HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0042.068 2004-2006 4OJatY OF M,w,i
Harry Kim ~ Christopher J. Yuen
Mayor ~ (~D(M1dm-
• tl~... .t- ~1
of : w. r•'•N~`
~TF OF N~
Roy R. Takemoto
' Depury Dircnor
~~ix~tg of ~tzftYttii
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043
(808)961-8288 Fax(808)961-8742
January 18, 2005
Honorable Gary Safazik, Chair
and Members of the County Council
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chair Safarik and Members of the County Council:
SUBJECT: BILL 163, DRAFT 4 (GENERAL PLAN)
During the course of the council's deliberations on the General Plan, issues and questions
are raised by the Councilmembers and members of the public. I would like to comment
on some of these, mostly to explain the intent behind various changes to the General
Plan. In particular, I'd like to refer to Councilmember James Arakaki's questions during
the January 4, 2005 meeting, and Councilmember Fred Holschuh's January 7, 2005 letter.
Page references aze to the Ramseyered version of Bill 163, Draft 1.
1. Operating Budget: A chart on p.6 shows the relationship of the General Plan
to more specific plans (community development plans and functional plans)
and finally to implementing mechanisms, such as the operating budget, CIP
budget, and specific regulatory tools such as the Zoning Code. This chart is
meant to illustrate the concept that government spending should relate to the
goals, policies, and courses of action in the General Plan. The relationship of
the CIP budget to the General Plan is more apparent, but the operating budget
is also involved. For example, if the County puts a new fire station or park in
the CIP budget, it will usually have to include staff or other operating
expenses in the operating budget. The General Plan does not, however,
dictate particular budget decisions, which will always involve competing
priorities and revenue constraints that have to be made by the council and
administration from year to year. In other words, the chart does not mean that
the General Plan spells out what the operating budget should include.
Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer. aa
Comm. No. 4Z. ~pG~
Ref. To: Pfete~~~C ~
Ref. Uate~~
Honorable Gary Safarik, Chair
and Members of the County Council
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
Page 2
January 18, 2005
2. Reference to wave action on p. 89. This particular policy does apply to both
wave and tsunami inundation. It is a rewrite of a current policy and does not
change the meaning of the current policy. It does not include ordinary
flooding, which is dealt with by other policies.
3. Council Resolutions 58-97 and 330-96. I have enclosed copies of these
resolutions. They deal with rezoning in the mauka Kona area, particularly
Kaloko Mauka. The council has generally been following these resolutions for
Kaloko Mauka rezonings for the past several years.
4. Level-of-Service ("LOS") standards For police and fire protection. This is an
issue referred to by Councilmembers Arakaki and Holschuh. During the
Planning Department's community hearings on the General Plan, a number of
people suggested that the plan should include level-of-service standards.
After consulting with the police and fire departments, we proposed these
standards, which are similar to what these departments have been trying to
achieve. The concern is that these standards may lead to legal liability.
Level-of-service standards are quite common in Mainland general plans and
have not led to successful lawsuits. As a general rule, the government is not
liable to members of the general public who are injured by criminals or fire,
even if the police or fire departments didn't provide the level of protection
that people want or expect. See Ruf v. Honolulu Police Deyt., 89 Haw. 315
(1999). Nor does putting these standards in the General Plan mandate future
funding, just as the listing of various projects in the current General Plan does
not mandate that they be funded within a particulaz time period. The
govemment will always have more desired goals than it has the financial
resources to achieve. It is true that including such standazds is a policy
decision that emphasizes these Sre and police protection goals, and if they are
included in the General Plan it will signify a desire to move toward these
standards. Ultimately, it is up to the Council, as a policy decision, whether it
wants to include these level-of-service standazds. They can be deleted without
the General Plan having to go back to the Planning Commission.
5. DWS standards on p. 247. This refers to potable water. All DWS systems aze
currently potable water systems.
Honorable Gary Safarik, Chair
and Members of the County Council
HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
Page 3
January 18, 2005
6. "Important agricultural lands" on p. 345. While the state has a constitutional
mandate to identify important agricultural lands, it has not done so. The
county has the power to enact a program to protect agricultural lands through
its zoning and land use planning authority.
