Laserfiche WebLink
To: Hawaii County CounGL Testimony fa 812/07 Nearing 5!2!07 DRAFT <br /> Fr. Margaret WIIIe:B&1318 Lihipeli Road, Kemuele Heweii 96743 TEL: 887-1419 <br /> Re: Bill i 318' relating to adequate public facilities: °CONCURRENCY' <br /> Testimony an behaH of: I submit this testimony on behaM of myseB as a t:oncemed citi:!e- arul not as Uw <br /> representative of any other party. Also, I am on the steering commktee for the South Kahn a Da?~ilopment <br /> Community Plsn, however these views ere my own end do not represent those or the $OUt' Koha a <br /> Steering Com m Ittee <br /> STA7FJdENT OF GENERAL SUPPORT: CONCURRENCY IS A KEY ISSUE THAT (3ENEFALLY <br /> SUPP0~1: D ROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AS A STEP TOWARDS ALLEVIATING Oll'•~:'"FLU"F C <br /> CRISIS. V11E NEED THIS LEGISLATIl7wl NOW AS A STEP TOWARDS ADDRESSING THIS. CRI iL'i. MY <br /> COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: <br /> 1. ADDITIONALY RE(~u1RE CONCURR~N~YAT THE SUBDIVISION PHASE: THERE <br /> REQUIREMEMS SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED AT THE SUBDIVISION STAGE OF APPROVA_, Siff: PLAN, <br /> AND LIKEWISE WHEN THERE IS A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SOUGHT SUCH AS FOR P PLANNED <br /> UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THIS OBJECTIVE GAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A SEPARATE ORDIrI ~ NC:E: <br /> 2..FI tMINATE THE EXGEP'T1ON FOR EXTRAAFFORDA3LE HOUSING I <br /> (NITS IF <br /> <br /> ADDITIONAL ROADS ARE NEEDED: SECTION 25-2-48(h). YES WE ALL SUf~PJRT <br /> AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT PffTING THE NEED FOR ROADS AGAINST THE NEED 1=0R ,V=F JRUABLI:. <br /> HOUSING IS INAPPROPRIATE. EVEN IF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DEVELOPED, Tf•ID: E <br /> HOMEOWNERS AND ALL ADJOINING HOMEOWNERS STILL NEED ADEQUATE AND E~Pf~E R0~1D5 <br /> FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A DEVELOPER, KNOYIM REQUIREMENTS ARE GERTI~ItI AND <br /> ACCEPTED AND t3UDGETED IN FROM THE START. ON THE OTHER HAND IF THERE I:i AN <br /> EXCEPTION, SOMEHOW THE NATURAL INCLWATION TO SPEND WHATEVER ENERGr IT 'FAKES TO <br /> FIT THROl1GH THAT EXCEPTION, ESPECIALLY IF IT DELAYS BUDGETMIG FOR 7rWT ITEM ^EVEN <br /> THOUGH R MAY HE MORE COSTLY IN THE LONG RUN. DEAL MATH AFFORDABLE HOIIS!/.G AS A <br /> SEPARATE AGENDA ANO NOT IN THIS ORDINANCE. <br /> 3. SETAMORE EFFECjNE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHEN TLAR I;ZREQUIf?,E0 <br /> SECTION 25-2-46(p A TZAR FOCUSES ON CONGESTION. MMEREAS THERE IS NO NEED ~=OR A <br /> DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL MINIMALLY IMPACT THE EXISTING ROADS IN THE ARf:A TO CGNDUCT it <br /> T?AR, ELIMINATING THIS REQUIREJNENT BUT FOR VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENTS (NAiET}(ER THAT <br /> LARGE DEVELOPMENT OENERATE9 50 OR 100 CAR TRIP8) WILL RENDER THIS LE013LATP/E <br /> RESPONSE TO THIS TRAFFIC CRISIS A VERY SMALL STEP TOWARDS ADDDRESSINti A VERY BIG <br /> PROBLEM. SET A CLEAR STANDARD AND £LIMINAT£ THE LOOPHOLES. <br /> 4. CLARITY IN (?~SENTA710N: PLEASE 7RY TO GIVE SOME INFORMAL EOUI'?P.LEWCY OF <br /> WHATEVER <br /> STANDARD YOU USE [SUCH AS pCLUDING A PARENTHETICAL STATEN I°_NT I?" <br /> APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY RESIDENCES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GENERATE 'X' NUMBER OR <br /> MORE PEAK HOUR TRIPSI. REMEMBER WE ALL WANT TO UNDERSTAND NM/1T IS 9? tNG R.QUIRED <br /> IN THE LAW. <br /> S. ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM: A MAJOR PROBLEM HERE IN HAW411 COUNTY IS THE FNILURE TG <br /> ENFORCE EXISTING CONCURREHCY REQUIREMENTS tN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ;)RDINANCES. <br /> YOUR LAWS ARE ONLY MEANINGFUL IF THEY ARE ENFORCED. IT IS COMMON KNC~VULEDGE3 THAT <br /> THE KIM ADMINISTRATION GENERALLY ACCOMMODATES DEVELOPERS WHEN A FtE?aUE.l~ f IS <br /> MADE TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE REZ LNG CONDITIONS INCLUDING ROAD CON.STF!UCTION <br /> REQUIREMENTS. IT SEEMS AS IF LOPERS /0'IOW THAT IF THEY CAN POINT '1'p ANY <br /> CONCEIVABLE LOOPHOLE OR P033gILE VAGUENESS OF TERMS TWEY REQUEST P REb 1310N - <br /> VIMETHER THAT REVISION OCCIA'tS FOFJNALLY OR INFORMALLY (BEHIND CLOSE.:1 COORS). <br /> DEVELOPERS ARE INCLINED (NATURAIt1~ IS TO SEEK ACCOMMODATION RATHER THAN <br /> ASSUMING THAT THE COUNTY WILL ENFORCE ALL CONCURRENCY AND OTHER Rf11)NIMG OR <br /> SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS. <br /> _ _ , t,,~ _3~7~ <br /> <br />