2018-02-21 KCDP Minutes Final - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

\[provided to them in Communication Number 2017-03\], they noticed other areas of concern due to legal ramifications and/or inconsistencies with other parts of the text. He urged fellow Action Committee members to use their own discretion as to whether these additional proposals extend farther than what may be necessary in a \[presumably\] interim amendment of the Kona CDP. Roy Takemoto from the mayor’s office spoke to the issue of concurrency in the CDP Amendment Subcommittee’s report. Both the original proposed amendments \[Communication Number 2017- 03\] and the Subcommittee Report \[Communication Number 2018-08\] offer vastly different rewording of the Concurrency policy \[TRAN-6.1: Official Concurrency Map\]. The Subcommittee proposed moving a proposed section of policy TRAN-1.1: Official Transportation Map to policy TRAN-6.1 and removing much of the original proposed wording. Mr. Takemoto advocated for keeping the wording as it was in his original amendment claiming that the subcommittee was respectfully, and possibly unintentionally, gutting the concurrency policy. Mr. Takemoto stressed the importance that the concurrency requirements are in proportion to the impact the developer proposes. He explained that under his proposed language \[as contained in Communication 2017-03\], a developer would have to work toward reasonable means to allow area mitigation requirements to be satisfied by government or private developers in the near future following the start of a new development rather than being required to construct roads concurrently with their development. Mr. Takemoto’s proposed language requires a developer to define an applicable right-of-way by metes and bounds, or by guaranteeing the performance of the metes and bounds description commitment pursuant to HCC §25-2-46(f)(2). He explained that the intent of this wording is to put the burden on developers to help plan for the future roads in Kona without going beyond what is proportionate to the impact of the project. Mr. Takemoto also commented on the Concurrency Table 4-1, which was also further edited by the subcommittee. He said that there are 3 Concurrency Zones with roads listed on that table without any guidance in the CDP on defining those road corridor alignments and thus for preparing any metes and bounds descriptions of their exact future alignments: 1. In Concurrency Zone C – the extension of Ane Keohokālole Highway between Kaiminani and Hina-Lani largely because much of that land is owned by the State and is unplanned. 2. In Concurrency Zone I – the proposed Kuakini Highway Extension through lands owned by Queen Liliuokalani Trust. 3. In Concurrency Zone K – the proposed Hienaloli Street Extension north to Palani Road, a complicated issue involving many land owners. Mr. Takemoto also explained that there are concurrency zones which have puka \[gaps in their\] segments for which preparing proposed metes and bounds requires further study: 1. In Concurrency Zone A – Queen Ka‘ahumanu Frontage Road (north of the National Park) 2. In Concurrency Zone B – University Drive Extension mauka to Mamalahoa Highway. Mr. Takemoto also explained that the County Fair Share account requires developers to contribute to a fund when they apply for a rezoning. This account gets used for general improvement in the area. He explained that there may be funding in this account which recently lapsed from its previous appropriation, he encouraged the Action Committee to further look into this opportunity for their projects. He briefly explained the process to fund projects through the county, which happens in 3 steps. 1) Appropriation: a project is named in the CIP as being appropriate for funding and development; 2) Allotment: available funds are placed in a restricted account for the project, so that bidding may www.hiplanningdept.com kona@hawaiicounty.gov Page 4