HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-16 TBILLS
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
MARCH 16, 2007
A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL BILLS 318 (CHAPTER 25 -
CHANGE OF ZONE CONDITIONS), 319 (CHAPTER 23 - SUBDIVISION), 328
(CONCURRENCY CHAPTER) AND 329 (ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES CHAPTER)
was called to order at 3:23 p.m. at the King Kamehamehas Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani
Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding.
PRESENT:William GrahamABSENT & EXCUSED:Andrew Iwashita
C. Kimo Alameda
AlvinRho
Rene Siracusa
Takashi Domingo
Rodney Watanabe
Rell Woodward
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Christopher Yuen, Planning Director
Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager
Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner
Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner
And approximately six people from the public in attendance.
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bill 318) amending Chapter 25 (Zoning Code),
Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-44, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended)
relating to conditions of change of zone (adds requirements to existing provisions within the
Zoning Code relating to conditions on change of zone ordinances regarding water supply and
transportation improvements or strategies be made concurrent with development associated with
any change of zone in order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government
services).
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bill 319) amending Chapter 23 (Subdivision Code),
Article 2, Division 1, Section 23-13, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended)
relating to Large Scale Developments (adds requirements to existing provisions within the
Subdivision Code relating to large scale developments regarding water supply and transportation
improvements or strategies be made concurrent with development in order to manage growth and
coordinate the delivery of government services).
1EXHIBIT D
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bill 328) amending the Hawaii County Code 1983
(2005 Edition, as amended) by adding a new chapter relating to concurrency (establishes a
concurrency management system and prepares a public facilities improvement plan to fund and
maintain county-wide facilities and services).
INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL
Review and comment on a draft ordinance (Bill 329) amending the Hawaii County Code 1983
(2005 Edition, as amended) by adding a new chapter relating to adequate public facilities (relates
to adequate public facilities for the identification of infrastructure and services necessary to
support new development and the establishment of a policy as to when and how these
improvements and services will be constructed and maintained).
GRAHAM:Our next agenda item is Item 5, initiator is the County Council, and this is
a draft ordinance. We also have Items 6, 7 and 8, which are also draft ordinances initiated by the
County Council which come to the Planning Commission first for public input. At our last Hilo
meeting the Planning Director gave us a presentation on these four ordinances, and then we took
public testimony in Hilo, and then we continued consideration until today so that these ordinance
would be heard on both sides of the island. So if its what the Planning Commissioners would
like, I would kind of prefer that we give the floor to Planning Director Yuen again, just to give us
a little review of what these are; and then we can kind of take public testimony and sort of handle
the four of them in a bunch, not that we wont handle them individually, but that were going to
kind of mesh them together as we do our discussion. Is that okay?
COMMISSIONERS:Okay.
GRAHAM:Okay, Mr. Yuen, go ahead, please.
YUEN:Good afternoon, Commission Members. This is a continuation of the
same item that we talked about at our last Hilo meeting. Its a consideration of four bills that
were initiated by the County Council, 318, 319, 328 and 329. Your role here is to make a
recommendation back to the County Council. Whether youre favorable or unfavorable, they
will get these bills back. They wrote the bills, they initiated the bills, and I believe this is your
last meeting to deal with this because of the timefame. If theres not a majority of the
membership of the Commission in favor or against any of them, it goes up with an unfavorable
recommendation. Well report to them what the discussions were and what the vote was.
But, in a nutshell, our recommendation is actually unfavorable on all of the four bills as written.
We have a revision of Bill 318 which follows the basic intent of 318 in considerably more detail;
and were asking for a favorable recommendation on that. All of these bills deal with the general
subject matter of concurrency or adequate public facilities; and they all have the idea of
development, the timing of development being tied to specific levels of service or specific levels
of development of public infrastructure or public facilities. The effect, the net effect of them is
that they might end up delaying development until public facilities and public infrastructure is
brought up to a certain level or standard; and each of them operates a little bit differently,
depending on the stage of development.
2EXHIBIT D
Bill 318, both the Councils version and the Directors version, operate at the zoning stage. And
they really set out some parameters with respect to roads and water in analyzing new rezonings.
They would basicallyrequire traffic impact analysis reports for a certainly level of development.
