development, construction, or installation that results in
real property improvement, pursuant to provisions for subdivision and re-subdivision in chapter
23, Hawaii County Code, and changes of zone in chapter 25, Hawaii County Code.
"Public facilities" means all facilities and services for public roads, public water, public
wastewater, public parks, solid waste management, police protection, and fire protection which
are managed by the County.
Section , 3. Applicability of general plans.
This chapter shall be applied and administered within the framework of the Hawal`i
County general plan which is a long range, comprehensive policy document intended to guide
the overall future development of the County.
Section _-4. Autbority.
(a) This chapter is adopted pursuant to article VIII, Hawal`i Constitution, granting the
County the power to adopt a charter for its own self-government, and pursuant to the authority
granted by chapter 46, Hawaii Revised Statutes, setting forth the general powers of the counties.
(b) This chapter is also adopted pursuant to article III, section 3-15, Hawaii County
Charter, which provides that the County shall adopt a general plan setting forth the county
council's policy for long-range comprehensive physical development of the County, and
specifically subsection (a) thereto providing that the county council shall enact ordinances
necessary to carry out the purpose of the general plan.
(c) This chapter is further authorized by chapter 226, part II, Hawaii Revised
Statutes, requiring the formulation and implementation of general plans.
4
1
_
Sectioe _-5. Applicability of this chapter.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all new development as defined in section
2 of this chapter. This chapter shall be construed to complement the improvements and
dedications required by the subdivision code and zoning code of the Hawaii County Code. This
chapter provides for additional requirements and is not intended to supplant other code
provisions, rules, and regulations.
Section •ti. Establishment of Level of Service Standards.
(a) The planning director shall determine the acceptable level of service standards for
public facilities as defined in this chapter, in consultation with the applicable County departments
or agencies responsible for their management and in accordance with the general plan.
(b) The planning director shall prepare a resolution establishing acceptable level of
service standards no later than one hundred eighty days from the effective date of this chapter.
(c) Level of service standazds may be amended as determined necessary by the
planning director, in consultation with applicable responsible departments or agencies, by
resolution.
Section -7. Concurrency Management.
The planning director shall issue final approvals for any new development pursuant to
provisions for subdivision and re-subdivision in chapter 23, Hawaii County Code, and changes
of zone in chapter 25, Hawaii County Code, when:
(1) The new development will not lower levels of service below adopted level
of service standards, and any required capital improvements will occur
concurrent with said new development, whether funded by government or
by the developer; or
5 ~
M
,,r
(2) The new development will be phased so that capital improvements
required to meet adopted level of service standards are available
concurrent with impacts of the phased development, provided that all
required capital improvements to be funded and constructed by the
developer are financially secured by an acceptable surety; or
(3) The developer has entered into an enforceable development agreement,
wherein capital improvements required to meet adopted level of service
standards at the time of the agreement are financially secured by an
acceptable surety; and
(4) In all cases, the applicable responsible department or agency heads have
given written approval to the planning director that the new development
will meet adopted level of service standards for those public facilities
managed by their departments or agencies; and
(5) In all cases, the developer shall provide to the planning director an
engineering study which states that the new development wil! meet
adopted levels of service for public roads, public water, public wastewater,
and public parks. The engineering study shall be conducted by an
engineer or engineering firm licensed in the State of Hawai` i, and shall
include certification of a current errors and omissions insurance policy;
and
(6) In all cases, the developer has complied with all other pertinent
requirements for subdivision and re-subdivision pursuant to chapter 23,
6
I ~
Hawaii County Code, and changes of zone pursuant to chapter 25,
Hawaii County Code.
Section _-8. Public Facilities Improvement Plan.
(a) Based on existing county-wide level of service standards, the finance director
shall prepare a public facilities improvement plan which shall:
(1) Identify public facilities as defined in this chapter which are necessary to
meet the requirements of the general plan.
(2} Identify whether required capita] improvements are expected to be funded
by the federal government, the State ofHawai`i, the County of Hawaii,
improvement district financing, community facilities district financing,
developer fmancing, or other means.
(3) Designate a reasonable timeline for completion of capital improvements.
The intent of the public facilities improvement plan is to inform persons who
desire to develop land in the County of the expected completion dates for capital improvements
and the probable funding sources for capital improvements.
(b) The finance director shall prepare a resolution establishing a public facilities
improvement plan no later than one hundred eighty days from the effective date of this chapter.
(c) The public facilities improvement plan may be amended by the finance director,
by resolution.
Section -9. Effective Dates.
This chapter shall become effective upon its adoption; provided that section -7
shall take effect one hundred eighty days from adoption by the county council of level of service
standards set forth insection -6."
7 Y
MA
SECTION 3. New material is underscored. Material to be repealed is bracketed. In
printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed material, and the underscoring need not be
included.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
INTRODUCED BY:
~ Ma \ P
CO CIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAVVAI`I
Date of Introduction:
Date of I"Reading:
Date of 2"d Reading:
Effective Date:
REFERENCE: Cornre. 328
8
i
I
a
.w.,
~t7iJ~`T"Iy I~A`~/AI~I ~'~~.'Y`E OF HAWAII
BILL NO. 329
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION,
AS AMENDED) BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER RELATING TO ADEQUATE
PUBLIC FACILITIES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTIOt3 1. The Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended
by adding a new chapter to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
"Chapter _
Adequate Public Facilities
Article 1. General Provisions.
Sectioe -l. Title.
This chapter shall be known and maybe cited as the "Adequate Public Facilities Chapter"
of the County of Hawaii.
Section _
2. Parpoae.
The purpose of this chapter is to preserve the welfare of current and future County of
Hawaii residents and to facilitate growth in an orderly manner by ensuring that adequate public
facilities are available concurrently with the completion of new developmem. For the purposes
of this chapter, public facilities shall include road, water, and sewer facilities.
This adequate public facilities chapter implements a growth management approach that
ties or conditions development approval to the availability and adequacy of public facilities and
services, thus ensuring that new development does not take place unless necessary infrastructure
and services are available to support it. This chapter identifies the types and levels of service
that are needed to permit new development and establishes a policy as to when the infrastructure
and public services must be in place relative to the impact of development. This chapter is
linked to the County's capital improvements program which establishes a schedule of public
facility construction over afive- or six-year period and details how they should be financed.
Section _-3. Definitions.
(a) Words in the present tense include the future, the singular number includes the
pltval, and the plural includes the singular. The word "shalt" is mandatory and the word "may"
is permissive.
EXHIBIT ~
(b) As used in this chapter, unless otherwise specified:
"Adequate" shall mean meeting the established minimum standards in this chapter and
therefore not preventing the approval of new development.
"Approval" shall mean the review process, ultimately responsible for authorizing
development, required subject to the County's relevant land development ordinances handling
subdivision and site plan applications.
"Approve" shalt mean the act of authorizing the development of a subdivision or site plan
subject to the County's relevant land development ordinances handling subdivision and site plan
applications.
"Approved" shall mean a subdivision or site plan that has been authorized for
development subject to the County's relevant land development ordinances handling subdivision
and site plan applications.
"Binding Agrcement" shall mean an agreement with the force of law made between the
County and developers} that specifies the developer's responsibility regarding project phasing
and fu>ancial obligations for public facility improvements that must be taken on in order for road,
water, and sewer facilities to be declared adequate for the purposes of this chapter.
"Capital improvements program" shall mean, if the County owns the road, water, or
sewer system in question, the County's adopted schedule of all major projects requiring the
expenditure of public funds over afive- or six-year period for the purchase, construction, or
replacement of physical assets for the County. If the County does not own the mad, water or
sewer system in question, then this shall mean the schedule of all major projects relative to the
capacity of the system in question, as adopted by the road, water, or sewer system's owner.
"County" shall mean County of Hawaii.
"Chapter" shall refer to this chapter and all subsequent additions or amendments thereto.
"Developer" shall mean any individual submitting a plan for new development under the
provisions of this chapter.
"Development pipeline" shall mean approved lots or development projects having a legal
claim to the County's mad, sewer, and/or water capacity.
"Equivalent unit" shall mean the flaw of water or wastewater equivalent to the average
flow of aunit-type planned for new development.
"Inadequate" shall mean not meeting the established minimum standards in this chapter
and, therefore, the County.
Z
"Individual" shall mean natural person, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership,
association, club, company, corporation, business trust or the manager, lessee, agent, servant,
officer or employee of any of them.
"Level of service" shall mean a qualitative measure describing operational conditions of a
transportation facility. Procedures for determining level of service are to be determined by the
departrnent of public works (DPW} when applied in this chapter.
"New development" shall mean new subdivisions or site plans far new construction
received for approval by the planning director pursuant to chapters 23 and 25, Hawaii County
Code, after the effective date of this chapter.
"Phase" shall mean a period of construction resulting in the completed construction of a
number of units equal to or less than the total number of units of approved new development.
"Site plan" shall mean a plan, to scale, showing uses, structures, and other improvements
for a parcel as required by chapters 23 and 25, Hawaii County Code.
"Start of construction" shall mean the point in time commemorating the breaking of
ground for the construction of approved new development or a phase of that development.
"Subdivision" shall mean the division of land into two or more lots.
"Unit-type" shall mean a description that implies the use, general size, aad general
appearance of a structure, including, but not limited to, single-family, multiple-family,
commercial, industrial, and resort-hotel units.
"Utility representative" shall mean an individual qualified to check the accuracy of
statements regarding the capacity, usage, and estimated future usage of the County's water or
sewer systems. If the County owns and operates the system in question, then this individual shall
be the County's duly designated engineer. If the County does not own and operate the system in
question, then this individual shall be an engineer in the employ of the system's owner or
operator.
Article 2. Administration.
Section _-S. Admmiatration.
This chapter shall be administered by the planning director. The planning director shall
not approve new development unless road, water, and sewer facilities are deemed to be adequate
as required by this chapter. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the planning director from
approving portions of a new development if said portions comply with the provisions of this
chapter.
3
-r- - ~ ~ - - , _ v v_~_ ~,~.x~s.~-~~~
Section -6. Jurisdiction.
This chapter applies to al! new subdivision and site plan applications for new construction
received by the planning director pwsuant to chapters 23 and 25, Hawaii County Code, after the
effective date of this chapter.
Section -7. Final determination of adequate public facititiea.
(a) If road facilities are found to be adequate subject to section _-13 of this chapter,
water facilities are found to be adequate subject to section _-17 ofthis chapter, end sewer
facilities are found to be adequate subject to section _ 22 of this chapter, then public facilities
shall be deemed adequate and the new development in question may be approved.
(b) If road facilities are found to be inadequate subject to section _-13 of this chapter,
or water facilities are found to be inadequate subject to section -17 of this chapter, or sewer
facilities are found to be inadequate subject to section _-22 of this chapter, then public facilities
shall be deemed inadequate and the new deve]opment in question shall not be approved.
Article 3. Roads.
Section _-10. Road standard.
All new development shall be served by an adequate network of roads.
Section -11. Developer submission.
The developer of the new development in question shall be responsible for inquiring with
DPW regarding the necessity for a traffic impact study and submitting a copy of DPW's
response to the need for a traffic impact study to the planning director.
Section -12. Traffic unpact study.
(a) Any traffic impact study performed subject to section _-l l of this chapter shall
include in its scope those projects in the development pipeline that are geographically proximate
to the new deve{opment being evaluated under this chapter.
(b) If DPW recommends a traffic impact study based on section _-11 of this chapter,
then the application for new development shall be held until such time as the developer
completes a traffic impact study, the study is reviewed by DPW, and it is found to be in
wmpliance with DPW's regulations for traffic impact studies, as amended from time to time.
(c) If the County council adopts a resolution expressing concern with the traffic-related
impacts of new development, then the application for new development shall be held until such
time as the developer completes a traffic impact study reviewed by the County's duly designated
engineer and found to be in compliance with DPW's regulations for traffic impact studies, as
amended from time to time.
4
Section _-13. Determination of roads adequacy,
(a) If a tratlic impact study subject to section _-11 of this chapter is not required, then
roads shall be deemed adequate for the purpose of this chapter.
(b) If the traffic impact study performed subject to = l2 of this chapter reports that
there are no improvements necessary or recommended by DPW or the County's duly designated
engineer as a result of the traffic impact study, then roads shall be deemed adequate for the
purpose of this chapter.
{c) [f the traffic impact study performed subject to section _-12 of this chapter reports
that there are improvements necessary or recommended by DP W or the County's duly
designated engineer' as a result of the traffic impact study, then roads shall be deemed inadequate
for the purpose of this chapter, except in the case when the County council adopts a resolution
affirnung the idea that future road improvements set forth in a binding agrcement or appearing in
the County's capital improvements program will, to the maximum degree possible, alleviate
congestion exacerbated by the approved new development.
Article 4. Water.
Section _-15. Water standard.
All new development shall be served by an adequate water system.
Section -I6. Developer submission.
The developer shall submit a summary of the planned new development to the utility
representative including the following:
(1) An enumeration of the unit-types and number of each unit-type planned for new
development.
(2) Equivalent unit figures for water for each unit-type planned for new developmem.
Section _-17. Determination of water system adegnacy.
(a) The utility representative shall draft and submit a report to the planning director
addressing the adequacy of the County's water system to support new development,
recommending water system upgrades, if any, necessary to support new development,
recommending the planning director find the water system adequate or inadequate, and including
a consideration of at least all of the following elements:
(1) The water system's design capacity;
(2) The water system's supply source;
(3) The water system's available capacity;
(4) The projected water needs of proposed new development to include needs for
domestic consumption and fire protection;
(5) Existing storage, treatment, and pumping facilities affected by the proposed
development;
5
(6) The impact of projects in the development pipeline on the water system's
available capacity;
(7) Projects appearing in the capital improvements program that will affect the
ability of the water system to serve new development; and
(8) Other variables found to have an effect on the ability of the water system to
satisfy the projected water needs of the new development.
(b) If the utility representative recommends that the water system be deemed
inadequate, pursuant to subsection _-l 7(a) of this chapter, then the planning director shall
determine the water system to be inadequate for the purposes of this chapter and not approve the
application for new development in question, in all but the following situations when water
facilities may be deemed adequate for the purposes of this chapter by the planning director:
(1) Projects in the capital improvements program will, according to the utility
representative, increase the water system's ability to support new
development, and a binding agreement specifies that development will take
place in a manner so that the start of constnictian for phases of development
found by the utility representative to result in inadequate water facilities
without water system improvements d snot occur until such time as
improvements specified in the capital improvements program are in place;
{2) A binding agreement specifies that the devebper shalt fund water system
improvements deemed necessary by the utility representative to provide
adequate water facilities, pursuant to subsection _-17(a) of this chapter, and
the developer agrees that developmem will take place in a manner so that the
start of construction for phases of development found by the utility
representative to result in inadequate water facilities without water system
improvements does not occur until the agreed upon developer funded
improvements are in place;
(3) A binding agreement specifies that the County and developer will jointly
improve the County's water system according to recommendations made by
the utility representative, pursuant to subsection _-17(a) of this chapter, and
requires the developer to develop in a manner so that the start of construction
for phases of development found by the utility representative to result in
inadequate water facilities without water system improvements does not occur
until such time as the agreed upon County and developer funded water system
improvements are in place; or
(4) Multiple developers submitting applications for new development under this
chapter, including the developer whose application for new development is
currently being reviewed, emer into a binding agreement containing all of the
following conditions:
6
(A) The multiple developers party to this binding agreement shall share the
costs of water system improvements deemed necessary by the utility
representative to ensure adequate water facilities for new development;
(B) Each individual developer's share of the costs of water system
improvements shall be calculated based on the individual developer's
pro-rata share of water equivalent units to be created by the multiple
developers' new development, as determined by the utility
representative;
(C) The individual developer's share of costs may be modified by the utility
representative if circumstances other than the individual developer's
pro-rata share of water equivalent units are found by the utility
representative to increase or decrease the cost of providing water system
improvements to the individual developer's new development; and
(D) The multiple developers shall agree to develop in a manner so that the
start of construction for phases of development found by the utility
representative to insult in inadequate water facilities without water
system improvements does not occur until the agreed upon developer
funded improvements are in place.