7. "Steering committee" for community development plans (p. 426). The
steering committee is advisory to the Council and the planning director.
Because the community development plans would be adopted by ordinance,
the Council will have the final approval power, subject of course to potential
mayoral veto.
8. Budget process, on p. 429. As mentioned above, General Plan goals and
policies should be considered in the budget process. The term "reconcile"
appears only with respect to the CIP process, and means that the CIP program
should track goals, policies and courses of action in the General Plan.
There was also public testimony that the Genera] Plan process was flawed from the
beginning because public input should have preceded any of the drafts. The Planning
Department had eight informal public meetings about the General Plan in 1998, well
before the release of any of the drafts. The current draft is similar to the one considered
by the Planning Commission beginning Apri12001. The Planning Commission held
eleven hearings and workshops on this draft before finishing its work in December 2001
and sending it up to the Council.
I would be happy to respond to any further questions the Councilmembers may have
about the current General Plan draft.
Sincerer 7
L~1_ i
J
CHRISTOPHER J. YUE~
Planning Director
CJY:pak
Wpwin60/Chair Gary Safarik Bill 163, Dratl 4 (General Plan)
Enclosures
COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII
RESOLUTION N0. ~ 8 9 7
(Draft 3)
RELATING TO ZONINGS ABOVE THE 3,000-FOOT ELEVATION FOR PARCELS
WITHIN THE KALOKO 11YiAAUI{A SUBDMSION
WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 330-96 which established a policy that
no lands above the 3,000-foot elevation within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision or the 2,500-foot
elevation above sea level elsewhere in the districts of North and South Kona shall be reclassified
to any zone district having a minimum lot size of less than twenty acres; and
WHEREAS, shortly after the adoption of Resolution No. 330.96, the Council approved
two change of zone requesu for A-l0a lots above the 3,000-foot elevation with more stringent
requiremenu to mitigate the wncerrts established in Resolution No. 330-96; and
WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that a low density use pattern for the mauka,
watershed lands of the island of Hawaii, in particular the Kona region, should be protected and
maintained for environmental reasons; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that a maximum density of two dwellings pet tweny acres
for lands within the Kaloko Mauka subdivision above the 3.000-foot elevation with the following
conditions in addition to the standard conditions of approval for similar zonings in the area, will
protect the watershed and native forest and maintain a low density pattern:
A. Final Subdivision Approval of the proposed agricultural subdivision shall be secured
from the Planning Director within five (5) years from We effective date of this
ordinance. The applicant shall reserve the following easetneats and special setbacks in
perpetuity for purposes of protecting and maintaining naturally forested areas and shall
delineate such easements and setbacks on plans submitted foe subdivision review:
i. A 100-foot wide "forest reserve t:ascmcnt' along the existing public street
frontage of the subject property, exclusive of access poiau permitted by the
Department of Public FVorks;
2. A 30-foot "forest reserve easenteaC along all lot lines not covered by the 100-
foot easement; and
3. A 100-foot wide structural setback in Iteu of the required 30-foot setback along
the existing praperry's n,:lic street frontage to provide an additional buffer.
B. Restrictive covenant(s) in the deeds of all the proposed agricultural lots fronting
existing roads shall specify attd uphold the easements and setbacks set forth in
Condition The restrictive covenant(s) shall also specify that, including the area
comprising the forest reserve easements described in Condition no less than eighty
percent (80%) of the entire lot area shall be retained in forest. A copy of the proposed
covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the
planning Diree[or for review and approval prior to [he issuance of Final Subdivision
Approval. A copy of the approved covenant(s) shall be recited in an instrumen[
executed by the applicant and the County and recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances
prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval.
C. Resvictive covenant(s) in the deeds of all the proposed agricultural lots shall prohibit
dte construction of a second dwelling unit oa and any further subdivision of each lot.
A copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances
shall be submitted to the Platuzirtg Director for review and approval prior to the
issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the approved covenant(s) shall be
recited in an inutrument executed by Ne applicant and the County and recorded with
the Bureau of Conveyances prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval.
