Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0471.005 2008-2010 / William P. Kenoi Mayar County of Hawaj'j 891 Ululani Street . Hilo, Hawai'i 96720-3982 . (808) 961-8211 . Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 . Kailua-Kona, Hawai'j 96740 (808) 329-5226 . Fax (808) 326-5663 December 18, 2009 (j 0,...... ?if:? ,-<3::":::,:"': ""'~;" Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council County ofHawai'i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Members: William T. Takaba Managing Director Wally Lau Deputy Managing Director W (.,'1 Initiator: County Council Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended) Relating to Concurrent Standards for Parks and Recreational Facilities In Change of Zone Actions ~ = = ~ t::::l ,.." C":l '" co -0 :::::3 r\:) -.... ,- ". rTl C7 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawai'i County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Windward & Leeward Planning Commissions' letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced request. V., \.. William p, Kenoi Mayor Enclosures cc: Planning Department Camm. No. '-111. ~ Ref. To: ~C- - Ref. Date AN 11 2010 .. William P. Kenai Movor BJ Leithead Todd IJlrcc/or Margaret K. MaslIllaga IJepu/y ~~?E~ .~.JV~~) County of Hawai'i PLANNING DEPARTMENT i\upuni Center. 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 . Hilo, Hawaj'j 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 . Fax (808) 961-8742 2009 f;f-I" ?l '--'.,V L. r)r~ 3 ", t"'l J~ . ., ~') , If December 18,2009 MEMORANDUM FROM: Tl}e J-!.~norable William P. Kenoi, Mayor V\.::f\-'~ . ,l BJ Leithead Todd, Planning Director TO: SUBJECT: Initiator: County Council Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2,.Division 4, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended) Relating to Concurrent Standards for Parks and Recreational Facilities In Change of Zone Actions As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawai'i County Charter, submitted herewith for your transmittal to the County Council for their consideration and action are the Windward & Leeward Planning Commissions' letters and enclosures regarding the above-captioned matter. Enclosed for your signature is the cover letter to the County Council. After your review, please forward same to the County Council along with the Commissions' letters and enclosures. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Enclosures Ml120&120409 HaH'ai'i County IS an Equal Oppor/unity Provider and Employer 006098 I ,- County of Hawai'i PLANNING COMMISSION f\upunl Center. ]01 Pauahi Street. Suite 3 . I-lilo, Hawai'; %720 Phone (808) 961-8288 . Fax (808) 961-8742 December 18, 2009 .......) c:::=.l <= c:.;;::, The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council County ofHawai'i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 o I'"T'1 C? N co -0 ::::3 N Co.) C.J1 ::~ Il' o Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members: Initiator: County Council Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended) Relating to Concurrent Standards for Parks and Recreational Facilities In Change of Zone Actions The Windward Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on December 4,2009, considered the County Council's request for an amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and fire fighting facilities in change of zone actions. The Commission voted to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council, and concurs with the Planning Director's reasons for the unfavorable recommendation as follows: The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the Council on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code. Because the County does not currently meet the proposed standards, the bill would create a moratorium on rezoning in the County. 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 fire officers. The proposed bill would penalize property owners and the public by restricting zoning changes; the public cannot remedy the situation with respect to parks and fire stations. It would ban rezoning on the grounds of insufficient infrastructure in the district, even though the zoning request might include public park lands that would reduce the problem. Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 Rezoning decisions should be made on their merits, guided by the General Plan and Community Development Plans. If a site is a not appropriate for the development proposed by the rezoning, it should be denied. The denial can be based on many different reasons, including traffic congestion, flooding, historic sites, inconsistency with the LUP AG map, the desire to avoid sprawl or protect open space, and any of the other factors that constitute 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 in Hilo, the distance from fire stations would be a legitimate reason to deny rezoning, even though the South Hilo district might have enough firefighters. But this can be addressed when the,rezoning is considered, rather than apply an inflexible district-wide rule. The number of fire personnel authorized in any area is completely under the control of the County government. If the County wants a policy of a certain number of firefighters per station, it is entirely up to the County to appropriate the necessary funding. Thus, a private landowner seeking rezoning has no power to force the County to hire more firefighters, and it is not fair to penalize the landowner if the County has not hired enough to meet its own standards. This bill would be unfair to smaller landowners who may not have the financial means to provide the required infrastructure as a condition of rezoning approval. It would also 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 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 lack of developed parks is not caused by rezonings in the last decade or so. During this period, most large rezonings have required substantial park improvements, such as Parker 2020 or Palamanui. While there are many smaller rezonings, these cumulatively do not add as many units as the large rezonings, and for the last fifteen years, 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 primarily 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. A rezoning ban would do nothing to increase the number of park facilities, or limit the number of park users. Puna has perhaps the greatest shortage per capita of any district, but rezoning is almost irrelevant to the overall growth of Puna because almost all development occurs in approved subdivisions. The handling of park requirements could be standardized and reviewed. The best vehicle to accomplish that is the County's Park Dedication Ordinance, Chapter 8 of the The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 County Code. This ordinance was enacted in 1977, and because ofa 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 in that 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. 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 area 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 prevent the island's population increase. Growth on the island mostly occurs on land with zoning and subdivision approvals granted previously. 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 Paradise 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 area. The Community Development Plans (CDP's) 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 Pal ani Road to the Palamanui project, to create a more compact, less auto-dependent community. The proposed "transit-oriented developments" and "traditional neighborhoods" are mostly zoned for agriculture and will have to be The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 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. 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. In an October 20,2009 correspondence from The Department of Parks and Recreation, the department had numerous concerns related to the concurrency resolution, including, in summary: . the operating budget not being considered in the concurrency resolution; . the addition of park facilities leading to a staff shortage during a hiring freeze; . no addition to the parks inventory if the department determines that recreational requirements of the proposed project can be satisfied with existing facilities, ultimately impacting the reserve capacity should the applicant not follow through with development plans; . the subjective nature of the "five acres of public park" requirement since the exact number of residents in any given district cannot be accurately determined; · the department does not keep an inventory of private parks; therefore, an accurate number of parks cannot be determined; . many parks approved and accepted by the department for public use in satisfaction of developer's obligations are not active neighborhood and playground/ball field type parks, but are passive, open areas with minimal improvements; . the minimum standard for determining adequacy of parks should not be limited to "active neighborhood and playground/ball field" parks, as beach parks are also important recreational assets; . the rezoning application is not the appropriate time to determine the exact project configuration, including actual lot sizes, dwelling sizes/types and infrastructure requirements; specifics should be refined later in the permitting process; (note: rezoning to a certain zoned district would allow all uses as specified in the Zoning Code, not only those that are proposed by the applicant) . rezoning should not be the only trigger for the final recreational obligations of the applicant/developer; · the resolution would subject all rezonings to the proposed changes and is unfair to the 'small' landowners; · the developer's Fair Share obligation and the proposed amendment may not work in concert with each other; . . The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 . the imposition is an unfair burden to 'small' landowners to provide the necessary improvements prior to occupancy; it would be impractical to burden developers with added financial obligations before any cash flow is realized from the proposed project. . The Department of Parks and Recreation's comments clearly identify areas in the bill that need to be clarified. The Planning Director supports their comments and shares their concems, and thus recommends that the Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions send an unfavorable recommendation for an ordinance to amend Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-46 Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended) relating to concurrency conditions as proposed by County Council Resolution No. 219 09. We have also enclosed a copy of the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation Report, as well as a transcript of the hearing for your information. Sincerely, Rell Woodward, Chairman Windward Planning Commission /f3-i2l {J Lcollllci!in itiated -conclIrrencystandardsO 1 wwpc Enclosures cc: Planning Department-Kona Lincoln Ashida, Esq. ,. .0; County of Hawai'i PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center. 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 . Hila, Hawai'i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 . Fax (808) 961-8742 December 18, 2009 r--.> <:::::::> c:::. c.o c::::J ,...,.., C":) r'\) CO The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawai 'i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 o 20 Xl,) .