The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 1568.000 2006-2008Harry Kim Mayor Dixie Kaetsu Mnnrsgurg Direcfar Barbara Kossow Deputy Managing Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Sheet, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-0252 (808) 9615211 • Fax (808) 9616553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, liawai'i 96740 (808) 329-5226 Fax (808) 326-5663 N O P CD October 24, 2008 Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 333 Kilauea Avenue Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Hoffrnann and Members: . County Council Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-46, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended) Relating to Concurrency Conditions for Parks and Recreational Facilities, Wastewater Treatment Facilities, and Police and Firefiehtina Facilities l ~ O ^ T '~ I ~ (-J 1 ~ -{ G ; .. N `~i ~.. ~~ T 1 3 .~ _ `Y., . \ .. e~ V ~ N 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 letter and enclosures regarding the above-referenced matter. Sincerely, C-~~ Harry Kim Mayor Enclosures cc: Planning Department Ref. Tw Ref. Dote ~i 2 9 2008 County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 96I-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 October 24, 2008 Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2"d Floor Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Hoffmann and Council Members: County Council Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-46, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended) Relating to Concurrency Conditions for Parks and Recreational Facilities, Wastewater Treatment Facilities, and Police and Firefightin>; Facilities The Planning Commission conducted hearings on October 3, 2008 and October 17, 2008, to review the County Council initiated request for an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-46, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended) relating to Concurrency conditions for parks and recreational facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and police and firefighting facilities. At its meeting of October 17, 2008, the Commission voted to send an unfavorable recommendation [o the County Council's proposed draft bill as contained in Resolution No. 686 08. The Commission also added that there should be an emphasis to refer to the respective community development plans rather than the application of an island-wide rule. The Commission concurs with the Planning Director's unfavorable recommendation as follows: The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission send a negative recommendation to the Council on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code. Because the County does not currently meet the proposed standards, especially for police and parks, the bill would create a moratorium on rezoning in the County for all districts. For Puna, North Kona, South Kona, and South Kohala, the ban on new zoning would last until the County more than Hawaii County is mt Egual Opportwlity Provider mld Employer Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 doubled the developed park space in the district. At the same time, this rezoning ban would do nothing to increase the number of parks or police officers. It would penalize property owners by forbidding them from getting zoning changes when they cannot themselves remedy the situation with respect to parks, police, or fire ~ stations. It would, in fact, ban rezoning on the grounds that insufficient developed park space existed in the district, even though the zoning request might include i public park lands that would reduce the problem. Rezoning decisions should be made on their merits, guided by the General Plan and Community Development Plans. If a site is a not a good one for the development proposed by the rezoning, it should be denied. The denial can be based on many different reasons, like traffic congestion, flooding, historic sites, inconsistency with the LUPAG map, the desire to avoid sprawl or protect open space, and any of the other factors that go into good land use planning. The lack of public facilities to serve a development may be a legitimate reason for denying a rezoning. For example, if a large residential rezoning was proposed on Saddle Road, say fifteen miles above Hilo, the distance from police and fire stations would be a legitimate reason [o deny rezoning, even though the South Hilo district as a whole might have enough police officers and firefighters. But this can be addressed when the rezoning is considered, rather than apply an inflexible district- wide rule. The number of police and fire personnel authorized in any area is completely under the control of the County government. If the County wants a policy of "x" number of police officers per 1,000 population, or "x" number of firefighters per station, it is entirely up to the County to appropriate the necessary funding. A private landowner seeking rezoning has no power to get the County to hire more police officers or firefighters, and it is not fair to penalize the landowner if the County has not hired enough to meet its own standards. it is rare that a rezoning generates enough homes to create a demand for even one police officer. Using the 3 per 1,000 persons standard, and assuming that a home has 2.8 occupants on average (which is the County average), it would take about 120 new homes to create a demand for one more police officer. Only about ten (10) rezonings on the island in the past eight (8) years have potentially added l20 or more residential units. It would violate the State impact fee law for the County to require, as a condition of rezoning, that a landowner pay for the salaries or other operating expenses of police, fire, or other County personnel. The impact fee law allows only the assessment of fees for capital improvements. The concept is that the other taxes paid by the development, primarily property taxes, pays for the operating costs of County services, like other property owners. The wastewater provisions of the proposed bill, by essentially outlawing new zoning unless it was connected to a sewer treatment plant, would make it much more difficult and expensive to rezone new residential areas, particularly Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 those with lots of 10,000 square feet or more. Under current laws, these could have IWS's. Only a few areas are currently served by wastewater treatment plants. Private plants can be expensive, and trigger an environmental assessment for the entire project if they serve more than 49 units. It is very expensive to connect low density development, such as agricultural subdivisions, to a central wastewater treatment plant. If an area has special environmental issues that make it necessary that it have a wastewater treatment plant rather than an IWS, this can and should be a condition of rezoning, rather than it be an island-wide rule. The lack of developed parks is not caused by rezonings in the last fifteen years or so. During this period, most large rezonings have required substantial pazk improvements, such as Parker 2020 or Palamanui. While there aze many smaller rezonings, these cumulatively do not add as many units as the large rezonings, and for the last fifteen yeazs, have had "fair share" assessments that at least require them to contribute toward the capital costs of new parks. The major shortages of parks on the island occur in the subdivisions created in the period of rampant subdividing, from the late 1950's to the early 1970's, and in areas that were primazily zoned before 1990, like Waikoloa Village and Kailua-Kona. There is no question that these areas are short of parks, especially ball fields, gyms, swimming pools, and other developed facilities. The question is what, if anything, a rezoning ban would do to increase the number of park facilities, or limit the number of park users. Puna has probably the biggest shortage per capita of any district, but rezoning is almost irrelevant to the overall growth of Puna because almost all development takes place in the already- approved subdivisions. - The handling of park requirements could be standardized and rezoned. The best vehicle to accomplish that is the County's Park Dedication Ordinance, Chapter 8 of the County Code. This ordinance was enacted in 1977, and because of a State law, H.R.S. Section 46-6, which requires each County to "adopt ordinances to require a subdivider, as a condition of approval of a subdivision, to provide land in perpetuity or to dedicate land for park and playground purposes..." Chapter 8 is broader than rezoning: it also applies to new subdivisions and multi-family buildings. It is ineffective in creating parks, however, because of a clause that states that it does not apply in districts where there are already more than 5 acres of parks per 1,000 persons, and includes all State and County park acreage, developed and undeveloped. This means that it excludes all the districts with major subdivision and multi-family development, such as North Kona and South Kohala. In these districts, while there is much less than 5 acres per 1,000 residents of developed park facilities, there are large undeveloped facilities, such as the Kekaha Kai State Park. Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 Chapter 8 could be revised to only refer to developed park areas, of the active neighborhood and playground ball field type, and if it continues to have an exclusion on the grounds that there already is "enough" park area of that type, this should count only parks within a set radius of the development, rather than the district as a whole. The districts are so large that neighborhood playgrounds in one azea do not do much for people living in other areas. It may be that this bill is motivated by a concern over excessive growth on the island, and is intended to create a moratorium on new zoning. If the desired goal is to slow growth until parks and other public facilities catch up, this bill is not a productive tool. A moratorium on zoning, or even on new subdivisions and apartment buildings, would not stop the island's population from increasing. Growth on the island mostly occurs on land with zoning and subdivision approvals granted long ago. More than 50% of the new homes on the island in the past decade were built in the 1950's to 1970's era subdivisions, like Hawaiian Pazadise Park or Hawaiian Ocean View Estates. Fewer than 5% were built on areas rezoned in the past 10 years, partially because of the long development time between rezoning and development, partially because of market factors. The older subdivisions are still less than 50% built out. There is also major growth built into the current approvals for the coastal resorts in North Kona and South Kohala, into Waikoloa Village, the Parker 2020 zoning in Waimea, Kohala Ranch Project IV, and several zoned areas in Hilo. This means that rezoning is not necessary to have construction or land development, to the extent that this is desired for jobs or economic growth, but well-placed rezoning can improve the current land use pattern, especially in the Kailua-Kona azea. The Community Development Plans (CDP's) so far have a clear message and direction for growth and development. In general, it is a slow growth/preservationist message. In North Kona, the CDP supports the infill development of the area between Palani Road and Keauhou, and north of Palani Road to the Palamanui project, to create a more compact, less auto-dependent community. The proposed "transit-oriented developments" and "traditional neighborhoods" aze mostly zoned for agriculture now and will have to be rezoned to implement the land use strategy in the CDP. This cannot happen if this bill prevents rezoning until the developed park space in Kona is more than doubled. The Puna plan supports new development around "village centers", for similar reasons as the Kona plan: to try to develop a more compact, less auto- dependent community. Again, the "village centers" are mostly zoned agricultural, and will need rezoning for this preferred land use pattern to occur. Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 The North Kohala and South Kohala plans, for the most part, call for development to occur within existing zoning. This does not mean that there cannot be any rezoning, but both clearly do not support large new development outside of existing zoned areas. We have enclosed a copy of the Planning Department's Background and Recommendation Report and transcripts of the hearings for your information. Sincerely, ~ ~~ Rodney Watanabe, Chairman Planning Commission Lccinitia[eAre:concurrencycondi[ions cc: Planning Department-Kona Lincoln Ashida, Esq. • COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) Agenda Item # 11 Correction to second sentence in the Recommendation; deleted portion is bracketed and struck-through, as follows: RECOMIV~ENDATION The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission send a negative recommendation to the Council on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code. Because the County does not currently meet the proposed standards, especially for police and parks, the bill would create a moratorium on rezoning in the County for all districts [e~ee}~-Seaile]. For Puna, North Kona, South Kona, and South Kohala, the ban on new zoning would last until the County more than doubled the developed park space in the district. At the same time, this rezoning ban would do nothing to increase the number of parks or police officers. It would penalize property owners by forbidding • them from getting zoning changes when they cannot themselves remedy the situation with respect to parks, police, or fire stations. It would, in fact, ban rezoning on the Bounds that insufficient developed park space existed in the district, even though the zoning request might include public park lands that would reduce the problem. Rezoning decisions should be made on their merits, guided by the General Plan and Community Development Plans. ff a site is a not a good one for the development proposed by the retuning, it should be denied. The denial can be based on many different reasons, like traffic congestion, flooding, historic sites, inconsistency with the LUPAG map, the desire to avoid sprawl or protect open space, and any of the other factors that go into good land use planning. The lack of public facilities to serve a development may be a legitimate reason for denying a rezoning. For example, if a large residential rezoning was proposed on Saddle Road, say fifteen miles above Hilo, the distance from police and fire stations would be a legitimate reason to deny retuting, even though the South Hilo district as a whole might have enough police officers and firefighters. But this can be addressed when the rezoning is considered, rather than apply an inflexible district-wide rule. • . r,~.. c .~ , BRCCInitiatedconcvrcency.doc-9/30/08 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION COUNTY COUNCIL INTTIATED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODEI The County Council has initiated an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-46 Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended) relating to concutrency conditions for packs and recreational facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and police and firefighting facilities. BACKGROUND The County Council has initiated an overall amendment to the Zoning Code, contained in a draft bill in Resolution No. 686 OS (Planning Department Exhibit A). In summary, the proposed amendment would deny any rezoning in a district (referring to the nine judicial districts) unless the district had: (1) Adequate public park facilities Adequate facilities are defined as a minimum of five (5) acres of public park facilities with developed recreational facilities per 1,000 residents in the district; (2) An adequate public or private sewer system for the project; (3) .One (1) manned police station per 12,500 residents, and three (3) police officers per 1,000 residents; and (4) A minimum of five (5) firefighters per shift, and fifteen (15) firefighters per fire station in the district. The following departments have submitted comments: Department of Public Works -Planning Department Exhibit B Department of Environmental Management -Planning Department Exhibit C • Department of Parks and Recreation -Planning Department Exhibit D The Planning Department also received, by email, lists of County fire stations, with their authorized personnel (Planning Department Exhibit E), police staffing -1- information by district (Planning Department Exhibit F), and Police Department Facilities (Planning Department Exhibit G). In addition, the Planning Department prepared an analysis of developed and total park acreage per district (Planning Department Exhibit )~, working from the "County of Hawaii General Plan 10-Year Review: Infrastructure Assessment Report", completed in 2000 for the General Plan comprehensive review. There is no perfect way to do this analysis because the bill is not precise as to the kind of parks and facilities which should be counted as "developed." The complete list of parks and their acreage is attached as Planning Departroent Exhibit I. The list omits a few parks developed since 2000, e.g., the park at Pualani Estates, or expanded since 2000, e.g., Isaac Hale, but these do not significantly change the overall figures. To determine the number of police personnel and developed pazk space against the number of district residents, the Planning Department compared used per-district population from the 2000 census data, and the population projection for 2010 taken from the General Plan (Series "B"). There aze no current "official" population estimates per district. The last official population figures per district are in the 2000 census, and these aze outdated because the island's population grew about 17% from 2000 to 2007. While not perfect, the 2010 population projection in the General Plan for the island as a whole is actually only slightly more than the census estimate for 200,?, and the per-district projections are probably accurate enough to use for the purposes of this Background and Recommendation. Comparison with other information such as building permit records suggests that the 2010 per-district projection may be slightly high for North Kohala and South Kona, and slightly low for North Kona and South Hilo. The bill is not cleaz whether the requirements for police and fire personnel refer to authorized personnel, or the actual number of employees. The analysis in this Background and Recommendation assumes that it means authorized strength, because obviously the actual number of employees can fluctuate depending on people being hired and leaving employment. Also, it is not cieaz whether EMS personnel should be included in the firefighter count. These issues would have to be made explicit if the bill were enacted. -2- It should also be noted that the 2005 General Plan contains a different standard for the number of police officers: 2.5 per 1,000 population (pages 10-14 of the 2005 General Plan) rather than 3.0 per 1,000 proposed under this bill. The bill is, therefore, inconsistent with the Genera! Plan on this point, and if the 3.0 per 1,000 standard is meant to be adopted, the General Plan should be amended first. Police Accounting for the number of police personnel by district is complicated by the fact that some police functions such as administration, records, criminal investigation, and vice, are centralized in South Hilo for "Area P' (East Hawai'i), and in Kona for "Area IP' (West Hawai'i.) This means, for example, that a vice casein Puna is assigned to vice officers stationed in South Hilo. This tends to skew the per-district number higher for South I3'ilo and Kona. Exhibit F shows the authorized and actual sworn police personnel assigned to various districts. (The Police Department did not provide a separate breakdown for North and South Kona). This gives the following number of officers (authorized positions) per 1,000 population: 2000 Census 2010 Population Projection Puna 1.69 1.24 Hilo 3.50 0.50 N. Hilo 6.98 6.98 Hamakua 2.95 2.~4 N. Kohala 2.48 1.89 S. Kohala 2.51 1.81 N/S Kona 3.15 2.57 Ka'u 3.09 2.55 Thus, it appears that all districts except North and South Hilo currently fall below the 3 per 1,000 standard and rezoning in all other districts would be banned until sufficient police strength was authorized. If the districts are lumped together into "Area P' and "Area 1T', to account for the centralization of some functions, we get the following number ofofficers per 1,000 population: -3- 2000 Census 2010 Population Projection Area I 3.01 2.66 Area II 2.94 2.35 Thus, the County currently meets the 2.5/1,000 officer standard in the General Plan on an islandwide basis, although "Area IP' is slightly short. The Police Department currently has only one manned station per district (Planning Department Exhibit G). Thus, all districts with more than 12,500 residents would not meet this requirement -South Hilo, Puna, North Kona, and South Kohala. This means that a clause in the proposed bill, as written, which states that the minimum standazd for the adequacy of police facilities shall be "one manned police station for each twelve thousand five hundred residents in the district(s) where the change of zone is located" would bar rezoning in all districts of the island, because South Hilo was the only district where other provisions in the bill did not baz rezoning. The overall conclusion is that if the Coumy governmenrt wants to seta "standazd" that it needs a certain number of police officers, police stations, and firefighters, the County government should appropriate the funds to do so. Stopping new zoning does not solve the problem. Fire As shown on Exhibit E, if EMS personnel are included, all fire stations, except Laupahoehoe, Waikoloa, Paradise Pazk, and Volcano, have the recommended fifteen fire personnel per station. If EMS personnel are not included, all of the stations except Central, Waiakea, and Kaumana are short. This means that although North Hilo has enough police officers, rezoning would be barred because the Laupahoehoe station doesn't have enough firefighters. Wastewater The bill appeazs to require all new rezonings, with some exceptions for commercial development in rural azeas, to connect to a public or private sewer treatment plant, not allowing individual wastewater systems (IWS's). Under current zoning practice, if a proposed rezoning could lie connected with a public sewer system at reasonable cost, this would be required as a condition of zoning. Lazge-scale developments that are not close to a sewer have been required to develop their own sewer system, for example, Palamanui. Otherwise, a development would have to conform to -4- the Department of Health rules regarding IWS's. These rules allow septic systems (septic tank and leach field), or cesspools in some areas. The general limits are that an IWS must be on a lot of at least 10,000 square feet, and there are limits on the number of bedrooms that can use one IWS. As a practical matter, this means that IWS's can be used only for residential subdivisions with lots of 10,000 square feet or larger (unless a variance is obtained), and that only multi-family projects with relatively few units and small commercial and industrial projects can use IWS's. Parks For the island as a whole, the following, based upon Exhibits H and I, gives the "developed" park acreage per 1000 population: 2000 Census 2010 Population Projection Puna ~ 2.12 1.56 S. Hilo 5.85 5.85 N. Hilo 22.50 22.50 Hamakua 3.91 3,64 N. Kohala 4:45 3.39 S. Kohala 2.73 2.02 N. Kona 1.93 1.62 S. Kona 2.85 2..14 Ka'u 5.00 4.13 According to this analysis, all districts except North and South Hilo are currently short of the "5 acres per thousand population" standard. It should be recognized that by including only "developed" public park acreage, this listing does not count many areas that are used by the public for outdoor recreation, such as some beach parks (Hapuna State Recreational Area) and some parks maintained by private entities that are open to the public, for instance, the park at `Anaehoomalu Bay, the Holoholokai Park in Mauna Lani, and the public beach access area at 49 Black Sands. -5- RECOMMENDATION The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission send a negative recommendation to the Council on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code. Because the County does not currently meet the proposed standards, especially for police and parks, the bill would create a moratorium on rezoning in the County for all districts ewcegt-$eat}rI~i}s. For Puna, North Kona, South Kona, and South Kohala; the ban on new zoning would last until the County more than doubled the developed park space in the district. At the same time, this rezoning ban would do nothing to increase the number of parks or police officers.. It would penalize property owners by forbidding them from getting zoning changes when they cannot themselves remedy the situation with respect to parks, police, or fire stations. It would, in fact, ban rezoning on the grounds that insufficient developed park space existed in the district, even though the zoning request might include public park lands that would reduce the problem. Rezoning decisions should be made on their merits, guided by the General Plan and Community Development Plans. If a site is a not a good one for the development proposed by the rezoning, it should bi denied. The denial can be based on many different reasons, like traffic congestion, flooding, historic sites, inconsistency with the LUPAG map, the desire to avoid sprawl or protect open space, and ady of the other factors that go into good land use planning. The lack of public facilities to serve a development may be a legitimate reason for denying a rezoning. For example, if a large residential rezoning was proposed on Saddle Road, say fifteen miles above Hilo, the distance from police and fire stations would be a legitimate reason to deny rezoning, even though the South Hilo district as a whole might have enough police officers and firefighters. But this can be addressed when the rezoning is considered, rather than apply an inflexible district-wide rule. The number of police and fire personnel authorized in any area is completely under the control of the County government. If the County wants a policy of "x" number of police officers per 1,000 population, or "x" number of firefighters per station, it is entirely up to the County to appropriate the necessary funding. A private landowner seeking rezoning has no power to get the County to hire more police officers or -6- i '`a. ~.! i..l la"x"' 1 ~ ~P~ g 1.1~ Vi/321~51 RESOLUTION NO, 686 08 ... , r r ~ ~ ~ .'