Let me talk about the Directors version of 318 in a little more detail. It would require at a
certain size of development, which is something thats spelled out in the Institute for Traffic
Engineers manual, it would require a traffic impact analysis report. And it would require an
analysis both of the immediate locality and a regional road system. If the road system was
operating at a poor level it would require either that the rezoning be denied or that it be
accompanied by conditions that delay the occupancy until the road conditions improve or the
developer would have to do specific types of improvements. Now the actual improvements
would be a function of the rezoning ordinance in question. But what this would spell out is the
types of improvements that should accompany a rezoning under these circumstances. It also
spells out the standards and expectations on the water level. There are also a series of exceptions
tothis,thelargestbeingaffordablehousingthatprovidestwotimesthenormalrequirement.Part
of the traffic problem, and this has been the element of the public infrastructure that probably got
the most complaints in the last few years, part of the traffic problem is very much tied to the
housing problem. Theres not enough affordable housing for people within places like Kailua-
Kona or the North Kohala or South Kohala resorts where a lot of people commute to their jobs.
So we dont want to have the effect of denying a rezoning that supports affordable housing in
these areas because the traffic situation is bad. That may exacerbate the problem by just making
no alternatives for people who want to get to work but have to live farther and farther away from
the existing subdivisions, or taking the bus from Hilo, or even points beyond. So those are the
major recommended exceptions in 318.
The 319 is a bill that would apply at the subdivision stage. This would apply to property thats
already zoned. It would have the effect of holding up the subdivision of that property if traffic
levels were below a certain level in the vicinity. For reasons that are more spelled out in the
recommendation, were recommending denial of that, and also 328 and 329. There is a detailed
write-up of both background and recommendation on this that spells out a lot of the reasoning
and details. I think itd be best for me, rather than to go through that, just to take questions the
Commission may have about this.
GRAHAM:Should we hold up on their questions until we get public testimony or
would you rather we do some questions first?
YUEN:Its up to the Commission.
ALAMEDA:Id prefer testimony first.
GRAHAM:Good. We have only one testifier signed up at this point so that will make
it go quickly. I have Bob Hunter signed up. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. Could you just raise your
right hand. And Ill ask you to swear or affirm that you will tell the truth on this matter before
the Planning Commission today?
HUNTER:I will.
3EXHIBIT D
GRAHAM:Thank you. Were looking at four different bills and please feel free to
comment in specifics on any one you choose and just begin your testimony by giving your name
and address first, please.
HUNTER:Right. Im Bob Hunter. I live in Waimea. So Id like to focus in on the
Planning Directors proposed revision to 318 because I think it has really got a lot of advantages,
very well thought through. And I believe that passage of Planning Directors Bill 318 will be an
important step toward the Countys achieving control over the timing and sequence of
development so that growth coincides with our ability to finance and construct the public
facilities needed to accommodate it. Im just going to review a few things in the written
testimony that Ive given you. I think the bill encourages the County to link implementation of
its land use plan to a capital improvement plan. And if we continue to ignore that way of
thinking about planning, were going to kill our Golden Goose. And I can tell you the goose is
limping up in Waimea as we speak. I cant even get friends to come visit us anymore because
theydontwanttobethere.AndIthinkthatthetrafficcirculationstudyforWaimeashowed
that in two to five years were going to be in gridlock up there. So we have to start thinking
about linking land use approvals with infrastructure.
I was happy to see that the bill addressed how much traffic congestion is acceptable on our State
and County roads. It encourages rezonings in areas where youre creating jobs and providing
services locally, thats great. I think passage of the propose bill will send a message to the
people of the County that the Council respects working people who are stuck in these traffic jams
in the morning and in the evening.
I have a few suggestions for ways to make the bill even better, and theyre outlined on the
second page; and Id be glad to answer any questions. And when I go and talk to community
groups, not all of them are as familiar with the situation as you are. And one of the analogies Im
using how we can improve this is, when I grew up in Louisiana we did seine fishing all the time,
hukilau here, and I think that what we have to do is plug a few holes in our net in order to catch
more of the applicants that are coming through the system to make sure more of them participate
in concurrency management or doing their fair share on water and transportation.
The proposed bill wouldnt stop growth. It wouldnt propose unfair costs on developers. It does
ensure that an applicant for a rezoning cannot make the situation worse than it was before his
project.