~~ -0 .:::3 N:> -;-.,.. ~:.. ITi o CJ CJ1 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members: Initiator: County Council Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended) Relating to Concurrent Standards for Parks and Recreational Facilities In Change of Zone Actions The Leeward Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on November 20,2009, considered the County Council's request for an amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and firefighting facilities in change of zone actions. The Commission voted to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council, and concurs with the Planning Director's reasons for the unfavorable recommendation as follows: The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the Council on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code. Because the County does not currently meet the proposed standards, the bill would create a moratorium on rezoning in the County. 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 fire officers. The proposed bill would penalize property owners and the public by restricting zoning changes; the public cannot remedy the situation with respect to parks and fire stations. It would ban rezoning on the grounds of insufficient infrastructure in the district, even though the zoning request might include public park lands that would reduce the problem. Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 Rezoning decisions should be made on their merits, guided by the General Plan and Community Development Plans. If a site is a not appropriate for the development proposed by the rezoning, it should be denied. The denial can be based on many different reasons, including traffic congestion, flooding, historic sites, inconsistency with the LUP AG map, the desire to avoid sprawl or protect open space, and any of the other factors that constitute 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 in Hilo, the distance from fire stations would be a legitimate reason to deny rezoning, even though the South Hilo district might have enough firefighters. But this can be addressed when the rezoning is considered, rather than apply an inflexible district-wide rule. The number of fire personnel authorized in any area is completely under the control of the County government. If the County wants a policy of a certain number of firefighters per station, it is entirely up to the County to appropriate the necessary funding. Thus, a private landowner seeking rezoning has no power to force the County to hire more firefighters, and it is not fair to penalize the landowner if the County has not hired enough to meet its own standards. This bill would be unfair to smaller landowners who may not have the financial means to provide the required infrastructure as a condition of rezoning approval. It would also 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 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 lack of developed parks is not caused by rezonings in the last decade or so. During this period, most large rezonings have required substantial park improvements, such as Parker 2020 or Palamanui. While there are many smaller rezonings, these cumulatively do not add as many units as the large rezonings, and for the last fifteen years, 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 primarily 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. A rezoning ban would do nothing to increase the number of park facilities, or limit the number of park users. Puna has perhaps the greatest shortage per capita of any district, but rezoning is almost irrelevant to the overall growth of Puna because almost all development occurs in approved subdivisions. The handling of park requirements could be standardized and reviewed. The best vehicle to accomplish that is the County's Park Dedication Ordinance, Chapter 8 of the The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 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 in that 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. 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 area 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 prevent the island's population increase. Growth on the island mostly occurs on land with zoning and subdivision approvals granted previously. 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 Paradise 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 area. The Community Development Plans (CDP's) 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 Pal ani 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" are mostly zoned for agriculture and will have to be The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 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. 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. In an October 20, 2009 correspondence from The Department of Parks and Recreation, the department had numerous concerns related to the concurrency resolution, including, in summary: . the operating budget not being considered in the concurrency resolution; . the addition of park facilities leading to a staff shortage during a hiring freeze; . no addition to the parks inventory if the department determines that recreational requirements of the proposed project can be satisfied with existing facilities, ultimately impacting the reserve capacity should the applicant not follow through with development plans; . the subjective nature of the "five acres of public park" requirement since the exact number of residents in any given district cannot be accurately determined; . the department does not keep an inventory of private parks; therefore, an accurate number of parks cannot be determined; . many parks approved and accepted by the department for public use in satisfaction of developer's obligations are not active neighborhood and playgroundlball field type parks, but are passive, open areas with minimal improvements; . the minimum standard for determining adequacy of parks should not be limited to "active neighborhood and playgroundlball field" parks, as beach parks are also important recreational assets; . the rezoning application is not the appropriate time to determine the exact project configuration, including actual lot sizes, dwelling sizes/types and infrastructure requirements; specifics should be refined later in the permitting process; (note: rezoning to a certain zoned district would allow all uses as specified in the Zoning Code, not only those that are proposed by the applicant) . rezoning should not be the only trigger for the final recreational obligations of the applicant/developer; . the resolution would subject all rezonings to the proposed changes and is unfair to the 'small' landowners; . the developer's Fair Share obligation and the proposed amendment may not work in concert with each other; 1> The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 . the imposition is an unfair burden to 'small' landowners to provide the necessary improvements prior to occupancy; it would be impractical to burden developers with added financial obligations before any cash flow is realized from the proposed project. The Department of Parks and Recreation's comments clearly identify areas in the bill that need to be clarified. The Planning Director supports their comments and shares their concerns, and thus recommends that the Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions send an unfavorable recommendation for an ordinance to amend Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-46 Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition, as amended) relating to concurrency conditions as proposed by County Council Resolution No. 21909. We have also enclosed a copy of the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation Report, as well as a transcript of the hearing for your information. Sincerely, ;&tuv ~4~~ Rodney 4nabe, Chairman Leeward Planning Commission Lcollncilinitiated-conclln"encystandardsO llwpc Enclosures cc: Planning Department-Kona Lincoln Ashida, Esq. WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI'I HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 4, 2009 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 OF THE ZONING CODE RELATING TO CONCURRENCY STANDARDS was called to order at 12:15 p.m. in the County of Hawai'i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai'i, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. PRESENT: Rell Woodward Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Zendo Kern Wallace Ishibashi Brandon Gonzalez, Deputy Corporation Counsel BJ Leithead Todd, Planning Director Warren Lee, Director of Public Works Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And two people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) relating to concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and firefighting facilities in change of zone actions. WOODWARD: Okay, we have one other agenda item; and that's this retread. Agenda Item No.8 initiated by County Council, Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, relating to concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and firefighting facilities in change of zone actions. Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This item was continued from the last hearing and I believe it was sent back to Council because there was an incorrect roll call vote sheet attached to the resolution. So you should have the new resolution with the correct roll call sheet. And, as you know, this is a County Council initiated amendment to the Zoning Code to create new concurrency standards for parks and recreation facilities and fire fighting facilities. And the Director is recommending an unfavorable recommendation. I ~ I I ! WOODWARD: All right. Like I said this is the third time we've addressed this, once last year, once last month and now again. Does anybody have any questions? Okay, I'll make my usual comment that I made when we addressed this last month. And that is essentially this is going to be a moratorium on zoning county-wide because this concurrency standard is going to require that any little mom and pop rezoning is going to have to bring that area up to County imposed standards that it can't currently meet. And so it is essentially just a moratorium on zoning throughout the County. And it's poorly conceived; and I think that's basically what the Director said last time. Does anybody else have comments or -? Okay, Commissioner Kern. KERN: I agree with what you said and what the Director had to say from the last time, so I support that. WOODWARD: All right. Do we have a motion? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. I I I ! ' DOMINGO: I move for the Planning Director's recommendation, sending an unfavorable recommendation to the Council. WOODWARD: All right. KERN: You said unfavorable, right? DOMINGO: Unfavorable, yes. KERN: Second. WOODWARD: please. Okay. All right. Any discussion? Okay, Majia, can we have the vote, COTTLE: Thank you. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Kern? KERN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Iwashita? 2 j . I , , , . IW ASHIT A: Yes. