Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0762.059 2004-2006 Margaret Wille 65-1316 Lihipali Road Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 808-887-1419 Honorable Stacyy Higa, Chair Hawaii County Counci 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 May 17, 2006 Dear Chairman Higa and Members of the County Council RE: BILL 246 --Subdivision Code Revisions: Proposed Compromise Summary of Director Yuen's Proposed Amendments: Director Yuen's proposed revision of the Subdivision Code: ---removes the substantive road standards for grades and curves; reduces to a minimum the information required for preliminary approval; ---provides for waiver of any of the remaining required information; ---allows the Director to approve plans if the Developer agrees to adhere to unstated industry practices to be determined by Public Works, Water Supply, and Health; ---provides that deferral for further review constitutes preliminary approval; --elliminates the requirement that a request for an extension to file the final subdivision plan be made in advance of the deadline for submission of that plan; and, --allows the Director to issue both preliminary and final subdivision approvals subject to future submission of supplemental information. Preface: There is no question that the Department of Planning (hereafter "the Departrment") is overburdened. To address this problem, Director Yuen has asked the County Council to approve amendments to the Subdivision Code that reduce the mandatory critieria at the preliminary subdivision approval stage and allow the Director to approve as valid otherwise incomplete applications. My suggestions are "Department - friendly" and "Developer-friendly", but also allow for timely public participation in the subdivision process. By incorporationg these suggestions, Director Yuen's proposed amendments will be less vulnerable to judicial challenge based on recent case law such as Hokulia, Sierra Club v Office of Planning. State of Hawaii, and Leslie v. Board of Appeals. Director Yuen also proposes some other changes that allow for more flexibility in the subdivision design standards, modify procedural time limits, and incorporate non- substantive "housekeeping" revisions. I am not objecting to these other changes, except to be sure the procedural deadlines allow the opportunity for pubic participation. Background and Current Status of Bill 246 Pursuant to the County Charter, the Planning Commission has the primary responsibility for reviewing and recommending proposed changes to the Subdivision Code. In this instance, the Planning Commission forwarded Director Yuen's proposed amendments on to the Council by way of the Mayor, with reservations on a 3-3-3 vote (three for, three against, and three absent). It is my understanding that the Planning Commission did not take a hard look at the separate amendments. The specific amendments however have different objectives and affect the stakeholders (the Department, the Developers, and the Public) in different ways and should not be handled as a package deal. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT A are my suggested modification to Director Yuen's proposed amendments. The following reasons support these suggested Comm. "0._ Z Ref. T.P esented Ref. Date modications: 1. Presumably In an effort to reduce the Planning Department's workload, Director Yuen's amendments revise the preliminary subdivision approval process to be more like the Issuance of a building or plumbing permit, than the approval of an application Involving judgments and determinations. The Hawaii Supreme Court Is not likely to sanction the Director's revisions as presently drafted. Final subdivision review is a relatively ministerial process in that the primary objective is to determine compliance with the conditions set forth in the preliminary subdivision approval. In contrast, at the prelilminary approval stage, the Department must ascertain what standards are applicable and under what conditions the Developer will have complied with those conditions. Consistent with these amendments, Director Yuen stated in the Department's March 2006 Informational handout Hawaii Land Use Regulatory System that "The main issues at subdivision are the adequacy of the roads, water supply, and drainage." That description reduces to a minimum the scope of subdivision review. The Director's proposed revision of 23-62(b) is consistent with this reduced scope of the subdivision review criteria. However the Courts have recently rejected that approach to the approval process for subdivisions and other types of developments. Prior to final subdivision approval the Department must make determinations and judgments relating to compliance with the County's General Plan and other statutory and regulatory requirements, including zoning ordinance and land use conditions. County Code #23-23 and Leslie v Board of Appeals Conclusions of Law # 6 to 9. The Court in Leslie expressly rejected Director Yuen's position that since this approach had been in play for over 30 years, the Department should no longer be required to insist on submission of the omitted information. As was pointed out in Hokulia " the information and proposals available at the time of subdivision approval are the only relevant evidence of the legality of what uses are going to be made of the land." Conclusion of Law #6. In Hokulia the Court made the point that after the subdivision approval process is over, enforcement of conditions, such as zoning conditions, become impracitical. Conclusion of Law #21. Case law precedent also establishes that the Planning Department can approve or deny a subdivision application, but that a conditionally accepted application, may, under certain circumstances, be the legal equivalent of a complete approval. 