I think Chris did a great job of tailoring ideas that have been used in rapidly growing
communities elsewhere to the unique challenges that are being faced by our island. I think that it
would add a system of checks and balances to the system. Its focused on the most critical
infrastructure systems. Transportation and water supply I think is appropriate; and if you need to
focus on something later, you can always bring it in. But to get the most punch early is the way
to do it. And I think it would really encourage our leadership and those actually building our
communities to think in terms of stewardship of our island home. Weve all got to be
participants as you are. I give it to you for sitting through days of trying to steward our
environment. But those people who are applying for zoning need to be stewards, too. So thats
my testimony. Thank you.
4EXHIBIT D
GRAHAM:And so my assumption is that you are supportive of the Planning
Directors Bill 318 but not of the other bills
HUNTER:I dont think the other bills, I dont need to support or not support them at
this point in time. I just think that when youre talking about zoning Chris came up with a very
good way to handle it, as long as we plug a few holes.
GRAHAM:Thank you. Any questions from Commissioners? Commissioner
Woodward.
WOODWARD:Well, thank you for your comments, very well done. Thank you.
GRAHAM:Other questions for the testifier from the Commissioners? Thank you, Mr.
Hunter. I presume theres no one else in attendance who wishes to testify on this matter before
ustoday.Allright,asidefromthetestifier,dowehavesomeotherquestions,commentstothe
Commissioners, from the Commissioners regarding the Planning Director? Commissioner
Siracusa.
SIRACUSA:Are we going to take these one at a time, I hope?
GRAHAM:It sounds best to me to take them one at a time. Does that sound good, Mr.
Torigoe?
TORIGOE:Yes.
GRAHAM:Good. Other questions?
DOMINGO:Mr. Chair?
GRAHAM:Commissioner Domingo.
DOMINGO:I looked at the bills and its reflective of the sentiments of a lot of people
that I live with and whom I have spoken to. And the provisions of the bill will certainly address
the concerns that they have, and that I also have. At this time, I feel that I can support 318 and
go with the recommendation of the Planning Director.
GRAHAM:Other questions, comments from Commissioners?
WATANABE:Motion in order?
GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe, if youd like, yes. So wed be starting with Bill
318.
WATANABE:Yes, okay. I move to send a favorable recommendation to the County
Council on draft Ordinance Bill 318 as revised by the Planning Director.
DOMINGO:Second.
5EXHIBIT D
GRAHAM:Allright,seconded by Commissioner Domingo. And we have discussion.
Mr. Woodward, no?
WOODWARD:No.
GRAHAM:Ms. Siracusa.
SIRACUSA:On page 4, at the very top it says Controls on further subdivision or
rezoning will not help the situation because almost all development is occurring on existing lots.
And Im having trouble with that one because every lot is existing, you know. And when people
come in for rezoning, its to make a lot, usually make a lot smaller. And certainly subdivision is
to make more lots. So I dont understand, maybe Im missing something here in the thought
processes of the Director, and I would like him to clarify that for me.
YUEN:Well, its really a question of scale. And if you were to look, lets take the
Highway 130 between Keaau and Pahoa. Theres something like 20,000 existing lots there, and
there is a potential for more lots to be created. Most of the lots actually that have been created
by new subdivisions in the area, almost all of them are Hawaiian Homes and, again, are basically
outside the Countys land use authority to try to control that. Aside from Hawaiian Homes you
haveaverysmallnumberofnewlotsthatarecreatedbynewsubdivisions.Andyoucouldgo
back, you know, 10 years and you might have a single digit percentage increase in the number of
lots from new subdivisions. So to pass a bill thats trying to control additional subdivisions so
that you have 20,000 lots instead of 20,400 lots I think is not really productive. Its just not, it
doesnt significantly change the situation. Its not that you throw up your hands, but youre not
going to make a significant improvement by refusing subdivision of existing lots. On the other
hand, what youre doing is youre preventing somebody from, and Im talking about here the
traffic aspects of it. Im not talking about the location where it might be a bad place to have a
subdivision. You know, those site specific issues still have to be dealt with. But thats the basic
point here, is that the growth and population that takes place on the existing lots is so large that
to work on or even to greatly worry about the growth aspects of having subdivisions of existing
lots is, you know, its focusing on the wrong problem.