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes, five to zero. WOODWARD: Right. There is nobody from the public signed up to testify, just for purposes to completeness. The discussion ended at 12:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I ('"j \(\ C=~j)~'~"CLur-....J Y'rt, y \))~y\ v~-.J Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 3 LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAW AI'I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 20, 2009 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) was called to order at 2:48 p.m. in the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, Ali'i III Room, 69-275 Waikoloa Drive, Waikoloa, Hawai'i, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe Brandi Beaudet Lani Bowman Geraldine Giffin Frederic Housel Wayne Iokepa Brandon Gonzalez, Deputy Corporation Counsel Margaret Masunaga, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And four people from the public in attendance INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) relating to concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and firefighting facilities in change of zone actions. WATANABE: Let's move on to Agenda Item No.3. The initiator is the County Council. Once again, this is an amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawai'i County Code 1983. Boy, you're real popular today, Maija. COTTLE: Yeah, working hard here. Okay, this is an amendment by the County Council, related to concurrency standards. And the Planning Commission reviewed a similar amendment, I think, about a year ago. And the current amendment is setting concurrency conditions for parks and recreation facilities, as well as firefighting facilities, on change of zone requests. The Planning Director is recommending that an unfavorable recommendation be sent to the County Council for this, because she feels that they would have an adverse affect on small landowners who want to rezone their property, that some of the concurrency standards would be very difficult for them to meet. And so she is recommending an unfavorable recommendation to County Council. Are there any questions? I WATANABE: Any questions, fellow Commissioners? Okay, I do have two people signed up from the public to testify. So may I call up Margaret Wille and Mike Price, please? Okay, both of you have already been sworn in, so that's not necessary anymore. Why don't we start with you, Margaret, and invite your testimony. WILLE: Okay. Margaret Wille, again, from Waimea. And I just want to urge you to support this proposed legislation. It isn't categorical so that it is a detriment to small subdivisions, I mean, this is, depends on what the impact the subdivisions would have on the surrounding area. And I just want to say we've as a community recently met with the Police and we've had various meetings. I recently worked on a community program for emergency preparedness, and met with the firefighters and others, and just they are sort of needing support. So I -. And that's one. And the other area is really in terms of parks and trying to help get the whole community including large developments or even commercial developments that go on, whether it's a Costco or a Target, and getting people to realize how important parks are. Weare, since the district park in Waimea has really been on the book since 1992 when Richard Smart wrote it into the 2020 Plan and emphasized its importance as caring for our youth and enabling people to have ways of recreating that are positive. And a lot of these things, what I find they do in terms of practical purposes is they pull the development part of the community together and say you have to work with us, too, that it's not just volunteers like Mike and I and others, like we have to all get behind these efforts and ensure that the, whether it's the park or that there is adequate fire provisions. I mean I'm just looking around -. This program I worked on was emergency preparedness and I got to know a lot of the issues about wild fires and -. WATANABE: Okay, Margaret -. WILLE: How inadequate we are. So I just encourage you that these are important and it's not a stop on all subdivisions, and it's really a way to get people to work together on things that are important for the community. WATANABE: Mike? Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions for Margaret? Seeing none, PRICE: Yeah, I'll be brief. I think you ought to support this County's recommendation, the Council's, because we have a deficit in this county of parks and fire facilities. And to decide to waive them because of economic conditions just makes the situation worse. I think there're other solutions. We have the same problem with traffic safety as far as new roads. There's some innovative thinking of having capital facility districts, having the County step forward and provide some bonding to get the program in place. There're a lot of avenues. But to come out with a blanket waiver sets us back ten years. And we need the parks; we have a large use population on the island, and we need to get people, you know, that are not as obese as I am, and I think it's important to have that as a quality-of-life issue. I live in Waikoloa Village, and that 25,000-acre fire I would have wished we had about three more fire stations within a mile. We don't have the structure and facilities right now, and you are talking about big safety items as far as fire stations. I think if the Director of Planning wants to find other solutions through these economic times, that's no reason to just say I want a waiver ofthis concurrency. Thank you. 2 W A TANABE: Thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you for your testimony. You may be seated. Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI: Yes, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out a technical flaw in this Resolution 219 09. If you look at the second page - and this was brought up at the Windward Planning Commission meeting - if you look at the voting portion of the Resolution, it notes that there are three councilmen that are no longer on the Council that have voted on this resolution, and that was in error; it identifies Mr. Higa, Mr. Jacobson and Mr. Pilago as being taken a vote on this resolution. I spoke with the County Clerk and he indicated to me that that was a mistake on their part, and that they were just going to send a letter indicating that they will submit a revised sheet, second page of the Resolution. Unfortunately, they are in the process of moving this week, so they weren't able to get the original -. WATANABE: Corrected. HAY ASH!: Yeah, correction. And they indicated to me that it will be forthcoming on Monday, this coming Monday. So as far as that we are on notice that it was an error on their part, on the Clerk's part, and that there will be, I mean, I won't say the Clerk, their office, and they'll submit a new second page to the Resolution, I didn't define the actual voting members of the Council. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. I don't suppose there are any questions in terms of clarification, yeah? Okay, you all may be seated. Anyone care to make a motion? Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: Can I ask a question, Norman, before we decide on this. Can we assume, even though we don't know who voted for what, that this did pass the Council? HAYASHI: Yes, it is passed by the current Council; it's just the names are -. HOUSEL: Right, right, right. Okay, so it did pass. WATANABE: Anyone care to make a motion? BOWMAN; I move that we recommend, I'm sorry, how do I say it -? WATANABE: It's favorable or unfavorable. BOWMAN: Unfavorable to the amendment to Chapter 25 to the County Council. WATANABE: Any second on this? GIFFIN: Second. W A TANABE: Okay, Ms. Giffin. So just for clarification, your motion is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. 3 BOWMAN: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. Any discussion? HOUSEL: I'd like to make a comment. You know, concurrency is something that we all acknowledge is far behind in this county everywhere. And in fact, each of the approved Community Development Plans addresses concurrency and the need for it and the importance of it. And I don't think that we should just kick it down. This came down the road without some kind of recommendation or suggestion. In fact, I think the language in this bill came - correct me, if I'm wrong - explicitly from the South Kohala Community Development Plan; the same language is in that Community Development Plan, which was passed as an ordinance last year. So as far as the South Kohala Community Development Plan, this is the law; they decided that this is what was appropriate for their neighborhood. The other thing that, I'm a little disappointed in reading this resolution; the language in it on the second page - and I hope this is correct even though the voting is not - there is a paragraph that's scratched out and then the paragraph directly below it, which is asking the Planning Director to "submit comments and recommendations on the proposed zoning code amendments as set forth in the proposed bill for an ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit 'A' and by reference made a part hereof, or" - and this is the key language - "or to prepare a similar bill for an ordinance to create concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and for firefighting facilities in change of zone actions." In reading the Planning Dire~tor's recommendations and some of the background, she did make some suggestions regarding how to address this very complex issue of concurrency; it's not a simple issue, but she did state that it could be handled, as far as park requirements, in the County's Park Dedication Ordinance. And those are very good, but I don't feel she went far enough. I think, as far as answering what the bill was requesting, a similar bill, I don't feel it's far enough. The comments from the Planner, the Park Planner, I feel, are totally unresponsive in that it seems like he only describes the problems but doesn't suggest a solution. And so as far as I'm concerned, his comments are unacceptable. This is a, you know, concurrency is very important, it's much needed, and I think we all need to work on a solution for it. So I don't believe that simply giving an unfavorable recommendation to this is a right answer. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Any further discussion? BOWMAN: I agree. But ifit needs to be worked on, then we don't want to give a favorable; it needs to be worked on is what you are saying. HOUSEL: Right. That's correct. BOWMAN: Okay. So it's kind of like the last one - to postpone it until there is more work to be done. But we can't do that; we either have to make a recommendation or, you know, either yey or nay. That's the problem. More work needs to be done, I agree. Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further discussion? Maija? 4 COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: No. COTTLE: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEP A: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes, five to one. The discussion ended at 3:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 5 r i J ;'Ii. /~ . ) 'J BRPDIConc.doc-1O/23/09 . . C()Q~t~'OFItA W AIl PLANNING D~PA:RTMENT B:A.GKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION. COT:JN:rY~€rt.T~em:tNJTLA TED . AMENJ)MENT,~TOCHAP~R25 (ZONING CODE) . J'''; .'-"......,.:; Und~1";1t~91lt,!!~~'~~..?1909, the C.8~nty Cou..ncilhfl~t"eq~~sted the Planning ,:'::"'..-'__ ,:~,,':".'"~~~.;"_;' \'",:':,-'-;:"':,:~ ;~",_'.~.'::'r?~~"-<:',:"'~:''''_<',,__.. ,~.'.,' ~.,: _ _ ' .. _ ",' .. .... ..", .. ,,' ,'.... .. ,"'.... _ .. .. _, . __< -:', , pi[e9t9r~!},tJ9,!E!flnhip~,QQrom.i~sion:s' . commynt$ al}cl recowni~rtpl:1tions t() initiate an brdil1~fl(~e,:t();::~irt~ii~'i'Q114~i~r:..~5 (Zonipg Code),:kticle 2, if:>iYi:SiQrt'4{~eCtion 25-2-46 . " .,:"-..::!:'.,',:::,..;,::'::'.....'..,:,: ',:;,-',,;:---;}-~:-:"::: ',-_: '- ',__ '-_'n .,'..