.: ~ -.~i' ~.i1E-111 ~;i, ~ 1 iF1,-;,111 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO INITIATE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED) BY AMENDING SECTION 25-2-46 RELATED TO CONCURRENCY CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, recognizing the need for well-planned; community-based, responsible future growth in the county, the council wishes to take a more proactive role in establishing policies for the approval of new developments within the county; and WHEREAS, the Hawaii County Charter section .3-15 charges the comity council with the responsibility for enacting zoning, subdivision, and other such ordinances when it states, in part: "The county council shall adopt by ordinance a general plan which shall set forth the council's policy for long-range comprehensive physical development of the county. It shall contain a statement of development objectives, standards and principles with . respect to the most desirable use of land within the county for residential, recreational, agricultural, commercial, industrial and other purposes ... and such other matter as may, in the council's judgment, be beneficial to the social, economic, and governmental conditions and trends and shall be designed to assure the coordinated development oY'the county and to promote the general welfaze and prosperity of its people.... (a) The council shall enact zoning, subdivision, and such other ordinances which shall contain the necessary provisions to cazry out the purpose of the general plan. (b) No public improvement or project, or subdivision or zoning ordinance, shall be initiated or adopted unless the same conforms to and implements the general plan....": and WHEREAS, county residents have repeatedly expressed their perception that rapid groU~th is leading to overburdened public facilities and a diminishing quality of life in the county, and their frustration with the lack of infrastructure in the form of inadequate public pazks and recreational facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and police and firefighting facilities iri their communities; and WHEREAS, amendments to the zoning code will ensure that developments proposed in a particular azea are assessed considering a number of factors, including how much public infrastructure, namely parks and recreational facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and police and firefighting facilities, is challenged by recent or anticipated growth in the area; now, therefore. BE I1' RESOLVED BY THE CC)UNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that pursuant to section 6-4.2(c) of the Hawaii County Charter 2000 (2006 Edition) and subsection 25-2-43(b) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition. as amended), the planning director ~ , {~'~t171i31g ~~~t• Exhibit._.,...s _~ `1 is rcgttested to submit comments and r L:ctnmenda r'tis `;I-the proposed zoning code an-rendments as set forth in the propose.'. bill for an ordin~tce attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and b}-reference made a part hereof, or to prepare a similar biil.for an ordinance to create concun•ency standards for parks and recreational facilities; wastewater treatment facilities, and police and firefighting facilities in change of zone actions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to section 6-4.3(c) of the Hawaii County Charter 2000 (2006 Edition) and subsection 25-2-43(b) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), the planning commission is requested to review and transmit, with recommendations, the proposed bill for an ordinance throt)gh the mayor to the council for consideration and action; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the council shall consider said drafr bill fur an ordinance following said 120-day review period in order to make modifications, additions, or deletions to the change of zone review and approval procedures, which are within the council's authority as the legislative branch of the County of Hawaii; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the County Clerk shall forward copies of this resolution to the Honorable Mayor Harry Kim, the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, the Department Parks and Recreation, the Department of Environmental Management, the Police Department, and the Fire Department. Dated at . Kona _, Hawaii, this 23rd day of Jul , 20pg COUNCIL County of Hawai `i Hilo, Hawaii !hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by he vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the :ounty of Hawaii on July 23 2008__ ATTEST: G..~c~C~(Jj J~ Yr CLEWi CHAIRMA-N/&_ .4 YES NOES ABS Ek FORD X - - HIGA R HOFFMANN R IKEDA -~- X~- IACOBSON R NAEOLE R i -- Y!LAGO R YAGONG R ~~- YOSH!MOTO Reference: C-1295/PC-gg RESOLUTION NO.__ SS~ OS Exhibit A COUNTY ®F HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO. BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED) BY AMENDING SECTION 25-2-46 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 rapid population growth in Hawaii County in azeas with inadequate infrastructure and public services to accommodate such growth, it is necessary to assess the impacts of new developments at the time of rezoning. 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, in communities which are not at present adequately served by public parks and recreational facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and police and lire stations. If these new developments will generate demands for expanded parks and recreational facilities, expanded wastewater treatment facilities, or expanded police or fire stations, or will generate such demands upon full build-out in the foreseeable future, then the rezoning should not take effect unless improvements to infrastructure and public services occur before the occupancy ofthe project. SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 2, division 4, section 25-2-46,.Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Sectipn 25-2-46. Concurrency requirements. (a) Purpose. In addition to requirements otherwise imposed, this section creates concurrency standazds for roads, [and] water supply, pazks and recreational facilities wastewater treatment facilities and police and firefiehting facilities in change of zone actions. (b) Applicability. This section applies to any application for change of zoning district, or for an extension of time to perform a condition of zoning, received by the planning department after the effective date of this ordinance. (c) Definitions. As used in this section: "Acceptable level of service" means that the level of service of a transportation facility at the a.m. and p.m. peak hour is "D" or better. "Approved development" means development for which zoning has been granted by the County. l "Critical road area" means a geographical. area where;.nk ~f the transportation facilities serving the area have been determined by the council tc FS~ worse tlxah t)14 rcceptable level of service. "Immediate vicinity of a project" means the area in which transportation facilities will be required to mitigate impacts caused primarily by the project. , "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 project and similar improvements. "Area mitigation" consists of improvements which increase the capacity of an arterial or other major road, such as additional lanes, in the general region containing the project, or construction of anew arterial or collector road in the general area containing the project, or improvements to public transportation such as buses or pazk and ride facilities, sufficient to offset the traffic demand generated by the project. "Occupancy" means (1) the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a commercial, multifamily, industrial building, hotel or other structure requiring a certificate of occupancy; (2) the issuance of a building permit for residential buildings that do not require a certificate of occupancy; or (3) final subdivision approval for subdivisions where dwellings are allowed, but dwellings aze not being constructed before sale of any lot. "Project area" means the azea in which the project is expected to have an impact on the level of service of transportation facilities. ~ "Reasonable assumptions" means the percentage of full build-out that is expected to occur during the twenty-year period after the date of the application, as determined by the planning director.. "Transportation facilities" means State and County highways, roads, and public transportation facilities. "Worse than the acceptable level of service" means that the level of service at the a.m. or p.m. peak is "E" or "F". (d) Traffic Impact Analysis Report Required. (1) A traffic irtipact analysis report (TIAR), prepared or updated within six months before the, submission of the application, shall be included with the application for any change of zone that can generate fifty or more: peak hour trips. 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 aze unknown at the time of rezoning (for example, the types of commercial uses), the determination shall be based . upon a typical mix of uses found in that zoning type in the community. The TIAR shall be certified as having been conducted in accordance with best practices by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Hawaii. ..~ {2) The TIAR. shall assess impacts to transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity and general area of the project, and to the transportation facilities serving the project area. (3) The TIAR shall include projections for future growth in traffic, for a minimum of five, ten, and twenty years, and shall include other approved or proposed development that is expected to impact the project area, with reasonable assumptions about the build-out of such development. (4) The TIAR shall present an assessmerit of the impacts of the project on LOS and an evaluation of alternative plans for mitigating those impacts. The evaluation shall include budgetary cost estimates for the capital and operating costs of promising alternative plans. (e) Mitigation Required. (1) If the LOS for any transportation facility in the project area is (A) currently worse than the acceptable level of service, or (B) projected to become worse than the acceptable level of service during the five year period of the TIAR, any rezoning of the property, if approved, shall contain conditions that require mitigation of adverse traffic effects before occupancy of the project is permitted, or that occupancy be delayed until the level of service has reached the acceptable level and is no longer projected #o be worse than the acceptable level. (~) Where the LOS deficiency is due to roadway or intersection deficiencies in the immediate. vicirity of the project, the conditions of zoning shall require local mitigation. Where the deficiencv in LOS is due to insufficient capacity in the transportation facilities serving the project area, the conditions of zcrning.shall require area mitigation. -; (3) If there is more than one way to mitigate an adverse effect the director shall present to the council the pros and cons of the alternatives. (f) Mitigation requirements will be deemed satisfied when: (1) A public agency has committed funds for azea 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 (2) The private developer's commitment to implement mitigation has been secured by bond or equivalent security, or mandatory participation in an improvement district, community facilities district, or other equivalent means of guazanteeing performance. (g) A developer's area mitigation expenses shall be credited against any fair share or similaz 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 determines that the mitigation substantially benefits the general public and was not necessary primarily for the benefit of the project. In general, roads that are necessary for access to or within a development or turn lanes for a private project shall not qualify for fair share credit. _,a (h) The following types of rezoning. applications shall be required to submit a TIAR when required by this section, but shall notbe required to perform azea mitigation: (1) Residential or other rezonings where the applicant commits, and the conditions of zoning require, that the project earn at least two times the number of affordable housing credits otherwise required under chapter 11, County affordable housing policy, provided further that the applicant shall be entitled to the full amount of "excess credits" under section I 1-15, County affordable housing policy, based on the number of affordable housing credits normally required. (2) Rezoning to CV, CN; MCX, PD, or ML where