(c} If the utility representative recommends, pursuant to subsection _-17(a) of this
chapter, that the water facilities be deemed adequate, then the planning director may determine
the water facilities to be adequate for the purposes of this chapter.
Article 5. Sewer.
SeMioo _-20. Sewer standard.
Ali new development shall be served by an adequate sewer system.
SeMion _-21. Developer aubroiasion. ,
The developer shall submit a summary of the planned new development to the utility
representative including the following:
(1) An enumeration of the unit-types and number of tech unit-type planned for new
development.
(2) Equivalent unit figures for wastewater for each unit-type planned for new
development.
Section -22. Determination of sewer system adequacy.
(a) The utility representative shall draft and submit a report to the planning director
addressing the adequacy of the County's sewer system to support rtew development,
recommending sewer system upgrades, if any, necessary to support new development,
n,commending the planning director find the sewer system adequate or inadequate, and including
a consideration of at least all of the following elements:
7
(1) The sewer system's design capacity;
(2) The sewer system's available capacity;
(3) The projected wastewater flow to be generated by proposed new development;
(4) The impact of projects in the development pipeline on the sewer system's
available capacity;
(5) Projects appearing in the capital improvements program that will affect the
ability of the sewer system to serve new developmem;
(ti) The sewer system's permitted treatment capacity as determined by the State
department of health; and
('n Other variables found to have an effect on the ability of the sewer system to
accept the projected wastewater flow from new development.
(b) If the utility representative recommends that the sewer system be deemed
inadequate, pursuant to subsection _-22(a) of this chapter, then the planning din~tor shall
determine the sewer system to be iaadequate for the purposes of this chapter and therefore not
approve the application for new development in question, in all but the following situations when
sewer facilities may be deemed adequate for the purposes of this chapter by the planning
director:
{1) Projects in the capital improvements program will, according to the utility
representative, increase the sewer system's ability to support new
development, and a binding agreement specifies that development will take
place in a mamrer so that the start of construction for phases of development
found by the utility represeatative to result in inadequate sewer facilities
without sewer system improvements does not occur until the sewer
improvements specified in the capital improvements program aze in place;
(2) A binding agreement specifies that the developer shall fund sewer system
improvements deemed necessary by the utility representative to provide
adequate sewer facilities, pursuant to subsection _-22(a) of this chapter, and
the developer agrees that development will take place in a manner so that the
start of construction for phases of development found by the utility
representative to result in inadequate sewer facilities without sewer system
improvements does not occur until the agreed upon developer funded
improvements are in place;
(3) A binding agreement specifies that the County and developer will joiatly
improve the County's sewer system according to recommendations made by
the utility representative, pursuant to subsection _-22(a) of this chapter, and
requires the developer to develop in a manner so that the start of construction
for phases of development found by the utility representative to result in
inadequate sewer facilities without sewer system improvements does not
occur until such time as the agreed upon County and developer funded sewer
system improvements are in place; or
S
(4) Nfultiple developers submitting applications for new development under this
chapter, including the developer whose application for new development is
currently being reviewed, enter into a binding agreement containing all of the
following conditions:
(A) The multiple developers party to this binding agreement shall share the
costs of sewer system improvements deemed necessary by the utility
representative to ensure adequate sewer facilities for new development;
(B) Each individual developer's share of the costs of sewer system
improvements shall be calculated based on the individual developer's
pro-rata share of wastewater equivalent units to be created by the
multiple developers' new development, as determined by the utility
representative;
(C) The individual developer's share of costs maybe modified by the utility
representative if circumstances other than the individual developer's
pro-rata share of wastewater equivalent units are found by the utility
representative to increase or decrease the cost of providing sewer system
improvements to the individual developer's new development; and
(D) The multiple developers shall agree to develop in a manner so that the
start of construction for phases of development found by the utility
representative to result in inadequate sewer facilities without sewer
system improvements does not occur until the agreed upon developer
funded improvements are in place.
(c) If the utility representative recommends, pursuant to subsection _-22(a) of this
chapter, that the sewer facilities be deemed adequate, then the planning director may determine
the sewer facilities to be adequate for the purposes of this chapter.
Article 6. Applicability of Chapter.
Section _-25. Applicability of general plans.
This chapter shall be applied and administered within the framework of the I-Iawai`i
County general plan.
Section -26. Applicability of subdivision and caning codes.
This chapter shall apply to all new development as defined in subsection 3(b) of this
chapter. This chapter shall be construed to complement the improvements and dedications
required by chapters 23 and 25, Hawaii County Code. This chapter provides for additional
requirements and is not intended to supplement other code provisions, rules, and regulations.
9
SECTION 2. SeverabiBty. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof
to any person or citctnnstaace, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
INTRODUCED BY:
V
COUN IL MEMBER, COUNTY O HAWAII
Hawaii
Date of Introduction: ,
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Effective Date:
REFER1NCf~ Comm. 103_„_?
10
RCCLtitiatedCBilla.doo-2/26/07
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,
RECOMMENDATION
INI'I7ATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
DRAFT ORDINANCE -BILLS 318, 319, 328 AND 329 (CONCURRENCY)
The Planning Director recommends favorable action on Bi11318 (with amendments) and
an unfavorable action on Bills 319, 328 and 329 for the reasons outlined below:
Stated as a general principle, it is impossible to disagree with the concept of concurrency.
The difficulty is in putting it into practice, particularly with the conditions that exist in Hawaii
County, and coming out with policies that have the intended results. It is especially difficult to
establish a concurrency policy by ordinance that has to apply generally to a wide range of
situations, rather than as a general principle to be applied to rezonings, and possibly to
subdivisions and other post-zotvng approvals, on the circumstances of an individual application.
This recommendation will discuss the bills primarily with reference to roads. Water is not that
urgent an issue from a concunency standpoint. Although some rezonings have been granted for
properties for which there was not an assured supply of water, the subdivision code and plan
approval processes, as well as Department of Water Supply regulations, prevent actual
development and occupancy from occurring without a water supply. The major exception is the
availability of water variances, although there is at least some consistency now in the treatment of
this due to the adoption of an administrative rule, Planning Department Rule 22. The same is
generally true for sewers and individual wastewater systems. (Bill 329 appears to prohibit
development using individual wastewater systems, even though these are allowed in many
circumstances by the Department of Health)
The four bills in question all have the basic strategy of delaying or denying development
approvals until public facilities are at a desirable level of service. There are two basic difficulties
with this strategy: first, that it does not necessarily lead to the construction of the public facilities,
and second, that it will not affect development that is occurring on already-subdivided land, such
as in the Puna and Ka'u subdivisions that were created from the 1950's to the late 1960's, and
-1-
some other development that will create the same or worse traffic and other impacts.
Taking the first point: most private developments, since the era in the 1950's and 60's that
resulted in the creation of more than 60,000 lots with poor roads and no water supply, have .
incorporated decent on-site infrastructure. They typically have good roads within the
subdivisions, and county water systems or equivalent private water systems. The public facilities
outside the private developments -the regional roads, the community parks, the schools -have
not kept up. The difficulty for the private developer is that, except perhaps for some large
developments, the necessary regional road improvements are too large for their project to bear the
costs. For example, the current congestion problem on the Queen Kaahumanu Highway can
probably only be cured by its widening to four lanes. This is currently underway between Henry
Street and Kealakehe Parkway, but even after this section is widened, the remaining areas may
still be at an undesirable level of service. Generally, it is not practical, and makes little sense, to
have a private developer do a project like widening their "fair share" of something like Queen
Kaahumanu Highway. The rezonings discussed earlier which had road construction requirements
involved fairly large projects, and, in the case of the Honokohau Business Park and Pua'a
rezonings, relatively short sections of road.
It is not necessarily a bad thing that a concurrency ordinance will delay or deny
development in areas that are already experiencing road congestion or otherwise do not have
adequate public facilities, but this leads to the second point: that there is a great deal of potential
development that will escape concurrency controls, but still have an impact on the roads, parks,
and other public facilities in the areas where the concurrency controls apply. The most important
sources of development that will not be affected by concurrency controls are the lots created by
the 1950's and 1960's subdivisions. About 50% of the home construction in Hawaii County is
occurring on these lots, mostly in Puna, but there is significant activity in the Hawa&an Ocean
View-Hawaiian Ranchos area, where about 450 building permits were issued for new homes in
2005-2006 -about half as many as in all of North Kona. If there are no options for workforce
housing closer to the employment centers in West Hawaii, workers will continue to have to
commute from long distances, putting additional strain on roads. While a concurrency ordinance
could have the result of delaying further subdivision or other development in the Kailua-Kona
-2-
azea, it will not prevent traffic growth from people who have to commute through Kailua-Kona
on their way to work.
The only type of land use regulation that would affect development in the already-
approved subdivisions would be a moratorium on building permits. The county administration has
not been in favor of this because the homes being built in these subdivisions constitute almost all
of the new middle-income housing created on the island during a time when rapid price increases
have pushed housing beyond the reach of many families. A building permit moratorium would
mostly hurt individuals and small landowners. In addition to the lots in the rural subdivisions,
development on the major resorts north of the Kona International Airport at Keahole would also
probably continue in spite of a concurrency ordinance. These do not need rezoning, and are
generally outside the area where the Queen Kaahumanu Highway is currently below a desirable
level of service. As a practical matter, the area that would most likely be affected by a
concurrency ordinance would be the area between Keauhou and the Kona International Airport at
Keahole, because the highways are already badly congested. A concurrency ordinance could
prevent rezoning in this area, and, if applied at the subdivision level, further residential
subdivisions, at least until the next phase of the Queen ICaahumanu widening has been completed,
when the level-of-service might improve enough that concurrency would be satisfied. This azea
is, however, also the prime azea in North Kona where the General Plan encourages growth, and
the results of the community developmem plan process so far also direct growth to this general
area.
A concurrency policy should not choke off the development of affordable housing in this
area. On the other hand, current zoning for commercial development already far exceeds
probable demand in the North Kona area, so there is no pressing need for additional commercial
zoning, except perhaps for truly neighborhood-oriented projects that give shopping opportunities
to people close to their homes. There are vacant commercially-zoned sites across from Pualani
Estates, along Henry Street south of the current Lanihau Shopping Center, next to the Kona
Industrial azea on Queen Liliuokalani Trust estate land, in the recently-rezoned Honokohau
Business Pazk, in TSA Increment IV above the current Kaloko Industrial Park, and more than 200
acres of vacant commercial zoning around Makalapua Center. On the east side of the island,
-3-
white there are severe traffic problems on Highway 130 from Pahoa to Kea'au, and the situation
on Highway 11 is getting worse, controls on further subdivision or rezoning will not help the
situation because almost all development is occurring on existing lots and there is such a lazge
potential for future development on those lots. On the other hand, some new commercial zoning
might alleviate traffic congestion by providing places for people to shop closer to their homes.
Specifically, the Planning Director recommends the following:
1. BiI1318: Bill 318 applies to new zoning. It states that if a new development would cause
the road level of service to fall (or remain) below "D", the rezoning shall not be approved,,
unless "transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of the
development will be made concurrent with the development." The requirement for
"improvements or strategies" is vague, and does not give any guidance to what would be
enough.
The Planning Director does believe that the Zoning Code should contain guidance
on how traffic is handled in major new zonings, and that mitigation should be required
when the traffic is already bad, or will likely become bad in the near future. The director
also believes that current practices that asswe water supply should be part of the Zoning
Code. As an alternative to Bill 318, the director recommends the bill attached as Eabibit
5 be recommended for approval as a modification of Bill 318.
Bi11318 would require a traffic impact analysis report (TIAR) when a project
would result in additional traffic demand of 100 trips or more at the peak hour. This "100
trips/hour" standard is recommended as the threshold for requiring a TIAR by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE). There aze nationally-recognized guidelines, including
the "Trip Generation Handbook", that give estimates of peak trips/hour generated by
various land uses. Examples of projects that would generate 100 tripsfhour at the peak
hour include 150 single-family homes, 225 apartments, or a 15,500 squaze foot shopping
center.
Often, the final uses on a property are not clear at the time of zoning. For
example, commercial zoning allows a wide range of uses that generate different traffic
demands, including homes, fast-food restaurants, offices, and gas stations. All of these
-4-
have different trip generation rates given by the Trip Generation Handbook. To handle
this, the bill would permit some averaging.
The TZAR would have to cover traffic impacts to the affected collector and arterial
roads, in addition to the intersections. This is important to specify, because in practice,
many TIAR's only study intersections. For example, for a commercial rezoning on Hina
Lani Street the TIAR should study the project intersection with Hina Lani, the Hina Lani
intersections with Queen Kaahumanu and Mamalahoa, and the overall flow of traffic on
Queen Kaahumanu and Mamalahoa in the vicinity of the Hina Lani intersection. The ,
TIAR would have to estimate increases in traffic for at least five years.
The director's bill then follows Bill 3l8 in identifying a level of service of "E" or
"F" as triggering additional scrutiny and mitigation requiremems. There aze nationally-
recognized guidelines for determining level of service for intersections and for highways.
"E" is considered "undesirable" and "F" is considered "unacceptable" in these guidelines.
"F" is s neaz-gridlock situation, where, on a highway, there is continual stop-and-go. In
lieu of requiring a TIAR for regional roads, the director can also simply determine that the
roads aze at "E" or worse based on available studies. For example, portions of Queen
Kaahumanu, Palani, and Mamalahoa aze already at "E" based on recent traffic studies.
Traffic problems and their mitigation can be divided into two types: the local and
the regional. Local problems are those that are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project, and may be solved by improvements in the vicinity. Examples would include tum
lanes in and out of a project. Generally, a project should be required to pay for its own
local mitigation. These kinds of improvements might be required for safety and
convenience even if not strictly required by the congestion at a particulaz site.