---..;,.: .., "", .:.: ",':--'>-:_,-_",: _ , '_ .,',_,,' \H~",aii QQgntY;.~~~~;'l9~~~iE2.~005 "editiop,.as...arn~n~~d) reiated'~~9:,~Qficl!ifeI)cy, cOQcl.itions. Bj\(jKdk(-jIi~~~' ...... 'J~ '. ." .... . ..... ..... . .... '.' '.. ", . . . !. .~~~~~~~~~1~'~~~f:,.~heQ0U!1tyG9V~qi)1~*~{lir3tfff\d,sfi~n~~.'lo'~s~js . .th~.imp.a'cts,ofneW<d~yelppmei1ts. .at th~tim~'o,fr~~dning;,dii~'t9.th~lapid ."'Y?i,,'St.'..}.::...../.. ... .'.i". '" ..",..'.... .'" ...~:,;\."".L. . >' ........ .p(iBul~~ignJ~lQ~lj:;.iP}I;I~:'Yai'.i COuI1ty~.i,n itr~,~,S'!W,ith,inacle,gtia~~,:lrifr~~tfusmre,'.~nd", . >:-"~.~::<:: <: .~,;:/.,l,." ""::}':"~:,f':, \,\:";:"_;',::~;~ "':~>_:;,_ :':';"\';:":' _:::_,. '," " ,:, " , ,:_,,:' ',' '-',.:- ::," _' _'"._ _:.',:_ :".,' :'. _ _, ,_ . _'.:>>,":" '.:,,:,:,' >, '. "." :,:':" ,: .~\,>,',_,,', " ,',' . . p~QI~,9JS,~rvi~~~.\tp,\;i~gpmir16d(lte igfgWtn..;:p'ij4ef~eS()lutiqi!:N6 " '2;t~pm;tP.e,~ .d:6t~t)','.~QSnha~'fj~i;iiq~e~ted. th~PlaI1rli~k.~i&bto~ .tin#:t~e~te~~arQ"and' .' ;:" \:".~."'<.>;-)-\,,--"<'>,,:-'_ '.',i;~",,~'" {_ ' ' ',." :_~," _.,"> " "" _ ';.", Wi~qWat(Fpi~nIi,iJ1i'C8mmisSi0i1~' c9ij1me~ts ~nd recoIIlm~Ilda:tiQtls tb.'ipitiat~.aIl QtgI~~n~~ lQ~m~ti~;~~~PH~t 25" (Z6qi~g'.qdqe)y Article'~, DivisioIl4;"S,~cti911; ~~'" ;2~~tJ.'!~~~a~i~~~.~~t~?~~de 198~ (200'5'~diti9n,~s amenq~d)'~eiat6aJ6. ' " .' r'.,;;':;"c'\,::,;..;;','.>.' ...... ...;.............. ...... "">>",>...', . 'Qori'sui-i~n~y~Qh,~jJiQd~ifoi . parks ~dfecre,a#orial fa.cilitie~aI1g' .fj(~fjghting' "'_:,')'l>,,' .'."~'i'~':"-':~':~"">::_;:::\'.;';:""""'" ',' ", _",,' , , ,. ',- . 'f~fiJiti.~~ for ~nMg~Qf.~one requests. . The'C?rlhcil cit~s that thousandsofre~identiai u:nits.are:bei~g constructed inf\.1F~lsJJbgtyt~i()tlsl1PProved in th~ 1950's ancl60 's, mostly' in Puna or KCiu, wh~c~,ar~.cllrreI1iIy.n~tadequatelY seryed by public .park~. and' recreatioIlal' Jac,iliti~~:apcl,fire statiQps. Ifnew develgpme!lts will' generate gemftqds(or , expapsi~ri~f stiths~~icesor willgeIierate such d~Il1ands\1ponftill:bl.iild;;out in , thefutlJre, tlIeCol\ncilfeels that the r~zoning ~hould not take effest.unless iwproYytp,ynts tQ,lI1ffastmcture and public services occur before the occupancy of thepr()j~ct Ih'~~IIlfl}a.Fy, the proposed amendment would create concurrency stal1qatclsf6fpa.rks:~a,recreational facilities and firefighting facilities in change -1- I}"'; ) ,') of ;lone actio11s. (p,lanning Department Exhibit 1.,... "E:xhibitA" attached to . . ,','., ' Re~olution N Q. ~1:909) 2.J;Jaci<,grQund: ~n 2008, the County Council initiated a similar amendment to the Z~)tlin~ G~deCR,~soh.ltion No. 68608}relating to Coh~urrency conditlonsror parks 'andr~cr~ational racmties,wastewater tr~atment ,facilid~s, and police and . ._,... ...... ,- ',- ,", . , ,- ., .firefi&~tingf~cHN~s.' The Planni.ng I?irector at that 'time i~sued' an unfavora~le , , "':'- " ' " J ' . . recon1m~ndation,stflting that the County did . notme,~t, ~lje.propose~ standards and t;heqill~ouN,cr~~t~,~ moratorium. QV'J~zo11ing in theQ~tlPtyfor al.l,districts... ~n . .stlIllmary, th,e,pr,e~jQUSPlannin& Direttof'st,ated, "the .r~*bning ban wO~ld..do . nothing 't9infre~s~tlje~uniber of:p~t~~JirpQliceoffl~ers,. ,Jt:wo4Ic.i penaliie . .prQP~fty owp~~~~By ,torbidc.iihg. th~~,."ffoin'.g~ttiIlg,'~~rii~g'..cf1apges"wl1en.,they'" o. . ,.'.'" ' :', ':, ',:.; ,.:"_. i' '. . ,,'. ~'. .. ',I . * ~ . . .can11ofth.ei1is~lyes'ferneclY the, sit~atiqn: withtespectt()p~rks.;.ppliye, or fire; . , ~ta#911s.Y . .' . ' . AGENe:y,cIDM'MEN:ES '",;'::-h",_ '.,.:'-. ;'(,":' ,:, '':,''',,'>,:,:'-;'\{ )~>',~',;" _ ,'" ".. , . ,'i _' ',' .-,_ <-: '<' < :\_, ", '. _' ,_ '" "", ".,,' '_ :', " _'" _ .,,,'. _'""., "'_"' 3.. ",.:~~paftm~~tg:f~~~s~hd,Recreati?m;fr~~~,.']!}~h~b,it~~()~t~)>~r~o,,~Q99'~m:li~r, AGENCY"~N6".(;(;j~EN1JS . , ' . . . . t.'. f"',""Y-'--.-",. .'V' ""'i'- . 4. Fire]j)epaftmept -2- .. . ',' r') / RECOMMENDA TION ,-' ThePJanning,Directorrecommendsthat the Planning Commission send an linfavoraple recoll1Q1~hclat!onto the Coun9il on the proposedamen<lrnent to the Zoning ','"" ",': , ,:_,.,.;' ":~,'-- " - '- -', ,," -,',,, :.," \ .\ .', Code. :$~C~Hs~'theCou.ntyd~es not curren,dy meet the proposed standards, the bill would . '.. '. , . '. , . . cre~lteamotatoriUl11oP.Jy;z,;911ihg in the County. For Purt~, North'Kona,South Kona,and Sotitpkoh<i.la,tijep~noh'new zoning would last until theCowltyrnorethan doubled the " , '.' . "':, ",:',.,' J,. . " , '. , dev~lope-cl p~k~p~~~:'iilthedistrict. At the same time, thisrezoQing ball would do ,,' ".' _: ',i_' .',- ,'-,,_" .. ,:;' -,:,,_. "', - '. ,- . ,noih~ng tojncr~asltaentiri1berofpaflcs or: fife officers. ,The':proposed'oill would : ' . " ", Yo +"";"":'''' '-.._\_"';.-'<,,' - ~ - : .""" "'. - ,- '. _' _, ,:;, "'.: ' . . -', - . . penalizeprop~rtY'()Wrte~s. arid the publjcpyre~tricting zoning .ch~tig~~;th~:public ca~~6t , ,re,niedy tl1e~ilp.~ti8P~zitlr:r~~p~ct t9park,~:~hd,JiJestatjoIls. It w9)JI(l'ba~riezolling on tp~" gio~tids()finsu.tTi~f~QfriihgaitrvctWeiIl~4~~is~tict" even thQug~"t~6'~bllrng 'reql,l~st, might .' .' ,'," .'" ."., .... ,Co.. . illCltldepublicpafk:h{ha's:'t:~~t\vould, redtice)th~. problem. , 'Rezohi~.,g.#e,~i~iQiiS;.~hOtdd' pe' m~qe'9Il~~eir'lTIetits,gtilg~?bythe,Ge~~r~lil~p ; ," -- -",,' '.' . .... ".. ....' . , ... affd);~.()mm~lfltY;t?~yei()Pr.n~ptJ?laris,If~s!t~"Js.anot apPtopfiat~fc)lth.e'9e.Y~!9Pm~at) ::.', ", -, ",~" ,:' "':.: --,..'~" ",'~;;,:. ~ -'-:--,- ::' .'~:~,'::;:Y';' ;:~'.,' :_:~-,,:: >_, _ __ ' . .:_ ,>: ~~;;-_.'-."" : 'm "'r _". - ___:;, ":-", :' ::. _:',,;:'-: \,:~",:~:--,':"- -:':~~'-'..-:, _"~ ":: T,' ,.': :,(, ',,;',: ,.~"~,,,., ,'PiopO's~~iby::the.'r~i9Ili~g,'!t~~b9,uWJ:je d~hle,9;:tpe d~nial~~ri;p~ 'bit:~~(iqQIVmallydiJf~r~j;it Jj~~Gmap;.tl1e desi1"~'~6,~Y()id sprawlq~ PtQfeCt opensp~ce,~a.nd ,~ll}{ Ofth~' (;thet fa9tofs;~Mt:S9tistitu.t~,g(),Q,(tl~Ild Mse'plahn~~g:", The lack of PMb!ic facrlitl~s t(),,~yfy~', ct" ., , .' ",.. ,< " ',.'_ ".' .. . ", ' , .n" .\.." ," ",,'" .. ..' ,_, . . ,~.... ., .., \. d~veI6Bfu~nJ,~,~Y-'9~'~l~~iti'niate ~easoIl (?r.g~~ying a rezoning:. {f~r'examRIY;.'!ftll~~ge, '" . - ",,',-_:.~..'.</'::'t,,"""C_'>-':'_,'-_"',' ,<_",i.,_"".- _ . "'_ "_ ,':.' ,':-,'", ,_,'--,,_~. _,' residential' re?:0~jpgw~spr8p9sed.in Hil({iheg~stal1ce troin fi~e statloIlfwQuld !J~:ct \. .,' '.\"" . .... .. . . I legitimate reas()titod~Qy~r~zoning?even thbughthe South :a:ilO district mighth~ve ' . '-'," -'" " -'. .- - . -,' . '. . enough firefighters.,I3util,1~~canbe addr~ssed when the rezol)~ng is considered, rather tliati:apply an i~fl,~xilJledistrict-wide rule. , ,,l'he 1l,umlJ~r'9ffjf~personnel authori~ed~n any area is completely 11I1d~rthe ' c.ontrol6ft4e CuurttY~6V~fi1ment If the Gounty wants a policy q.f~J9~ri:~~nnMnlbef()f fit~fjghtets pef~!~ti911,.;it, jsei1tir~ly up tqtb'e' Qotinty to apprqpIiat~ih~hec~ssaty . . ' '. .",' ' '. ;: "". '-.- "'. . ., -', \ ful1eling. Thu~,apriy~teJandowner seeking rezoning has nQ,pQwer to forcethe'County to hire more fir~figp.g~ts,~nd'it is not fair, tQ penalize the l~na()wher ifthe C()ui1.ty'has not hired enough t8 rneefits()wnstartdards. This bi,ll would be. 4nfair to sma,Jler lalldown~fs , , who, may not Ilave thy'f.i,nancial means. to provide the required, infrastti.Ictureas a condition of rez()nitig~pproval. It would also violate the Stiiteimpact 'fee law for the ' -3- '~) '} 'tt County to require, as a condition of rezoning, that a landowner pay for the salaries or other operating expenses offire or other County personnel. The impact fee law allows orilytheassessment offees for capital improvements. The concept is that the other taxes , paid by the development, primarily property taxes, pays for the operating costs of County serivic~s,like other property owners. ' TPe 'la~K /of:develop~d parks is not caused by rezOIi~Jlgs ih the tast decade or, so. " '," ,"; . During thisperiorl,. n10~tJargerezollings have I;eqi1iredsubstan~ialpar~ improvements; , " " '. ,', ._~" ,,_. " . . ...,', J" . .'. . " '. '.'. _. \' .'. '. .' ,',' _ .;,: . " " 'su~has Parker,2,8f9:or.R~lamanui. Whil(;l there are many sI)J~H~lre:z9ning~,these cumlllatively:dQ 1l0raQdas rpal1Y units astheJargerezonings;alld'rottlie'last fifteen' yeats, pave l1~d"fait spare"assessments that at least requirethelll.lo.contribtitetoward' the capitalcostsofne\V pilfks. , . , , The ma]{)l"shorta;ges6f parks 011 tlreisland occ;ufin tpestjbdivisions createdin'the ,pefiodorrampant~subdiVi4ingjfrom the late .19500S to the early 197Q"s,andin\are,as. that 'were.,prima~ily ':z()ne~\Pefore.1990~ . like Waikol?a .Yillage ,and :~ailu~~~ona: ',There is no questi\i>ntl1ati:theseare?cs are,SAort of parks,espe9iallY 'ball Uelqs;, gyms, .swimming.,ppols, : ' < . -~. - . - . . ',' ,-" -', . -, . . . '.'. ". , -. '. ' .. '.' . '..' ., . ,- . . andT:other,dey~IQped fa:diiities.,' Arezoning, bahw()l~ld .{lb, nQthing.to" itlCfyasetheIllImber of park facilities, or lirnit,thenumber of park users. Puna has perhaps the greatest shortage pebcapi~aofanY di~trict, but rezoning is. alrno~t irrelev~IlJ toJhe ~>verall 'growth . of Puna beCCl.ys~~'a!p1()staJLqev~lopment occ:ur!)ih approvedsubq.ivisions. i':'Dhe;l1flIl~lin~ofpark:requirementscoul<.l be'standardized <l:p.d' revlewe&Th~lJest vehicle t9'aCcoI)Jplishthatisthe County's ParkI)~fiicatioIl OrdInance, Chapter 8 of the , , GOtlnty Cpde. ThisordlIlanG~ was enacted in 1977, and bec~use ofa Statelaw,H.RS. Section 46-6, which r.eqt)ires e~ch County to "adopt ordinances to require a subdiviqer, as ac:onditjon of approval of a subdivision, to provide land in perpet,uity or to dedicate lal1d forp~rk an4 plaYgro\lnd pUrPoses. . ." Chapter.8 is broader th,\ll r:ezo~ingjn that it also applies to new subdjvIsions alld multi-family bujldings. It isjn~ffe~ti:ve in creCl:ting parks, however, because of adause that states that it does not apply in districts wpere there are already more than 5 acres of parks per 1,000 persons, and includes aU State and County park acreage; develope<i and unqeveloped. 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 -4- ,f, /J developed park facilities, there are large undeveloped facilities, such as the Kekaha Kai State Park. 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 oftve development,. rather than the district as a whole. The districts are so large that neighborhood playgrounds in one area do not do much for people living in otherareas. It may be thp,t this bill is motivated by ayoncern over excessive growth on the island, and is intended to create a.moratoriuin ()nnew zoning. If the desireci goal is to slow growtp untilparks and other public facilities catch up, this bill is not ~'prbductive toot A moratorium on zoning, or even on new subdivisions and apartment buildings, would not prevent the island's population incre~se;Growth on the island mostly occurs on Jand With zoning'and subdivision approvals granted previou~Iy.More than 50% of the new hornes on the island in the past decade were builtin the 1950's to.'1970's era subdivisions, like Hawaiian Paradise Park or Hawaiian Ocean View Estates. Fewer than 5% were built on areas re.zoned in the past 10 years, partially because of the long development time between re.zoning and development, partiallybecause.oftnarket factors. The older subdivisions. are still less tha,Il,SO% built out. There is a~s() major groWth built into the currellt approvals for the p().a~ta1 resorts in North Kona and South Kohala, illto Waikolqa Villag~, the Parker 202,O,.zoning in Wairnea, KohalaRanch Project IV, aJld,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 thecurrent)and use pattern, especially in the Kailua7 Kona area. The Community Development Plans (CDP's) have a clear message and direction for growth and development. In general, it is aslow growth/preservationist lIlessage. In North Kona" the CDP supports the infill development of the area between Pal ani Road and Keauhou, and north of Pal ani Road to the Palamanui project, to ~reate a more compact, less auto-dependent community. The proposed "transit-oriented developments" and "traditional neighborhoods" are mostly zoned for agriculture and WIll have to be -5- f1 J rj rezol1edtqjJTlRletI1~n~ the land use strategy in, the CDP. This canl1Qthappen if this ,bill prevents rezoning uritil the developed park space in Kona is more than:dpubled. The . . . , Euna.pl~n'suppo~sny;v~ev~lopment around "village centers", for ,similar reasonsa~ the Kona plan}.foJn:lo'.geY~Jop~more COn1p~ct, less auto-dep~ndeptcommtinity. Again, 'C,,_",",'.".:' r',":_',',.:_." ;_:_:':,'_' ":, , "" ".. ,,, _" ..' the "viUage'Cyp.tet~ntiferoQstly zoned agricultural, and will'llee4'tezpning for this ." .. ,'" ,.'