the council determines that the project will reduce regional traffic congestion by providing necessary cotairiaercial 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 standazds of a "neighborhood center" as described in the general plan. (i) The restrictions on occupancy shall not apply to the construction of infrastructure such as water tanks; roads, sewage treatment plants, or other project elements that do not generate substantial traffic. (j) The council may designate critical road areas by ordinance. (k) Ira a critical road area, all rezonings shall be subject to local and area mitigation, except as stated in subsection (h). (1) In order to determine whether a rezoning application meets the TIAR threshold of fifty or more peak hour*,~ips, and to prevent applicants from going below the TIAR threshold by dividing a project into segments;-~lae director shall review all development proposed on the same or adjacent properties, and shall include traffic that may be generated by any development application approved after the effective date of this ordinance; or by any other pending development 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, or in the immediate vicinity of the development. (m) 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 existing public water system, or a private water system equivalent to the requirements of the department of water supply will be provided to meet the water needs of the project and conditions of zoning delay occupancy until the necessary improvements are actually constructed. (n) To facilitate the development of village centers in rural areas that are not currently 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 are (1) designated as an "urban and rural center" or "industrial area" on table 14-5 of the general plan and (2) designated far-urban use ,~ on the land use pattern allocation guide snap of the general.plan; provided that conditions of zoning shall require water supply consistent with pkblic health and safety needs such as sanitation and fire-fighting. each one thousand residents in the districts in which the char e of zone is located delay occunancv until the necessary improvements aze actually constructed sewers stem the council ma - "-~ ~""""" ~"` """"'" scrveu o a waive the sewer re uirements for rezonin s for commercial or li ht industrial uses in azeas that do nnr ,,,,,,~P„ri., t,,,..e .. _..L.: _ _ ___ determined b the State de artment of health. located. .,~ [(ej)~ Nothing in this section shall limit the ability of the council to impose reasonable roadway, [er) water, parks and recreational wastewater treatment and police and fire-fiehting facility improvement requirements on changes of zone or to deny change of zone applications to the extent otherwise allowed by law." SECTIUN 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 aze 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: ~vutvc:lL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date~f 1st Reading: Date•of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: 6 _.~ _l DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUN O HAWAIWAII ~Qg F()~ ~~ ~(,~ , n ~9 y~~ '.~'itiP•l~hri ; „ Ir/GCOA64~Il~K G'Oi~;,l; y vf.F7~irVl~INT Date August 27, 2008 To CHRISTOPHER J. YUENr PLANNING DIRECTOR From BRUCE C. McCLURE, P.E., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT : RESOLUTION NO. 686 08 & ASSOCIATED DRAFT ORDINANCE We have reviewed the subject documents and have no comments to offer. Ref: OS-02728 P9~anning ~3~pt. Ex}~abit~~„~ County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer i ._~ Harry Kim Mayor ~`} Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Director Nelson Ho Deputy Director (~alz~If~r ~~~~t£ur~i`i DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 {808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 http://co hawaii hi us/directorv/dir envtnn_g h[m MEMORANDUM DATE September 8, 2008 TO Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director FROM Bobby Jean Leithead Todd, Director ~ti~ SUBJECT: Resolution NO 686 08 Relating to Concurrency Conditions The Department of Environmental Management offers the enclosed comments: Thank you for allowing us to comment on this Resolution. cc: DD W WD enclosure A~~nning ~e~t. ~tthibit L' County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer rv .•~ -'~ o r" m ii~;n C' ~n -:.: -~ t~ -;; -, ,~. `- ~. -3, _ _=" ?_ -- r.~, '_ m ^.~ `z rn -+ ,~ ,) ~. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ~~ WASTEWATER DIVISION September 5, 2008 _ ~ COUNTY OF HAWAII -108 RAILROAD AVENUE - HILO, HI 96720 '=~=s=~= HILO (808) 961-8083 FAX (808) 961-8086 _ `_J MEMORANDUM To: Bobby Jean Leithead Todd, Director From: Dora Beck, P.E., Wastewater Division Chief Subject: Resolution No. 686 08 Relating to Concurrency Conditions, Wastewater Division Comments Comments: Section 25-2-46 (p): (1) • The WWD typically approves a project connecting to County sewer after the applicant has submitted a sewer study report that satisfactorily verifies that the capacity needs of the project can be met. • Currently, sewer capacity is not reserved but is on a "first come, first serve' basis. Doing so could unnecessarily delay other projects if prior reserves are not claimed on schedule, or are never claimed. (2) Private sewer systems and any associated improvements are under the jurisdiction the State Department of Health. Section 25-2-46 (q): While some areas have "no sewer plans', there are some areas on the island that were targeted for sewer based on old Facility Plans and General Plans. There are areas that may have or will have plans for sewer based on Community Development Plans or future Sewer Master Plans. In all cases, there is usually some uncertainty as to when the sewer plans will be implemented as much is dependent on economic and financial factors. It is recommended that the basis for the waiver of sewer requirements for rezoning take into account implementation plans. In addition, changes to above said plans could result in a need for sewer in areas not specified in current plans. Should there be any comment or questions on the above, please contact me at 961-8513. Cc: L. Hirota, Acting Deputy Division Chief Antoinette Nakatani, EST III Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Hayashi, Norman From: Engelhard, Patricia Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:03 PM To: Yuen, Chris; Hayashi, Norman Page 1 of 3 Subject: FW: Resolution 686 08 and Ordinance -Relating to Concurrency Conditions - P&R Comments Hi Chris and Norman Giving credit where it is due, James Komata digested this information before our internal meeting regarding concurrency. We have some edits to his thoughts but he is being recognized for his significant thought and input on this issue. Our comments are in the text. From: Komata, James Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 9:17 AM To: Engelhard, Patricia; Mizuno, Pamela Subject: Reso 686 08 Relating to Concurrency Conditions -Comments Here is the proposed language that speaks to our depaztment's part of Concurrency Conditions: --~ ~~=..~...c iw cni~uii~, lAelllne5 and staff or (?specific im rovements to the existing public arks and recreational_facilities.,_or new_ p _.~ parks or ubhc _~rivate parks and recreational facilities approved by the de artment of arks and recreation will be~rovided to meet the recreational needs of the protect and conditions of zonine delay occu~an~ until the necess improvements are actually constructed. The minimum standard for dete__nnini~ ade~c uacy of narks and recreational facilities shall be f i+e acres of County ubhc mark area with developed recreational facilities for each one thousand residents in the district(s~in which the change of zone is_1_ocated. Here aze our comments on the proposed revisions: 1. In item (Z), it should be recognized as an option that new public parks can be created as well making improvements to existing parks/facilities or creating new private parks/facilities. May be a just a technicality but it's definitely an oversight. Corrected in text above. 2. Is the "minimum standazd" in the last sentence applicable to determining adequacy of existing facilities or adequacy of improvements? or both? We think both. I don't understand its applicability relative to the balance of the paragraph. What if an adjoining subdivision that is applying for rezoning wants to add to a private park space that is already existing so that their community members can share private active park space? 3. The ramification of this paragraph, on us, is to come up with a defensible policy on how we determine whether item (1) is satisfied or not, which will be extremely difficult because everything is so subjective. The "district" rationale is so ridiculous at times -try telling people in Volcano Village they can't have a ball field because there's one in HOVE when the seniors in Hakalau don't even want to meet in Pepeekeo or I-lonomu). 4. We wonder if the 5 acres/thousand residents needs to apply only to facilities that-serve ac ve Planning ~s~pt. ' 9/Z/Zoos Exhibit,~.__ ') ~ Page 2 of 3 recreation such as playgrounds, walking paths, ball fields, courts and gyms. At what point do we stop . determining facility needs? What about the need for a ratio specifically for specialty facilities such'as 1 gymnasium per district per _,000 residents, 1 swimming pool (25 or 50 meter?)per district per _,000 residents and 1 community center per district per _,000 residents. Do we stop there? How about ]public cemetery per district? 1 golf course per district? 1 trap and skeet range per district? 1' drag strip, circle track and BMX/ATV track per district? 1 zoo and equestrian center per district? back to reality.... how many miles of public beach park coastline per district per X000 residents? (Now, if DOE would open up its facilities to County use on nights and weekends -much of that problem would be solved!) 5. Everyone needs to realize that increasing density by allowing rezonings not, only has a demand on. physical improvements but on staffing and equipment as well. There needs to be a financial assessment made to offset those increased initial costs (given that subsequent costs to be subsidized by increased tax revenues and usage fees) that can range from Recreation staff, lifeguards, PCs, EAD staff, etc. to vehicles, computers, and standard supplies for restrooms, recreational equipment, etc. 6. We don't have the staff to do this legwork, but Planning might be able come up with preliminary figures that show what the ramifications of these proposed amendments would have under existing ' conditions. They could readily determine which districts (if that' s how this is going to be written up; and applied) would have an immediate moratorium on rezonings whether due to P&R, DEM-WW, Police, Fire or other concunency affected agencies. 7. What's the foreseeable process on this? Do the applicants approach each concurrency impacted agency individually as they consider rezoning their land or is a letter generated by Planning to which each agency for comments? One way is potentially more chaotic and harder to track than the other. Either way, we are looking at more staff when our County agency staffs have increased significantly in the past eight years and things should be slowing down now. 8. Lastly, right now we allow developers to provide private parks for their community. Do we consider private parks as active recreation facilities that can be counted toward concurrency? If so, who tracks them and determines what is maintained for the private use of the sunounding community. For instance, a park may be designated for private use by a subdivision. But then, several years later, the community may decide they are tired of paying to have it maintained and may just let the grass grown and the facilities deteriorate, without telling anyone in the County. Or it may be a condition that they develop the park after a certain period of time, but they never do. Then what? Just as an un-P&R-related thought: if the fire department has a 5-minute national response time standard to meet, can you imagine how many more fire stations need to be constructed island wide before anyone could rezone anything? Imagine how many fire stations can be driven to from one to the next in 10 minutes (5 minute drive radius each) right now -even if you had a sirens blaring and lights flashing. And, that's just point to point -now broaden that coverage mauka-makai. Also, imagine (for Police and Fire) that every time someone retires, is fired, or transfers station, they'd potentially have to deny rezonings since their minimum standards are based on personnel quantities. So, to the "personnel" designation should be added "positions" so that a project will not beheld up because of the technicality that a position may not be filled, even,if it is available. Section (s) would then read, in applicable part; "The minimum standard For determining adequacy of fire personnel shall. be five fire fighting personnel positions (or just "positivns") per shift and fifteen fire fighting positions.per fire station in the,dstiigt(s) in which the change of zone is located." Sorry for the questions but someone needs to consider them now before we pass comprehensive and potentially stifling conditions for rezoning. 