SIRACUSA:I could see your point if you were looking at it over a very large
geographical area, however, and when youre talking about a difference between 25,000 lots and
25,400, for example. But when you get down into an area, say, of a small subdivision, even a
small subdivision can make a tremendous difference. Youll recall that Ive recently written you
a letter about a whole series of subdivision proposals coming for Kaohe Homesteads and how if
that process is allowed to continue theres a potential for a density increase of 388% in a very
small area. And so thats really foremost in my head when Im reading this stuff, is relating it to
my own community.
YUEN:Well, there is a valid issue and the issue is this, under the current
Subdivision Code, if you have the zoning, as long as youre on a County road, you have no
further road requirement. The County can make you do some improvements on the frontage of
the road; but under the current Subdivision Code there isnt the power to make people do off-site
road requirements for the County road.
6EXHIBIT D
Now I do want to address that and look atthat in the Subdivision Code, and have road standards
for subdividing off of the existing County roads. I think that is a weakness in the standard. That
isnt anything thats covered by any of the proposed bills. Its not something that would be dealt
with by level of service standards, these LOS A to F, because those strictly relate to congestion.
Typically in these country type roads that may be really substandard even for the subdivisions
that are there. Even if you subdivide out youre not going to have congestion on the road in the
sense that these level of service things are measured. The problem is the road itself may be, you
know, 9 feet wide. But there may be 20-acre lots along that are zoned Ag-3 and there is potential
for further rezoning. I think that is a valid issue. Its something that, as I say, Id like to address.
Its just not something I jumped on this round of revisions todo. Ideally it would be done in an
overall look at the Subdivision Code.
SIRACUSA:May I follow-up?
GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Siracusa.
SIRACUSA:Yes, because there wasanother, at the bottom of that same page where
you say, Often the final uses on the property are not clear at the time of zoning. We all have
examples of that in our heads. For example, commercial zoning allows a wide range of uses that
generate different traffic demands, including homes, fast food, blah, blah, blah. And, to me, this
says well this is all the more reason to review the list of permitted uses for the different types of
zoning; and yet when you gave the talk to us at our year-end meeting in December I think it was
that you indicated that the Department had no intention of going there. And so it seems to me
that, for one thing, youre saying were not going to go there, but on the other hand youre
admitting that the problem exists. And I dont understand why we cant look at addressing some
of these problems.
YUEN:We have had some site specific types of commercial zoning and if you -.
Lets step back a little. Text book zoning, if you pull out a text book on how you do zoning, the
text book will say something like the idea is you zone the property for commercial use and then
you let the market determine what exact types of uses are going to be on it; and there should be a
flexibility of this over time. The needs change over time. The goal is that you, is the site
appropriate for a commercial type of use, make sure that the infrastructure is appropriate for it,
you go through the range of things that can be allowed, and then you zone it; and you dont
worry whether its a restaurant, an office building, a retail store and the like. Thats a classic text
book zoning.
Weve had many circumstances where people come in for commercial zoning with an idea of I
want to do X. Like a gentleman in Kau a couple of months ago, he had an existing home, he
wants to keep the home, he wants to convert it to an office. It wont qualify as a home
occupation because he wants to have more people there than you can have as a home occupation.
This is all he wants to do. If we look at that picture it looks very attractive. If you do the whole
analysis of, well, what if he made a 7-Eleven, you know, then you start to maybe look at it a little
differently. So in realizing that and seeing a number of these situations over time, we have
deviated from what I would, you know, say zoning textbook and had various site specific
7EXHIBIT D
situations, site specific conditions like in that one that you keep the house. There has been one in
Waiakea House Lots that was very similar to that, we said keep the house.
But in general, okay, its still valid to say thatyouregoing to have a commercial area and a
person is seeking zoning andthey will have a range of different possibilities that will come in.
They may have a site thats zoned for a shopping center. This Ginger Patch development that we
had in Hilo last month is an example of a different type of situation where they may have an idea
of what kind of tenants they want, but you dont know until the property is marketed. And I
think realistically you have to allow some degree of flexibility.
Now at the planning stage for this of how many trips are you expecting it to generate and how
many, should you make them have an extra turn lane or two turn lanes, then you have to then
have some way of accommodating that or averaging that. Some of it is done actually in the
traffic manual. Say a shopping center theyll incorporate an averaging, because they just assume
thatashoppingcenterhasadifferent,youknow,arangeofuses,andsotheresafigureforthe
shopping center. And thats all that this says, is that you can, because were making this
requirement at the zoning stage, when they come in at the zoning stage we can accommodate
some averaging for a commercial zone.