. -, >"'::"""','~~: "". - ' , ' '," ' '.. . preferred lahduse pcitfefutboccl.lf., The'North Kohala and SQut4I(ol1ala plans, for the' . ""',: '..-.,..... " .:; --' .... most part, (:l;tI1fofd~Y~l~pinent to occurwith~n existing zon,ing, ,Tl1is does not mean that, there ca.nnot!>ea!i{r~~btiiJ~, but both~~iearly. do, not supportla.~gy/ne\V" develo~ment . ", ,,' _.:.T outsideofexisting:z6hecl;arects. ' ", ,.,'.J -, -" .'< '~.;, ~"':t. -,,, ';, 3", ~~t .' t IQ' all9c'to9~t2.~;:~00Qcort~sPQl1dei1.ce' froni Thepepa.ft:m~Ilt()fP~rks'Clpd " Recreation, ,tth~ 'd~pad~~~~ihad riuhlerOtiSc6,llcems,relatedtQtth~'c6ncuriellcy' resgltihon; " , '" ,", .;. ,_,,_:.-_',_;:,'..-;,:l_~,_,~-> ~ ," , iMluding; 'ill 's\1~rpp:~ry! , ,~,., Jhe'b,p~~~tlrig:b~dgetI19tb~i1g96nsideted inthe'itqitGtiirengy~r~~bluiiQn; , >", h,~::>' . . ,':" : i: ". ,.,." ,.,', .,'_,",..:<,.:.. ,,~, ,th~'~dfHt!9h'9fp'~*facili~i~s M~ding to a staff shqfiag~' diiring,,~)#!riJ)g; ~~~~(;!~:':"ir . .. .... . . '. ;.. !!!.;',:~" i1QidQ!tipQZi9jhe patk~ il1v~ritQry' if the depaI1llie,ntd.etertni~~s;~I1~t, .- '~, .' "', "C}"',;)-"',t:'/_ :-' " _ ,c' ",..,', '.. ' ','.',' ... ',': ". '. "",\'.',.' rect~'ati9i1~ir~941fernei1ts ofthe:prqpQsed project carloe satisfied:\~iih ' . ~)1j'~l~,:t~~iljfl~~! \lltimateIY!\rora"tip~ t~eresetye '9~~aCity 's464!i {6i ~FeUc.~l1t,n?,t\fOIlqw through 'with development plans; :>/- -:/->":':o"_:~,- -,'_:':, _ ' ,,",~ ",""-,,,__,' "_ ,,', :' __C-",__', ,_',:,:'> ,,_ ,_:,'-,' 1.".,..tl1e)?~j~c~Jve\nature6f,the. '~t1ve'a9tes of public p,ark" requifFwe~t~inc~, ' th~~xl,lct~uthbef of residents in any given district cannot be accur,ately', determihed; , ,oth~d~pciitroent'does not keeRan iriventory of private , parks; therefOre, an f ,,-, .. _ . ',_", ", ~cc,ur,(l.t~ :IJumper of parks ,cannot be determined; ,~" m~nyp~rl(S approved ana atcepted by the department for publiC'useiti, :,:_"Y ",-,_::':1_"":",,,- ,', ,,' _,', " , _ ,,' _' ;' ,: :' -.",';\" :"~ s~tisr8:c:ti9Ii'ofde.veloper'sobHgations are n,ot active neighborhood and , playgf~up.9z'baHfield type parks, 'lmt are passiv~,op~~ areas with~iriirnal imptovem~hts; -the minimum standard for determining adequacy of parks should n()t be limited ,to <.'activeneighbotho.od andplaygroundz'ball field" parks, as beaqh park$ate, ~lso important recr~atioi1al assets; .,6., 'J ~ lit tlf~ rezc>ning' application i~ not the appropriate timetodet~rmine the exact proj. ~ct configuration, incl\lding actual lot sizes, dwelling si.zes/types and .. .. ..' .. . , ... . . inthistf\l<>ttirer~quirement~;speciJics should be refinedlater in the permitting pf()ces~; (nQ~e:te:oning to a.certainzoned district7o~ld all<)wall uses as speqifi~d :inthe Zoning Cod~;' not only those thatlif~' prop?s'edby the 'aRPli9a~lj<. .'. . .... .. .... . ...' '. ~,' #i()P!!iW~h2uld.not be theenly trigger forttiet1nai;rycreation~1 ,..1 j .. : ,.. ..' - ..' ,_, \.;" ..". .., ..' ," .~ , . . . . ()Ri1ga~i.~i1:S'Qf'iAeapPlicant/d~velQf~~; ". '.. .... ...... .......: .' .... . ; tlfetesg!litionw9uldsubjeet ciUrezoriingstothe'.prc?PQsed qhariges.an. Wis . ",' .," ''-.,-'< .. " - ,'. .. ' , ... " ,'"'' .. -, .' ,.. .. , ',,',"- ,', ,"" ',,', '. giif~1r'!~~6~"sili,~IF 'landdwri~rs;iY .. . '-, ,- ..,- .' . _, ",' "" eo, ',t:e:aey:eI0p~r'S FairShar~ ~tili~atiQn and the p~oposed'aineri4~ll(~rtt'may , ri()t\Y~t~il{CQfl~ert ~ithe~ch:etb~~; .... .' . . " . ". < , .':.;t~e'IWP'9~iti()rtis . an unfair' bti;a~'rFt(){i~ri1all "1~nd()'vvvei$;tq,p.tH\i1d~th~ )~t;~~~~:~;~~~:;;Q~f#:~;~:f:~u:f~~1~~t;;:;~~~~~:eif .f~~~th~:pr()P?f~(rprOjeC.LN\~~ '~~ ~~J~ " \, '. . . Th~':q~BJlfl:me!it: ~fJ?1:!bJ'ii3=WekS' comm,e.ns~ . clearly ident!fyare~s\n th~ billth~t -',:. ',\-,~\,-",,<__'-,:">;'_'_:::""~;;-';/-,,'.'-,-'<',": ,'_dO ,:_.' " --,--_'~--:----,J\", ",_,' '--_'~__':"'_':'__:-;'_ '_'..", ._":': ' :i1~e~Ho p~121~ri.f:iecl\)rn~Planning Director ~~pportktlleir q9rnm~!1t~and,sliaI:e.~ th~if. ',' ,: __,,:-__>_~~.:-'~, _ ", ::" _'" '_: ::,.;'.- ','-: ,'::';'-.:>:<:-:':,-",::~-'-~':>'_',"'" ': '_~ ~. - > _. .-.-.- d' _ .- . ":\':" ~<~::r,~>' ~',; '" ,_' .- ::, :", ~':'~;:/>'L:':_"_ __' -,,.:' -,,:_ _~~: "::,J.- ., cQnceiiis,and~b1Js}7~~!l!f~ndsthClt the Lee~~rd~iHl Wind~ard fl~1}~iqg~6mtiijs~ions .~~n'd all u~fayor4bi(r~69rrtfn~hdati()n for anordirr~il.ce to.amend,Ghaptbr25XZonlhg ", ',,' ";:,.. '. :'''', ._, ': ".,.-,'- '. ,C' ". ,'., " Co1e);Aitlcle"~'f J::)i~lsiorl'4z 'SectIon 25.,2;'46Iiaw~li County Code" 19~3 (200~' editioQ,as ame'nqed) r~I(l.!iIlg to conciirrency conditions as}Jt'C>}Josed by CourityCountilResolution , . ". . .)'.:'. . No. 219.09. -7- ) ') COUNTY OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I RESOLUTION NO. 219 09 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS' RESPECTIVE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS, TO INITIA TE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, HA WAPI COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED) BY AMEND~NG SECTION 25-2-46RELA TED 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 Hawai'i County Charter section 3-15 charges the county 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 shaH be designed to assure the coordinated development of the county and to promote the general welfare and prosperity of its people.... (a) The council shall enact zoning, subdivision, and such other ordinances which shall contain the necessary provisions to carry 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 growth is leading to overburdened public facilities and a diminishing quality of life in the county, and their frustration with the lack of infrastructme in their communities; and WHEREAS, at least one of the recently adopted community development plans (CDP), namely the South Kohala CDP, explicitly supports the principle of "concurrency" in which new development should not take effect unless improvements to infrastructure and public services occur before the occupancy of the project; and WHEREAS, amendments to the zoning code will ensure that developments proposed in a particular area are assessed considering a number of factors, including how much public infrastructure within a defined radius of the proposed new development, namely parks and recreational facilities and firefighting facilities, is challenged by recent or anticipated growth in the area; now, therefore, Planning Dept. J ) } /' / / ' WH REAS, an i,;dments t~~e zoning cope will ensure m;;t developyre;;;s prop;~sed in particular area are asses d consideri g a number ffactors, inc ciding how m ch public ~astructure with' defined radius of the pl'O used new d elopment, ~elY parks i~ recreatiO~i1ities and firefighting_ cilities, is challenged by recent or anticipat (j growth in the area; now, <ih~~efore, HE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HA W AI'I that pursuant to section 6- 4,2( c) of the H awai' i County Charter 2000 (2006 Edition) and subsection 25-2-4 3 (b) of the Hawai' i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), the planning director is requested to submit comments and recommendations 00 thc Proposcd zoning code amendments as set forth io the proposed bili for an ordinance .ttached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof,orto prepare a similar biIJ for an ordinance to create concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and for firefighting facilities in change of zone actions. HE IT FURTHER RESOL VED BY THE COUNCIL OF TIlE COUNTY OF HAW AI'I that pursuant 10 sectiou 6-4 .3( c) of the Hawai' i County Charter 2000 (2006 Edition) and subsection 25 -2-4 3(b) of the Haw.i' i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), the planning commissions are requested to review and transmit, with recommendations, the proposed bill for an ordinancc through the mayor to the council for consideration and action. BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAW AI'I that the council sllall consider said draft bill for 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 ofHawai'i. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HA WAI'I that the County Clerk shall forward copies oftbis resolution to the Honorable Mayor William Kenoi, the Planning Department, the Planning Commissions, the Department Parks and Recreation, and the Fire Department. Dated at Kona , Hawai'i, this 2nd COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawai'i Hila, Hawai'j 1 hereby cCI1i(y that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the vote indicated to tJle right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County of Hawai' i on September 2 I 2009 ATTEST: (~ CI~ CHAIRMAN & PRESIDING OFFICER 2 COUNTY CLERK ,2009 l FORD 1.1/GA HOffMANN IKEDA JACOBSON NAEOLE PILAGO YAGONG YOSHIMOTO ABS EX I X X X ~}; X X X X X X 8 1 0 o Reference: C-471/PC-41 219 09 -- RESOLUTION NO. ') -) Exhibit A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, HAWAI'I 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 HA WAPI: SECTION 1. Purpose and findings. The council finds that because of rapid population growth in Hawai'i County in areas 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'ii, in communities which are not at present adequately served by public parks and recreational facilities and fire stations. If these new developments will generate demands for expanded parks and recreational facilities or expanded 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 of the 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: "Section 25-2-46. Concurrency requirements. (a) Purpose. In addition to requirements otherwise imposed, this section creates concurrency standards for roads, [fl:llil] water supply, parks and recreational facilities, and firefighting 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 ofthis 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. "Critical road area" means a geographical area where any of the transportation facilities serving the area have been determined by the council to be worse than the acceptable 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 a new arterial or collector road in the general area containing the project, or improvements to public transportation such as buses or park and ride facilities, sufticient to offset the tratnc demand generated by the project. ') -) Exhibit A "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 pennit for residential buildings that do not require a certificate of occupancy; or (3) final subdivision approval for subdivisions where dwellings are allowed, but dwellings are not being constructed before sale of any lot. "Project area" means the area 