Regional traffic problems are those that are on the arterial and collector roads that
ultimately carry traffic to and from the project, like Mamalahoa and Queen Kaahumanu in
the example given above. In most cases, congestion on these roads results from many
factors and any one project will have only a limited effect. The idea behind the director's
modification of Bi11318 is that when a new rezoning is considered for an azea where the
arterial and collector roads are already above capacity, or will be in the near future, and it
-s-
may add significant new traffic to the roads, that the occupancy of the azea to be retuned
should wait for improvements that mitigate this problem. These improvements can be
public improvemems, such as the Queen Kaahumanu Highway widening, or private
improvements, such as those required with the Palamanui rezoning.
In order for this policy not to have the adverse effects on the county's overall
growth policy and the desire to have workforce and other affordable housing near urban
centers (which are also often the areas of the worst traffic congestion), the bill would have
some exceptions where regional mitigation would not be required. The main one is for
rezoning where the developer commits to provide at least twice the level of affordable
housing normally required under the county's affordable housing policy. The basic level is
20% of the total units being affordable at 120% of median; to get the exemption from
regional mitigation, the developer would have to provide at least double that figure. The
developer would still have to provide local mitigation, such as turn lanes into the project,
but this is a normal safety/convenience requirement.
The second major exception to regional mitigation allows commercial areas that
serve a neighborhood area. For example, additional commercial zoning between Kea'au
and Pahoa may provide places where people can buy groceries ctoser to their homes and
avoid commuting to either town and reduce overall traffic problems. If the Council finds
that they will reduce regional traffic problems, they can be exempted from regional
mitigation.
There is also an exemption for projects that conform to an adopted community
development plan (CDP). The community development plans should include basic
infrastructure requirements for new areas to be developed. For example, it is our
expectation that the Kona Community Development Plan would require that new zoning
between the end of Kealaka'a Street and Hina Lani Street would need the extension of
Kealaka'a Street all the way to Hina Lani Street, creating a through road (rather than
allowing housing to be built along incremental extensions of Kealaka'a). Projects built in
conformance with a CDP should be deemed to conform to regional mitigation
requirements.
-6-
The revised Bi11318 also comains basic requirements for water. It would require
that either the water commitments be available, or that there be specific improvements that
will make it available. It would not be enough for the developer to simply say that they
would wait for water to be available. There is an exception to the water requirement for
commercial and light industrial areas in rural areas identified for such uses in the Cseneral
Plan, but where there is no public water service and no prospect of such service. The
prime examples would be the areas identified as Alternate Urban Expansion in the
Hawaiian Ocean View-Ranchos area, and in the "Medium Densit}~' area in Volcano. In ,
the HOVE-Ranchos area, there has already been quite a bit of commercial development
allowed by Special Permit where water is supplied through storage tanks or reservoirs.
Further expansion of this area should be allowed by zoning, but developing a water system
is financially infeasible for the typical commercial development, and may not be physically
possible. In Volcano, the same is true with respect to the water system, and commercial
zoning has been allowed with fire flow and sanitation requirements being met by storage.
2. Bi11319: The Planning Director has a negative recommendation on Bill 319. This would
apply at the subdivision stage. Because portions of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway and
Mamalahoa Highway in the Kailua-Kona area are already at LOS "E", subdivisions in
these areas would have to come up with "transportation improvements or strategies to
accommodate the impacts of the development and be made concurrent with the
development," or the subdivision would have to wait for traffic to improve. Again, the
requirement for "improvements or strategies" is vague, and does not give any guidance to
what would be enough. The Planning Director would have to engage in negotiations with
various subdividers to determine whether they could go forward, without any standards to
guide what is fair.
Property that is zoned but not subdivided has a different status than unzoned
property. Normally, such property can be subdivided in accordance with the subdivision
code. The owner is not asking for a new entitlement as in the case of zoning. Most
subdivisions are too small to support any meaningful improvement in traffic conditions.
With respect to the larger subdivisions, properties have very different histories. For
-7-
example, the largest pending residential subdivision in North Kona is the "Kaloko
Heights" project, on the upper portion of Hine Lani Street. The owners of this property,
as well as some others, paid into an improvement district that created Hina Lani Street in
the 1980's. It wouldn't be fair to hold up this subdivision based upon current bad traffrc
conditions when the prior owners helped create a major road improvement years ago.
3. Bills 328 and 329: The Planning Director recommends denial of these bills. Both are
very far-reaching and would result in a very profound change in the land use system, but
both are very sketchy on the implementation.
• Bill 328 has the widest scope of the four bills. It requires that the Planning
Director establish level of service standards for parks, roads, fire, water, police,
solid waste, and wastewater systems. The director would have to deny
development approvals unless the level of service is adequate, unless the developer
constructed the necessary facilities. This poses a dilemma. On the one hand, you
would not want to say that the current conditions in many parts of the county are
adequate. On the other hand, if the director determines that the current level of
service is too low, it results in a moratorium on new subdivisions, and possibly
multi-family buildings, but development in the existing subdivisions can cominue.
For example, if the director determined that there weren't enough parks on the
island, the development of new subdivisions, shopping centers, and apartment
buildings could be stopped, but people could continue building in the older
subdivisions, which may be the areas that have the worst shortage of parks. While
larger developers could proceed by building the necessary park space, it would not
be practice.( for developers of small subdivisions and apartment buildings to do so,
and their projects would be on hold until the county built enough parks to catch up
to the required level of service.
• Bi11329 has requirements for roads, water supply, and sewer systems, and would
apply to projects at the subdivision and plan approval level, as well as the rezoning
level. The road requirements are not well formulated. They do not have any
standard for determining adequacy. As stated earlier, the presem system with
-g-
respect to water prevents significant development without water (except for
variances). Bi11329 also appears to make a sewer system a requirement of further
development, which would greatly limit where future development can occur.
For the reasons cited above, the Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission
send a favorable recommendation to the County Council on Bill 318 (with amendments, per
Exhibit 5) and an unfavorable action on Bills 319, 328 and 329.
-9-
PLANNING DIItECTOR'S PROPOSED REVISION TO BILL 318
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, HAWAII .
COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION) BY ADDING A NEW SECTION RELATED
TO CONCURRENCY CONDITIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Purpose and findings. The Council finds that because of road congestion
in Hawaii County, it is necessary to assess the traffic impacts of major developments,
and if they will add traffic to roads that are now too congested, or will be too congested
in the future, that the rezoning should not take effect unless improvements to the traffic
situation occur at or before the occupancy of the project. At the same time, the Council
recognizes that the lack of affordable housing near employment centers is one of the
factors that creates traffic problems, by forcing workers to commute long distances, and
does not want to inhibit the supply of affordable housing. In addition, there are situations
where commercial or light industrial retuning may be desirable to reduce traffic. For
example, thousands of homes are being built in rural subdivisions approved in the 1950's
and 1960's, mostly in Puna and Ka'u. These generally have no areas zoned for
commercial and light industrial uses, and development of these necessary services has not
kept pace with the movement of population to these areas. The Council also finds that it
is desirable to have standard expectations for water supply for new rezonings. In some
rural areas, however, there is no reasonable prospect of a public water system, but the
county may wish to allow some commercial and possibly light industrial rezoning to
serve the Bowing rural population. The water supply necessary for sanitation and
firefighting, in these circumstances, can be handled by requiring adequate storage
facilities.
SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 2, division 4, Hawaii County Code, is amended by
adding a new section 25-2-46 to read as follows:
EXHIBIT
5
"Section 25-2-46. Coacurrencv requirements.
(a) Purpose. In addition to requirements otherwise imposed. this section creates
concurrency standards for roads and water supply in change of zone actions.
j~ Applicability. This section applies to any~pnlication for rezoning. or for an
extension of time to perform conditions of zoning, received by the Planning Department
after the effective date of this ordinance excegt for rezonings that reduce the amount of
evelo meat allowed under exis i nin or 'ham d zonin conditio with ut
changing the amount of development allowed or ending time for performance.
(cl Definitions. As used in this section:
`Acceptable level of service' means that the level of service of a highway or intersection
at the AM or PM peak hour is "D" or better.
`Critical road area' means agggg<raphical area where the arterial and/or collector roads
serving the area have been determined, the Council to be worse than the acceptable
level of service. based on professional studies.
`Level of service. or LOS' means a c
u~litative measure describingoaerational conditions
within a traffic stream. and shall be determined using the procedures in the latest edition
of the Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board.
`Mitigation' means specific actions to reduce tragic conggstion. Mitigation is of two
types: `local mitigation' which consists of improvements to roads and intersections that
are in the immediate vicinity of a project. including channelization of intersections turn
lanes imp a project and similar imnrovemems. and `regional mitigation' which consists of
i~rovements which increase the capaci y of an arterial or major road such as additional
lanes. in the general region containingthe project. or construction of a new arterial or
collector road in the g
nee
ral region containing the project. and which is shown on the
General Plan facilities map, or improvements to public transportation such as buses or
park and ride facilities. sufficient to offset the traffic demand generated bkthe projgct.
`Occupancy' means 1) the issuance of a certificate of occupancyfor a commercial.
multifamily. industrial building. hotel or other structure requiringa certificate of
occupancy (2) the issuance of a buildingpermit for residential buildings that do not
rgquire a certificate of occupancy: or~3) final subdivision approval for subdivisions
where dwellings are allowed. but dwellings are not being constructed before sale of the
lo~,~.
`Worse than the acceptable level of service' means that the level of service at the AM or
PM peak is "E" or "F".
(d) TIAR R aired.
(1) A traffic impact analysis repoR fTIAR~, prepared
or updated within twelve
months of the submission of the application shall be included with the application for
any ch~ge of zone that can generate 100 or more peek hour trips above the level
allowed by existing zoning. Thq determination of peak hour trips shall be based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineers. "Trip Generation Handbook" or another
nationally recormized source. When the number of trips dgpends upon the exact future
uses of the site. and those are unknown at the 6rge of rezoning for example. the types of
commercial uses). the determination shall be based upon a ypical mix of uses found in
that zoning_type in the community.
~2) The TZAR shall assess impacts to public roads and intersections in the
immediate vicinity. and to the ~¢eneral traffic level on arterial and collector roads serving
the proiect area.
(3) The TIAR shall include projections for future e~owth in_traffic for a minimum
of five years. and shall include other approved development in the area. with reasonable
assumptions about the build-out of such development. .
(41 In lieu of reauirinP the TIAR to assess the general ttafiic level on arterial and
collector roads serving the project area. the director may determine that the current traffic
level is worse than the acceptable level of service based on other available studies
Ll Mitigation R aired. '
(1) lfthe LOS fot any public road or intersection in the study area is ~Lerrtly
worse than the acceptable level of service. or (22prgjected to become worse than the
astable level of service during the five year perio , anX rezoning of the property. if
approved. shall contain conditions that require mitig~ri'On gf adverse traffic effects before
occupancy~f the project 13 Dermitted. or that occup~ncv be delaXed until the level of
service has reached the acceptable level and is no longer projected to be worse than the
~c
p~t le level.
(2) Where the LOS deficienFy is due to roadway or intersection deficiencies in
the immediate vicinity the conditions of zoning hall require local mitigation Where the
deficienFy is LOS is due to insufficient capacity in the arterial or collector roads serving
the project. the conditions of zoning shall require regional mitig to ion•
(fl Mitigation reguiremerns will be deemed satisfied when:
(1) a p lic gency has committed funda for regional mitigation that will remove
the LOS deficiencX In the case of the State commitment of funds means that the
Governor has released funds to complete the improvement. In the case of the Coumv_.
commitmem of funds means that the Council has appropriated funds to complete the
i_provement: or
{2 the private developer's commitment to im~ement mitigation has been
secured b}+ bond or equivalent security or mandato~p icipation in an improvement
district, wmmunity facilities district. or other equivalem means of guaranteeing
performance.
~ A developer's regional miti atig
on expenses shall be credited against anv fair share or
similar fee requirement for roads. A developer's local mitigation expenses shall be
credited against any fair share or similar fee requirement for roads if the Council
ermings that the mit~ation substantially~enefits the general public and was not
necessary primarilyfor the benefit of the project. In general. turn lanes for a private
project shall np~qualify for fair share credit.
(h2 The following_types of rezoning~plications are not required to perform regional
mitigation:
X11 Residential rezonings where the applicant commits, and the conditions of zoning
rgquire. that the project earn at least two times the number of affgrdable housing
credits otherwise required under C ?a ter 11. CountXAffordable Housing PolicX
(2) Rezoni ~ to C V. CN. MCX PD or ML w~iere the Council determines that the
project will reduce overall traffic by providingnecessarv commercial or lid
industrial opportunities to serve an area where there is a shorlllge of available space
zoned for such uses and substantial residential development has akeadv been
aQprov~Provided that conditions of zoning shall ensure that any commercial
development be of a scale consistent with the standards of a "neighborhood center" as
described in the General Plan.
~3 R zonings that conform to a community development plan adopted by ordinance
and which provide all improvements rewired under the community development
(i) The Council may waive or reduce regional mitigation requirements for projects which
primarily_provide
public services such as rezonings which allow private or public
hospitals. schools. or universities. ,
(j) The restrictions on occgpancy shall not apply to the construction of model homes or
infrastructure such as water tanks. roads_ sewage treatment platrts. or other p_rpject
elements that do not generate substamial traffic
(k) The Council may designate critical road areas by ordinance. The~rocedure for
designating a critical road area shall follow the procedure for amending this chapter
excep_t,that individual notice to landowners and lessees within and~la
jacent to the
proposed critical road area shall not be required.
(1LIn a critical road area all rezoninps shall be subject to local and regional miti ation.
except
as stated in subsection ~h, or (i).
(m) In a critical road area a TIAR shall be required only to detemrine the extent of local
mitigation.
Sn) )n order to determine whether a rezoning~pplication meets the TIAR threshold, and
to prevent applicants from gQinp below the TIAR threshold by dividing a_proiect into
segments the duector shall review other rezoning~pplications on the same or adjacem
properties. and shall include traffic that may be ggnerated by any rezoning~pg ication
approved after the effective date of this ordinance. or by_any other pendin rg
ezoning
application. if it is on a portion of the same lot or tax maps parcel or an gd'oini~g lot
or tax map keyparcel that had or has a substantially related ownership
(o A change of zone application shall not be granted unless: (1~ the
Department of
Water Supplv has determined that it can meet the water requirements of the nroiect and
issue water commitments using its existing.~ystem: or (2)~pecific improvements to the
existing,public water system or a private water sy
is em equivalent to the requirements of
the Departmem of Water SuoQly will meet the water needs of the project and conditions
of zoning delay occupancy until the necessary improvements aze actually constructed.
(p~ To facilitate the develonmem of village cemers in rural areas that are not currently
served by a public water system. the Council may waive the water supplYrequirements
for rezonings for commercial or light industrial uses in azeas that do not currently have a
public water~+s em, and where the Dgpartment of Water Supply
has
no Qlans to build a
public water system. and which are (11 designated as an "urban and rural center" or
"industrial area" on Table 14-5 of the General Plan and (21 designated for urban use on
the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide M~ of the General Plan: provided that conditions
of zoning shall require water supely consistent with public health and safety needs such
as sanitation and fire-fiahtine.