2. Public Input benefits the Department and should be encouraged not curtailed at the time of preliminary subdivision review : At the intial stage of preliminary subdivision review, the Department must require information in sufficient detail to assess application of the provisions of the County General Code and the pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements. See County Code Sections 23-23 and 23-73. As the Court in Sierra Club v Office of Planning and Leslie v. Board of Appeals underscored, public input should be solicitied at the early stage of review when it can be utilized in the Department's decision making process. At this stage of the application process, judgments are made regarding what criteria apply and what performance standards are appropriate. In contrast, at the final approval stage, the subdivision process assesses compliance with the performance conditions outlined in the preliminary plan approval. In Leslie v. Board of Appeals, the Court specifically rejected the Board of Appeals and Director Yuen's arguments that requiring additional information at the preliminary approval stage "would be an unncessary waste of effort" and would produce "an absurd and unjust result". The Court's rejection of that position was primarily based on Director Yuen's own testimony confirming that public input can help the Department make better decisions, and that generally if the public had more information, it could provide better information to the Department. The Leslie Count also concluded consideration of relevant statutory and regulatory criteria must be reviewed at the preliminary application stage and that some review criteria had been overlooked by the the Department. 3. The Public does not have access to the relevant Information If not provided In the subdivision application: Director Yuen has indicated that, although the Department does not require some information when the initial subdivision application is filed, the Public does have access to sufficient relevant information. My experience, in researching subdivision applications, is to the contrary. After two months of investigating the status of various aspects of the Parker Ranch Luala'i 3 Subdivision, I have not be able to ascertain the Department's performance requirements for the Developer in important areas such as 1.) road concurrency and design standards; 2) the status of the regional park that was to be dedicated to the County for the benefit of the Waimea community; and 3) whether sidewalks will be required along the primary roads. I found that the Department had overlooked applicable requirements at both the preliminary and final review stages of this Luala'i 3 subdivision. And, as the Court in Hokulia pointed out: "Without affirmative action prior to subdivision approval, the County's enforcement ability will be impractical.... " Hokulia Decision of 10-22-03 Conclusion of Law # 21 (in the context of determining compliance with the statutory requirements for protection of prime agricultural land). 4. The Developer benefits from providing sufficiently detailed information at the preliminary plan review stage. Under the real property doctrines of "equitable estoppel" and "vested rights", if the Developer provides sufficiently detailed information in the preliminary subdivision application, the Developer is far more confident that the final subdivision approval will not be delayed or denied and is far less likely to be reversed in the event of a judicial challenge. In light of the recent case law in this area, avoiding potential legal challenges should be a more important concern to Developers than minor delays in finalizing the preliminary subdivision application. Requesting sufficient details of the subdivision project at the time of preliminary review is also consistent with the information requirements contained in the state's "Uniform Regulation and Practice Act. Haw. Stat. 484- 4 et. seq.. That statute mandates what information must be available to potential real estate buyers (in large subdivision offerings) following preliminary subdivision approval, and includes a requirement that "There is reasonable assurances that all proposed improvements will be completed as represented." Haw. Stat. 484-7. The now proposed deletion of HCC 23-66- 7 (which presently requires details concerning proposed improvements) would be inconsistent with the corresponding provision of the Uniform Regulation and Practice Act. As acknowledged by the Legislature: The lack of certainty in the development approval process can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning in the long run, for the Developer more certainty even at the cost of less flexibilty and some initial delays is more beneficial." Haw. Rev. Stat. section 46-121 (2003) (emphasis added) Developer representatives who seek to avoid or minimize compliance with development approval criteria have, and still may, at times succeed. However, in the long run, as evidenced by the Hokulia case, that approach unnecessarily creates legal uncertainty and can be far more costly. Submission of information regarding these other criteria at the preliminary approval stage is important so that the Developer does not fail to address these requirements and thereby be vulnerable to denial or delay of the final approval or even worse be subject to a judicial challenge. A detailed application checklist of all possible criteria would be helpful to Developers at the preliminary approval stage. An example of a subdivision checklist from another jurisdiction is attached as EXHIBIT B. It is 7 pages in length, and by being all inclusive, is Developer-friendly. 