COM 0307.019 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HLPC re: COH Bill 318 D2 SO May 2007 Page 3 of 4 • Is it appropriate to establish a rule that new projects cannot move forward until there are funded solutions in hand to improve the level of service on every crowded road or highway on which the residents and users of the new project would drive? o Under Bill 318 D2, no new project could move forward until there are funded or bonded plans in place to enhance service levels on all roads and highways which (a) currently provide a low level of service or are projected to do so and (b) would be used by the residents or occupants of the new project. This is troubling for two reasons: It is highly likely that new residents will use many if not most of our roads and highways from time to time. We are not aware of any existing data base from which we or others can determine which roads and highways currently fall below the minimum accepted service levels or are likely to do so in the near future. As a result, we cannot determine if this proposed new requirement can ever be satisfied, practically speaking, Until we have information on that topic, we cannot tell if the community can reasonably expect this Bill to help redress the infrastructure imbalance or if it is instead likely to have the unintended consequence of stopping even beneficial new developments. Until we are confident this Bill will in fact contribute to a solution, we prefer not to risk undermining the activity on which so many of our residents rely for their livelihood. • There is no mechanism in the Bill for the proponent of a new project to solve a single very significant problem while leaving lesser or other problems to be solved later -this Bill in effect says, if your proposed project will touch twenty areas where there are traffic problems, you or others have to solve them all, or you cannot move forward. For example, imagine a project the proposed developer of which offers to provide one of the significant new highways or mauka-makai connectors which many of our communities have wanted for years. If that developer does not also come forward with a plan to address the impact the residents or users of his or her project would nonetheless have on other crowded roads or highways, this new ordinance would not give the County Council the latitude needed to allow the beneficial proposed project to move forward. In conclusion, we would like to reemphasize that we share what we believe to be a strong desire among most County residents that we all work together, expeditiously, to find effective ways to (1) redress the meaningful shortage of transportation infrastructure and (2) manage growth in the future so as to restore and then maintain an appropriate balance between residents and transportation infrastructure. We believe the community does not know enough at this point to determine whether this Bill will help in that effort or - by unintentionally stopping even beneficial new development projects -deprive us of what should be a meaningful source of energy and capital in our joint efforts to achieve these very important goals.