(q) Nothing in this section shall limit the ability of the Council to impose reasonable
roadway or water improvemem requirements on changes of zone or to deny c e of
zone applications to the extent otherwise allowed by law.
SECTION 3. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is
underscored. In priming this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed material, and
underscoring need not be included.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity does not affect other
provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to
be severable.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
MARCH 2, 2007
A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL BILLS 318 (CHAPTER 25 -
CHANGE OF ZONE CONDITIONS), 319 (CHAPTER 23 -SUBDIVISION), 328
(CONCURRENCY CHAPTER) AND 329 (ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
CHAPTER) was called to order at 1:37 p.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center
Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham
presiding.
PRESENT: William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda
Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita
Alvin Rho
Rene' Siracusa
Rodney Watanabe
Rell Woodward
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Christopher Yuen, Planning Director
Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager
Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner
Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner
And two people from the public in attendance
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bi11318) amending Chapter 25 (Zoning
Code), Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-44, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition,
as amended) relating to conditions of change of zone (adds requirements to existing
provisions within the Zoning Code relating to conditions on change of zone ordinances
regarding water supply and transportation improvements or strategies be made concurrent
with development associated with any change of zone in order to manage growth and
coordinate the delivery of government services).
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bi11319) amending Chapter 23 (Subdivision
Code), Article 2, Division 1, Section 23-13, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as
amended) relating to Large Scale Developments (adds requirements to existing
provisions within the Subdivision Code relating to large scale developments regarding
water supply and transportation improvements or strategies be made concurrent with
development in order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government
services).
1 EXHIBIT D
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bi11328) amending the Hawaii County Code
1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) by adding a new chapter relating to concurrency
(establishes a concurrency management system and prepares a public facilities
improvement plan to fund and maintain county-wide facilities and services).
INITIATOR: COUN'T'Y COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bi11329) amending the Hawaii County Code
1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) by adding a new chapter relating to adequate public
facilities (relates to adequate public facilities for the identification of infrastructure and
services necessary to support new development and the establishment of a policy as to
when and how these improvements and services will be constructed and maintained).
GRAHAM: Our agenda for this afternoon is going to be new business. There
are four draft ordinances in the Hawaii County Code known as Bill 318, Bi11319, Bill
328 and Bi11329, all of which are initiated by the County Council. I think we have it
written on the agenda the specifics of each bill so probably I don't need to speak of them
at this point. I think our Planning Director Chris Yuen is going to give us a little
rundown on these bills to start with. And our intention is going to be to take testimony
and consider these bills some today, but then carry them forward to our next meeting in
Kona before we take any action on them. And because these are ordinances our actions I
presume will only be recommendations. Chris?
YUEN: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members ofthe Commission.
As your Chair said that this is to consider four sepazate bills that are all on the subject of
concurrency or adequate public facilities. As is our normal practice when things have an
island-wide significance, like an overall change to the Zoning Code or the Land Use
Procedures, we will want the Planning Commission to heaz these in meetings on both
sides of the island. We are up close to, we actually passed the timeframe for dealing with
these; and the County Council has extended the time. But the last time that the
Commission will have to look at these and vote on these will be the next meeting on
March 16`h. So these will, you know, go back up to the County Council with a
recommendation from the Planning Commission.
In brief and before I spend a little time giving a summary of these, our recommendation
is basically negative on all four bills. We have a revision to Bill 318, which follows
some of the basic ideas of Bill 318 that we would support. All of these bills are on the
subject of what people call concurrency or adequate public facilities. And any one of
them would be a very fundamental change in the way land use approvals and decisions
are made. So the basic idea behind concurrency or adequate public facilities is that the
level of public infrastructure should track along with development. And by public
infrastructure it can mean all kinds of things -roads, water, sewer, schools, and the like.
And as I said in the recommendation nobody would disagree with that as a matter of
general principle. The gist of the bills though is what happens when you have a land use
change like a zoning change where the public facilities are not up to par. And the idea
behind the bills is that you would have a pause, or you would have a denial, or you would
2 EXHIBIT D
have a delay in the implementation of the project until the public facilities got up to
speed, up to a certain level of service. And I think what I'll do is, you know, there is a
pretty extensive write-up on these bills, rather than repeat the write-up I'll just give a gist
of each of the bills. Then I think we do have public testimony on this; and I' d also be
happy to take questions at the end of the talk I'm giving right now or at the end of public
testimony as well.
Bill 318 applies to roads and water; and it applies at the stage of rezoning. It's not
terribly specific about what the developer is supposed to do. It doesn't say who does the
traffic study but it says that if the Level of Service is E or F that the Director shall make
sure that there are strategies or improvements in place to mitigate the traffic problem
before the occupancy of the development takes place.
Just to say a little bit about Levels of Service, I hope I can remember to do this, but
before your next meeting we'll give you something that defines level of service for roads.
I think we gave a brief verbal description of this, but there are traffic manuals that talk
about Levels of Service for roads going from A to F. They're defined differently from
intersections, highways and freeways. For an intersection the Level of Service is defined
as the delay that you have; or in terms of missed cycles, like if you stop at a stop light and
then you don't get through on that cycle and you have to wait a cycle, then that puts you
in a different level of service. For highways, it's defined as the amount of time you
spend following closely behind another car; and there are quantitative measures of how to
get to this. And there can be some play in how a traffic engineer will define a Level of
Service at a particular location, but it's relatively objective. In Levels of Service, F is the
worst; and F is essentially like gridlock where you have constant stop and go movement,
you don't have any flow of movement. E is close to F, as E is also bad. D is slow,
congested, but you do have movement.
So, anyway, so Bi11318 applies at the rezoning stage and it's something that would say
that you would have this traffic study at the point of every rezoning. The revisions to 318
that the Department is proposing have a threshold. And rather than say that every
rezoning would have to do this study, it applies more to the lazger rezonings. And the
threshold is a project that would generate 100 vehicle trips in the peak hour. This is not
something we made up. This is the Institute of Traffic Engineers, Transportation
Engineers rather, that suggests this as a threshold for when a local government should
require a traffic study of a new development. And then it talks about traffic problems
being either local or regional. An example of a local traffic problem would be if you
have a shopping center and the traffic study says that the people turning out of the
shopping center are going to have to wait a very long time to make the turns. Then the
revised version of Bill 318 says that, as an ordinary thing, the developer should take care
of the local mitigation; and that might be a thing like adding an additional turn lane out of
the project or adding an additional lane on the highway immediately fronting the
problem. The bigger issue really is when the traffic problem is regional, as it is in several
areas of the island right now. Then the ordinance, Bi11318 on the Council's side as I said
is a little vague as to what is supposed to happen at that point. The ordinance that we're
proposing says basically that you have to do something specific, like build a portion of
3 EXHIBIT D
the regional road network to mitigate the problem, or you wait until improvements have
been made that take away the Level of Service deficiency.
SIItACUSA: I
YUEN: Yes? Why don't we take questions. We can take questions as I go
along. You have a question?
SIRACUSA: Okay. It's my impression that when you're talking about roads
here you're only talking about major arterials, County and State Highways, and not
smaller roads which maybe County-owned but would go into say cul-de-sac
subdivisions. Is that a correct assessment?
YUEN: No. As far as the regional roads, yes. It would only be the arterial
roads, the main highways. It says arterial and collector roads. But you would still, if you
had a project on a small street that could generate 100 or more trips per day (sic), this
would say you should do a traffic study; and if that would congest that road, then you
would do the local mitigation for that. But you wouldn't have somebody go fix, well,
you can make them fix the road that they're on as part of the local mitigation.
SIRACUSA: I'm thinking in terms of roads, obviously I'm thinking of roads
where I live, single lane dirt road; and 100 trips per a day is ridiculous. I mean when
finally subdivisions were approved, you know, 20 cazs made a humongous difference.
And so it seems that you're not taking scale into consideration here, that in some areas
100 trips may be a perfectly reasonable way of gauging this. But in other areas, 50 or
even 20 trips would be a tremendous impact. And there doesn't seem to be a lot of
flexibility. And when I was reading through here, and you talked about things being
vague. To me, it was that they were allowing for some flexibility because some of these
situations are so different from one community and one area to another. And how do we
walk that thin line of balancing, you know, being really specific and on allowing enough
variation to allow for different regions and their own specific layouts and problems?
YUEN: None of these bills is intended to answer all of the issues that may
come up during a rezoning request. So, for example, in a situation you gave where if
somebody is applying for a rezoning on say a one-lane road that is just not suitable for
that level of development, then regardless of whether you have a concun-ency ordinance
or not, the right response is to deny the rezoning because the road is not adequate to serve
the proposed project. The reason to have a cutoff for doing the traffic report is that the
traffic report studies congestion. The TIAR may refer to the type of road that's in front
of the project, but the TIAR only tells you about congestion. The TIAR doesn't tell you,
you know, there's a 40-foot drop off the shoulder. Okay? So it doesn't solve those kinds
of issues. And those things aze still out there; and you have to use common sense and
judgment in analyzing any rezoning. This only deals with the question of traffic
congestion and how it may affect the local and the regional road networks.
4 EXHIBIT D
GRAIIAM: Chris, let me just give you a little, an overall pitch or read on this,
and you tell me if it sounds right, like I'm thinking of it right. Like this is an ordinance
which the County Council would presumably pass but the County Council is also the
body that passes the rezonings. So the County Council is kind of telling itself I can't pass
rezonings in certain situations if I pass this law. But they could just as well just not pass
it under certain situations anyway.
YUEN: Right. And that goes to a question of whether you adopt
something like this as an ordinance or whether you adopt something like this as a
guideline that you use in evaluating rezonings. And in discussing this, in the background,
for example, I try to point out that, recognizing that there's a highway problem in Kona,
for several years the rezonings, the really larger rezonings have typically involved road
conditions or have had affordable housing objectives. And this is a policy that's
underlying some of the decisions and the recommendations that we've made without it
actually being an ordinance. So the Council, yes, they could adopt these things as a
policy. There's some desire of the Council Members to adopt an ordinance that has the
effect of limiting their freedom of action, the freedom of action of the Council in granting
rezonings.
GRAHAM: Thank you.
DOMINGO: This would apply to all rezonings, or is it limited to size in number
of acres, or
YUEN: Well, the Council's Bi11318 would apply to all. The Director's
revisions would kick in the TIAR, the study requirement only for lazger projects, this 100
vehicles per day (sic) threshold which for a single family residential project it works out
to about 150, to a project with 150 homes or lots, multi-family would be 225. So it
would only kick in for what is to us a larger scale of project, not the kind that you see
every day, every application.
DOMINGO: But the Council's version of the bill would involve every
application for rezoning?
YUEN: Yes, that's what it says.
DOMINGO: And that's my fear because we're precluding those rezonings of a,
you know, mom and pop who has a fairly good sized lot and they would like to subdivide
it or rezone it and subdivide it for their children. If this precludes it, then it's going to be
hard. And what will happen is they'll go to the Council and complain to the Council, and
then you'll have the pressure to do something, where, in fact, it was of their own
ordinance that precludes them from considering that rezoning application. I can see and
appreciate the concern that the Council has in regards to, for the reason in coming up
with such amajor although there are some reservations on my part, and I see from
yours.
5 EXHIBIT D
In 1977 in Kona there was a study done by the State. And they were to try to determine
the carrying capacity for South Kohala, North and South Kona, and to consider other
probable kind of industries that would impact the region, and more so with the tourism
growth and more so with the fact that they were building the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway. And once that had finished, it would attract a lot of demand for development.
The study would have helped the decision makers to determine when there is an overload
in infrastructure. And then sensing that or foreseeing the overload then there were
actions that they could take to help address the anticipated growth. But that has never
happened. Probably the study was completed, but I don't think it went any further than
that. And if that was done at that time it would have been, I think, more helpful for
decision makers to make more sound decisions. My question is does the County have a
planning and growth management policy?
YUEN: Well, it's in the Genera] Plan basically. I would say, you know,
the land use system works more by controlling where development occurs rather than by
how much development occurs.
DOMINGO: That's why I asked the question.
YUEN: The County has added typically, actually very consistently for the
last three decades, added about 29,000 people a decade. About 2/3 of the population
growth of the County every decade has been from people moving into the island, and
about 1/3 from the excess of births over deaths. There's also people who move out but
you have net inmigration to the County. You don't have an ultimate growth control in a
sense of having a quota on the number of people who get to move to the island. There's
freedom of movement in the United States; and many people have chosen to move to the
island for reasons, whether it's clean air, clean water, nice place to live, all those kinds of
reasons.
Now that being said, there are land use decisions that can affect the overall level of
growth. For example, the basic decisions to make the Kona coast the big resort area, to
make the South Kohala and North Kona coasts big resort azeas were made in the sixties,
and then followed-up on by the State in making the Queen Kaahumanu Highway and
opening the Kona Airport. All of these things lead to resort hotels being produced on the
Kona coast but then needed employment and attracted people to the area. You know
definitely they spurred growth, and they're what I call growth-generating decisions.
Some kinds of residential subdivisions, let's take Hokulia, there's a growth generating
development in the sense that the people who are going in there would not necessarily be
moving to the island or buying lots on the island if they weren't one acre lots azound a
golf course done by a well-known developer. So you can make decisions that
consciously generate growth.
If I were to say, you know, what is my policy, I'm not apro-growth person. I'm a person
that wants to see the quality of life preserved on the island. I think that that growth is a
big challenge for that. And so I generally, particularly in the employment situation that
6 EXHIBIT D
we're at on the island, I've personally been opposing development that has the effect of
generating more growth. For example the project, the proposal to have 2,000 timeshares,
600 hotel rooms around Honokohau Harbor, if you do that, you must find a workforce.
You must import a workforce to fulfill that development. You don't have 2,000 people
running around who are looking for jobs working in a timeshare. So that's a growth
generating kind of a decision. But, by the same token, you can't control people that
decide, you know, they decide to retire in Hawaii. They open up the West Hawaii Today
to the real estate ads and find a place to live.
Now many places try to control growth and development by limiting the number of sites
that you can live on. To give you an example, somebody had me, said I should go look at
this plan for a place called Sanibel Island, Florida. Sanibel Island, Florida is a little
island that's off the coast of Florida. They have a bridge that goes from the mainland.
And they have a plan, they have an overall plan; and it says 7,000 residential units can be
built on Sanibel Island, Florida; and they actually hold to that plan. And apparently it's a
very nice place to live, but very, very expensive. But I can tell you though, and I did a
little more research because I can tell you exactly what happens at Sanibel Island, Florida
every day. There's a bridge, and over that bridge come all the people that clean the
homes, work in the yards, are the police officers and are priced out of living in Sanibel
Island, Florida. So if you adopt the growth control strategy, you can adopt a growth
control strategy for regions that you're going to hold growth in a particular region; but
you have to make some accommodation. We don't have an "away" where those other
people are going to come from and nor do we want to have that attitude. So you have to
then have a strategy for how are you going to have affordable housing for the people that
you're trying to keep in your community. The other thing to note about that strategy is
we've let a lot of things out the door already. You know, on this island we have
something like 40,000, 50,000 vacant lots that were created in the fifties and sixties that
people can move to. So we are really past the point where a strategy that's based, a
growth management strategy that's based on a cap on the number of units that you allow,
and that's how you're going to hold your population down, will work. So within that
framework though, you know, as I say we're not trying to, there aze communities that
will encourage any kind of economic development because they're desperate for jobs and
activity. There are places that will welcome the nucleaz waste dump, you know,
whatever. And I don't think we're that kind of a community at this point.
