COM 0307.007 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To: Hawaii County Council: Testimony for 4/18/07 Hearing Fr: Margaret Wille, Waimea resident Re: Bill # 318: relating to adequate public facilities: "CONCURRENCY" Date: April 17, 2007 Testimony on behalf of: I am submitting this testimony on behalf of myself as a concerned citizen and not as the representative of any other party. Also, I am on the steering committee for the South Kohala Development Community Plan, however these views are my own and do not represent those of the South Kohala Steering Committee. 1. STATEMENT OF GENERAL SUPPORT: CONCURRENCY IS A KEY ISSUE THAT IS GENERALLY SUPPORTED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AS A STEP TOWARDS ALLEVIATING OUR TRAFFIC CRISIS. ANY FURTHER DELAY IN IMPOSING A REASONABLE CONCURRENCY STANDARD WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE. 2. COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE EXCEPTION FOR EXTRA AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS :SECTION 25-2-46(h). YES WE ALL SUPPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT PITTING THE NEED FOR ROADS AGAINST THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS INAPPROPRIATE. EVEN IF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DEVELOPED, THOSE HOMEOWNERS AND ALL ADJOINING HOMEOWNERS STILL NEED ADEQUATE AND SAFE ROADS. FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A DEVELOPER, KNOWN REQUIREMENTS ARE CERTAIN AND ACCEPTED AND BUDGETED IN FROM THE START. ON THE OTHER HAND IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION, SOMEHOW THE NATURAL INCLINATION TO TO SPEND WHATEVER ENERGY IT TAKES TO FIT THROUGH THAT EXCEPTION, ESPECIALLY IF IT DELAYS BUDGETING FOR THAT ITEM -EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE MORE COSTLY IN THE LONG RUN. DEAL WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS A SEPARATE AGENDA AND NOT IN THIS ORDINANCE. 3. SET A MORE REASONABLE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHEN TZAR IS REQUIRED: SECTION 25-2-46(I) A TIAR FOCUSES ON CONGESTION. WHEREAS THERE IS NO NEED FOR A DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL MINIMALLY IMPACT THE EXISTING ROADS IN THE AREA TO CONDUCT A TIAR, ELIMINATING THIS REQUIREMENT BUT FOR VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENTS (WHETHER THAT LARGE DEVELOPMENT GENERATES 50 OR 100 CAR TRIPS) WILL RENDER THIS LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THIS TRAFFIC CRISIS CLOSE TO MEANINGLESS. IT WILL INSTEAD BE ONE OF THOSE MAKE THE COUNTY RESIDENTS FEEL LIKE THE COUNCIL IS ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM -BUT REALLY YOU ARE ONLY TOUCHING THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG -AND DOING SO REPLETE WITH LOOPHOLES. FOR EXAMPLE, IN TERMS OF DECIDING WHEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYISIS IS REQUIRED HOW ABOUT THE STANDARD OF "TEN OR MORE PEAK HOUR TRIPS" AND PLEASE TRY TO GIVE SOME INFORMAL EQUIVALENCY OF WHATEVER STANDARD YOU USE [SUCH AS INCLUDING A PARENTHETICAL STATEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY RESIDENCES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GENERATE (X MANY) OR MORE PEAK HOUR TRIPS]. REMEMBER WE ALL WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING REQUIRED IN THE LAW.