SIRACUSA:I think more like what Im thinking of is that some of the uses that we
considered to be Commercial really should be recategorized as Light Industrial to be more
appropriate, you know. Because you just mentioned right here, you know, fast food restaurants,
offices and gas stations, to me a gas station seems to be more of a Light Industrial kind of an
application than a Commercial one. Maybe my concept of what Commercial is is different than
yours or the standard textbook. But to me anything thats a little bit on the obnoxious side in
terms of fumes, emissions, smell, noise, things like that would be more appropriate in the Light
Industrial, really Heavy Industrial, than in a Commercial. Thats all Im saying.
YUEN:Well, its a hard line to draw. And just to give an example, Village
Commercial which is the type of zoning that we have in our towns around the island like
Naalehu or Pahala, you can do a gas station. Well, you dont want to have to drive around the
island and not come to a gas station, so it has to go into some kind of a zoning. By the same
token you might not want to have a Light Industrial zoning in the middle of Naalehu. So you
have Village Commercial as being the type of zoning that has gas stations. Theres a hundred
ways to do this and its a very hard line to draw. All I can say is our Zoning Code is not a typical
code that youll see around the country; and it is a mater of wording. Many of the things that we
call Industrial to my way of thinking are not in the noxious, polluting, Heavy Industrial realm. In
fact, the bulk of the Light Industrial uses we have are things like warehouses and storage areas,
and things that dont involve manufacturing, lot of engines, smokestacks, and the like.
GRAHAM:Other comments from Commissioners? Chris, I personally certainly agree
with your original sense that these bills are not good, the four bills, even though their intention is
good. And I think you gave examples and so did Roger Harris at our Hilo meeting. But I must
confess I tend to feel the same way about your revised 318, like, you know, its a good intention,
but when I start looking about how would you implement it, it seems to me its another level of
laws and regulations that are going to just lead to more snag ups and disputes in the process; and
really its just an issue of our democratic process. You can recommend, currently, approval or
8EXHIBIT D
not approval based on these very ideas that you put forward here. And if the Council is
democratically responsible to its constituents, and they get elected every two years and the
constituents pay attention, theres no reason the Council shouldnt act in a reasonable way. So
even though that doesnt always happen, it feels like the way to deal with it is just to increase the
democratic involvement, which were kind doing now with the community development plans
which I think are very good. But to just throw more kind of laws on the books with specific
things like they have to conform where mitigation can be avoided if they conform to the
community development plan, well, then that gets into a big gray area of weve got to vote on
whether it really conforms to the plan or not. And, I dont know, I just feel it all leading down a
road that looks unattractive to me. Could you comment on my thoughts there?
YUEN:Well, I think there is a lot of validity in what you said; and its true that the
Department and the Council absent an ordinance could look at some of these kinds of factors.
And some of them are common sense. There is a downside to putting in an ordinance because it
doeslimitflexibility.Partofthisworkupisbecausewehadaseriesofordinancescomeupfrom
the Council and rather than simply say, you know, reject all of them, not a good try, I thought on
the zoning level it would be useful to try to take the intent and to put it into a workable ordinance
that would then provide a framework for the specific zoning decisions in the future. As I
mentioned in the write-up, some of the things that we have been recommending in some of the
rezonings that have come forward, the major rezonings, have applied these basic kinds of
principals, sometimes without saying the word concurrency. Weve had timing conditions.
Weve had conditions of rezoning for example with Palama Nui that tied implementation of part
of the project to the widening of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to four lanes. You know,
weve done that kind of thing. So I dont really disagree with you.
I do think that, just to step back a bit, if you look at the Zoning Code theres like about one
paragraph about when you rezone something; and its something like if its good for
motherhood, apple pie and, you know, theres about one sentence about furthers the greater good
and conforms to the General Plan. And I do think that it would be useful to everybody if the
County had something besides -. And then there are things in the General Plan, you know, the
overall policies that are in the General Plan. But something in the Zoning Code that really tried
to lay out what are criteria to look at;, and it wouldnt even have to be in the Zoning Code, but
what are the criteria to look at. I think that part of the original to 318 is to look at water and
roads and to say what are the kinds of criteria and what is the point at which you say no or wait
because the roads are too bad or the water supply is too iffy.