DOMINGO: You know, time and time again we hear that there's a certain
project that would generate jobs, and I've heard that many times. But even today I'm still
hearing that very same, one of that very same reason that development should occur
because it'll provide jobs. And what's happening is that when those projects aze
approved, jobs are available for people who live here but certainly by the same token it
attracts people from outside of the State to move here. And, of course, those who moved
here are described within several categories. Those who are really rich who can come
here, buy a place that costs millions of dollars, live here for a short period of time, for a
season, and go back to their other home. And there are those who come here who can
just afford to buy and manage to live here and eek out a living. And those who come
here camtot even afford to buy homes. So that creates a problem, you know, the problem
7 EXHIBIT D
of availability of housing and even to the extent availability of homeless facilities for
people who move here.
As I look at it, as I look at it from my point of view, you know, it would definitely be at
an overload. When you speak of the local and regional traffic when you go to Kona, you
have to wait over an hour from Matsuyama Store to get down to Kailua Village; and by"
the same token with Kamuela from Hawaii Prep going to the intersection in Kamuela, it
takes you one hour, 45 minutes to an hour to reach there. So, again, forme the quality of
life has been impacted, my quality of life has been impacted.
And then when you look at people who live here who want to buy a home, now for
instance in my community there are people who worked in the plantation. They were
fortunate that when the plantation had closed they had to pay only $1100 for the
surveying and the documentation, and they owned their house and lot. Today, some of
them have foreclosed on their property because finding that they had some equity in the
homes they overspent and now they're under foreclosure and they lose the property. And
there are those who in turn improved their property a little bit and have sold their home
for $250,000 plus dollars. They can get more for that. You know, that's a problem
we've seen because the demand for housing has increased to the extent that, you know, it
kind of, the supply is just not there but the demand is there and people are willing to pay
for it. And that again impacts our real property taxes that we pay. When I had my place
appraised just last year when I refinanced my loan, I was surprised that it was worth that
much. I didn't imagine that it was worth that much. Then I looked at other properties in
my surrounding area where it has been sold, and I would do some research, and then I
find that the price was so astronomical that it's sad. Everything is going out of whack
right now.
And when you find the median income housing in the Big Island is about probably
$450,000 to $500,000, who's going to afford that? You know, those with medium
income probably they can inch out their way. But those who are less, way less, who are
just making a living, they can't even get a house, they cannot even pay the rental. And
that's why throughout this whole state there are problems with the homeless; and it's not
low income, it's the homeless ones who are in need of those help.
So, you know, again, I look at this and I think what we have before us is something that
would bring out these issues for discussion and for consideration. And then when the
time comes, if and when we have to make some major decisions then these things, you
know, will help us determine that. And what's why I asked if we have a growth
management policy. As you indicated, you know, in such a way we have. But it would
have to take someone who would become familiar with the Land Use laws, the General
Plan and other issues to determine whether or not we have a controlled growth plan or
not. And I was thinking might be if we can come up with some policy statement or
document that would just state clearly, okay, this is what we want. And might be this can
be done in the next General Plan review. But I think it should come out and specifically
state, you know, what the goals are. Sometimes it's so vague and hard to understand
what the real message is.
8 EXHIBIT D
YUEN: Well, I think the things that you're talking about are some of the
concerns and issues that led to these bills. The question is what are the solutions?
Because not every solution is the right one. The housing, we did take a major step two
years ago in revising the affordable housing policy. Before there were loopholes that let
almost everybody get out of affordable housing. Because we have a demand for land
here, a very strong demand for land from people who have a good deal of money,
typically often moving from areas that are more expensive than this island. And yet we
have on this island a low wage base, you know, the kinds of jobs that are here are
typically lower wages, and they pay lower wages than California, for example, for the
same kind of work. We're always going to have this affordability issue. So we've made
requirements that you have, you know, that you must set aside a certain amount of
affordable housing.
You know, I gave you a packet of things from when you started. I did write a letter on
the Kona Community Development Plan saying they should talk about this issue of
growth very explicitly, because I don't think it is explicitly discussed in the General Plan,
and really talk about desirable levels of growth. You do always though have to
understand that there's only so faz you can go with controlling it through the land use
system. Because it's almost like you have a, you have the power through the land use
and zoning to put it in certain azeas, to encourage that growth be in some azeas and not in
other areas. There's the power to encourage preferred types of growth, you know,
preferred types of density, neighborhood layouts, whether you have cul-de-sac layouts or
you have grid interconnected layouts. But we really do not have a way of turning off the
spigot. There's an aspect of this that you can't control; and if you're trying to control it
by limiting, by really restricting zoning and land use, then it's especially important to
work on the affordability side. Because when you reduce supply and you can't do
anything about demand, then price has to go up.
WOODWARD: Let me just ask one question to clarify. You've been talking about
100 trips per day. Here in the paper it says 100 trips per hour during peak hour which
would be considerably more than
YUEN: If I said per day I was misspeaking, it should be in a peak hour. I
hope the write-up says 100 per hour. It should be 100 per hour.
WOODWARD: Okay, thank you.
WATANABE: I've got a question, and this speaks to, I guess it's page 3 of your
recommended Section 25-246, and it comes under E, Mitigation Required. And, so, you
know, I believe this is the section that's referring to like a regional, where you have a
regional type of problem. And I wondered if you could express it in maybe some specific
terms as far as Like we had approved a project, I don't think the Council acted on that,
the project above Lows that was Kona Coffee Plantation or something like that. And
with that particular prof ect we also were envisioning a connector road, anorth-south
connector road. But obviously that developer only has entitlements to a section thereof in
9 EXHIBIT D
which it really is, as I recall, in the middle because there are other properties. So it would
connect to nowhere. We required them to build that connector road at no cost to the
County. But is that the type of mitigation you're referring to here? Would that have
satisfied this? Because while in the future some day when it connects it will help with
the traffic, it doesn't address current regional traffic flow, huh?
YUEN: Right. That road probably would not count because it's not in the
General Plan Facilities Map. It's really a local circulation road. It's a good question.
And I went through a mental exercise of thinking about some of the rezonings that have
gone through in Kona and how they would fit or not fit this ordinance. That one is a little
tricky. That one actually would probably fall under the 100 peak trips per hour threshold.
WATANABE: Okay. But then assuming it did meet the 100 peak hour, then it's
either we don't do a project or rezoning of that nature because it would probably meet
that, or they could then get an exemption by providing two times, which is 40 percent
YUEN: Forty percent affordable housing, right.
WATANABE: Forty percent affordable housing at the 120 percent of median
income.
YUEN: Exactly.
WATANABE: Okay. So that would be the exemption to that?
YUEN: Right.
WATANABE: Okay, okay.
YUEN: So a project that came into the Kailua-Kona area that had no real
opporhmity to build something that was going to fix the traffic problem and didn't want
to wait for the widening to four lanes which might improve the level of service, their
option would be we're going to do more affordable housing than required under this bill,
double the affordable housing.
WATANABE: Right, double the affordable. By the way, I appreciated your write-
up because it did provide a lot of insight into the various situations and maybe some of
the situations the Council themselves weren't thinking of, you know, addressing. Cause
the Council said, oh, 100 percent of the homes would be 120 percent of median income,
but we're finding in most cases you can't. So you wind up with half a credit because
you're over 120 percent of median income and just between 140 percent of median
income by the time you finish the home, which means it's impossible to satisfy that.
YUEN: Yeah, unfortunately it's pretty dubious that a project can be 100
percent affordable and make it on its own as a development.
10 EXHIBIT D
WATANABE: There's no way.
GRAHAM: Chris, also, like probably today the most important thing we can do
since we're not voting is get the public testimony. Should we stop now and get some
public testimony, or should I ask the public when they would like to testify, or what do
you think?
YUEN: Why don't you take the public testimony, and then we can go back
to our discussion and questions.
GRAHAM: Okay. Would that be all right?
TAVARES: Yes, that'll be fine. I wanted to hear more of what Chris would
like to say, but
GRAHAM: Well, you can stay around. You'll hear more.
TAVARES: Yeah.
GRAHAM: Could I swear you in?
TAVARES: Sure.
GRAHAM: Do you affirm to tell the truth today before the Hawaii County
Planning Commission in regazd to this matter?
TAVARES: As much as I can I agree to tell the truth in whatever I say.
GRAHAM: Thank you. So then could you state your name and address, and
then give us whatever kind of input you have on this.
TAVARES: My name is Kim Tavazes. My address is PO Box 33, Volcano. I
live in Fern Forest, upper Puna. I've been a resident there since 1996. I've been a
resident of Hawaii for 31 years and on this island for quite a bit, kind of in love with this
island.
My testimony today is on all four of these bills also because I am interested in the same
things that you folks have expressed so far in trying to limit growth to something
reasonable that everybody can live with that still, you know, doesn't reduce the quality of
life for us all on this island.
Of course, most of my comments pertain to Puna because that's where I live. But I think
a lot of it can be considered for the rest of the island, too. And since I don't have the
revision that's in progress right now, I only have the bills that came out from the Council,
that's what I'm commenting on.
11 EXHIBIT D
And generally my comments related to changing zoning, is I'm against upzoning
basically, especially for agricultural lands and lands that are in native forest. I'm trying
to preserve that for the future generations for the kids, so they have something to enjoy
and be proud of as something unique to the rest of the world. But if we develop over all
that it will ali be gone, so I try not to make that happen in as many ways as I can. And
one of them is I'm involved with the Puna Community Development Plan which is alsaa
big process that has a lot to do with land use and making recommendations to Planning
and to the County Council as faz as future growth, growth management, lots of different
]and use issues. There's actually ten different working groups that address all of the
issues that we're faced with in Puna, being that the population is growing really fast; and
most of it is, you know, people coming from off-island, out of state. There aze a lot of
things that those people need to know when they move here.
And I also work for my community association, the roads maintenance tax office,
because we have private roads. We have 45 miles of private roads in Fern Forest; and a
mandatory roads maintenance assessment. So I take caze of the bookkeeping for that, and
the billings, and what not. So I get all the calls, too, because I have the telephone in my
house. So people call and they ask me, you know, everything. Its residents, potential
residents, absentee lot owners, realtors, mortgage companies, you know, everybody calls
me. My job is to take care of the bookkeeping for the roads maintenance assessment; and
nobody pays us for anything else except for transferring properties, you know, $25 for a
transfer fee if it goes through escrow. But the point is that there's a lot of burden on our
subdivisions, our substandard subdivisions, because of all these new developments, too.
So I don't think that we really need more new developments on the island because I live
in one of those subdivisions that's only maybe, you know, 30 percent full right now. But,
of course, that's not where the jobs are. So there's an economic thing that has to happen
too if we want to do good planning. There's a whole bunch of things that are involved in
good planning for the future.
And community development plan working groups have come up, you know, they've
been working for about a year on different ideas, different things that could possibly
work. One of the things the groups have come up with is in doing agricultural pazks,
industrial parks, and what not, so that we can have some of these issues resolved ahead of
time with traffic or what not. But they haven't, you know, I don't think they all, those
reports are not going to all tell you exactly where they want all the parks to be. There aze
some suggested places. But I think that once people accept, you know, once those plans
are accepted then we could have more discussion about exactly where things should go.
Anyway, back to this again. The things that I'm concerned with these bills are that they
don't really steep all of the different types of public services that I would consider
essential public services, and a lot of other people would too. And then they state some,
but some people don't. It's kind of vice versa, you know, transportation and water are
big things if you want to develop a community. But if you live in a community where
you get three inches of rain a night, every night for a week like we have had in the last
12 EXHIBIT D
week, then waterlines are not a real important thing. What's important is to teach people
how to do water catchment, and to do water filtration and what not.
Transportation, I think the transportation issues could be resolved also by having new
kinds of sustainable industries that are closer to the people, rather than having the people
go on the highway on a daily basis. I have a neighbor that just told me last week that he
has to make trips down his bumpy road and "please fill the pot holes cause I have to do it
six times a day. I have to go out for one kid and drop him off at the bus stop and come
back; and the other kid goes to a different school; and then after that they have after-
school activities." You know, six to eight times a day going back and forth is excessive
for anybody. And if everybody is doing it, that's why we have a problem. I mean there
are too many cars on the road and there's too much gas being used. So transportation
could be solved by bringing jobs closer to people or by public transportation.
But the main thing is that in all of these things if you're going to consider any kind of
zoning changes, anything like that that has to do with concurrency in public services, it
should have more public feedback. Because each area is going to be a little bit different.
People in different subdivisions have different needs. If the subdivision isn't there yet, I
suggest you don't make one there. You know, that's the easiest thing to do, is don't
make a subdivision. Don't upzone, you don't have to upzone. Just leave it in agricultural
land. This is an agricultural island that I think in the future is going to have to provide for
the rest of the state. But if we build over everything, we're not going to have anything
either. So that's on upzoning. Let's see
The other real important thing, the last real important thing, is that when you do consider
public services, infrastructure concurrently, I know the County doesn't have anything to
do with what the State can do, but if you're going to have that many homes here, new
subdivisions, people, we're going to need State services too. You know, we most
definitely need schools right now. We need a lot of different things. And so upzoning
for any development without a guarantee from the State that they're going to back up any
of their portion of that infrastructure is pretty scary too. So, you know, it's just really
bad. Don't make new subdivisions if you don't have to and try to do something for the
subdivisions, you know, that already have people that need places to go, and things to do,
and stuff like that.
GRAHAM: Thanks, Kim. In specific to these four bills that we have before us,
is it your feeling that these bills are in essence a good way to try to address the issues
you're talking about? Do you support the idea of bills like this?
KIM: Oh, yes. I mean, they're a great start; but they're missing a whole
bunch. You know, they're not addressing all of the public services that the people need,
you know, realistically. You can't just say as long as you put in water and make sure the
traffic is not bad that it's a good place to live, cause it still isn't going to do things for the
people. You know, it might do things for retirees that don't have to worry about getting
jobs, that don't have kids that they have to take to school. But, you know, for families,
it's only going to cause more problems.
13 EXHIBIT D
GRAHAM: Okay. Do we have any questions? Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA: Yes. Some of the stuff that I scribbled over the margins here on
my paperwork had to do with what I felt also as you do that we should be looking at more
than just transportation and water. And yet I couldn't say I wouldn't want to put down `
that every area that we're looking at has to have a park or a school because different areas
have different needs. And do you feel that there should be some flexibility built in to add
on the possibility of other infrastmcture requirements based on individual situations, or
do you feel that that would be too vague?