5. Proposed method of handling subdivision and other development applications now pending before the Planning Department. Director Yuen's concern about currently pending subdivision applications should be addressed by way of a letter to pending subdivision, PUD, and Cluster home applicants explaining that as a result of the Leslie decision. the Department requests that all applicants who have not received final subdivision approval, check to be sure that all required information is submitted to the Department as soon as possible and at least 45 days in advance of the deadline for final subdivision approval. All pending subdivision applications should be given an automatic extension in which to submit any additional information. A separate notice should be sent to all applicants who received subdivision approval on or after January 25, 2006 (the date of the Leslie decision), so that if these applicants are concerned about the possibility of a judicial challenge, at their option, have the opportunity to confirm that all required information was submitted and considered in the approval process. By approving Director Yuen's proposed amendments (as currently drafted), the Council will have sanctioned retroactively ratifying all incomplete subdivision applications that were pending when the Leslie decision was published on January 26, 2006. In the likely event of a challenge to one of these approvals, the Court may well overturn the approval if the Department did not evaluate important requirements, or if relevant information was not made available to the pubThe Court is also likely to invalidate these rule changes as inconsistent with overarching statutory and regulatory review requirements. 6. Diminishing the opportunity for public participation contributes to the negative Image of Big Island County politics Residents must see themselves as participants, and government must welcome their active involvement. Neither of these qualities is likely to be supported by the political culture of rural Big Island communities.... Hawai'i Politics and Government by Richard Pratt and Zachary Smith (University of Nebraska Press 2000) page 230. Without question the problem of an overburdened Planning Director and Plannin Department must be addressed, and the County Council should acknowledge this crtical need. However, curtailing accountability and public participation is not the democratic or most effective way of achieving that objective. [Note the Department has also asked the Planning Commission to remove the "Plan Implementation" Annual Report accountability provisions of the General Plan. See Interim Amendments, page 7, here attached as Exhibit C.] Planning Department staff must always be mindful that: In a democracy, the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies shall be conducted as openly as possible. Haw. Stat. 92F-2. ("Sunshine Laws") 7. There are other ways to reduce the Department's workload while at the same time providing a meaningful opportunity for public participation in review of development applications. For example 1. Establish a "Public Advocate" position in the Planning Department.to enable the public to participate in a timely and effective manner in the planning and zoning review processes and in a way that would enable the Department to process the public's suggestions in a efficient manner. Establishment of this public advocate position, with a secretarial position, would be consistent with the State's Sunshine laws. 2. Raise the current fee for submitting a subdivision and PUD applications for each lot or unit to $1500 per lot or unit. That figure (or more) better correlates to the amount of work involved in processing these applications. The current token fee is $25 per lot. Use these additional funds to hire additional staff, including for the above proposed Public Advocate position and for a corresponding secretarial position. 3. On a bi-monthly basis, publish a comprehensive list of all development applications, including subdivisions, P. D.s, duster housing, and rezonings. Director Yuen made this proposal for subdivisions in his April 27, 2006 letter to the Council concerning this Bill 246. 4. If these changes do not sufficiently address the Department's workload problem, perhaps development applications should instead be handled by the Planning Commission or by a separte Subdivision Review Board. That is the general practice in other jurisidictions and was the previous practice in this County (1960s?). 