D. A forest managemen[ plan for the proposed lots within the subject property shall be
prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Platming Director is
consultation with the State Deparanent of Lard and Natural Resources, the State
Department of Health, the State Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of
Natural Resources Conservation Service. The forest management play shall require the
following:
1. Include at rrtir»•rntun, the best forest and reforestation practices, program for
implementation and other applicable forestry management criteria, including
those of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, such as the
Forest Stewardship Program or the Soil Conservation Service Management
Program.
2. The forest management program shall include a restrictive covenant for the
proposed lots within the subject property whicD shall be recorded with the State
of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances and/or Land Cotta. A copy of the covenants
to be recorded shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and
approval prior to the issuance of final subdivision approval. A copy of the
approved covenant(s) shall be recited in as instrument executed by the applicant
and the County and recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances prior to the
issuance of final subdivision approval.
3. If more than twenty percent (20%) of the subject property has been cleared or
grubbed prior to the submittal of U.e "orest management plan or the recording of
the resvictive covenant(s), the refo:estation program for any eieared or grubbed
area(s) in excess of the 20% within the subject property shall be substantially
implemented prior to the issuance of fora! subdivision approval.
4, This forest management plan shalt govern the proposed lots within the subject
property for a period of fifty (50) years and its termination tray be cotuidered
afar the 50-year period has elapsed by amending this ordinance requiring
County Council approval by ordinance.
T1iEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF
HAWAII that the Planning Commission consider favorable recommendations for A-l0a zoning
requests for only those parcels within the Kaioko Mauka Subdivision above the 3,000-foot
elevation and include the aforementioned condirions with such recommendation provided that
the other goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan are met
HE IT RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County of Hawaii transmit copies of this
resolution to Stephen K. Yamashiro, Mayor; Kevin 8alog, Planning Commission Chairman; and
Virginja Goldstein, Planning Diroctor.
Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, this 2nd day of June , 1997.
INTRODUCED
L!N iL MBER COUNTY OF HAWAII
a1LTlCt3
COUNTY COUNCL. ROLL CALL VOTE
Couary of Ha~rail AYES NOES A85 EX
Hilo, Haw~ail ~cna X
oruNe X
1 Eertby certify that the toresoio~ RESOLUTION wu by the t.t:nmaaTOOn X
. ore indicated to the risht hereof adopted by tlfe COUNCIL of the ttwY X
County of Hawai oe June 2, 1997 rt>:vnot.w X
s~Nrwnt:rw g
ATTEST: snore X
mrae X
Y.~C4NC X
6 0 1 0
~Q Reference /PC-53
CpU~MY~CLERK CHAIRMAN & PRESIDPIG OF4ICER RESOLUTION NO. J 8 9 7 f DRAFT 3:
~r~u?. ~ ri~tvv~f~ taAw~ro
RESOLUTION N0. 330 96
FDA
c.~
A
ESTABLISHING A POLICY RELATING TO 'THE AMENDMENT OF ZONE~`~ i~ ~
2 ~
llISTILICT BOUNDARIES WITHIN ICALOICO MAUICA AND OTHER ICONA
WATEI25IIED AND MAUICA PORi;ST ARCAS. q
WHEREAS, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision (Subdivision) was established over twenty years
ago as a 2,000-acre subdivision of twenty acre lots comprising the upper half of the ahupua'a of
Kaloko and extending up to the 5,700-foot elevation level within the state Agricultural land use
district and the county Agricultural - ZO acre (A-20a) zoned district; and
WHEREAS, although a significant amount of the native forest cover has been removed
tluoughout the original subdivision for pasturage, recreation and residential use since its initial
development, a substantial amount of forest cover remains on lands above the 3,500-foot
elevation above sea level, which lands comprise the upper half of the subdivision; and
WI-IEREAS, to the north and south of the Subdivision, for the entire length of the makai-
facing slope of Mount Hualalai above arr elevation of approximately 2,500 feet above sea level,
all lands are in the state Agricultural land use district (L.U,D.) and the county A-20a zoned
district (or the equivalent, by way ofowner-initiated cluster/open space zoned district
combinations) and are in pasture and forest use, with the exception of several forest reserve azeas
which are in the state Conservation L.U.D.; and