TAVARES: It sounds kind of vague. I believe in flexibility. But I think what
we have to do first is maybe define the boundaries of a community, and maybe put
together community councils or something where, you know, you'll get good feedback
from the people that aze there and what they need. You know, for example, in my area, I
call Volcano, the Mt. View, my azea, upper Puna. It's a big place, you know. Fem
Forest is 8,500 acres but my neighbors aze in the subdivisions al] around me, too. So,
there's Cooper Center, and that works for Volcano and it works for the subdivisions
across the street from Volcano. And then there's nothing until you get to, Mt. View has a
school and a librazy, but then there's nothing for communities. The communities aze all
on their own, al] on our own. Our community has a 3-acre lot that they had to sue the
developers to get and we haven't really been able to develop it because we're not a rich
community. So we have a place where the community can gather, but, you know, staying
dry might be the question. But other communities, yeah, I think every community kind
of has an idea of what they need, what would help their communities better. I don't
know if that answers your question.
SIRACUSA: Well, sort o£ I was thinking, of course we all always think of our
own situations that we know best, so naturally I was thinking of mine. And in my
community, we don't have utility poles, so we don't have telephone service. And we're
in a dead spot so cell phone service is very spotty and unreliable. And that's one of the
types of infrastmcture that I feel in my community we would really need because that's a
matter of public safety. If you can't call the ambulance, you know, or you can't call for
the fire track it doesn't matter if the road is adequate, which it isn't, for fire tracks to
come in if you can't call them in the first place. And so my feeling for my community is
we would, you know, besides water which we have plenty of, 200 inches, and besides
transportation needs, we would certainly in my community feel that the ability to have
some kind of telecommunications contact with the outside world would be one of the
necessary infrastmcture things that we would think should be in place before more
density happens. And so I was just wondering if you had thoughts along those lines.
TAVARES: I do indeed. Well, for example, in Fem Forest I guess we pay for
our own telephone lines to this, an SSPP Program. I don't know what that stands for and
I wasn't involved in starting it up. But the people in the neighborhood who live there, I
guess when it was first developed, some of them wanted telephone services, so they went
to the electric company and got this plan. But what happens is every person who wants
14 EXHIBIT D
to hook up to those poles now has to Well, maybe not for telephones, it's for
electricity. I don't know how the telephone got there. I think it did just kind of, the
phone company just kind of did it maybe. But the electricity we had to pay for our poles
and our transformers, and, you know, $2,500 or something that they say we'll get back if
anybody hooks into our transformer, but I've never seen that happen yet.
SIRACUSA: They usually piggyback. If the phone company puts up the poles,
the electric company will say, oh, these poles are not big enough or strong enough for us.
But the other way azound, if the electric company puts in the poles then the phone
company can piggyback onto them; and there is something call the Joint Pole
Agreements that they can enter into to shaze poles.
TAVARES: But if the County is going to think about providing any kind of
communication for new subdivisions or what not, you know, I say that it should be
wireless, Internet.
GRAHAM: Anyway, I think we should try to stay on topic and move forward
on these particular bills if we could.
TAVARES: Okay. There was some discussion about, there was something
about the CIP funds, that these decisions eventually would land up guiding the CIP funds;
and that's another reason why I'm kind of stressing not to make any new subdivisions.
You know the CIP fixnds aren't covering the subdivisions that aze already here. So I
really think we need to do a little bit more for our communities first. Thank you.
GRAHAM: Thank you. Any further questions? All right, thank you for
coming today.
TAVARES: You're welcome.
GRAHAM: Chris, you were planning on going ahead individually on the other
bills or continuing with this one, or how did you want to continue?
HAYASHI: Mr. Chair?
GRAHAM: Yes.
HAYASHI: Mr. Hams had signed up to speak also.
GRAHAM: Mr. Harris, are you ready to shaze some thoughts?
HARRIS: Yes.
GRAHAM: Good. Could you raise your hand and swear to tell the truth before
the Commission today on this matter?
15 EXHIBIT D
HARRIS: I do.
GRAHAM: Thank you. And could you start with your name and address
please, and then share your thoughts with us.
HARRIS: My name is Roger Hams, PO Box 803, Kamuela, Hawaii. I didn't
intend to testify but I think I would like to say a few things. This is a, you know, very
sober serious subject; and it's surprising there aren't more people here. I guess they feel
the action is going to be at the County Council; but you're a very important part of the
system. And I'd like to say that I pretty much support a lot of things the Planning
Director said in his position, particularly that he's fundamentally against all the bills but
not against the problems. And, actually, the woman who went before me I think she
expresses a lot of things that I believe, too, and that is that there are community based
problems and they need community based solutions. An overall concurrency set of bills
like this is just a big splatter across the landscape and a major change from the tradition
of planning and zoning that we've been operating under in the legal framework for years.
So the impact of it is unestimatable actually. And I think you've got to be very careful
with it.
Specifically, I'll just make a few small points. The bills, a couple of them say that you
would be subject to anyone, an applicant, which could include the County of Hawaii who
is as you know trying to develop 1200 units in Waikoloa for affordable housing now or
any other person. When they come in for plan approval it says site plan approval, but I
pretty much believe they mean plan approval they would be subject to this ordinance.
And plan approval would apply to, if you wanted to put in a small convenience operation
anywhere, no rezoning, no subdivision, no nothing, if you want to build a school building
or a small, you know, anything but a single family residence, you need plan approval; and
you would be into this system. And it won't be long before level of service reaches the
critical point. So there's no way that, I think, the County of Hawaii on its own for
instance can magically mandate that the Queen Kaahumanu Highway gets widened
before they build, you know, a school in Waikoloa. And so the unintended consequences
could be unbelievable. Really what we need is our system that we have now working
better. The reason this has come up is because our system isn't working so good. Public
facilities have really lagged, you know, the general private growth or public growth as
well. So I would just support dealing with the diverse issues in a diverse way.
Community based efforts I see are best. I see really working with the General Plan, the
community development plans, the facilities plans and the funding of those facilities as a
way to go. I think you have to deal with the fees and how to finance public
improvements. Frankly speaking this is as good as it's going to get. We're raking in the
money right now from property taxes. You should be building, the County should be
building roads and parks and everything they can now. You know, if they have to
leverage it through bonding and everything, we should be doing it. I think overall
planning and the big issues of growth management and how we deal with it, those are
huge things that won't go away; and I think we should deal with that community by
16 EXHIBIT D
community. But I'm very, very worried and wary of putting in kind of just a general
brushed lather on top of everybody.
As you know, I mean, some of you know, professionally I'm a planner/project manager.
I worked at Mauna Lani Resort for a long time and Hualalai; and I'm working on the
Hiluhilu project in Kona at this point and a few others; and these kinds of things can have
unintended consequences, on the prospects of trying to finance a project. I mean we are
into our fifth year of planning and working on the Hiluhilu job, which is putting in
$20,000,0000 for infrastructure for the community college and the UH. I'm about to pull
the grading permit, just about to get going. We dropped the golf course and we got 15
miles of off-site roads required in our zoning ordinance. It's a significant project that will
take 10, 15 years to develop. I spent a lot of time talking to lawyers and the finance guys
in addition to everybody else, the grading permit people and the University people. And
their questions always come down to "Are you sure we're all approved, we got final on
everything? You know we're going to spend $80,000,000 here in the ttext two years on
this infrastructure. I'm not going to release the money unless, you know, you waive at
me and show me all those approvals." And if I have to look at them and say, "Gee,
Subdivision Increment 8-A, five years from now, may not be approved," what do you
think they're going to say? You've got to think about it. Thanks.
GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Hams. Questions from any of the
Commissioners? All right, thank you. Chris, would you like to continue on?
YUEN: Yes. Just to finish up on the four bills, I spent a lot of time on 318
because we're recommending a denial recommendation on the other three, partially
because they apply at a later stage of development than rezoning and at a stage wherein
many cases there have been financial commitments made to go with a project based on
zoning, that then there's a new requirement that they may not be able to meet, and it also
in some cases maybe something that's beyond the ability of the developer to meet at all.
So just turning to 319, 319 is very much like 318, except that it applies at subdivisions.
And I believe it's referring to your overall road system that serves the area, not
necessarily the road that's just right up to your project. But if it's below Level of Service
D then you don't get your subdivision until it's approved, unless this rather vague
statement about strategies or improvements are made concurrent without saying so much
what they are.
Then 328 and 329 are very far-reaching. They apply at zoning, subdivision and
specifically plan approval. Plan approval is a stage of review that's usually for
nonsingle-family dwellings, things that don't need a subdivision, things like apartment
buildings, industrial buildings. It can be a school or other public building. A commercial
building gets plan approval. And 328 would say that the Planning Director sets a level of
service for all of these facilities, including schools. And essentially if the level of service
is either below the desired level or would be made below, to go below it by the
development, then the development doesn't happen until the level of service improves or
the developer makes the improvement in question. So the gist of it would be, just to take
17 EXHIBIT D
an example that's perhaps an unfair, well, that shows the difficulty for a developer, is say
somebody wanted to, had zoning to build a store in Waikoloa Village where there are
some commercial zoning already, but the school in Waikoloa Village was over capacity,
didn't have enough classrooms for the kids. Then the Planning Director would say, well,
the level of service is not up to par and so we deny the plan approval for the commercial
building. That would be an example.
Then 329 is similar except that it applies only to roads, water supply, and sewer systems.
So, anyway, that's the summary; and I'd be happy to take anymore questions and get into
anything else the Commissioners want to on this.
GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: This is more just a comment. Again, on the third (sic) page of the
actual legislation, under "Mitigation Required," number (2), so that would be (e)(2), I'm
just pointing out that I think you've got a typo in there on the third line. It says
"deficiency is LOS is due" and I think you mean "deficiency in LOS is?"
YUEN: I'm sorry, say it again, please.
WATANABE: Okay, that's in the "Mitigation Required" section, section (e), then
No. (2).
YUEN: Okay.
WATANABE: And the third line on that, and it starts with "deficiency."
YUEN: Yes, you're right. It should be "deficiency in LOS" rather than "is
LOS," yes, you're right.
GRAHAM: Other Commissioners, any questions? Yes, Commissioner
Woodward.
WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Couple points that you made in the
recommendation that I think we haven't really addressed and I think are pertinent, and
Mr. Hams brought some of these up. And one is I think this is a good idea, but it gets
into some unintended consequences. And one of those consequences I think comes down
to the issue of fairness. If you have a situation where you have somebody who wants to
build something or develop something, it's really not fair to ask them to pay for existing
deficiencies in the system. I think it's fair to have them pay for whatever additional
burden their facility may put on the community with regazd to infrastructure, but not to
have them pay for existing deficiencies in our infrastructure. I think that should be
handled on a different fashion -funding, bonds, etc.
GRAHAM: Thank you.
18 EXHIBIT D
YUEN: Right. And fairness comes into play much less in a rezoning, from
my point of view, because you don't have to get a rezoning. The County Council can
always say this is a bad time, this is a bad place, you don't get a rezoning. But when
somebody already has been zoned for a particular use and then they have a certain set of
rules to continue on, then that does become an issue.
GRAHAM: Good. Any other questions, comments from Commissioners?
Chris, you think we should call an end to these four agenda items then? Are you finished
with your presentation, or
YUEN: I'm sorry, my hearing is bad today, sorry.
GRAHAM: Should we conclude our consideration
YUEN: Yes, we're asking simply that you continue this discussion till the
next meeting.
GRAHAM: Okay. Could I have a motion to that effect then, that we continue
discussion on these four items to the next meeting?
WATANABE: I'll move to continue these four agenda items to the next meeting
in Kona.
SIItACUSA: Second.
GRAHAM: Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by
Commissioner Siracusa. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
GRAHAM: Thank you.
The discussion ended at 2:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary
Planning Commission
19 EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
MARCH 16, 2007
A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL BILLS 318 (CHAPTER 25 -
CHANGE OF ZONE CONDITIONS), 319 (CHAPTER 23 -SUBDIVISION), 328
(CONCURRENCY CHAPTER) AND 329 (ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES CHAPTER)
was called to order at 3:23 p.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101
Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding.
PRESENT: William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: Andrew Iwashita
C. Kimo Alameda
Alvin Rho
Rene' Siracusa
Takashi Domingo
Rodney Watanabe
Rell Woodward
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Christopher Yuen, Planning Director
Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager
Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner
Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner
And approximately six people from the public in attendance.
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bi11318) amending Chapter 25 (Zoning Code),
Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-44, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended)
relating to conditions of change of zone (adds requirements to existing provisions within the
Zoning Code relating to conditions on change of zone ordinances regazding water supply and
transportation improvements or strategies be made concurrent with development associated with
any change of zone in order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government
services).
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bi11319) amending Chapter 23 (Subdivision Code),
Article 2, Division 1, Section 23-13, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended)
relating to Large Scale Developments (adds requirements to existing provisions within the
Subdivision Code relating to large scale developments regazding water supply and transportation
improvements or strategies be made concurrent with development in order to manage growth and
coordinate the delivery of government services).
1 EXHIBIT D
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bill 328) amending the Hawaii County Code 1983
(2005 Edition, as amended) by adding a new chapter relating to concurrency (establishes a
concurrency management system and prepares a public facilities improvement plan to fund and
maintain county-wide facilities and services).
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bi11329) amending the Hawaii County Code 1983
(2005 Edition, as amended) by adding a new chapter relating to adequate public facilities (relates
to adequate public facilities for the identification of infrastructure and services necessary to
support new development and the establishment of a policy as to when and how these
improvements and services will be constructed and maintained).
GRAHAM: Our next agenda item is Item 5, initiator is the County Council, and this is
a draft ordinance. We also have Items 6, 7 and 8, which are also draft ordinances initiated by the
County Council which come to the Planning Commission first for public input. At our last Hilo
meeting the Planning Director gave us a presentation on these four ordinances, and then we took
public testimony in Hilo, and then we continued consideration until today so that these ordinance
would be heard on both sides of the island. So if it's what the Planning Commissioners would
like, I would kind of prefer that we give the floor to Planning Director Yuen again, just to give us
a little review of what these are; and then we can kind of take public testimony and sort of handle
the four of them in a bunch, not that we won't handle them individually, but that we're going to
kind of mesh them together as we do our discussion. Is that okay?
COMMISSIONERS: Okay.
GRAHAM: Okay, Mr. Yuen, go ahead, please.
YUEN: Good afternoon, Commission Members. This is a continuation of the
same item that we talked about at our last Hilo meeting. It's a consideration of four bills that
were initiated by the County Council, 318, 319, 328 and 329. Your role here is to make a
recommendation back to the County Council. Whether you're favorable or unfavorable, they
will get these bills back. They wrote the bills, they initiated the bills, and I believe this is your
last meeting to deal with this because of the timefame. If there's not a majority of the
membership of the Commission in favor or against any of them, it goes up with an unfavorable
recommendation. We'll report to them what the discussions were and what the vote was.
But, in a nutshell, our recommendation is actually unfavorable on all of the four bills as written.