9/2/2008 '} ~ Page 3 of 3 Pat, Pam and James, 9/2/2008 July 8, 2008 Mr. Christopher Yuen Director Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen, Pursuant to your a-mail request, I would like to provide you with the following information regarding the allocation of fire protection positions at each of our fire stations in the respective districts. Although fi8een of the following stations have an additional six positions each, allocated and funded through our State Emergency Medical Services program, these positions are not counted as dedicated fire protection positions due to the commitment to and adherence with our EMS contractual obligations. Statioa Council District Allocated Fire Protection Positions Status Central* 2 24 + 6 Waiakea Kawailani* 4 3 15 12 Meets standard _3 Kaumana Keaau* 2 3 15 12 Meets standard _ 3 Ca fain Cook* 7 12 _3 Kailua* 8 21 3 Honokaa* 1 12 _3 Waimea* 9 12 _3 Pahoa* 5 12 -3 Pahala* 6 12 _3 Planning Dept. Exhibit Mr. Christopher Yuen Page 2 July 8, 2008 Station Council District Allocated Fire Protection Positions Status Keauhou* 7 12 _3 South Kohala* North Kohala* 9 9 15 q Meets standard _ 6 Waikoloa* 9 6 _ g Lau ahoehoe 1 6 .. _9 Paradise Park $ 6 _ q Volcano* Ocean View* 6 ( 15 6 Meets standard _ 9 Kalaoa 8 I S Meets standard Net Total ~ n. _,. . .. __ __. - 69 _.... .~.uewn~ nu vtVs u[lVCUIeU G1V1J FlOSIl1011S Q71d]IYOVIdQ ArilbU[R11CC SCYVICQ5. I am hopeful the aforementioned information provides you with an overview of our fire protection position allocation and is of value in your consideration of the County Council's proposed plans for future development. Should you require additional information or clarification please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, DARRYL OLIVEIRA Fire Chief DO:Ik C O a N Q C C (0 a 0 U_ O a O r N r r r 0 0 0 N r O C r N M p r O ~ (7 O M O O N ~ d C l N N •. O F 7 W ~ r ` O ) M 0 ) O O f0 M N N M I~ M ~ p O N M ~ O of ~ V N r (p N r N t[1 3 Q R w f V m n N (0 0 M m tn N N M fp M 1[I O M OD r 'tt (O M L r+ O `"" r p r N 7 ` Q O F L' N O t~ O ~ O N a D p 0 0 p r [ j N O r r O O N O N N N M ~ . M N M r ' V 16 V a N O I ~ O O O N N 1n Q7 (p r ~ M O r !- O O N O1~ C ~ M N M r N N M j V L M Q _ N G D W r O O r r O N r N N O M ( D N f~ (p (~ (p r O E p '~f r ~ O r N W ~. a N O O N O O r r O M r N N O b 0f N a0 < n 0~ N W M C ~ ~ O 3 N t .+ 7 Q N Q ~ C ~ 0 ~ y N 0.S N L O t ~ a m V ~ ~ Q O O. G ~ ~ S J S Q w ? C V~ c ~~ o ~ V O U J> d- ~ - m ~ i G 6 N U S I- S F Y 4 Q m t S ' O a ' ~' C y W N f n N N N ~ N m a w a ° . ° c U _ ¢cn ~ i.~i- ~~ o f - ¢¢` Ua ¢z ~-U x x O vi O Q ~ z x a Planning Dept. Exhibit ~ C O ._ L N_ C N E r m a m 0 m _U O a Police Department Facilities 'Me n nfcrriM o..G..., cr.,e...... Fadl' Mailing Address Ph V ical Address J Phone Fax Remarks Hawaii Police De artment 349 Ka iolani Street 349 Ka iolani Street 961-2349 961-8865 935-3311 Head uarters Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Hilo Hawaii 96720 24 hour manned Mooheau Bus Terminal 349 Ka iolani Street 369 Kamehameha H 961-2350 none Unmanned Mini Police Station Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 in uires Richardson Ocean Center 349 Ka iolani Street 2349 Kalanianaole Avenue 961-2350 none Unmanned Mini Police Station Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 in uires Clem Akina Park 349 Ka iolani Street 145 Wainaku Street 961-2350 none Unmanned Mini Police Station Hile, Hawaii 96720 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 i uires ' Hilo Industrial Area 349 Ka iolani Street 135 Holomua Street 961-2350 none Unmanned Mini Police Station Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (n uires Pe ekeo Fire De t. 349 Ka iolani Street 28-2923 Kumula Street 961-2350 none Unmanned Mini Police Station Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Pe keo, Hawaii in uires North Hilo " P.O.BOx 62 Pu'ualalea Homestead Rd. 962-2120 962-2122 normal business Lau ahoehoe Police Sta. Lau ahoehoe, H196764 Lau ahoehoe, Hawaii hours Honokaa 'Honokaa Police Station P.O. Box 67 Honokaa, HI 96727 45-3400 Mamane SVeet Honokaa, HI 96727 775-7533 775-7530 normal business hours Honokaa Mini Police Station P.O. Box 67 Honokaa, HI 96727 45-3577 Mamane Street Honokaa, HI 96727 775-7533 in uires none Unmanned South Kohala 'Waimea Police Station P.O. Box 939 Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 68-5185 Kemamalu Street Waimea, Hawaii 96743 8873080 887-3086 normal business hours Waikoloa Mini Police Station P.O. Box 939 Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 68-1792 Melia Street Waikoloa Hawaii 887-3080 in uires none Unmanned Maunalani Police Sub-Station P.O. Box 939 Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 68-4550 Queen K. H Kalahui ua'a Maunalani 887-3080 in uires none Unmanned North Kohala ' P.O. Box 37 54-3900 Akoni Pule 889-6540 889-6544 normal business Kohala Police Station Ka a'au, Hawaii 96755 Ka a'au, Hawaii 96755 hours Kailua-Kona " 74-5221 Queen K. H 745221 Oueen K. H 326.4646 327-3583 normal business Kona Police Station Kailua-Kona, HI 98740 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 hours Ca fain Cook 745221 Queen K. H 82.6130 Mamalahoa H 326-4646 none Unmanned Pofice Sub-Station Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ca fain Cook, HI in uires Kailua Villa a 745221 Queen K. H Likana Lane 326-0646 none Unmanned Mini Police Station Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Kailua Villa e, Kailua-Kona in uires Keauhou Sho in Center 745221 Queen K. H Keauhou Sho in Center 326.4646 none Unmanned Mini Police Station Kailua-Kona HI 96740 Kailua-Kona, HI. in uires Ka'u * ' P.O. Box 262 95-5353 Mamalahoa H 939-2520 939-2517 normal business Ka u Police Station Na'alahu HI. 96772 Na'alehu, Hawaii 96772 hours Hawaiian Ocean View Mini Police Station P.O. Box 262 Na'alehu, HI: 96772 Ranchos Subdivision Pohue Sho n Plaza 939-2520 in uires none Unmanned Puna 1 ' 6-200 Pilimau SVeet 1 6-200 Pilimau Street 9 66-5835 9 66-5838 n ormal business Puna Police Station Keaau, Hawaii 96749 Keaau Hawaii 96749 h ours Pahoa 1 6-200 Pilimau Street 1 5-2879 Pahoa Villa a Rd. 9 66-5835 n one Unmanned Police Sub-Station Keaau Hawaii 96749 P ahoa HI in uires Planning Dept. 6chibit C~ Table 3. Current vs. District S. Hilo N. Hilo Hamakua N. Kohala S. Kohala N. Kona S. Koria wired Park Ac. by District pulation* Current Park Ac.** 42,591 66.52 47,477 278.11 1,720 38.69 6,561 23 89 7,917 ~c oc Ac. 237. .59 7 55.06 24:46 29.11 170 57 rupwanon is oasetl on ZO10 projection ** Equals the sum of total State and County park acreage (developed park space only) District that needs more park space. For All Tables Note: The Park acreage listed does not include Federal Parks Note: Regional parks and facilities are not includedsince they serve several districts (e.g.Hoolulu Park, PanaewaEquestrian Center, Panaewa Zoo, Dragstrip, Municipal golf course) Planning 4~ept. Exhibit H"" Population or Facility Based Parks r•acint Name Kurtistown Park District Total Area Developed Area Facilities Classification Pahoa Ballfield Puna Puna 6.84 3.50 Park Communi Mt. View Park Puna 2.52 2.52 Pahoa Sch. Ballfield Communi Glenwood Park Puna 3.80 1 11 3.80 Park Communit Hawn. Beaches Sub. Puna ' 11 00 1.11 Park Communi Shi man Park Kea'au Puna . 10 90 8.00 Park Communi Shi man Park Soccer Puna . 6 04 10.90 Multi-use District Pahoa Nei hborhood Facilit Puna . 15 63 6.04 Soccer Fields District Volcano Park Center Puna . 10 00 9.15 Center/Pla roun d Facili Kea'au Comm. Center Puna . 4.00 Comm. Center Facili AJ Watt G m Puna 1.11 Y 19 1.11 Center Facili Pahoa Aquatic Center Puna . 6 48 2.19 G m Facilit Subtotal . 77 64 6.48 Pool Facili tY Hilo Ba ant Soccer Makai S. Hilo , 15 43 58.80 ~ ~ Hilo Ba ont Soccer Mauka S. Hilo . 18 18 15.43 Soccer Fields Communi Hakalua Park S. Hilo . 6 10 18.19 Soccer Fields Communi Honomu G m/Park S. Hilo . 9 96 6.10 Park Communi Kulaimano Park S. Hilo ' 28 91 9.96 G m/Park Communi Clem Akina Park S. Hilo . 4 80 6.00 Park Communi Kaiwiki Park S. Hilo . 5 00 4.80 Rec. Center Communi Panaewa Park S. Hilo . 6 64 5.00 Park Communi Waiakea-Uka G/P S. Hilo . 770 6.64 Multi-use Communi Malama Park S. Hilo 10 58 7.70 G MPark Communi Hualanai/Kawananakoa S. Hilo . 4 81 7.00 MultFuse Communi Waiakeawena PI . S. Hilo . 3 80 4.81 Park/G m - Communi Gilbert Carvalho Park - S. Hilo . 15 79 3.80 Pla round Communi Mooheau Park- S. Hilo . 3 84 8.00 Multi-use Disbicl Hilo Armo S. Hilo . 1:02 3.84 Pavillion Facili E. Hawaii Cultural S. Hilo 0 57 1.02 G MO(fices ~ Facili Lincoln Tennis Crt. S. Hilo . 1 22 0.57 Cultural Center Facili Pomaikai Senior Center S. Hilo . 0 96 1.22 Tennis Courts Facili Hilo Senior Center S. Hilo . 3 80 0.96 Senior Center Facilit Waiakea Rec. Center S. Hilo . 1 76 3.80 Kamana Center Facili NAS Swimmin Pool S. Hilo . . 0 50 1.76 Recreation Center -Facili Skeet Ran a S. Hilo . 5 00 0.50 Pool Facili Lincoln Park S Hilo . 5.00 out-door ran a Facili Ainako Park . S. Hilo 1.33 3 00 1.3 Park Nei hborhood Keikiland Pla round S. Hilo . 1 93 3.00 Park Univ. Hts. Park S. Hilo . 4 30 1.93 Pla round Nei hborhood Mohouli Park S. Hilo . 4 00 4.30 ParWPavillion Nei hborhood Lokahi Park S. Hilo . 7 68 4.00 Park Nei hborhood Ainaola Park S. Hilo . 5 gq 7 68 Park Nei hborhood Ahualani Park S. Hilo 3 50 5.94 Multi-use Nei hborhood Wainaku Pla round S. Hilo . 4 83 3.50 Park Nei hborhood Pe eekeo Pla round - S. Hilo . 4 90 4.83 Pla round Nei hborhood Frank M. Santos Park Papikou Park) S. Hilo . 11 03 4.90 Pla round Nei hborhood Subtotal . 208.82 11.03 174 54 Lau ahoehoe Pt. G m N. Hilo 0 50 . Lau ahoehoe Pool N. Hilo . 2 70 0.50 G m Facilit Lau ahoehoe PI d. N. Hilo . 0 46 2'70 Pool Facili Ookala Park N. Hilo . 23 27 0.46 Pla round Facili Pa aaloa G m/Pla d. N. Hilo . q gg 5.00 Park Facili Waikamalo Park N. Hilo _ 3 40 4.96 G MPIa round Facili Subtotal . 1.00 Park/Pavillion Neighborhood Haina Park Hamakua 35.29 3 55 14 62 Kukuihaele Park Hamakua . 4 03 3.55 Ballfield Communi Honoka'a Park Hamakua . 25 g6 4.03 Park Communi Honoka'a Swim. Pool Hamakua . ~ 0 50 25.86 Multi-use District Honoka'a Tennis Ct. Hamakua . 1 31 0.50 Pool Facilit Honoka'a Rodeo Ar. Hamakua . 8 00 1.31 Tennis Courts Facili Wai io Lookout Hamakua . 0 95 8.00 Rodeo Arena Facilit Paauilo G m/Park Hamakua . 3 57 0.95 Scenic Lookout Facilit Subtotal . 3.57 G mlPark/Center Facility 47.77 47.77 Planning Dept. Exhibit Z ••~••-• ~•~y,~~~a~ Na~~~ aiw iaauaes are not inGUtletl since they serve several districts (e.g.Hoolulu Park, PanaewaEquestrian Center; Panaewa Zoo, Dragstrip, Municipal golf course) Resource Based Parks (County & State) Name District Total Area Developed Area Resource Jurisdiction Ahalani Pond) Puna 5.93 5.93 Beach County Issac Hale Beach Park Puna ~ 1.79 1.79 Beach Coun MacKenzie State Park Puna 13.10 Beach Lava Tree State Park Puna 17 10 State . Natural (Forest) State Subtota l 37.82 7.72 Hilo Ba root Park S. Hilo 12.00 12 00 Beach C Hilo Ba root Canoe S Hilo . oun . 11.17 11.17 Beach Count Liliuokalani Gardens ' S. Hilo ~ 19.54 19.54 Beach Count Reed s ea Reed's Ba S. Hilo 4.08 4.08 Beach Count James Kealoha Beach S. Hilo S. Hilo 2.31 3 45 2.31 Beach Coun Carlsmith 4 Miles S. Hilo . 6 85 3.45 Beach Coun Richardsons S. Hilo . 4 57 1.90 Beach Count Lehia Beach Park S. Hilo . 14 04 4.57 Beach Count Bakers Beach S. Hilo . 3 12 Beach Coun Leleiwi Beach Park S. Hilo . 30 87 ~ Beach Count Kolekole Beach Park S. Hilo . 5 49 12.00 Beach Coun Honolii Beach Park S. Hilo . 2 77 4.00 Beach Coun Coconut I l d . 2.77 Beach Count s an S. Hilo 3 10 Kanakea Ice) Pond S. Hilo . 2 40 3.10 Beach Coun Onekahakaha Beach S. Hilo . 34 70 Beach Coun Kalakaua Park S. Hilo . 1 18 21.00 Beach Coun Kaumana Caves S. Hilo . 4 87 1.18 Historic Count Akaka Falls Park S. Hilo . 6 40 0.50 HistoriGNatural Coun Wailuku River S. Hilo . 16 30 Scenic State Wailoa River . S Hilo . Scenic State . 131.90 S i Subtotal 321.11 103.57 cen c State Laupahoehce Pt. Park N. Hilo 24.07 17.94 Beach County Subtotal 24.07 77 94 Mauna Kea State Park Hamakua 20 50 Kalopa Park Hamakua . 100 00 Natural Mountain State Subtotal . 120.50 Natural (Forest) State Keokea Beach Park N. Kohala 7.11 3.00 Beach Coun K as Beach park N. Kohala 26.34 2.00 B each Coun Mahukona Beach Park N. Kohala 2.74 2.00 B each Coun Mahukona Wharf La akahi St t P k N. Kohala 0.36 0.36 B each Count p a e ar N. Kohala 262.00 B each Subtotal 298.55 7.36 State S encer Beach Park S . Kohala 13.36 9.50 B each Coun Waimea EO #995) S . Kohala 2.80 2.80 H istoric State Hapuna Beach Park S . Kohala 61.80 B each Subtotal 77.96 12.30 State exauded (Federal Parksl Name Pu'ukohlola Heiau Dlstrlct Total Area Developed Area Resource JurisdiMion Kaloko Park S. Kohala N Kona 85.30 Historic Federal Pu'uhonua O Honaunau . S. Kona 1,160.00 182 00 Historic Federal HI Volcanoes Natl. Ka'u . 230 000 00 182.00 Historic Federal Total ~ , . Natural (Volcano) Federal 231,427.30 182.00 Note: The Park acreage listed does not include Federal Parks PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 3, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 INTIATED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL REGARDING CONCURRENCY CONDITIONS was called to order at 2:19 p.