GRAHAM:Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, Commissioner Woodward.
WOODWARD:I think too, Mr. Chairman, the one thing from a purely pragmatic
standpoint is were just making a recommendation to the Council, theyre going to do what they
want. And I think its far better to have this amended document than to have them enact the
original 318; and I think theyll see by the work that Chris has done there has been a lot of
thought put into this. And I think were likely to get something thats much more palatable than
if we just send a negative recommendation on all of them, to be honest with you.
GRAHAM:Thank you. Good point. Commissioner Domingo?
9EXHIBIT D
DOMINGO:I somehow tend to agree with my colleague. If we do go a negative vote
on the rest of the bills and a positive action on Bill 318, if we send it up without any
recommendations on the other bills with the reason why were not acting on it because of our
reservations in the part of, as explained to the Commission, if we would stress that and elaborate
on that, then the Council can then take whatever steps they need to take. Because Im sure I
think its part of the requirement that they go out also on public hearing, or had they gone
through public hearing process already?
YUEN:Well, they have to take public testimony at all their meetings. Theres a
public hearing where if three Council Members ask for a public hearing then they go to a
special public hearing.
DOMINGO:You know, this Commission has been taking up this issue for the past two
meetings, and the response and the attendance at the meetings have been very sparse. And its
toobadthatwefindthisbecause--thenagainhereImsayingthatthisisreflectiveofthe
concerns of the public -- when we have it for public scrutiny and input, we hardly have many of
them come here and respond to it. So what Im saying is that, you know, lets take a vote on 318
and the rest we just send them up with no action on it, but with the explanation that youve made;
and lets incorporate that as part of a package to them.
GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA:You know, I actually favor the Councils version of this bill, nothing
personal, Chris. But if we were to take the vote on the amended bill first, you know, then I
would be voting against it because Id want a chance to vote on the Council bill. On the other
hand, if we voted on the Council bill first, then Im having, Im having trouble articulating this,
is what Im having trouble with. I guess I would really like maybe just an informal straw poll to
see who prefers which bills and who prefers the other before -.
GRAHAM:I understand your concern being a procedural one, youd like to -.
SIRACUSA:Yeah, because I wouldnt want to vote against this and make it look like
Im not interested in the issues that the bill raises, because I very much am. Its just a question of
the fine tuning between one and the other one, you know. That would make the difference in my
preference.
GRAHAM:Commissioner Woodward, you have a thought?
WOODWARD:It might be cleaner if we just vote on the original bill; and my guess is it
will be voted down and then youre option would be clear. So if I might suggest we take a vote
on the original Council version of 318 and then follow that, assuming its defeated, with a bill on
the amended version.
GRAHAM:Mr. Torigoe, would that be reasonable for me to do, to ask the person who
made the motion to temporarily withdraw the motion, and then we take another motion, or just to
give it up and start over again with it after weve done the original Council one?
10EXHIBIT D
TORIGOE:Well, any of those are within the realm of a possibility.
GRAHAM:Okay. Does that meet the wishes of the Commission?
WATANABE:Well, yeah, Im willing to withdraw the motion then.
DOMINGO:Ill withdraw my second.
GRAHAM:Okay, fine.
WOODWARD:Well, I move we vote on the Councils version of Bill 318.
SIRACUSA:Second.
GRAHAM:Secondedby-.
WATANABE:Votehow?
GRAHAM:Youhavetomovelikefavorableor-.
WATANABE:Yeah,youhavetogofavorableorunfavorable.
WOODWARD:Right. Okay, yes.
GRAHAM:So which is your preference? Are you making a motion a favorable or
unfavorable?
WOODWARD:Unfavorable. Thats my recommendation, that we put forth an
unfavorable recommendation.
GRAHAM:Okay, thats fine. Do we have a second?
WATANABE:Ill second.
GRAHAM:All right, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. So the motion before us
is that the Planning Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to the Council on the
Council-initiated Bill 318. Okay, so I think weve discussed it a bit. Do we need more
discussion, or can we take a vote on that?
WOODWARD:Vote.
GRAHAM:All right. Norman, go ahead.
HAYASHI:Thank you. Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD:Nay, or aye rather. Excuse me.
11EXHIBIT D
HAYASHI:Yes, aye is correct if youre voting for the unfavorable recommendation.
Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda?
ALAMEDA:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho?
