HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0509.002 2002-2004 VV piH
fYJNi......1`
AL KONISHI . • i~~ CONSTANCE R KIRIU
County Clerk Legislnrive Auditor
Ili p:.NN1~
JAYMENDE ~~y
Deputy County Clerk
County of Hawai `i
Office of the County Clerk
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo. [/awai'i 96720
Telephone: (808) 961-8386 Taesimile: (808) 961-8572
r`~
v
0
n 3
March 4, 2004 OCn 9 Z}
TO: Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair ~ ~
Committee on Planning _
3
r~
FROM: Constance R. Kiriu,',1,~ - 1~'
Legislative Auditor y~~
RH: Bill 231 relating to Scenic Corridors
The following are comments on Bill 231 relating to Scenic Corridors:
1. Recommend this be titled "Scenic Corridor Pro rg am."
2. Recommend someone (Chris or Nancy) take the committee through the corridor process step-by-step
(line-by-line) using an existing road as an example.
3. This is a program that must be founded on excellent inventory-based data. It is not clear when this data
collection and assessment would bedone--prior to initiating the corridor by resolution or after adoption
of the resolution? In theory, this should be done prior to the resolution in order for the council to base
their decision and findings on sound assessment.
4. In any case, it is important that funding for every step of the plan be identified and available. Otherwise,
it will be another dead program.
5. Section 25-6-61(h) should read: "[Includes] SiQnificantly~ossesses at least one of the following six
intrinsic qualities:"
6. These six qualities should be consistently mentioned throughout the bill.
7. Section 25-6-61 should have another criteria: "(i) Demonstrates local, private, and public s~or[ and
participation."
8. Section 25-6-63: What is meant by "all uses, conditions and standards permitted by the land's zoning
classification?"
9. Section 25-6-64(a): Resolution should identify and/or be accompanied by an appropriation to prepare
corridor management plan/bill, which would involve numerous meetings, possibly conducting further
assessments, notification, publication, etc.
Comm. No. ~9p Z
Ref. To:
Ref. Date 20~d
10. Section 25-6-64(b): Is 300 foot notification sufficient? This bill should specify contents of notification.
11. Section 25-6-64(c): Suggest leaving the timeframe for completing corridor management plan open-
ended or provide language for extending. Twelve months is little time in view of the many priority
projects/tasks of the Planning Department.
12. Section 25-6-64(c): Elements of corridor management plan must include the identification and
availability of funding sources, strategies for obtaining funds for implementation, sunset of plan if not
implemented.
13. Recommend careful use of the word "shall" or "shall be" instead of "muse' or "is".
14. Recommend consistency of the six qualities (scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, archaeological and/or
natural resource) throughout bill.
15. What exactly is being adopted by the enabling ordinance-the corridor management plan or only
standards and conditions in the corridor management plan that differ from those within the underlying
zoning? Isn't the current Bill 231 the enabling ordinance'?
16. Recommend language relating to review process by planning commission be similar to standardized
language in the code.
17. What happens if/when federal program is eliminated or funding dwindles?
18. Have utility concerns been discussed or assuaged?
19. Recommend director/core counsel restructure bill.