8. Summary: In summary, by failing to require that all pertinent information be submitted as part of the preliminary subdivision approval process, the Department misses the opportunity for valuable input from the public, is forced to allow for more flexibility in the processing of the application, and inadvertant failure to check on compliance with various requirements is Likewise, in the absence of a certain and fixed approval of the preliminary subdivision plan, the Developer's plan is far more vulnerable to judicial challenge --even if this Council approves the proposed reduction of informational requirements at the preliminary review stage. In addition without having available sufficient information at the time of preliminary approval, the Public is effectively shut out and only those with judicial "standing" are left with the uninviting option of bringing a lawsuit to address any concern. In light of recent judicial precedent, it is also uncertain whether the provisions of Bill 246 are likely to withstand judicial scrutiny. 9. CONCLUSION: I ADVISE AGAINST PASSAGE OF BILL 246, AND ASK THAT THIS MATTER BE REFERED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, OR ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST PASSAGE OF THE ATTACHED COMPROMISE OF BILL 246. Si cerely , 01t? Margartt Wille r 1~ DST 0. CDnC- y-nk k 17- Z-e- tJ ,m.u~,~~. Xt?~~?~ A, Sv~~~ ~rop~s-ea c-han~o . copy shall be returned to the subdivider and the other retained by the director. At such time the director shall stamp the above two preliminary plats: "Subdivider authorized to prepare detailed drawings on plat as submitted including corrections noted." "Recordation with the Bureau of Conveyances, State of Hawaii, not authorized until approved for record at a later date." ® (b) f no action (approval, disapproval, modification, or deferral) is taken by the director within fs@4 e days after submission of the preliminary plat, or such longer period as may have L been agreed upon in writing, the preliminary plat shall be deemed approved[; aad-t§e4ffeeteF 1 f~2Q f0 ® C The approval shall be on condition that the subdivider construct roads to the standards required by this chapter, a water system to the standards of the department of water supply, drainage meeting with the approval of the department of public works under section 23-92, that sewage disposal shall conform with section 23-85, if applicable, and the requirements of the department of health and that the lot sizes and dimensions must be adiusted to conform to the zoning code on the final plat The ® subdivider shall com 1 with the provisions of this chat in order to receive final subdivision approval. (c) The director shall disapprove a preliminary plat or a subdivision map where the subdivider has failed to comply with the provisions of chapter 25, [Zenk-kg4godo-] zoning code. (d) The subdivider shall complete all requirements specified as conditions for approval of the preliminary plat (tentative approval) within three years of said approval. An extension of not more than two years may be granted by the director upon timely written request of the subdivider. At the end of said three year period or its approved extension, unless all said conditions are completed, the approval of the preliminary plat shall expire and shall be of no further force or effect, or shall be subject to the technical review of the applicable agencies for compliance with current Code and rule requirements. This subsection shall be applied to all subdivision applications which have received tentative subdivision approval and which have not completed subdivision improvements, provided the three year period, and extension, if applicable, shall be taken from December 4, 1992 and not from the date of preliminary plat (tentative) approval. iNclvd~+~y e ti~~v~rcr?~n~ S2c~VM a3 -a3 C(hay)d*rl torv? rand rP"1VlfPYhQn~) 0.rdsec(~.o~, 2-'a~3 Cry-9urrin ~'ha~'the (aw ~e"su?~s1un~:aily sirn~ Y-"~ th. ~~c~m~?vary Play) e The "r s defer of a s division for her reVieder su ction a constitutes an acc ce of the con of the relimin atted and t director's issuance of to five final subdi is n a roval is valid de a failure of a re " in lat to incl a all of the i ormati s " ed in sections 23- to 23- The director In 0 require the subdivider to submit supplementary information prior to tentative or final approval • a may con ikon tentative or a " SECTION 6. Chapter 23, article 4, division 2, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) is amended to read as follows: "Division 2. Contents of Preliminary Plat. Section 23-63. General information on preliminary plat. The preliminary plat shall include the following general information: (1) [Proposed- name] Name of the subdivision which shall not duplicate nor resemble the name of another subdivision in the County. The proposed name shall be subject to approval by the director; (2) Date, northpoint and scale of drawing; (3) Tax key number and other information to sufficiently describe and define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision according to the County real property records [ (4) Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and engineer or surveyor who prepared the plat; (5) The approximate lot layout and the approximate dimension and area of each lot; (6) Acreage of proposed subdivision and number of lots; and - (7) A title report issued by a licensed title company in the name of the owner of the - land, showing all parties whose consents are necessary and their interests in the premises when required by the director. Section 23-64. Existing conditions shown on preliminary plat. The preliminary plat shall include the following information on existing conditions[.], unless waived or deferred by the directc (1) Location, width and names of all existing or platted streets within or adjacent to the tract, together with easements, other rights-of-way, and