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe Takashi Domingo Frederic Housel Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rell Woodward ABSENT & EXCUSED: Lani Bowman C. Kimo Alameda Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And no one from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-46 (Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended) relating to concurrency conditions for parks and recreational facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and police and firefighting facilities. WATANABE: Agenda Item No. 11 is initiated by the County Council. This is an Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 4. This is the first reading. YUEN: Right. WATANABE: So there will be no.decision made. We're just going to have staff explain this proposed amendment to us; and we'll hear it again at the next Kona meeting. So with that, Mr. Darrow, are you going to do the explaining on this or is -? DARROW: The Director will be. WATANABE: ,Director, Chris? YUEN: I will. WATANABE: Okay. WOODWARD: Where did everybody go? Nobody cares? WEN: Nobody is interested in this bill which would end all necessity for the Planning Commission to meet about rezonings for many years to come? So, it's very interesting. But this is an overall amendment to the Zoning Code that has been proposed by the County Council. Very often, you know, the Planning Commission deals with individual rezonings; and also amendments to the Zoning Code itself comes to the Planning Commission for consideration before the County Council takes final action on it. Examples of overall amendments that you've looked at would be things, the parking requirements are contained in the Zoning Code. There was aCouncil-initiated bill to look at the parking requirements that the Planning Commission considered. Eventually it failed when it went back up to the County Council. Well, this is a bill that was initiated by the County Council. It was passed in Committee to have a resolution to have this bill be considered by the Planning Director and by the Planning Commission. So the draft bill is now contained in Exhibit A, and also the Planning Director's background and recommendation. What it says is that rezoning shall not be granted in any district unless there are adequate public facilities as detennined by the various departments; and it covers the areas of parks, police, fire, and wastewater. It starts off, if you read the bill carefully, it starts off saying that the adequacy shall be assessed; but then it goes on to say that the standards by which it shall be assessed shall be based on certain standards that are contained in the bill. And so adequate park facilities are defined as a minimum of 5 acres of public park facilities with developed recreational facilities per thousand residents in a district. So to do a professional job of seeing what this means we did an analysis in the Planning Department of how many developed park facilities we have. The bill doesn't further define what should be considered as developed. But generally we look at, certainly, if you had a ballfield, a gymnasium, a swimming pool, some other kind of developed facility, that counted as developed. Even beach parks with facilities like Onekahakaha we counted as developed. We didn't actually do this, we mostly worked from an analysis that had been done in 2000 in support of the General Plan. So large open area parks like Kekahakai State Park, Kalopa State Park, do not generally count as developed. So much of the park acreage got counted out of the bill. So what we concluded in doing that analysis is that the parks were short in all districts of the island, except North Hilo which has a very small population and has Laupahoehoe Park,. and South Hilo which does have quite a large amount of developed park facilities compared to other districts on the island. Then for police it said one manned police station per 12,500 residents and three police offers per thousand residents. What we did, and we had to first assume that Council meant authorized positions rather than the actual number of hired bodies. There are often vacancies and so you don't have that many hired bodies. But it's also, you know, it can change on a day-to-day basis. So we also did an analysis of the sworn numbers of police personnel; and, again, the County would be short of three per thousand in all districts of the island, except North Hilo and South Hilo. South Hilo is a little misleading because, and also North Kona is a little misleading, because many functions are handled out of South Hilo District and out of North Kona District and they serve the other districts. For example, a Puna vice case is done by vice officers assigned to the South Hilo District. So in the way this was counted, it meant that there are more officers in South, it looks like there are more officers in South Hilo or in North Kona. So, again, the County was short. And there's also the statement df one manned police station per 12,500 residents, it's actually one manned station per district. So every district that has more than 12,500 residents is short. That would include South Hilo. And then, finally, a minimum of five firefighters per shift and 15 firefighters per fire station per district; and, again, the same analysis. Most of the fire stations had 15 personnel per district, except Laupahoehoe station. So that means when you add all these things up it means that all districts don't match the standard. And so you would end up bamng rezoning in all districts of the island. The recommendation is negative. [fit's meant to get the County to have more police and firefighters we can't see how stopping rezoning leads to that result. If the County sets a goal of having a certain number of police officers per district it should fund having that number of police officers and go out and hire them, same thing with firefighters, and having certain number of police stations. That's really up to the County to go and do. So the result of this is negative. In looking at the park situation, we could improve how we handle parks in rezonings and in subdivisions. We tend to, for the major projects we have had typically park requirements put into the rezoning. I can't say that there has been any standard method for doing that; and we probably should have a more standardized expectation of what our park requirements should be in a particular residential rezoning. But the idea that rezonings should be stopped in an area because there aren't enough parks again does not in itself lead to more parks. In fact, many of the rezonings which have been granted, particularly in the past 15 yeazs, do require, typically the larger residential rezonings, do require park space to be dedicated. And the areas that are short on parks tend to be that way because like in Puna or in Ocean View they're being developed on subdivisions that were granted in the fifties or sixties, or in North Kona they're being granted on zoning that was, they're being developed on zoning that was granted in the sixties or seventies, typically without park requirements. Waikoloa Village is the same situation. So in the end we are recommending negatively on this amendment. This is the first time you've looked at it and we'll have it heard in Kona again before asking the Commission to take a vote on it. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Yuen? Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOOD WARD: I don't have any questions. But are we going to have discussion on this or -? WATANABE: Oh, yeah, we could discuss this also -. WOODWARD: Okay. WATANABE: Although we're not going to take any action. WOODARD: Yeah, well, I look at this and I think this bill is an atrocity. It is government micromanagement at its absolute worst. What they've done here is they've tried to cast a blanket of uniformed regulations that covers all the districts of the island, and all the districts are different. Why do we bother to do community development plans if County Council is going to tell us how many parks we have to have, and how many policemen, and so on and so forth? I think this is an absolutely atrocious document. And I'm sorry that nobody else showed up to say anything, but they didn't. That's my take on it. WATANABE: Ivlr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you very much. I'm not going to be as critical as the Doc. But to me it's atop-out, a complete cop-out by the County Council. I mean a few months ago they said no rezonings in South Kohala and North and South Kona until they finish with the community development plan. That has been completed. And now they come up with another measure like this. It seems like, you know, theyjust don't want anything happening on this island. And I for one think that if anything should be considered let's bring it up on a piece-by-piece basis and consider its merits, you know, based on its benefit to the County and what it can provide for us. That's why we have people, responsible people, in office and the staff to make these kinds of recommendations and decisions for the people of this island. But just to say completely no, then it's just atop-out for them. HOUSEL: Question. WATANABE: Yes. Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Director Yuen, I understand your perception and I agree with you that, you know, maybe one size doesn't fit all and that, you know, there are short- comings. But do you have any alternative recommendations that, rather than just, you know, unfavorably recommending this? YUEN: Aside from working, I do think that we should work on park requirements - - And there is a Park Dedication Ordinance in Chapter 8 of the Code. That actually is broader than zoning and it applies to new subdivisions and new buildings -- and that would be my main recommendation. All in all though I'm not in favor of the approach of saying no zoning until you have "x" number of whatever as a growth control mechanism. I did write a couple paragraphs on the growth control issues. My approach is we did go through the community development plan process and there is a message in the four community development plans that we passed. There is a pretty clear message on what kind of development is wanted and not wanted. In North Kona actually to implement the community development plans in terms of where people are supposed to go, that will take rezoning. Mostly areas where the plan tries to direct growth are currently zoned Agricultural. In Puna the growth of the area, zoning is almost irrelevant to the growth of the area. Almost everybody is moving into subdivisions that were established a long time ago. Zoning, what the plan calls for that would involve zoning would be Commercial zoning in Village Centers, which would be a tool to really provide commercial and other services to accommodate the population, rather than something that is going to increase significantly the total amount of growth in Puna. It's just to try to get sites closer to people that you can actually have businesses and offices and the like. So that's much more my approach, is to work from a planning model rather than from a model of do you have "x" level of facilities and if you don't then stop zoning. Example, you know, let's take Hawaiian Ocean View Estates. Nobody has ever actually applied for rezoning. You know, you have a little bit of Commercial rezoning at the bottom of Ocean View Estates. So nobody has applied for rezoning in Ocean View, but there are 9,000 lots that people can move to. So you create, you stop, it doesn't mean anything to stop rezoning in Ocean View but it also doesn't get them a, you know, police station or a park. So I'm afraid that I don't really have, aside from recommending that we do look at Chapter 8, much to say that would tweak this approach to something else. HOUSEL: Right. Well, I agree with Commissioner Woodward that, you know, this island is so diverse and each community is different and enforcing a standard on everyone is not probably appropriate. But there obviously are, 1 mean just looking at the data here, you mentioned the police, there are areas which are deficient in support. And so I'm looking at what would be another approach to try to improve those deficiencies, without using the rezoning as a club. YUEN: Well, on police and fire those are County facilities, and so it's a financial commitment on the part of the County to go and build the facilities. Typically it's, those are also easier facilities typically from a land use or EIS point of view than roads. And sometimes, you know, like for an example, trying to build a road in an area, you get stuck because of archaeology, other kinds of problems. So typically if you, if the County is committed to put another police station in Puna, it's mostly a money issue. You know, you can find the site and do the studies to build it. But you have to pony up the money to build it; and then if the idea is you need "x' staff, then you have to come up with the money to hire the people to staff it. So that's really a separate issue than the zoning issue. It's a financial issue. HOUSEL: Right, right. Thank you. YUEN: And, you know, there are places that will have this kind of an approach. I mean this is not a completely wild idea that somebody came up with here. But where you see it more typically is you have a lot of communities that are basically built out with their current zoning in, like take a mainland community. All right? And so they may have enough police officers and they may have enough firefighters for the community that they have zoned. And then they may pass a bill that says, well, if we're going to zone to allow the community to expand then we have to concurrently have enough police officers and the firefighters and the like. And I could see it making sense in that context. Unfortunately here we do have a lot of growth built into the existing zoning. So by putting a halt to zoning we're not putting a halt to growth and expansion. So it's not that effective as a tool to making sure that our public facilities keep up with the level of development. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I would echo what Commissioner Housel just said. And that is the solution to infrastructure is not to penalize people, it's for the government to get off their okoles and donate, and, you know, pony up the resources to get in more firemen, more policemen. That's a disconnect. What has rezoning got to do with the inadequacies that we have right now? You know, the County government has got to get going and improve the infrastructure. And, like I say, to me it's a big disconnect. WATANABE: Mc Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you. Again, what we're doing is we're holding them hostage, the potential subdividers/developers. We're holding them hostage because we don't have the facilities. There are numerous ways or financing schemes that can be used and should be looked at. In fact, the impact fees have been instituted to address the lack of facilities in a district; and that's why there are fees being attached to the ordinance bills today. So, you know, how far do we go in penalizing people who are not at alt at fault because of the problems [hat we already have? Thank you. WATANABE: Mr.Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we all recognize that concurrency is an issue on this island and that something needs to be done about it; and, you know, this is an effort or what's being suggested arises out of that concurrency concern. I wanted to add my thinking after going to the HCPO Conference and listening to the concerns about peak oil and the benefits of localizing the economy, that in terms of where this goes and how to evaluate this or the concerns about concurrency that this raises, it's really an infrastructure problem where you're talking about parks or you're talking about social service infrastructure, police and firefighters and so forth. The thought I would like everyone to consider is that if we localize and keep the urbanization to amore localized area to the ones we already have --basically, as the Director pointed out, you know, that we have a lot of development/dwellings that can be built, you know, just based on what's already approved -- and if we focus on, and my idea, you know, beefing up the CDP process and in the implementation of them and have the communities be engaged in focusing the delivery of the infrastructure in these concentrated areas, then that is the direction in which, if we look at any future proposals for development, to look at it, in that framework to minimize the sprawl, if you will, keep the future development localized to the benefit of minimizing the cost. Cause the infrastructure is going to have to be provided. So to minimize the infrastructure, both social and the parks and schools and all those things, and what would be required, that would be a bigger framework to look at, you know, in addressing these infrastructure concerns and concurrency concerns. Because if we keep going down, you know, the rezoning, whether it's commercial or residential and that, and we continue to allow, you know, let's say doing Ag, changing Ag zonings to residential developments and it's on an essentially a sprawl model so you're going to end up with Hawaii Kais and Kapoleis and all those kinds of areas; and we definitely are going to be aggravating the already existing infrastructure lag that we have. So, I mean, the concern is there. I agree that this probably is not the best way for us to address these issues. But I think it's something that we all or, you know, I will continue to focus on in terms of any future applications for change of zone, in particulaz, that, you know, we get to review. But definitely I think we really, you know, I would focus on these other issues and keeping things localized so that we can -. In the end, you know, we talk about Ag and promoting agriculture. If we keep the urbanization localized then that's how we protect our Ag lands. Thank you. WATANABE: Any further discussion? OGATA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. 6 OGATA: I'm just having a hazd time understanding or maybe -. Is there some background or history on why they decided to do this this way? I mean what was their motivation behind -? YUEN: Not really beyond what was put in the resolution, no. So we provided that to you. My understanding is, I think I've tried to mention just a couple of minutes ago that there are places that have ordinances that are something like this. But you have to look at what their situation is and -. I would say what you usually probably have is kind of a threshold where it ties to a later project. But if you actually were in a situation where your future zoning would control your growth then you would, say, not necessarily bar the rezoning but you would tie in the development of the area to the development of the facilities. But you can't really, at this point on this island, many parts of the island, you really can't make that work because of the growth that's built in to what has already been approved. WATANABE: Okay, it seems like we're out of discussion. So for the record there is no one signed up to testify for this. The discussion ended at 2:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 17. 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 INTIATED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL REGARDING CONCURRENCY CONDITIONS was called to order at 9:57 a.m. in the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Hau Room, 62-100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala Coast, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Frederic Housel Andrew Iwashita (from 10:17 a.m.) Shelly Ogata Rell Woodwazd Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And no one from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-46 (Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended) relating to concur-ency conditions for parks and recreational facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and police and firefighting facilities. WATANABE: Our second item of the day, this is a County Council initiated amendment to Chapter 25. And I believe Mr. Yuen is going to expand on that. By the way, this is our second reading, so we would take action on this. YUEN: Yes. This is the same item that we discussed two weeks ago in our Hilo meeting. This is a Council initiated amendment to the Zoning Code, Chapter 25, and so it has to be reviewed by both the Planning Department and the Planning Commission, and a recommendation sent to the County Council about this bill. I did discuss it at the last Commission meeting. I'll be happy to take questions on it; I didn't want to spend a lot of time discussing it further today unless the Commission did have questions. If there were members of the public here, I would spend a little more time on it. But in a nutshell it says that rezoning shall not be granted in a district unless certain criteria are met on a level of public facilities. And there're specific criteria for the number of police officers; the number of police stations per district, the number of firefighters per fire station, the acreage of park space and the availability of wastewater treatment facilities. We are making a negative recommendation on this. Our take on it is that it creates - in most districts of the island because of the level of facilities, in actually all districts of the island at least one of the criteria aze not currently met - so in effect it would create a zoning moratorium in all districts of the island. At the same time we don't see how it directly leads to having more firefighters, police officers, parks or wastewater treatment facilities. These are facilities which aze under the control of the County; if it feels that it needs more fire stations, it has the ability to budget and build more fire stations or hire more police officers. And finally, we have the community development plans, two of which have been passed and two of which aze in the works, which have land use pattems called for, growth control measures called for; but it would involve some rezoning in order to implement the land use patterns that are outlined in those development plans. For example, in the North Kona azea we have transit oriented development areas that are currently in Agricultural zone, and to have this preferred growth model those would have to be rezoned. So I would be happy to take any further questions on this. And we aze asking that the Commission take a vote on this and basically vote to send a negative recommendation. The part that the Department thinks that we can work on further is the standazds for parks; that we could amend the pazk dedication ordinance to have more specific parks requirements with new developments. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Do we have any questions of Mr. Yuen? Yes, Mr:. Woodward. WOODWARD: No, I don't have any questions, but if it were comments, I have comments. And actually this is the first time I've ever done this; I actually wrote down. things. Normally I just speak off the cuff. But I'm very strongly in favor of the Director's negative recommendation. As my fellow Commissioners know, I tend to call things the way I see them and at times I get a little bit brash. I'll try to keep my comments civil; by that I mean I just wouldn't use the expletives that I would normally use if I were discussing this with friends at my home. And you know, I've seen some absurd bills come before us, but this one is approaching ludicrous speed. There is absolutely nothing in this bill which is beneficial to the citizens of the County, the failing economy in our State or the County government itself. This bill is a dead skunk that the Council is trying to hang around our heads. And let me count the ways: The bill would establish arbitrary county-wide quotas for park space, fire and police service, and sewer service. Why do we need to bother to work on community development plans if County Council has already decided what infrastructure and services we all need? And this is a cookie- cutter approach; it's cone-size-fits-all approach. And it's absolutely inappropriate. Every district and the communities within that district are different and have different needs and priorities. To mandate arbitrary quotas takes local control away and gives it to the County. The community development plans are our best safeguard against this tyranny. If the County Council passes this piece of work, we don't need to bother with community development plans. Your voice has been taken away. , And as Director Yuen was saying, no district in the County currently conforms to all of these azbitrary guidelines in this bill. What that means is there can be no change in zoning until these ridiculous guidelines are met. The bill intends to affect a moratorium on zoning changes, using lack of infrastructure and services as an excuse. However, the bill does nothing to address the problems they cite. Specifically, the County Council has adopted arbitrary levels of infrastructure and services, with no way to achieve these goals. No funding provided. If the County Council really feels the levels of service in this bill are necessary, they need to get off their okoles and arrange for the funding. As an example, an elderly couple that comes to us -and we have this happen all the time - requesting a zoning change so they can build a home for their son and daughter-in-law are not going to be able to pay for the County's deficient infrastructure. And their request for rezoning would have to be denied. In fact, we couldn't even consider it. And Director Yuen has made a number of excellent points; I would like to quote a few of his remazks in his recommendation with which I heartily agree: ".... this rezoning ban would do nothing to increase the number of parks or police officers. It would penalize property owners by forbidding them from getting zoning changes when they cannot themselves remedy the situation with respect to parks, police, or fu•e stations. It would, in fact, ban rezoning on the grounds that insufficient developed pazk space existed in the district, even though the zoning request might include public park lands that would reduce the problem. Rezoning decisions should be made on their merits, guided by the General Plan and Community Development Plans. If a site is not a good one for the development proposed by the rezoning, it should be denied. The denial can be based on many different reasons, like traffic congestion, flooding, historic sites, inconsistency with the LUPAG map, the desire to avoid sprawl or protect open space, and any of the other factors that go into good land use planning .... But this can be addressed when rezoning is considered, rather than apply an inflexible district-wide rule." And the County Council must have been bored. I really have no idea why they came up with this atrocious plan. It is in fact government micro-manipulation at its worst. This bill has no redeeming social value, is not going to help our people or our communities, and I strongly encourage my fellow Commissioners to send a strongly negative recommendation with regard to this piece of work. And if you really want to know how I feel, just ask me. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo, something to add? DOMINGO: In addition to that, as I said at our last meeting, it was just acop-out by the Council to come up with this, and they can easily address their concerns in their proposed ordinance by the powers that they already have. And as the Planning Director said and then as Commissioner Woodward said, you know, it would only penalize those who've been living here, who've inherited properties from their ancestors for many years back and who still hang onto these properties, and now because of the hard economic times we aze facing, they feel they need to rezone and subdivide their properties for their children; this would make it even harder for them. And what this does really establish, it provides for those who can really afford it - probably those who come from outside of the State who buy property here. They can afford it; they can afford to buy the property, they can afford to rezone it, and for them it would be no problem. What this does is, it further defines the have-nots and between those who have. And that's very dangerous in our society in which we live, you know, to establish a demarcation line where you have those who cannot afford, those who are poor, and those who are wealthy and affluent who can.do anything they want. And that's scary. WATANABE: Thank you. HOUSEL: Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Housel? HOUSEL: I had a question to Director Yuen. I think you did an excellent job putting, compiling the data to show the parks that exist or police situations`in every district, and I think that's very helpful. Do you have any idea if the Council had this information prior to initiating ` this bill? YUEN: No. I know, I think they consulted with the Fire Department and the Police Department as to what they consider their ideal staffing level is. But beyond that I'm pretty sure that they didn't because, you know, we went and, naturally in response to having this, bill, we had to see, okay, what is the present situation? HOUSEL: Right. Basically, having been a part of the Kona Community Development Plan, I'm a firm believer in concurrency; however, I believe concurrency means providing infrastructure as you are building developments or immediately prior -not catching up. So I think this is somewhat misguided; even though it probably has a good intent to try to make a difference, try to improve things, I don't think it's appropriate. And so I don't believe the result is appropriate for what they are asking to do here. So I fully support your negative recommendation. And I would like to ask if you would include your data in the negative recommendation to the Council, so they do understand what the negative impact is on, if indeed they do choose to pass this. YUEN: Yes. We would normally repackage what we present to the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission is favorable, in addition to comments made by the Planning Commission we normally repackage the records, recommendation as part of what we send up to the Council. So that would all go up to them. HOUSEL: Do you believe it would be appropriate to make a recommendation in our response here that they really, to satisfy what their intent is here, either the Council or the next administration to build a plan to catch up for future concun•ency, but -? YUEN: Yes. And just talking generally about what the Commission can do in a situation like this, if the Commission has other things besides what's in the Director's recommendation that the Commission would like to send, that's quite a correct thing for the Commission to talk about, and then we would try to -you don't have to work out the exact language - we would try to work it into our letter to the Council that this is what the Commission thinks ought to happen. HOUSEL: Okay. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: I would like to strongly suggest that the Council pay attention to the community development plans. Why aze we bothering to do then, if they aze going to adopt a county-wide policy like this? They need to take advantage of the infrastructure requests that aze in each of the community development plans and not approve acookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach like this. So my suggestion would be the County Council just cool their jets and look at the community development plans and not put forth some ridiculous bill like this. WATANABE: ~ Thank you. Any further -? WOODWAIZD: And that's the way I fee]. WATANABE: Toned down, of course. Any further comments? Okay, well, I tend to agree. And I think the problem with catching up here is that we haven't been able to pass the impact fee, we have no set structure for funding any of this, and currently as zoning changes occur, we are, based on either the community development plan or the General Plan or input from the Public Works, etc., making requirements of the developers to put into place some of the infrastructure that is lacking at the developers' cost. I realize it's being passed onto the final consumer, but we are, in lieu of having, you know, an effective impact fee, we are using that process. And I think, again, this bill, while it addresses the lack of infrastructure, does not address how it will be attained or funded. So I agree wholeheartedly with the negative recommendation. And if there are no further comments, then I'll entertain -. Ms. Ogata? OGATA: I move that the Planning Commission send a negative recommendation to the Council on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code with anemphasis on -. WATANABE: Focusing on the community development plans -? OGATA: The community development plans. WATANABE: Yeah, okay. Do we have a second to that? DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Domingo. Any further discussion on this? Okay. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council with an emphasis on the CDPs. With that, I will take the roll call. Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodwazd? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. WATANABE: Okay, great. We have one final agenda item -very short day today - those would be the minutes -. YUEN: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes? YUEN: I just wanted to make a little comment on, actually it pertains to the last item, and just as a matter of background and perspective. I think the bill was motivated by a desire to make public facilities pazallel with growth in the various districts on the island. And people in all districts, I think, are dissatisfied that generally public infrastructure hasn't kept up, and I think, particulazly in the fast growing areas of the island like Puna and West Hawaii. The difficulty is that almost all the growth takes place on entitlements, either subdivisions or zoning, that were granted quite a long time ago. One of the biggest areas is all the preexisting lots of subdivisions that people can just move into, you know, Hawaiian Paradise Park and the like, and that accounts for at least 50 percent of home building on the island. So there is really no way to touch that; that's a reservoir of growth that exists. The second big area is the resorts, which were 6 mostly zoned in '60s and '70s like Mauna Lani, Waikoloa development. Waikoloa Village was zoned in 1969. The interesting thing is if you go back and look at those old zonings, they aze like three pages long after, you know, they go through the property description but then there are hardly any conditions, requirements and the like. So within, say, a particular, like a resort, they may have had requirements in the resort but they didn't have any off-site types of requirements, affordable housing, build a road, those kinds of things. Then from about the late '80s, mid to late '80s on, you'll see typically zoning does have a lot of requirements. A lot of those projects actually haven't been built or have been built out really slowly, and partially sometimes because they have a lot of requirements on them. And my take on this is that, first, there is going to be a period in the next few years of an economic downturn, and people will come in with rezonings and in many cases bad projects in bad areas, because the pendulum will have swung where people are more concerned about economic development, economic growth, you have tendency to approve some of these. There really isn't a necessity to approve anything to have construction and development because there really is a lot built into what's already been approved. So people have to be careful of this in the years that come, to not burden the County with bad projects that were approved because of an immediate economic climate. At the same time we have to recognize that even, you know, by putting a stop to zoning, you are not going to stop people from moving to the island and creating a continued need for improving public infrastructure. So there is no land use tag that solves that problem; that's a problem that has to be solved by the County and the State actually going out and building roads and schools and parks and the like. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodwazd. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, if I could comment on Director Yuen's comment. I would agree with basically everything he says. There need to be controls. But the problem is, this - to use Barack Obama's analogy - is using a hatchet when you need a scalpel. And you know, the parents who want to build a house for their son and daughter-in-law, and to do that they have to rezone their small piece of property, are not going to be able to do it because of this bill. So it is inherently unfair. And I have no idea on earth why the County - like I said, they must have been bored - I have no idea why the County Council put this bill before us. It's the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen come before us. WATANABE: Thank you all for your comments. I tend to agree with a lot of those. I think, though, you know, again, they had an opportunity to pass some sort of impact fee; it's not been passed. With regard to the Director's comments, as faz as the resort zoning that's already in existence, we have an opportunity to impact that because they still require an SMA, and so - most of the time anyway, they still require an SMA - so you know, that's where we can make some difference there. But anyway, I don't think it's within our power to resolve. Certainly, they're going to have to look for a means to finance all of this. Mr. Housel, it looks like you have some comments. HOUSEL: Yeah, a question to Director Yuen. Because you are a short timer, will you present this, our recommendation to the Council? YUEN: I'm not sure it would make a Council agenda while I'm still Director. What happens is, we are pretty quick, the Department; you take a vote, we make the recommendation letter, we prepare it for the Chair to sign, the Chair signs it and sends up to the Council, and they aze pretty quick on getting it to their agenda. But you know, it may make their second Planning -then it goes to the Planning Committee of the Council - it may make a second meeting in November, but I'm not sure it would. HOUSEL: I think that would be really important to the Council to understand, you know, exactly why the Commission gave it a negative recommendation, if at all possible. YUEN: I think, you know, the letter is supposed to explain it, so it shouldn't be a matter of my personally going there. I do go to, typically, go to the Council meetings or the Planning Committee, when they consider planning related bills. But I have no, I think that the recommendation that we send will both summarize very well the views of the Commission and of the Planning Department. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: Just a quick question. I assume that the County Council will have minutes from this hearing. Is that correct? YUEN: Yeah, those aze also included. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Your voice not for naught. Okay. I think we are all in agreement, and we probably,have beaten this horse to death. The discussion ended at 10:22 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretazy