|
<br />LEITHEAD TODD: The problem that I had in trying to work with the bill that Councilmember
<br />Hoffmann produced is that generally you cannot amend the bill to change the original purpose of
<br />the bill. And so if the original purpose of the bill was to take the process and move it to the
<br />Planning Commission and to the County Council, I can’t take the language out of the bill because
<br />then it substantially changes the bill, and then I still have the problem that it runs foul of the
<br />Charter, which is why we are doing an entirely different bill because, if the purpose of the bill is just
<br />to basically tweak and provide more public input and amend the current process, that’s doable, but I
<br />couldn’t take Mr. Hoffmann’s bill and take the Planning Commission out and take the Council out,
<br />because the basic intent of the bill was to change the process of approval. And so because there is
<br />another Charter provision that says you can’t change the original intent, that’s why I couldn’t work
<br />with this bill.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Any other comments, Commissioners? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Fiala. Roger?
<br />
<br />HARRIS: Members of the Commission, members of the public, Planning Director, Madam
<br />Chairman, I’m going to speak on the other side of this. I am a city planner. I’ve been in the
<br />business in Hawai‘i all my life, I mean, my working life, which is now 43 years of planning and
<br />zoning and P.U.D.’s. And I’d just like to say this: P.U.D. provision in the Code is a really good
<br />provision. It has worked terrifically well. It was put in, the Sierra Club, Bonnie Goodell,
<br />everybody, everybody in the Green Communities supported both the P.U.D. and the Project District
<br />provisions the last time the Code was amended, and those of us who worked with it know how good
<br />it is. It could be that you could have more public meetings or something like that, but you’ve got to
<br />realize it allows for flexibility and really more green and environmentally correct planning. It is not
<br />an upzoning. The P.U.D. is, you can’t, if you have a half-acre lots, the guy next door, and his zone
<br />the same thing, he doesn’t get to do more than a half-acre lots. He is allowed -. That would be a
<br />rezoning, and a rezoning would go to the Commission and the Council. What Mr. Hoffmann is
<br />asking with this bill is that we turn the P.U.D., which is no density change, no density bonus, into a
<br />rezoning, okay? And I think that is a bad idea. I think the property owner has rights, and this gives
<br />his team a really good flexible tool to come up with a good plan. And there are many examples of
<br />this. For instance, if you had a 21-acre lot and right now zoned five-acre and you split it in the five
<br />equal lots, that’s what you get; if you are using the P.U.D. provision, you can split it into five lots,
<br />no density increase at all, but you can get three two-acre lots, let’s say, and one remainder lot.
<br />That’s what the P.U.D. allows, and if you are a property owner, I think you should be able to do
<br />that, subject to all kinds of conditions, which are typical. It’s like a subdivision process, and I think
<br />it works good. The system is not broken. The street I live on, nobody knows, but it’s a P.U.D., it’s
<br />a P.U.D. subdivision. I’m quite sure Hualālai Colony is, if it’s not a P.U.D. subdivision, it’s a
<br />variance subdivision. These things are done all the time. The Kona Community Development Plan
<br />calls for a clustering of densities in South Kona and other places in all of Kona, and the P.U.D.
<br />provision allows that to happen. If it was an upzoning, it has to go to Council; but it’s not an
<br />upzoning. A lot of P.U.D. provisions around the world and wherever are bonus, they have a bonus
<br />in there; you get a reward, you get two extra lots or something. But here, it’s just straight
<br />development like a subdivision. I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Thank you. Director.
<br />
<br />LEITHEAD TODD: I think the most contentious P.U.D. recently, for background information, was
<br />Ag-5 zoning and the proposal was going to create a series of two-acre lots with one large remainder
<br />lot. Based on the existing zoning, you would have been able to have 14 lots; based on the P.U.D.,
<br />12
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|