We have a revision of Bi11318 which follows the basic intent of 318 in considerably more detail;
and we're asking for a favorable recommendation on that. All of these bills deal with the general
subject matter of concurrency or adequate public facilities; and they all have the idea of
development, the timing of development being tied to specific levels of service or specific levels
of development of public infrastructure or public facilities. The effect, the net effect of them is
that they might end up delaying development until public facilities and public infrastructure is
brought up to a certain level or standard; and each of them operates a little bit differently,
depending on the stage of development.
2 EXHIBIT D
Bill 318, both the Council's version and the Director's version, operate at the zoning stage. And
they really set out some parameters with respect to roads and water in analyzing new rezonings.
They would basically require traffic impact analysis reports for a certainly level of development.
Let me talk about the Director's version of 318 in a little more detail. It would require at a
certain size of development, which is something that's spelled out in the Institute for Traffic
Engineer's manual, it would require a traffic impact analysis report. And it would require an
analysis both of the immediate locality and a regional road system. If the road system was
operating at a poor level it would require either that the rezoning be denied or that it be
accompanied by conditions that delay the occupancy until the road conditions improve or the
developer would have to do specific types of improvements. Now the actual improvements
would be a function of the rezoning ordinance in question. But what this would spell out is the
types of improvements that should accompany a rezoning under these circumstances. It also
spells out the standards and expectations on the water level. There are also a series of exceptions
to this, the lazgest being affordable housing that provides two times the normal requirement. Part
of the traffic problem, and this has been the element of the public infrastmcture that probably got
the most complaints in the last few years, part of the traffic problem is very much tied to the
housing problem. There's not enough affordable housing for people within places like Kailua-
Kona or the North Kohala or South Kohala resorts where a lot of people commute to their jobs.
So we don't want to have the effect of denying a rezoning that supports affordable housing in
these areas because the traffic situation is bad. That may exacerbate the problem by just making
no alternatives for people who want to get to work but have to live farther and farther away from
the existing subdivisions, or taking the bus from Hilo, or even points beyond. So those are the
major recommended exceptions in 318.
The 319 is a bill that would apply at the subdivision stage. This would apply to property that's
already zoned. It would have the effect of holding up the subdivision of that property if traffic
levels were below a certain level in the vicinity. For reasons that are more spelled out in the
recommendation, we're recommending denial of that, and also 328 and 329. There is a detailed
write-up of both background and recommendation on this that spells out a lot of the reasoning
and details. I think it'd be best Forme, rather than to go through that, just to take questions the
Commission may have about this.
GRAHAM: Should we hold up on their questions until we get public testimony or
would you rather we do some questions first?
YUEN: It's up to the Commission.
ALAMEDA: I'd prefer testimony first.
GRAHAM: Good. We have only one testifier signed up at this point so that will make
it go quickly. I have Bob Hunter signed up. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. Could you just raise your
right hand. And I'll ask you to swear or affirm that you will tell the truth on this matter before
the Planning Commission today?
WINTER: I will.
3 EXHIBIT D
GRAHAM: Thank you. We're looking at four different bills and please feel free to
comment in specifics on any one you choose and just begin your testimony by giving your name
and address first, please.
HUNTER: Right. I'm Bob Hunter. I live in Waimea. So I'd like to focus in on the
Planning Director's proposed revision to 318 because I think it has really got a lot of advantages,
very well thought through.. And I believe that passage of Planning Director's Bi11318 will be an
important step toward the County's achieving control over the timing and sequence of
development so that growth coincides with our ability to finance and construct the public
facilities needed to accommodate it. I'm just going to review a few things in the written
testimony that I've given you. I think the bill encourages the County to link implementation of
its land use plan to a capital improvement plan. And if we continue to ignore that way of
thinking about planning, we're going to kill our Golden Goose. And I can tell you the goose is
limping up in Waimea as we speak. I can't even get friends to come visit us anymore because
they don't want to be there. And I think that the traffic circulation study for Waimea showed
that in two to five years we're going to be in gridlock up there. So we have to start thinking
about linking land use approvals with infrastructure.
I was happy to see that the bill addressed how much traffic congestion is acceptable on our State
and County roads. It encourages rezonings in areas where you're creating jobs and providing
services locally, that's great. I think passage of the propose bill will send a message to the
people of the County that the Council respects working people who are stuck in these traffic jams
in the morning and in the evening.
I have a few suggestions for ways to make the bill even better, and they're outlined on the
second page; and I'd be glad to answer any questions. And when I go and talk to community
groups, not all of them are as familiar with the situation as you are. And one of the analogies I'm
using how we can improve this is, when I grew up in Louisiana we did seine fishing all the time,
hukilau here, and I think that what we have to do is plug a few holes in our net in order to catch
more of the applicants that are coming through the system to make sure more of them participate
in concun•ency management or doing their fair share on water and transportation.
The proposed bill wouldn't stop growth. It wouldn't propose unfair costs on developers. It does
ensure that an applicant for a rezoning cannot make the situation worse than it was before his
project.
I think Chris did a great job of tailoring ideas that have been used in rapidly growing
communities elsewhere to the unique challenges that are being faced by our island. I think that it
would add a system of checks and balances to the system. It's focused on the most critical
infrastructure systems. Transportation and water supply I think is appropriate; and if you need to
focus on something later, you can always bring it in. But to get the most punch eazly is the way
to do it. And I think it would really encourage our leadership and those actually building our
communities to think in terms of stewardship of our island home. We've all got to be
pazticipants as you are. I give it to you for sitting through days of trying to stewazd our
environment. But those people who are applying for zoning need to be stewards, too. So that's
my testimony. Thank you.
4 EXHIBIT D
GRAHAM: And so my assumption is that you are supportive of the Planning
Director's Bi11318 but not of the other bills
HUNTER: I don't think the other bills, I don't need to support or not support them at
this point in time. I just think that when you're talking about zoning Chris came up with a very
good way to handle it, as long as we plug a few holes.
GRAHAM: Thank you. Any questions from Commissioners? Commissioner
Woodward.
WOODWARD: Well, thank you for your comments, very well done. Thank you.
GRAHAM: Other questions for the testifier from the Commissioners? Thank you, Mr.
Hunter. I presume there's no one else in attendance who wishes to testify on this matter before
us today. All right, aside from the testifier, do we have some other questions, comments to the
Commissioners, from the Commissioners regarding the Planning Director? Commissioner
Siracusa.
SIRACUSA: Are we going to take these one at a time, I hope?
GRAHAM: It sounds best to me to take them one at a time. Does that sound good, Mr.
Torigoe?
TORIGOE: Yes.
GRAHAM: Good. Other questions?
DOMINGO: Mr. Chair?
GRAHAM: Commissioner Domingo.
DOMINGO: I looked at the bills and it's reflective of the sentiments of a lot ofpeople
that I live with and whom I have spoken to. And the provisions of the bill will certainly address
the concerns that they have, and that I also have. At this time, 1 feel that I can support 318 and
go with the recommendation of the Planning Director.
GRAHAM: Other questions, comments from Commissioners?
WATANABE: Motion in order?
GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe, if you'd like, yes. So we'd be starting with Bill
318.
WATANABE: Yes, okay. I move to send a favorable recommendation to the County
Council on draft Ordinance Bill 318 as revised by the Planning Director.
DOMINGO: Second.
5 EXHIBIT D
GRAHAM: All right, seconded by Commissioner Domingo. And we have discussion.
Mr. Woodward, no?
WOODWARD: No.
GRAHAM: Ms. Siracusa.
SIRACUSA: On page 4, at the very top it says "Controls on further subdivision or
rezoning will not help the situation because almost all development is occurring on existing lots.
And I'm having trouble with that one because every lot is existing, you know. And when people
come in for rezoning, it's to make a lot, usually make a lot smaller. And certainly subdivision is
to make more lots. So I don't understand, maybe I'm missing something here in the thought
processes of the Director, and I would like him to clarify that for me.
YUEN: Well, it's really a question of scale. And if you were to look, let's take the
Highway 130 between Keaau and Pahoa. There's something like 20,000 existing lots there, and
there is a potential for more lots to be created. Most of the lots actually that have been created
by new subdivisions in the area, almost all of them are Hawaiian Homes and, again, are basically
outside the County's land use authority to try to control that. Aside from Hawaiian Homes you
have a very small number of new lots that are created by new subdivisions. And you could go
back, you know, 10 years and you might have a single digit percentage increase in the number of
lots from new subdivisions. So to pass a bill that's trying to control additional subdivisions so
that you have 20,000 lots instead of 20,400 lots I think is not really productive. It's just not, it
doesn't significantly change the situation. It's not that you throw up your hands, but you're not
going to make a significant improvement by refusing subdivision of existing lots. On the other
hand, what you're doing is you're preventing somebody from, and I'm talking about here the
traffic aspects of it. I'm not talking about the location where it might be a bad place to have a
subdivision. You know, those site specific issues still have to be dealt with. But that's the basic
point here, is that the growth and population that takes place on the existing lots is so large that
to work on or even to greatly worry about the growth aspects of having subdivisions of existing
lots is, you know, it's focusing on the wrong problem.
SIRACUSA: I could see your point if you were looking at it over a very large
geographical area, however, and when you're talking about a difference between 25,000 lots and
25,400, for example. But when you get down into an area, say, of a small subdivision, even a
small subdivision can make a tremendous difference. You'll recall that I've recently written you
a letter about a whole series of subdivision proposals coming for Kaohe Homesteads and how if
that process is allowed to continue there's a potential for a density increase of 388% in a very
small area. And so that's really foremost in my head when I'm reading this stuff, is relating it to
my own community.
YUEN: Well, there is a valid issue and the issue is this, under the current
Subdivision Code, if you have the zoning, as long as you're on a County road, you have no
further road requirement. The County can make you do some improvements on the frontage of
the road; but under the current Subdivision Code there isn't the power to make people do off-site
road requirements for the County road.
6 EXHIBIT D
Now I do want to address that and look at that in the Subdivision Code, and have road standards
for subdividing off of the existing County roads. I think that is a weakness in the standard. That
isn't anything that's covered by any of the proposed bills. It's not something that would be dealt
with by level of service standards, these LOS A to F, because those strictly relate to congestion.
Typically in these country type roads that maybe really substandard even for the subdivisi6ns
that are there. Even if you subdivide out you're not going to have congestion on the road in the
sense that these level of service things are measured. The problem is the road itself maybe, you
know, 9 feet wide. But there maybe 20-acre lots along that are zoned Ag-3 and there is potential
for further rezoning. I think that is a valid issue. It's something that, as I say, I'd like to address.
It's just not something I jumped on this round of revisions to do. Ideally it would be done in an
overall look at the Subdivision Code.
SIItACUSA: May Ifollow-up?
GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Siracusa.
SIRACUSA: Yes, because there was another, at the bottom of that same page where
you say, "Often the final uses on the property are not cleaz at the time of zoning." We all have
examples of that in our heads. For example, commercial zoning allows a wide range of uses that
generate different traffic demands, including homes, fast food, blab, blab, blab. And, to me, this
says well this is all the more reason to review the list of permitted uses for the different types of
zoning; and yet when you gave the talk to us at our year-end meeting in December I think it was
that you indicated that the Department had no intention of going there. And so it seems to me
that, for one thing, you're saying we're not going to go there, but on the other hand you're
admitting that the problem exists. And I don't understand why we can't look at addressing some
of these problems.
YUEN: We have had some site specific types of commercial zoning and if you
Let's step back a little. Text book zoning, if you pull out a text book on how you do zoning, the
text book will say something like the idea is you zone the property for commercial use and then
you let the market determine what exact types of uses are going to be on it; and there should be a
flexibility of this over time. The needs change over time. The goal is that you, is the site
appropriate for a commercial type of use, make sure that the infrastructure is appropriate for it,
you go through the range of things that can be allowed, and then you zone it; and you don't
worry whether it's a restaurant, an office building, a retail store and the like. That's a classic text
book zoning.
We've had many circumstances where people come in for commercial zoning with an idea of I
want to do "X." Like a gentleman in Kau a couple of months ago, he had an existing home, he
wants to keep the home, he wants to convert it to an office. It won't qualify as a home
occupation because he wants to have more people there than you can have as a home occupation.
This is all he wants to do. If we look at that picture it looks very attractive. If you do the whole
analysis of, well, what if he made a 7-Eleven, you know, then you start to maybe look at it a little
differently. So in realizing that and seeing a number of these situations over time, we have
deviated from what I would, you know, say zoning textbook and had various site specific
7 EXHIBIT D
situations, site specific conditions like in that one that you keep the house. There has been one in
Waiakea House Lots that was very similar to that, we said keep the house.
But in general, okay, it's still valid to say that you're going to have a commercial area and a
person is seeking zoning and they will have a range of different possibilities that will come in.
They may have a site that's zoned for a shopping center. This Ginger Patch development that we
had in Hilo last month is an example of a different type of situation where they may have an idea
of what kind of tenants they want, but you don't know until the property is marketed. And I
think realistically you have to allow some degree of flexibility.
Now at the planning stage for this of how many trips are you expecting it to generate and how
many, should you make them have an extra turn lane or two turn lanes, then you have to then
have some way of accommodating that or averaging that. Some of it is done actually in the
traffic manual. Say a shopping center they'll incorporate an averaging, because they just assume
that a shopping center has a different, you know, a range of uses, and so there's a figure for the
shopping center. And that's all that this says, is that you can, because we're making this
requirement at the zoning stage, when they come in at the zoning stage we can accommodate
some averaging for a commercial zone.
SIRACUSA: I think more like what I'm thinking of is that some of the uses that we
considered to be Commercial really should be recategorized as Light Industrial to be more
appropriate, you know. Because you just mentioned right here, you know, fast food restaurants,
offices and gas stations, to me a gas station seems to be more of a Light Industrial kind of an
application than a Commercial one. Maybe my concept of what Commercial is is different than
yours or the standard textbook. But to me anything that's a little bit on the obnoxious side in
terms of fumes, emissions, smell, noise, things like that would be more appropriate in the Light
Industrial, really Heavy Industrial, than in a Commercial. That's all I'm saying.
YUEN: Well, it's a hard line to draw. And just to give an example, Village
Commercial which is the type of zoning that we have in our towns around the island like
Naalehu or Pahala, you can do a gas station. Well, you don't want to have to drive around the
island and not come to a gas station, so it has to go into some kind of a zoning. By the same
token you might not want to have a Light Industrial zoning in the middle of Naalehu. So you
have Village Commercial as being the type of zoning that has gas stations. There's a hundred
ways to do this and it's a very hard line to draw. All I can say is our Zoning Code is not a typical
code that you'll see around the country; and it is a mater of wording. Many of the things that we
call Industrial to my way of thinking are not in the noxious, polluting, Heavy Industrial realm. In
fact, the bulk of the Light Industrial uses we have are things like warehouses and storage areas,
and things that don't involve manufacturing, lot of engines, smokestacks, and the like.
