2019-01-17 Leeward Exh B (AMEND REZ 17-219)

Home

look through the request, and I can go over it, and then we can talk about it a little bit more detail. \[Mr. Kay paused to allow the Commissioners to read the documents.\] Okay, sensing that – still need a minute or? Okay, so, essentially, the applicant made a request in th this January 10 email from Sidney Fuke that an amendment to Condition M be made to credit the cost of providing and constructing roadway improvements to the County dedicable standards, as the applicant believes that connecting Lālei Place and Hane Street provides a regional benefit by creating a new collector road that would increase connectivity and circulation in the area. So, the other thing that the request was is that if we agreed with it, would we go ahead and introduce it as an amendment request from the Director. After some discussion – and the second document that you have there is a 2002 Memorandum No. 02-33, and this is what we call a Planning Director’s policy memo, and what this does is provides us with guidance on different policies and how to interpret things. In this case this is related to how we would credit fair share, credit against fair share amounts for roadway improvements. So, I’ll get into this a little bit, but based on this memo and how we’ve been applying this since 2002, generally, the Director does not support the request, the amendment request, for the following reasons – in that memorandum then-Director Yuen advised when to credit the cost of roadway improvements in lieu of fair share payment: The memo goes on to say that fair share is meant to contribute to the regional impacts of a development. To allow a credit for infrastructure that must be built to make the subdivision work does not serve that regional benefit purpose. Therefore, roads that are necessary for the subdivision anyway will not be credited toward fair share costs; Improvements – just as a matter of information – in the past, improvements that have generally been credited against fair share payments have been more extensive, off-site regional roadway improvements or land dedication, and this is for a larger collector roads that are off-site; Credit can be applied to the extra cost, if the subdivider builds a road to a higher standard because the County requested it to be part of a regional road network that’s identified either in the General Plan or CDP or something like that. That’s not the case in this situation; I spoke with our subdivision staff yesterday and found out that in any case, because they are essentially connecting to existing County roads, the applicant would have been required to build the road to dedicable standards and connect both roads through the subdivision process anyway. So that kind of lends credence to the fact that this would have been a requirement to complete the subdivision anyway. So based on this memo, the request for crediting the improvements would not apply; Finally, with the condition as written, the applicant still has the opportunity to ask for a credit at a later date. But the Director is currently not comfortable requiring the credit as a condition of this ordinance. 3 EXHIBIT B