Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0400.114 2002-2004 ,rfV Oe N Harry Kim Dixie Kaetsu Mayot Managing Director e•::. o.'M~"'~ Peter L. Hendricks Deputy Managing Director ~ountp of ~abnai`i 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-8211 Pax (808) 961-6553 KONA. 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808)329-5226 • Fax (808)326-5663 r. c~ August 23, 2004 c~ = tV The Honorable James Y. Arakaki Chair, Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street =3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 co Re: Veto Message -Bill 178 Draft 5 Relating to Clifto's O`oma Project District Rezoning Dear Mr. Arakaki: Pursuant to Section 3-12 of the Hawaii County Charter, I am vetoing Bill 178 Draft 5 and returning it to you. Before going into specifics on why I cannot approve this bill, I must acknowledge with gratitude the willingness of the applicant to work with the County to try and address the various issues that were raised about the impacts of this project, as well as the applicant's generosity in offering the shoreline area for a public park. This sort of cooperation is very much appreciated, and forms the basis for a constructive working relationship in the future. Also, much appreciation goes to Council Planning Committee Chairman Elarionoff for initiating the discussion with the applicant and presenting a proposal to mitigate the community's concerns about the impact of this development. Concurreney Principles On May 5, we asked the County Council to defer final action on this bill for 90 days to allow time to develop a strategy that will ensure that highway improvements to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway are concurrent with development. As stated at that time, we cannot continue to make decisions about allowing development based on hopes and assumptions. We should not ayprave major commercial rezonings that depend upon highway improvements before we are certuin that the improvements will occur. The following summarizes the concurrency principles supported in the draft Concurrency Management Ordinance we submitted to the Council with my August 3, 2004 letter regarding this project: _ Comm. No. 0 . ~ Raf. To: Ref. DQ3e Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The Honorable James akaki August 23, 2004 Page 2 • For certain infrastructure that is considered critical to public health and safety, we need certainty to ensure that the necessary improvements to provide adequate capacity will be in place at the time of the project's impacts-i.e., for critical infrastructure, the issuance of a certificate of occupancy should be conditioned upon the completion of the required improvements; • Knowing from recent experience that even with the best intentions of government to expeditiously proceed with construction of a project with programmed funds, unforeseen circumstances may cause delays; hence, the need to condition occupancy on actual completion; • To control the risks of timely completion, a developer could itself undertake the project and be reimbursed by government or subsequent developers in the region; the alternative should be to deny the rezoning until completion is certain, or approve the rezoning with the condition that occupancy not occur until completion and the developer must then deal with the uncertainty of actual completion; • Contributions by developers to accelerate design or construction increase the chances for timely completion, but do not guarantee the actual completion date and therefore do not justify waiving the need to control occupancy until actual completion; however, an acceptable assumption of government risk in recognition of the developer's contributions would be to allow issuance of a building permit if the construction contract for the public improvements has been let. If government approves a permit, then government should accept its responsibility to ensure completion of the public improvements as scheduled. • Government has a responsibility to plan for growth within the limits of prudent financial capability; future development must plan within this framework or contribute resources towards innovative financing. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway According to the State Department of Transportation, traffic on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway was at maximum capacity in 1998. This situation has led the State DOT to plan expansion to four lanes from Henry Street to the airport. The first phase of this widening, from Henry Street to Kealakehe Parkway, will be a design build project that will start in 2005. The second phase, from Kealakehe Parkway to the airport, is planned for future development and funding. About the Clifto's O`oma Project The Clifto's project as originally submitted assumes that the Phase II widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway from Kealekehe Parkway to the airport will occur before substantial buildout of the project. The developer's analysis completely depends on the widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to four lanes to the airport. According to the project's own traffic analysis, at 50%buildout more than 1,000 cars will turn in or out of the project site at the peak hour. At this peak hour, the highway is already congested with over 1,500 vehicles passing this point. The Honorable James Y kaki August 23, 2004 Page 3 We must make sure that this and future developments that will increase traffic are timed so that non-residential occupancy is tied to the widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Suggested Change to Bill 178 Draft 5 Language that would provide for concurrency: J. ...With respect to the allowable non-residential uses, no building permit shall be issued until the construction contract for the Phase II widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway has been let. Added Note It is pointed out that although Corporation Counsel did review and approve Bill 178 as to form and legality, there are concerns with public notice requirements because of the increase in the number of residential units from 240 to 390 in Draft 5. Although the increase in the number of residential units was made to help address the shortage of affordable housing in West Hawaii and was matched by a decrease in the number of hotel rooms, the potential impacts are not the same. Conclusion The County should be trying to implement concurrency, the principle that infrastructure should keep up with development. The 90-day deferral of this rezoning request was made to give us time to study this issue and recommend a policy to you. Our recommendation to you was made in our August 3, 2004 transmittal. Bill 178 Draft 5 does not tie the occupancy of this development to completion or even funding commitment of necessary infrastructure. For this reason, I cannot support this bill. Aloha, Harry Kim MAYOR cc: Christopher Yuen Roy Takemoto B.J. Leithead-Todd