RHO:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA:Nay.
HAYASHI:Chair Graham?
GRAHAM:Aye.
HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries to send an unfavorable recommendation on
Council-initiated Bill No. 318.
GRAHAM:Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Yeah. Ill reintroduce my former motion then to send a favorable
recommendation on Draft Ordinance Bill 318 to the Council as revised by the Planning Director.
DOMINGO:Second.
GRAHAM:Moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner
Domingo. Do we need any discussion or can we go to a vote on that? Okay, Norman.
HAYASHI:Thank you. And this is to accept Planning Directors version of Bill 318.
Okay, Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO:Aye.
12EXHIBIT D
HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho?
RHO:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda?
ALAMEDA:Aye.
HAYASHI:ChairGraham?
GRAHAM:No.
HAYASHI:Motioncarries.
GRAHAM:All right. Thank you. You folks did me the favor of voting it through so I
could vote last and get to express my concerns also. Thank you. I think we should move to Bill
319 now.
WATANABE:Procedurally, you know, in a sense the Directors recommendation on Bill
318 and its write-up on 318 addresses 319, 328, and 329. And Im wondering if we could handle
that all in one motion, or would you prefer to handle each bill separately?
HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, to make things easier, we would recommend that you go
through each bill, Bill 319, 328 and 329.
WATANABE:Okay, okay.
GRAHAM:I think that will be good. And maybe, if you would, Norman, if you could
just in a couple of sentences before we vote on it at least put fresh our mind what each bill is.
Can you do that for us so that we know were voting in an informed way and not some kind of
mechanical way? So just a brief, few words on Bill 319 first.
HAYASHI:County Councilinitiated Bill 319 is amending Chapter 23 which is the
Subdivision Code relating to Large Scale Developments (adds requirements to existing
provisions within the Subdivision Code relating to large scale developments regarding water
supply and transportation improvements or strategies be made concurrent with development in
order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government services). So that it is
Council initiated Bill 319.
13EXHIBIT D
GRAHAM:Thank you, Norman. Commissioner Watanabe has a motion. Can we
start with that?
WATANABE:Yeah. I move to send an unfavorable recommendation for Bill 319 to the
County Council.
DOMINGO:Second.
GRAHAM:Seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner Siracusa, do you
have some discussion?
SIRACUSA:Yes. In thePlanning Directors discussion of Bill 319, one of his
objections is that the requirement for improvements or strategies is vague. And myreading of
it actually felt that it needed an amount of vagueness because it has to allow for flexibility and a
widerangeofdifferentsituationsontheground.Because,Imean,youlookatatinylittle,you
know, agricultural subdivision, you compare it to another area, you know, theyre all so
different; and a one size fits all doesnt. And so I will be supporting the County generated Bill
319.
GRAHAM:Thank you for your comments.
DOMINGO:Mr. Chair, one question.
GRAHAM:Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO:This is a bill that would impact on the subdivision process. Are there any
large-scale rezonings that have taken place which would have to come before the Planning
Department for any kind of subdivision approval?
GRAHAM:Are you implying a question like where theres a large time interval in
between or -?
DOMINGO:No. Since this is something that would be applied during the subdivision
process, in consideration for subdivision, my question is are there any pending rezonings, large
scale rezonings, which would then come forward before the Department for subdivision
approval?
YUEN:Well, this Bill 319 would apply to property thats already zoned and when
it comes to subdivision. And theres certainly many -.
DOMINGO:Many, okay.
YUEN:Areas that are zoned that have not been subdivided.
DOMINGO:Yes. Many parcels that have been zoned but not subdivided. As I looked
at it, I looked at this whole scenario, the list of bills that are before us, its more likely directed
toward large scale developments. Im thinking, you know, perhaps the Councils motive in the
14EXHIBIT D
drafting of this bill is to address large scale developments. Because those are the projects that
would impact, you know, roads, water and County services and all that that all of us are
concerned about. Now if were looking doing the subdivision process, were looking at a whole
lot of subdivision applications that would come, but they would come in small increments,
perhaps not more than 10 lots or whatever. What were doing is were penalizing those
individuals who can least afford to meet the requirements of the bill. And thats my concern at
this point.
GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Domingo. Any other comments? Commissioner
Siracusa?