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. (l) A traffic impact 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 are 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 ofHawai'i. (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 projectioqs for future growth in traffic, for a minimum offive, 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 assessment 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 pennitted, or that occupancy be delayed until the level of service has reached the acceptable level and is no longer projected to be worse than the acceptable level. (2) Where the LOS deficiency is due to roadway or intersection deficiencies in the immediate vicinity of the project, the conditions of zoning shall require local mitigation. Where the deficiency in LOS is due to insufficient capacity in the transportation facilities serving the project area, the conditions of zoning 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. -) ) Exhibit A (f) Mitigation requirements will be deem'ed satisfied when: (1) A public agency has committed funds for area 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 guaranteeing performance, (g) A developer's area mitigation expenses shall be credited against any fair share or similar fee requirement for roads. A developer's local mitigation expenses shall be credited against any fair share or similar fee requirement for roads if the council determines that the mitigation substantially benefits i I the general public and was not necessary primarily for the benefit of the project. In general, roads i . ~hat are necessary for access to or within a development or turn lanes for a private project shall not qualify for fair share credit. (h) The following types of rezoning applications shall be required to submit a TIAR when required by this section, but shall not be required to perform area 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 11-15, County affordable housing policy, based on the number of affordable housing credits normally required, (2) (2) Rezoning to CV, CN, MCX, PD, or ML where the council determines that the project will reduce regional traffic congestion by providing necessary commercial or light industrial opportunities to serve an area where there is a shortage of available space zoned for such uses, . and substantial residential development has already been approved, provided that conditions of zoning shall ensure that any commercial development be of a scale consistent with the standards of a "neighborhood center" as described in the 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) In a critical road area, all rezonings shall be subject to local and area mitigation, except as stated in subsection (h). (1) In order to detennine whether a rezoning application meets the TIAR threshold of fifty or more peak hour trips, and to prevent applicants from going below the TIAR threshold by dividing a project into segments, the 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. .., (Q2 {g} ") -') Exhibit A (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 for urban use on the land use pattern allocation guide map of the general plan; provided that conditions of zoning shall require water supply consistent with public health and safety needs such as sanitation and fire-fighting. A change of zone application shall not be granted unless: (1) the department of parks and recreation has determined that it can meet the recreational requirements of the proiect using its existing facilities and staff; or (2) specific improvements to the existing public parks and recreational facilities, or 'private parks and recreational facilities approved by the department of parks and recreation will be provided to meet the recreational needs of the proiect and conditions of zoning delay occupancy until the necessary improvements are actually constructed. The minimum standard for determining adequacy of parks and recreational facilities shall be five acres of public park area with developed recreational facilities for each one thousand residents in the district(s) in which the change of zone is located. Only developed park areas, of the active neighborhood and playgroundlbalI field type, within a five-mile radius of the proposed rezoning shall be counted when assessing the adequacy of existing facilities to meet the recreational needs of the project. A change of zone application shall not be granted unless: (1) the fire department has determined that it can meet the fire safety requirements of the proiect using its existing facilities and staff; or (2) specific improvements to the existing public firefighting facilities. or private firefighting facilities approved by the fire department will be provided to meet the public safety needs of the ~roiect and conditions of zoning delay occupancy until the necessary improvements are actually constructed. Only fire stations within a fifteen-mile radius of the proposed rezoning shall be counted when assessing the adequacy of existing facilities to meet the fire safety needs of the project. Nothing in this section shall limit the ability of the council to impose reasonable roadway~ [9fJ water~ parks and recreational. and fire-fighting facility improvement requirements on changes of zone or to deny change of zone applications to the extent otherwise allowed by law." {ill SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 4. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed material, and underscoring need not be included. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon approval. ') Page 1 of 3 ) From: Hayashi, Norman Sent: Tuesday, October 20,20092:44 PM To: Fujimoto, Phyllis Subject: FW: P&R Comments on Resolution 219 09 Relating to Concurrency Conditions From: Komata, James Sent: Tuesday, October 20,2009 12:04 PM To: Leithead-Todd, Bobby Jean ee: Fitzgerald, Robert; Honma, Clayton; Santos, Nathalie; Takiue, Darren; Schoen, Renee Subject: P&R Comments on Resolution 219 09 Relating to Concurrency Conditions Bobby Jean, The following are my comments to the concurrency resolution based on past experience and looking forward from a park planning perspective. I've discussed many of these with Bob and Clayton leading up to this point and am copying them for their input or modifications. " I. The language proposed in Exhibit A is generally inconsistent where it speaks to P&R determining "that it can meet the recreational needs of the project using its existing facility and staff" whereas the balance of the language therein deals specifically with the physical component of the measure but then dismisses the "staff' or operational component of the measure. In most cases, if not all cases (because of the internal districting responsibilities of the various divisions of our department), the addition of developed park land and facilities to our department's inventory will lead to staff shortage; whether on the maintenance or operational end, or both. However, the operating budget is completely dismissed from the concurrency resolution's philosophy except that it is tangentially, if not speciously, referenced by that one word ("staff") in that one sentence. This is a real concern for our department because the current "hiring freeze" has forced our department to make tough decisions on both staffing and maintenance matters, stretching our department thinner than comfortable. There needs to be a responsible and rational interconnection between the concurrency bill and a mechanism to ensure the operating budget is considered and acted upon "concurrently". Please note that even undeveloped lands burden the department with at least occasional maintenance responsibilities for tree trimming and removal, herbicide application, cultural/archaeological obligations, flooding issues and so on and so forth. Also, undeveloped land often comes with a burden of expectation from the public for future development, but most often, volunteer projects that are unfunded and unplanned. 2. Unless there are other obligations that kick in from other regulatory authorities, If the "Change of Zone Applicant" meets condition (I) of the P&R requirement, then that applicant appears to not be required to contribute anything to enhancing park and recreational inventory to offset the corresponding change of zone. It would seem there is a philosophical void here in that any existing excess park and recreational capacity would be available to developers on a first-come, first-served basis. Is this the appropriate approach to take from a regulatory standpoint? If so, how long does that reserved capacity stay with that proposed change of zone? If that one change of zone is never acted upon for years or decades, which is not uncommon, at what point does the credit lapse back for the next developer to "use"? If the first change of zone applicant takes all the existing credit available but never follows through on its development, all subsequent change of zone applicants are unfairly burdened when they do follow through on it. It would seem that concurrency, from the point of parks and recreation, should be equal concurrency for all. Generally, neighborhood parks should occur within walking distance of its proposed residential subdivision. 5 miles doesn't seem an appropriate measuring stick for this requirement. 3. The portion of the P&R paragraph dealing with "minimum standards for determining adequacy" is also too subjective and therefore burdensome on the department. Is the "five acres" as the crow flies or along vehicular ways? Makes a huge difference in some areas of the County. How would the department determine how many people in existing developed and zoned properties within a five mile radius of an existing park should be credited towards the "used" capacity of that existing park when applying the proposed change of zone's potential occupancy against it to determine if there is existing capacity than can be credited to a proposed change of zone? 4. At any ,given time, except immediately followin9; newly released census fi2ures, it will be impossible to accurately 10/20/2009 Planning Dept. Exhibit ~ ) Page 2 of 3 ) determine the number of residents in any given district to be used to accurately determine the 5 developed acres per 1.000 residents ratio referenced in this document. How would this be applied fairly by the department? Who would determine these numbers? 5. There appears to be a severe disconnect between the following two sentences in the paragraph for P&R: "The minimum standard for determining adequa.cy of parks and recreational facilities shall be five acres of public park area with developed recreational facilities for each one thousand residents in the district(s) in which the change of zone is located. Only developed park areas, of the active neighborhood and playground/ball field type, within a five mile radius of the proposed rezoning shall be counted when assessing the adequacy of existing facilities to meet the recreational needs of the project." If the adequacy of existing parks and recreational facilities is to be determined by the district(s) the subject land(s) are in calculated against the types of existing developed parks therein, then how would the five-mile radius argument be applied in a practical way because it would seem to obviate the district level assessment and likewise be impossible to derive an educated guess of the number of residents in that representative circle of land, let alone determine an accurate number of actual residents therein. 