GRAHAM: Other comments from Commissioners? Chris, I personally certainly agree
with your original sense that these bills are not good, the four bills, even though their intention is
good. And I think you gave examples and so did Roger Hams at our Hilo meeting. But I must
confess I tend to feel the same way about your revised 318, like, you know, it's a good intention,
but when I start looking about how would you implement it, it seems to me it's another level of
laws and regulations that are going to just lead to more snag ups and disputes in the process; and
really it's just an issue of our democratic process. You can recommend, currently, approval or
8 EXHIBIT D
not approval based on these very ideas that you put forward here. And if the Council is
democratically responsible to its constituents, and they get elected every two yeazs and the
constituents pay attention, there's no reason the Council shouldn't act in a reasonable way. So
even though that doesn't always happen, it feels like the way to deal with it is just to increase the
democratic involvement, which we're kind doing now with the community development plans
which I think are very good. But to just throw more kind of laws on the books with specific
things like they have to coxtform where mitigation can be avoided if they conform to the
community development plan, well, then that gets into a big gray area of we've got to vote on
whether it really conforms to the plan or not. And, I don't know, I just feel it all leading down a
road that looks unattractive to me. Could you comment on my thoughts there?
YUEN: Well, I think there is a lot of validity in what you said; and it's true that the
Department and the Council absent an ordinance could look at some of these kinds of factors.
And some of them are common sense. There is a downside to putting in an ordinance because it
does limit flexibility. Part of this workup is because we had a series of ordinances come up from
the Council and rather than simply say, you know, reject all of them, not a good try, I thought on
the zoning level it would be useful to try to take the intent and to put it into a workable ordinance
that would then provide a framework for the specific zoning decisions in the future. As I
mentioned in the write-up, some of the things that we have been recommending in some of the
rezonings that have come forward, the major rezonings, have applied these basic kinds of
principals, sometimes without saying the word "concurrency." We've had timing conditions.
We've had conditions of rezoning for example with Palama Nui that tied implementation of part
of the project to the widening of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to four lanes. You know,
we've done that kind of thing. So I don't really disagree with you.
I do think that, just to step back a bit, if you look at the Zoning Code there's like about one
paragraph about when you rezone something; and it's something like if it's good for
motherhood, apple pie and, you know, there's about one sentence about furthers the greater good
and conforms to the General Plan. And I do think that it would be useful to everybody if the
County had something besides And then there are things in the General Plan, you know, the
overall policies that aze in the General Plan. But something in the Zoning Code that really tried
to lay out what are criteria to look at;, and it wouldn't even have to be in the Zoning Code, but
what are the criteria to look at. I think that part of the original to 318 is to look at water and
roads and to say what are the kinds of criteria and what is the point at which you say no or wait
because the roads are too bad or the water supply is too iffy.
GRAHAM: Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, Commissioner Woodward.
WOODWARD: I think too, Mr. Chairman, the one thing from a purely pragmatic
standpoint is we're just making a recommendation to the Council, they're going to do what they
want. And I think it's far better to have this amended document than to have them enact the
origina1318; and I think they'll see by the work that Chris has done there has been a lot of
thought put into this. And I think we're likely to get something that's much more palatable than
if we just send a negative recommendation on all of them, to be honest with you.
GRAHAM: Thank you. Good point. Commissioner Domingo?
9 EXHIBIT D
DOMINGO: I somehow tend to agree with my colleague. If we do go a negative vote
on the rest of the bills and a positive action on Bill 318, if we send it up without any
recommendations on the other bills with the reason why we're not acting on it because of our
reservations in the part of, as explained to the Commission, if we would stress that and elaborate
on that, then the Council can then take whatever steps they need to take. Because I'm sure I
think it's part of the requirement that they go out also on public hearing, or had they gone
through public hearing process already?
YUEN: Well, they have to take public testimony at all their meetings. There's a
"public hearing" where if three Council Members ask for a public hearing then they go to a
special public hearing.
DOMINGO: You know, this Commission has been taking up this issue for the past two
meetings, and the response and the attendance at the meetings have been very sparse. And it's
too bad that we fmd this because then again here I'm saying that this is reflective of the
concerns of the public when we have it for public scrutiny and input, we hardly have many of
them come here and respond to it. So what I'm saying is that, you know, let's take a vote on 318
and the rest we just send them up with no action on it, but with the explanation that you've made;
and let's incorporate that as part of a package to them.
GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA: You know, I actually favor the Council's version of this bill, nothing
personal, Chris. But if we were to take the vote on the amended bill first, you know, then I
would be voting against it because I'd want a chance to vote on the Council bill. On the other
hand, if we voted on the Council bill first, then I'm having, I'm having trouble articulating this,
is what I'm having trouble with. I guess I would really like maybe just an informal straw poll to
see who prefers which bills and who prefers the other before
GRAHAM: I understand your concern being a procedural one, you'd like to
SIRACUSA: Yeah, because I wouldn't want to vote against this and make it look like
I'm not interested in the issues that the bill raises, because I very much am. It's just a question of
the fine tuning between one and the other one, you know. That would make the difference in my
preference.
GRAHAM: Commissioner Woodward, you have a thought?
WOODWARD: It might be cleaner if we just vote on the original bill; and my guess is it
will be voted down and then you're option would be clear. So if I might suggest we take a vote
on the original Council version of 318 and then follow that, assuming it's defeated, with a bill on
the amended version.
GRAHAM: Mr. Torigoe, would that be reasonable for me to do, to ask the person who
made the motion to temporarily withdraw the motion, and then we take another motion, or just to
give it up and start over again with it after we've done the original Council one?
10 EXHIBIT D
TORIGOE: Well, any of those are within the realm of a possibility.
GRAHAM: Okay. Does that meet the wishes of the Commission?
WATANABE: Well, yeah, I'm willing to withdraw the motion then.
DOMINGO: I'll withdraw my second.
GRAHAM: Okay, fine.
WOODWARD: Well, I move we vote on the Council's version of Bill 318.
SII2ACUSA: Second.
GRAHAM: Seconded by
WATANABE: Vote how?
GRAHAM: You have to move like favorable or
WATANABE: Yeah, you have to go favorable or unfavorable.
WOODWARD: Right. Okay, yes.
GRAHAM: So which is your preference? Are you making a motion a favorable or
unfavorable?
WOODWARD: Unfavorable. That's my recommendation, that we put forth an
unfavorable recommendation.
GRAHAM: Okay, that's fine. Do we have a second?
WATANABE: I'll second.
GRAHAM: All right, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. So the motion before us
is that the Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the Council on the
Council-initiated Bi11318. Okay, so I think we've discussed it a bit. Do we need more
discussion, or can we take a vote on that?
WOODWARD: Vote.
GRAHAM: All right. Norman, go ahead.
HAYASHI: Thank you. Commissioner Woodwazd?
WOODWARD: Nay, or aye rather. Excuse me.
11 EXHIBIT D
HAYASHL Yes, aye is correct if you're voting for the unfavorable recommendation.
Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda?
ALAMEDA: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Rho?
RHO: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa?
SIIZACUSA: Nay.
HAYASHI: Chair Graham?
GRAHAM: Aye.
HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries to send an unfavorable recommendation on
Council-initiated Bill No. 318.
GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Yeah. I'll reintroduce my former motion then to send a favorable
recommendation on Draft Ordinance Bi11318 to the Council as revised by the Planning Director.
DOMINGO: Second.
GRAHAM: Moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner
Domingo. Do we need any discussion or can we go to a vote on that? Okay, Norman.
HAYASHI: Thank you. And this is to accept Planning Director's version of Bi11318.
Okay, Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: Aye.
12 EXHIBIT D
HAYASHI: Commissioner Rho?
RHO: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA: Aye..
HAYASHI: Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda?
ALAMEDA: Aye.
HAYASHI: Chair Graham?
GRAHAM: No.
HAYASHI: Motion carries.
GRAHAM: All right. Thank you. You folks did me the favor of voting it through so I
could vote last and get to express my concerns also. Thank you. I think we should move to Bill
319 now.
WATANABE: Procedurally, you know, in a sense the Director's recommendation on Bill
318 and its write-up on 318 addresses 319, 328, and 329. And I'm wondering if we could handle
that all in one motion, or would you prefer to handle each bill sepazately?
HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, to make things easier, we would recommend that you go
through each bill, Bi11319, 328 and 329.
WATANABE: Okay, okay.
GRAHAM: I think that will be good. And maybe, if you would, Norman, if you could
just in a couple of sentences before we vote on it at least put fresh our mind what each bill is.
Can you do that for us so that we know we're voting in an informed way and not some kind of
mechanical way? So just a brief, few words on Bill 319 first.
HAYASHI: County Council initiated Bill 319 is amending Chapter 23 which is the
Subdivision Code relating to Large Scale Developments (adds requirements to existing
provisions within the Subdivision Code relating to lazge scale developments regarding water
supply and transportation improvements or strategies be made concun•ent with development in
order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government services). So that it is
Council initiated Bi11319.
13 EXHIBIT D
GRAHAM: Thank you, Norman. Commissioner Watanabe has a motion. Can we
start with that?
WATANABE: Yeah. I move to send an unfavorable recommendation for Bill 319 to the
County Council.
DOMINGO: Second.
GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner Siracusa, do you
have some discussion?
SIRACUSA: Yes. In the Planning Director's discussion of Bill 319, one of his
objections is that the requirement for "improvements or strategies" is vague. And my reading of
it actually felt that it needed an amount of vagueness because it has to allow for flexibility and a
wide range of different situations on the ground. Because, I mean, you look at a tiny little, you
know, agricultural subdivision, you compaze it to another area, you know, they're all so
different; and a one size fits all doesn't. And so I will be supporting the County generated Bill
319.
GRAHAM: Thank you for your comments.
DOMINGO: Mr. Chair, one question.
GRAHAM: Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: This is a bill that would impact on the subdivision process. Are there any
large-scale rezonings that have taken place which would have to come before the Plamring
Department for any kind of subdivision approval?
GRAHAM: Are you implying a question like where there's a lazge time interval in
between or
DOMINGO: No. Since this is something that would be applied during the subdivision
process, in consideration for subdivision, my question is are there any pending rezonings, lazge
scale rezonings, which would then come forwazd before the Department for subdivision
approval?
YUEN: Well, this Bi11319 would apply to property that's already zoned and when
it comes to subdivision. And there's certainly many
DOMINGO: Many, okay.
YUEN: Areas that are zoned that have not been subdivided.
DOMINGO: Yes. Many pazcels that have been zoned but not subdivided. As I looked
at it, I looked at this whole scenario, the list of bills that are before us, it's more likely directed
toward large scale developments. I'm thinking, you know, perhaps the Council's motive in the
14 EXHIBIT D
drafting of this bill is to address large scale developments. Because those are the projects that
would impact, you know, roads, water and County services and all that that all of us are
concerned about. Now if we're looking doing the subdivision process, we're looking at a whole
lot of subdivision applications that would come, but they would come in small increments,
perhaps not more than 10 lots or whatever. What we're doing is we're penalizing those
individuals who can least afford to meet the requirements of the bill. And that's my concern at
this point.
GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Domingo. Any other comments? Commissioner
Siracusa?
SIRACUSA: Yes. I'd just like to give you an example of my community which is a
very, has lazge agricultural pazcels. The smallest, and not too many of them, being 5 acres and
some of them are 100 acres or a little bit more, and all zoned Ag-5. This community is a cul-de-
sac and with a very substandard nonofficial easement road that leads in and out. And if these
pazcels, 100-acre parcels, without changing the zone can make 201ots, 201ots here, 201ots there
in a small area, that can be a tremendous impact. And basically what happens is that the impact
on the road, on emergency evacuation, things like that, that's not fair to the other people there.
So I'm looking at fairness to other people also but from a totally opposite end of where you're
looking at it from, Taka.
DOMINGO: Yeah. Again, during the subdivision process or plan approval process,
there is a mechanism that the Planning Director or the staff can rely on to impose certain needed
kinds of improvements on the property to ensure that the safety and welfaze of the surrounding
community would be addressed. You know, that being in place, I feel comfortable that that may
answer the problem, rather than them facing the requirements of the other bills, the bills that we
have before us.
GRAHAM: Thank you. Any other comments from Commissioners? Norman, would
you take the roll, please.
HAYASHL Thank you. The motion is to send an unfavorable recommendation on
Council initiated Bill No. 319. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: Aye.
HAYASHL Commissioner Rho?
RHO: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa?
SIItACUSA: Nay.
IS EXHIBIT D
HAYASHL Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda? `
ALAMEDA: Aye.
HAYASHI: Chair Graham?
GRAHAM: Aye.
HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries.
GRAHAM: Thank you. Our next item is Bill No. 328.
HAYASHI: Yes.
GRAHAM: And I can read, it's fine. Thank you for your help before. Bi11328 would
amend the Hawaii County Code by adding a new chapter relating to concurrency, which
establishes a concurrency management system and prepares a public facilities improvement plan
to fund and maintain county-wide facilities and services. Do the Commissioners wish to discuss
or make a motion first? Commissioner Watanabe.
WATANABE: I move an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County
Council on Council initiated Bi11328.
DOMINGO: Second.
GRAHAM: Moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner
Domingo, for an unfavorable recommendation. I think we had some discussion of what's
involved with this bill in Hilo that Mr. Yuen gave us. I don't think we need to duplicate that
since most of us were there. Any discussion at this time by the Commissioners? Norman.
HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This would be, again, an unfavorable
recommendation of Bill No. 328 initiated by the County Council. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: Aye.
HAYASHL Commissioner Rho?
RHO: Aye.
16 EXHIBIT D
HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA: Nay.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda?
ALAMEDA: Aye.
HAYASHI: Chair Graham?
GRAHAM: Aye.
HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries.
GRAHAM: Thank you, Norman. And our fourth draft ordinance where we will give
review and comment is Bill 329 to amend the Hawaii County Code by adding a new chapter
relating to adequate public facilities, which relates to adequate public facilities for the
identification of infrastructure and services necessary to support new development and the
establishment of a policy as to when and how these improvements and services will be
constructed and maintained. Do I have a motion on this bill? Commissioner Watanabe.
WATANABE: I move an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County
Council for Council initiated Bi11329.
GRAHAM: Second anyone?
DOMINGO: Second.
GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Do we have any discussion by
Commissioners? Nonnan?
HAYASHI: Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Rho?
RHO: Aye.
17 EXHIBIT D
HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA: Nay.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD: Aye.
HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda?
ALAMEDA: Aye.
HAYASHI: Chair Graham?
GRAHAM: Aye.
HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries.
GRAHAM: Thank you, Norman.
DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman?
GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Domingo.
DOMINGO: Can I make a few remarks?
GRAHAM: Certainly.
DOMINGO: You know, although we voted no on the bills that preceded us, I think that
does not close the door on the entire issue of concun-ence or the ability for the County Council
and the Administration to find ways for a better quality of life for all of us who live here on
island. This is the beginning, it's a message that is going out throughout the County. And I
would hope that the Administration and the Council would engage themselves in discussions that
would bring forth other provisions that would ensure this so-called quality of life that we all want
to maintain.
GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo.
The discussion ended at 4:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
18 EXHIBIT D