WHEREAS, from time to time since the initial subdivision was completed, various lot
owners Dave applied for changes of zoning to a smaller minimum lot size to allow their lots to be
further subdivided, and to date most such change of zone applications have been approved by the
council and enacted by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, such rezoning ordinances have established a pattern of (1) Agricultural - 3
acre (A-3 a) tninimum lot size densities in the bottom one-third of the Subdivision, up to the
2,600-foot elevation and (2) Agricultural - 5 acre (A-Sa) minimum lot size densities in a narrow
band imrnediately above the A-3a zoned district, extending to the 2,900 foot elevation; and
WHEREAS, like the surrounding lands, the entire upper half of the Subdivision remains
in the A-20a zoned district, although a majority of lots in the upper half of the Subdivision
reportedly have one or more single family dwellings thereon and approximately fifty percent are
reportedly improved with two or more dwellings; and
s / i ~
,
WEIEI2EAS, several property owners have cited these heightened levels of effective
density and initiated requests for rezonings of lands in the upper half of the Subdivision from the
A-20a zoned district to an Agricultural - 10 acre (A-l0a) zoned district, which requests, if
approved by the council, would indicate a zoning policy supportive often acre minimum lot
sizes tluougltout the upper half of the Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the council believes that most lots improved with two dwellings have done
so by creating "virtual subdivisions" often acre property interests under provisions of the state
Condominium Property Regime (C.P.R.) law, which regime creates multiple saleable and
mortgageable interests on a single lot without regard to the county zoned district such lot may be
in; and
WHEREAS, while the council is concerned that the limited right to build additional
dwellings on agricultural lots may have been distorted into over use in this and other rural
subdivisions through the application of the C.P.R. law, it finds that such misuse should not be
cause to compromise the value and Force of county zoning powers, and instead may be reason for
the state legislature to amend the C.P.R. law to prevent misuse on lands in state Agricultural land
use district; and
WHEREAS, the council believes that zoning lands in the upper half of the Subdivision,
far above the elevation where the A-20a districts begin throughout the rest of this region, will
effectively sa~tction the existing practice of condominium divisions ofagricultural lands within
the County of Ifawaii, promote its use as pre-cursor of up-zoning pressures throughout the
island's watersheds and signify that Lett acre lot densities may be acceptable within the watershed
elevations without any commensurate lowering of densities in strrrounding azeas; and
WHEREAS, the council desires to protect and maintain the low density use pattern long
established for the ntauka, watershed lands of the island of Hawaii, and the Kona region in
particular, for a variety of environmental and service management reasons.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF
IfAWAII, that no lands above the 3,000-foot elevation within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision or
the 2,b00-foot elevation above sea level elsewhere in the districts of North Kona and South Kona
shall be re-classified to any zone district having a minimum lot size of less than 20 acres except
where contiguous lands held under the same or a cooperative ownership are coneturently placed
in a lower density zoned district with a net effect of maintaining or reducing overall density
levels and enhancing the integrity and value of the region's watershed and forest systems.
8 ~J~'
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County of Hawaii transmit copies of
this resolution to the Honorable Stephen K. Yamashiro, Mayor of the County of Hawaii; Virginia
Goldstein, Plaruiing Director; and Kevin Balog, Chairman of the Hawaii County Planning
Commission.
Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, this 19H' day of Jurte , 1996.
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OP HAWAII
ROLL CALL VOTE i
COUNTY COUNCIL AYES NOES ABS EX
County of Hawaii
Hilo, Hawaii
A rakaki
Bonk-Abramson X
reby certify that the faregourg RE.SOLUI-ION was by the O"td' X
De Lima
indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of
June 19, 1996 Domingo X
=ounty of Hawaii on Osorio X
Rath X
F.SI~: ~ Ray X
l~~~~~~~_ f _ ` Smith X
~/'~L(~ 6 Z 1 0
s~ Reference C-1199/I?C-124
vTY CLE CH IlC~1N & PR[s5[DING OFFICER RESOLUTION NQ