6. The department does not keep an inventory of private parks so how would those figures be collected and maintained for application via this requirement? How would we know that parks held in private ownership are still developed and usable or even exist for consideration in this ratio? . 7. There have been parks in the past that have been approved and accepted by the department for public use, or approved for private maintenance and use, in satisfaction of past developers' obligations - fair share or council exactions - that are not by definition "activencighborhood and playground/ball field type" parks. Many are passive, open areas with minimal improvements. It seems that this is a departure from past practice and could be viewed as unequal treatment. 8. Why is the measure for the "minimum standard for determining adequacy of parks" limited to only "active neighborhood and playground/ball field type(s)" of parks? Beach parks are important recreational assets for the County and should be considered, too. The Council has exacted those kinds of facilities on past developers, most recently being Honl's (Waiaha Bay Beach Park) in Kona. So it would seem that limiting parks by the listed definition would be inconsistent, irresponsible and a lost opportunity for the future of the county and its residents. 9. It would seem that the Change of Zone application is not an appropriate time to determine the occupancy of lands proposed for development because the actual developable area within the parcels proposed for rezoning, along with the actual lot sizes, dwelling sizes, dwelling types and land required to be dedicated for infrastructure to support the proposed development are far down the planning path. It could be that the change of zone application be an initial requirement to be further refined/modified once the subdivision application is submitted, otherwise the exaction on the developer would probably be unfairly in the county's favor. For instance, if 100 acres of A-lOa is rezoned to RS I 0, (based solely on land area and zoning) there is an increase from 10 lots with dwellings to 435 lots with dwellings. However, that doesn't consider flood zoned lands that won't be developed, land for roads to serve the subdivision, sites for water wells and sewer treatment facilities, the intent and financing of the developer, etc., all of which would be better spelled out at the time of subdivision. 10. Rezoning is rarely the direct precursor to occupancy of a project and while it seems prudent to consider the matter of concurrency at the time of Rezoning, there are numerous disconnects (as noted above) in the rationale and methodology for implementing this philosophy. It seems premature to have the rezoning be the sole trigger for the final recreational obligations of a "developer". II. Under the language offered therein, ALL changes of zone are subject to this requirement. So, if an applicant rezones from any form of occupiable zoning designation (Ag or Mixed Use Commercial) to a non-occupiable zoning designation (Industrial or commercial), or from one non-occupiable zoning to another, they would have a park and recreation obligation to m.eet before they can follow through? That doesn't seem appropriate to me...... 12. Would the Planning Department be the sole repository for all records of park and recreational decisions on the issue of changes of zone? It seems like a huge effort on the record keeping side and who would validate any numbers that are llsed in the determination? 13. How does this proposed amendment work in tandem with existing Fair Share obligations? 14. There is concern over the need to develop park and recreational facilities prior to first occupancy because, although it is an ideal situation, it does not seem practical to burden developers with yet another considerable financial obligation before its even seen any revenue flow its way. Phasing can be a consideration, but full development as a basis for first occupancy seems overly burdensome on developers - especially on small rezoning applicants like those wanting to go from residential to neighborhood commercial to support their family business... .. I'm sure I can come up with more concerns but that appears to cover the important aspects from our department's perspective. Bob, Clayton, Renee - feel free to add in, edit or strike as you see fit. 10/20/2009 '\ J Page 3 of 3 ') James M. Komata, Park Planner Department of Parks & Recreation. County of Hawai'j 101 Pauahi Street. Suite 6, Hilo, Hawaj'i 96720 ph: 808.961.8531 I fax: 808.961.8411 ikomataCQlco.hawaiLhLus 10/20/2009 ~ ,,;' WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSIION COUNTY OF HAWAI'I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 6, 2009 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL'S AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25, HAWAI'I COUNTY CODE, RELATING TO CONCURRENCY STANDARDS FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AND FIREFIGHTING FACILITIES IN CHANGE OF ZONE ACTIONS was called to order at 12:41 p.m. in the County of Hawaij, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hi10, Hawai'i, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. PRESENT: Rell Woodward Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Zendo Kern Shelly Ogata Wallace Ishibashi Brandon Gonzalez, Deputy Corporation Counsel BJ Leithead Todd, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, StaffP1almer And two people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) relating to concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and fire fighting facilities in change of zone actions. WOODWARD: Now we've got Agenda Item No.5. This is deja vu all over again. We did this last year. We have to do this again. County Council initiated amendment to Chapter 25, concurrency. Maija. COTTLE: Okay, this is a County Council initiated amendment to the Zoning Code; and it is changing concurrency requirements on rezoning actions. This would be to add additional concurrency requirements for parks and recreation facilities as well as police facilities, and we have quite, I'm sorry, not police, fire facilities. We have quite a long write-up of a recommendation on this. The Director is recommending that the Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. And I think she's going to explain her reasons in more detail. WOODWARD: Planning Director. 1 I ~ . LEITHEAD TODD: I have a number of concerns over the proposed language. Part of the concern is that it only, it uses just active parks as the standard for measuring whether you have adequate park facilities. So as an example in Hilo you have your Bayfront Park where you have all your canoe f;:tcilities there; but that's not considered an active park because it doesn't have any ballfields on it. So it would not be considered in your computation of five acres. Similarly, in Hilo you have Onekahakaha Beach Park, Richardson, Four Miles, none of those would be computed as part of that five acres because none of them have developed recreational facilities like a gymnasium or a ballfield; and so I had an objection to that. Because somebody might come in, like let's say you had Kohanaiki who was coming in and proposing a development, and in exchange for that development they were going to give you 700-acres next to the ocean as an ocean park but there are noballfields, there are no soccer fields, there's no gymnasium -. And so under this standard you could not approve that proposal because you weren't getting an active five-acre park out of it. It also impacts small rezonings because in areas of in-fill or somebody who wants to -. Let's say you've got a 20,000-square foot lot and you want to rezone it to create two 10,000-square foot lots but you didn't have these five acres of active park close by, you couldn't do that. And so the only people I felt who could really comply with this in an area where there were inadequate parks under this five-acre of active would be somebody who had a very large piece of land who could then set aside some of it for a park. So somebody like a Palamanui who can come in and say, okay, I'm going to give you 20 acres for a parle And so I had some problems with how that was adjusted. The other thing is that there are so many things here that are beyond the control of property owners. And I felt that, you know, the real issue is that if the Councilor the Planning Commission is unhappy with the proposed rezoning you can put conditions, you can require fair share, and if, it might be much better to try and collect people's contribution towards constmction of facilities from the smaller parcels than to just do a flat out no on it. But my principal objection in the parks area was the fact that you could not consider the beach parks or passive parks of somebody who wanted to give you some place that was just going to be forest and it was just going to be trails. That would not count as the five-acre park space. WOODWARD: Any discussion? It seems to me that this, like I say, this is being revisited. The County Council threw this at us last year. And what it essentially would do, my understanding is it would prohibit rezoning County-wide until the County met its own requirements as far as infrastmcture. And so anybody that was trying to put together anything would have to essentially contribute more than their fair share to bring that part of the County up to its own imposed conditions. And I think that's absolutely unfair. So this is the same thing we saw before. And I assume that's your interpretation also, Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Yes. WOODWARD: Okay. 2 IW ASHIT A: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Yes, sir, Mr. Iwashita. IW ASHITA: I guess, you know, concurrency to me in part -. Just the crazy way I think, it goes together with my whole thing about community development planning and needing to, you know, really use that process. And this is, otherwise you end up with, you know, efforts like these to try and tweak things here and there, right, which mayor may not have unintended consequences. So I can understand the concem raised on both sides. I am, everybody knows I'm in favor of a more measured pace in tenns of where we go; and so I guess that's just my little conflict that's going on in terms of addressing this. LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Planning Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Our legal counsel has mentioned something else to me that I guess I was just looking at the substance and hadn't really noticed that in the resolution. And where they record the votes of the Council Members they have Council Members Pilago and Riga listed, and Jacobson -. WOODWARD: Ghost voters. L;EITREAD TODD: Listed as having voted on this measure in September of2009; and they are not recording what the votes of Council Members Onishi, Enriques, and Greenwell are on the measure. So -. I didn't look at that pati, I'm very sorry. I, you know, missed -. WOODWARD: Well, I knew this was recycled but I didn't know: they were that -. LEITHEAD TODD: I missed that part. And I guess, just about everybody else missed it too since it looks like J Yoshimoto and Kem1Y Goodenow signed off it; and I think this was the fonn that, you know, was put forward. So I think it's going to have egg on everybody's faces. So I'm not sure ifthe resolution that's transmitted to us is valid. IWASHITA: I move to send it back. WOODWARD: You move to what, send it back? IW ASHIT A: To refer this matter back to the County Council because it's procedurally incorrect. We don't, you can't have unelected officials forwarding us something to consider. You know, it requires a, they have to clean up the record. WOODWARD: All right, okay. Do I have a second? DOMINGO: Second. 