SIRACUSA:Yes. Id just like to give you an example of my community which is a
very, has large agricultural parcels. The smallest, and not too many of them, being 5 acres and
some of them are 100 acres or a little bit more, and all zoned Ag-5. This community is a cul-de-
sacandwithaverysubstandardnonofficialeasementroadthatleadsinandout.Andifthese
parcels, 100-acre parcels, without changing the zone can make 20 lots, 20 lots here, 20 lots there
in a small area, that can be a tremendous impact. And basically what happens is that the impact
on the road, on emergency evacuation, things like that, thats not fair to the other people there.
So Im looking at fairness to other people also but from a totally opposite end of where youre
looking at it from, Taka.
DOMINGO:Yeah. Again, during the subdivision process or plan approval process,
there is a mechanism that the Planning Director or the staff can rely on to impose certain needed
kinds of improvements on the property to ensure that the safety and welfare of the surrounding
community would be addressed. You know, that being in place, I feel comfortable that that may
answer the problem, rather than them facing the requirements of the other bills, the bills that we
have before us.
GRAHAM:Thank you. Any other comments from Commissioners? Norman, would
you take the roll, please.
HAYASHI:Thank you. The motion is to send an unfavorable recommendation on
Council initiated Bill No. 319. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho?
RHO:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA:Nay.
15EXHIBIT D
HAYASHI:Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda?
ALAMEDA:Aye.
HAYASHI:Chair Graham?
GRAHAM:Aye.
HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries.
GRAHAM:Thank you. Our next item is Bill No. 328.
HAYASHI:Yes.
GRAHAM:And I can read, its fine. Thank you for your help before. Bill 328 would
amend the Hawaii County Code by adding a new chapter relating to concurrency, which
establishes a concurrency management system and prepares apublic facilities improvement plan
tofundandmaintaincounty-widefacilitiesandservices.DotheCommissionerswishtodiscuss
or make a motion first? Commissioner Watanabe.
WATANABE:I move an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County
Council on Council initiated Bill 328.
DOMINGO:Second.
GRAHAM:Moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner
Domingo, for an unfavorable recommendation. I think we had some discussion of whats
involved with this bill in Hilo that Mr. Yuen gave us. I dont think we need to duplicate that
since most of us were there. Any discussion at this time by the Commissioners? Norman.
HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. This would be, again, an unfavorable
recommendation of Bill No. 328 initiated by the County Council. Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho?
RHO:Aye.
16EXHIBIT D
HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA:Nay.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda?
ALAMEDA:Aye.
HAYASHI:Chair Graham?
GRAHAM:Aye.
HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries.
GRAHAM:Thank you, Norman. And our fourth draft ordinance where we will give
review and comment is Bill 329 to amend the Hawaii County Code by adding a new chapter
relating to adequate public facilities, which relates to adequate public facilities for the
identificationofinfrastructureandservicesnecessarytosupportnewdevelopmentandthe
establishment of a policy as to whenand how these improvements and services will be
constructed and maintained. Do I have a motion on this bill? Commissioner Watanabe.
WATANABE:I move an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County
Council for Council initiated Bill 329.
GRAHAM:Second anyone?
DOMINGO:Second.
GRAHAM:Seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Do we have any discussion by
Commissioners? Norman?
HAYASHI:Commissioner Domingo?
DOMINGO:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe?
WATANABE:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho?
RHO:Aye.
17EXHIBIT D
HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa?
SIRACUSA:Nay.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Woodward?
WOODWARD:Aye.
HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda?
ALAMEDA:Aye.
HAYASHI:Chair Graham?
GRAHAM:Aye.
HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries.
GRAHAM:Thank you, Norman.
DOMINGO:Mr. Chairman?
GRAHAM:Yes, Mr. Domingo.
DOMINGO:Can I make a few remarks?
GRAHAM:Certainly.
DOMINGO:You know, although we voted no on the bills that preceded us, I think that
doesnotclosethedoorontheentireissueofconcurrenceortheabilityfortheCountyCouncil
and the Administration to find ways for a better quality of life for all of us who live here on
island.Thisisthebeginning,itsamessagethatisgoingoutthroughouttheCounty.AndI
would hope that the Administration and the Council would engage themselves in discussions that
would bring forth other provisions that would ensure this so-called quality of life that we all want
to maintain.
GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Domingo.
The discussion ended at 4:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
18EXHIBIT D