3 I 0 WOODWARD: All right. Any discussion? Okay, Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chaimlan. Commissioner Iwashita? IW ASHIT A: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Kern? KERN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ogata OGATA: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: Okay motion passes six to zero to send it back. WOODWARD: Okay. IW ASHITA: Mr. Chair, just for the record, I want to commend our counsel for being very diligent and thorough. WOODWARD: Yes, indeed. I agree. The discussion ended at 12:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~'rv\ ~~ Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 4 COUNTY OF HAWAI'I t'NOV 2 3 2fi09 STATE OF HAWAI'I RESOLUTION NO. 2:19 09 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS' RESPECTIVE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, TO INITIATE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, HAW AI'I 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 Hawai'i County Charter section 3-15 charges the county 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 ofthe 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 of the county and to promote the general welfare and prosperity of its people. . .. (a) The council shall enact zoning, subdivision, and such other ordinances which shall contain the necessary provisions to carry 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 growth is leading to overburdened public facilities and a diminishing quality of life in the county, and their frustration with the lack of infrastructure in their communities; and WHEREAS, at least one of the recently adopted community development plans (CDP), namely the South Kohala CDP, explicitly supports the principle of "concurrency" in which new development should not take effect unless improvements to infrastructure and public services occur before the occupancy of the project; and WHEREAS, amendments to the zoning code will ensure that developments proposed in a particular area are assessed considering a number of factors, including how much public infrastructure within a defined radius of the proposed new development, namely parks and recreational facilities and firefighting facilities, is challenged by recent or anticipated growth in the area; now, therefore, 1 WHEREAS, amendments to the zoning code will ensure that developments proposed in a particular area are assessed considering a number of factors, including how much public infrastructure within a defined radius of the proposed new development, namely parks and recreational facilities and firefighting facilities, is challenged by recent or anticipated growth in the area; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAW AI'I that pursuant to section 6- 4.2(c) of the Hawai'i County Charter 2000 (2006 Edition) and subsection 25-2-43 (b) of the Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), the planning director is requested to submit comments and recommendations on the proposed zoning code amendments as set forthin the proposed bill for an ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof, or to prepare a similar bill for an ordinance to create concurrency- standards for parks and recreational facilities and for firefighting facilities in change of zone actions. BE IT FURTHER RESOL VEDBY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAW AI'I that pursuant to section 6-4.3(c) of the Hawai'i County Charter 2000 (2006 Edition) and subsection 25-2-43(b) of the Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), the planning commissions are requested to review and transmit, with recommendations, the proposed bill for an ordinance through the mayor to the council for consideration and action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAW AI'I that the council shall consider said draft bill for 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 Hawai'i. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HA W AI'I that the County Clerk shall forw~d copies of this resolution to the Honorable Mayor William Kenoi, the Planning Department, the Planning Commissions, the Department Parks and Recreation, and the Fire Department. Dated at Kana , Hawai'i, this 2nd day of September ,2009 ~ COUNCIL MEMBER, C {~ COUNTY CLERK c:f'~- -~_._._.~ - -~-.' ~- /, (: ." ..-\,---.- ~ ,~; . . - '-.:~.~--_.. -_...../ ".',-,. CHAIRMAN & PRESIDING OFFICER 2 AYES NOES ABS EX ENRIQUES X FORD X GREENWELL X HOFFMANN X IKEDA X NAEOLE X ONISHI X YAGONG X YOSHIMOTO X 8 1 0 0 ROLL CALL VOTE COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawai'i Hilo, Hawai'i I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the vote indicated tothe right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County ofHawai'i on September 2, 2009 . ATTEST: Reference: C-471jPC-41 RESOLUTION NO. 219 09 Exhibit A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, HAW AI'I 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 HAW AI'I: SECTION 1. Purpose and findings. The council finds that because of rapid population growth in Hawai'i County in areas 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 and fire stations. If these new developments will generate demands for expanded parks and recreational facilities or expanded 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 of the 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: "Section 25-2-46. Concurrency requirements. (a) Purpose. In addition to requirements otherwise imposed, this section,creates concurrency standards for roads, [ane] water supply, parks and recreational facilities, and firefighting 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. "Critical road area" means a geographical area where any of the transportation facilities serving the area have been determined by the council to be worse than the acceptable 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 a new arterial or collector road in the general area containing the project, or improvements to public transportation such as buses or park and ride facilities, sufficient to offset the traffic demand generated by the project. 1 Exhibit A "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 are not being constructed before sale of any lot. "Project area" means the area 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. "W orse 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 impact 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 are 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 Hawai'i. (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 assessment 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 ~o longer projected to be worse than the acceptable level.. (2) Where the LOS deficiency is due to roadway or intersection deficiencies in the immediate vicinity of the project, the conditions of zoning shall require local mitigation. Where the deficiency in LOS is due to insufficient capacity in the transportation facilities serving the project area, the conditions of zoning 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. 2 Exhibit A (f) Mitigation requirements will be deemed satisfied when: (1) A public agency has committed funds for area 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 guaranteeing performance. (g) A developer's area mitigation expenses shall be credited against any fair share or similar fee requirement for roads. A developer's local mitigation expenses shall be credited against any fair 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. (h) The following types of rezoning applications shall be required to submit a TIAR when required by this section, but shall not be required to perform area 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 11-15, County affordable housing policy, based on the number of affordable housing credits normally required.. (2) (2) Rezoning to CV, CN, MCX, PD, or ML where the council determines thatthe project will reduce regional traffic congestion by providing necessary commercial or light industrial opportunities to serve an area where there is a shortage of available space zoned for such uses, and substantial residential development has already been approved, provided that conditions of zoning shall ensure that any commercial development be of a scale consistent with the standards of a "neighborhood center" as described in the 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. U) The council may designate critical road areas by ordinance. (k) In 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 trips, and to prevent applicants from going below the TIAR threshold by dividing a project into segments, the 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 vidnity 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. 3 Exhibit A (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 th~ 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 for urban use on the land use pattern allocation guide map of the general plan; provided that conditions of zoning shall require water supply consistent with public health and safety needs sllch as sanitation and fire-fighting. (Ql A change of zone application shall not be granted unless: (1) the department of parks and recreation has determined that it can meet the recreational requirements of the project using its existing facilities and staff; or (2) specific improvements to the existing public parks and recreational facilities, or private parks and recreational facilities approved by the department of parks and recreation will be provided to meet the recreational needs of the project and conditions of zoning delay occupancy until the necessary improvements are actually constructed. The minimum standard for determining adequacy of parks and recreational facilities shall be five acres of public park area with developed recreational facilities for each one thousand residents in the district( s) in which the change of zone is located. Only developed park areas, of the active neighborhood and playground/ball field type, within a five-mile radius of the proposed rezoning shall be counted when assessing the adequacy of existing facilities to meet the recreational needs of the project. (Q2 A change of zone application shall not be granted unless: (1) the fire department has determined that it can meet the fire safety requirements of the project using its existing facilities and staff; or (2) . specific improvements to the existing public firefighting facilities, or private firefighting facilities approved by the fire department will be provided to meet the public safety needs of the proiect and conditions of zoning delay occupancy until the necessary improvements are actually constructed. Only fire stations within a fifteen-mile radius of the proposed rezoning shall be counted when assessing the adequacy of existing facilities to meet the fire safety needs of the project. (gl Nothing in this section shall limit the ability of the council to impose reasonable roadwayj. [efT waterj. parks and recreational, and fire-fighting facility improvement requirements on changes of zone or to deny change of zone applications to the extent otherwise allowed by law." SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 4. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed material, and underscoring need not be included. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon approval. 4