other important 6 features, such as comers, property boundary lines, and control of access lines adjacent to State highways; (2) When required by the director, contours at vertical intervals of five feet where the slope is greater than ten percent. Elevations shall be marked on the contours based on an established bench mark or other datum approved by the director of public works. In addition, the contours as may be required by the manager, State department of health, and director of public works shall be shown; (3) The location and direction of all water courses and approximate location of areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow; (4) Existing uses of property, including but not limited to, location of all existing structures, wells, cisterns, private sewage disposal systems, and utilities; and (5) Zoning on and adjacent to the tract. Section 23-65. Proposed plan of land partitioning on preliminary plat. The preliminary plat plan shall include the following land partitioning information: (1) Streets showing location, widths, [pFepesed-narae&J approximate radii or curves. The relationship of all streets to projected streets shown on the County general plan, [ J which may be shown on a vicinity map; (2) Existing and proposed easements, showing width and purpose; (3) Lots, showing approximate dimensions, [winknum] p_roposed lot size and. proposed lot [and -bleelE] numbers i• f any; and - (4) Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single-family dwellings or farm dwellings. Section 23-66. Explanatory information on preliminary plat. ® Unlesswaive the director, [T]the preliminary plat shall include the explanatory information[-.] listed in this section. If fit] such information cannot be shown practicably on the preliminary plat, it shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying the preliminary plat: 7 (7) A statement explaining compliance with the relevant "course of action" provisions > in the County General Plan; and, (8) A statement explaining compliance with any other relevant statutory or regulatory conditions, including for any rezoning ordinance requirements that apply. (1) A vicinity map at a small scale, showing existing subdivided land ownerships adjacent to the proposed subdivision, and showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with existing streets; (2) Proposed deed restrictions in outline form if any; 10) The 11M-Oykiffiate l6eatieff within the s4diiisien and in the adjoining stfeets an eenduits ef lines pr-opesed to be used en the prepeAy to be subdikded and (4)]Q) Statement regarding water system to be installed, including source, quality and quantity of water; [(-5)J 4J Provisions for sewage disposal, drainage and flood control which are proposed. The drainage map shall include the approximate location of areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow and all areas covered by waterways, including ditches, gullies, streams and drainage courses within or abutting the subdivision; and p (FD)[(6)](5) Parcels of land proposed to be dedicated to public use, and the conditions of such dedication[;;-aad (7) hWr-evemeiAs !e be made by the developer- and the appmrknate ti OL kip SECTION 7. Chapter 3, article 5, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) is amended to read as follows: "Article 5. Final Plat. Section 23-67. Time limit for completing final plat. The final plat shall be prepared and completed within one year following the tentative approval given on the preliminary plat by the director. If the final plat has not been filed within this period, the tentative approval of the preliminary plat shall be deemed void. A time extension, for good cause may be granted as provided under section 23-72. Section 23-68. Drafting of final plat. 8 with the preliminary plat as tentatively approved. The subdivider shall submit to the director eight copies of the final plat, prepared in conformity with these regulations, together with four additional copies of a general layout map, which was originally attached to the construction drawings and specifications (where required) showing the location of lots, streets, water mains and storm drainage systems. (b) [E i-j teem- Yeried ] For good cause, the director may grant to the subdivider an extension of time within which [he] the subdivider may file the final plat. (c) The time of filing the final plat means the time at which the final plat, together with all required data, is received by the director. The director shall indicate the date of filing on all copies of the final plat and accompanying data. Section 23-73. Technical review. Within [we) 91jAy days after receipt of the final plat and other data, the director shall submit copies of the final plat and other data to the director of public works, manager, [seaitary engineef] State department of health and district engineer when the subdivision involves state highways for review of the final plat with the director. The final plat shall be examined as to whether it is substantially similar to the approved preliminary plat and whether it is technically correct. The information on the final plat shall also be verified by entering upon the respective subdivision wwwhere ~~dgqeemed necessary b the director. If there is a variance, the subdivider shall 0 At be advised b the d>lector of the changes or additions that must be made and given an opportunity to make corrections. The director's ubmi ion of co vies of the fin lat to other (b reviewers c stitutes acce tance of the contents o final plat, provided t t e director may reguest'sglementarv information, and the direct issuance of final subdi ion avvroval shall be 1 despite the absence of information u ed in sections 23-69 d 70. Section 23-74. Final approval of plat. (a) When all the construction work is complete and is accepted in writing by the director of public works, the subdivider may apply for approval of the subdivision map for recordation. If the director disapproves the plat, the grounds for disapproval shall be filed in the records of the planning department. No plat shall be disapproved by the director without giving the subdivider [a-heming:] an opportunity to correct errors in the plat. (b) Upon final approval, the director shall stamp three copies of the final plat: 12 L~j~~~, h 't b; sl TI'1~- ~'1 ,C.) b„ % FORM B • S1713MISSIONS CHECKLIST If a provision is not applicable, put "NA" Section 1. Development description A. Narrative 1. Objectives and details 2. Existing facilities (with dates of construction) B. Topographic map -Location of develoment boundaries -Quadrangle name C. Construction plan -Outline of construction sequence (major aspects) ~Cl~wt`i -Dates VC 1 _ D. Drawings - 1. Development facilities -Location, function and ground area -Length/cross-sections for roads _ 2. Site work (nature and extent) _ 3. Existing facilities (location, function ground area and floor area) 4. Topography -Pre- and post-development (contours 2 ft or less) -Previous construction, facilities and lot lines Section 2. Title, right or interest (copy of document) Section 3. Financial capacity _ A. Estimated costs B. Financing 1. Letter of commitment to fund 2. Self-financing a. Annual report b. Bank statement 3. Other _ a. Cash equity commitment _ b. Financial plan _ c. Letter 4. Affordable housi:.+ information Section 4. Technical ability (description) A. Prior experience (statement) B. Personnel (documents) _ Section 5. Solid waste (list: type, quantity, method of collection and location) _ A. Commericial solid waste facility (contracts) _ B. Off-site disposal of construction/demolition debris (contracts) Op-site disposal of woodwaste/land clearing debris ';I. Applicability of rules (evidence re: applicability of rules) • _ 2. Demonstration of appropriate soil and groundwater conditions -Delineation on site plan 47 • -Soil profile information 3. Burning of wood wastes -Delineation on site plan -Plans for handlinq unburned woodwaste and woodash T -Evidence of capacity to accept waste (approved facility) -Usage of materials _ -Data on mixing rations and application rates D. Special or Hazardous Waste Section 6. Odors _ -Identification of nature/source -Estimate of areas affected T -Methods of control) Section 7. Water supply A, Water supply method 1. Individual wells (evidence of sufficient/healthful supply) a. Support of findings by well drillers b. Support of findings by geologist _ 2. Common well(s) (report) a. Long-term safe yield determination V_ -Predicted operating levels -Cone of influence _ -Zone of capture b. Water quality analysis c. Wellhead protection zone delineation • T d. Wellhead protection plan _ e. Effect on off-site wells f. Water system designs (plans and detail sheets) g. Provision for water supply maintenance 3. Additional information 4. Off-site utility cumpany or public agency _ 5. Other sources B. Subsurface wastewater disposal systems (locations of systems and wells) C. Total usage (statement re: total antitcipated water usage) Section 8. Roads A. Public roads (status and description) -For each, name, type, width of travel surface, number of shoulders, width of shoulder, number of lanes. B. Interior roads 1. Description (name, type, width of travel surface, number of shoulders, width of road shoulders, length of road, parking lot size, number of spaces, width of right-of-way, antici- pated completion date; truck service bays, turning points, and access points) 2. Profile _ 3. Cross-sections 4. Plan view (name, speed limits, sight distances) C. Road maintenance (identify; commonly owned facilities) • D. Traffic (types, average daily vehicle trips, travel routes, duration of movement, volume of construction traffic) 1. Full traffic study requirement 48 a. Volume • b. Safety or capacity deficiencies 2. Content of full traffic study a. Site description b. Use description (site) C. Regional map (site, road, other proposed projects) d. Description of traftic increa5~ e. Calculation and summary table -Trip generation -Land uses, size, average trip generation used, resultant toal trips generated f. Distribution description and diagram g. Define study area h. Use description and diagram (L..ads) T i. Diagram/documentation of traffic volume _ -Existing traffic volume , -Traffic attributable to other projects -Traffic attributable to the development -Projected traffic volume for design hour j. Capacity analysis k. Traffic signal analysis 1. Sight distance determinatiun m. Inventory and analysis of accidents n. Description of improvements -t- o. Findings Section 9. Maintenance of common facilities or property (documents) • A. Description of facilities and transfer information B. Specify rights and responsibilities C. Incorporation D. Membership E. Fees F. Lien _ G. Renewability H. Amendment subject to approval Restrictions in homeowners documents; future transactions Section 10. Air emissions (narrative and summary) -Point and non-point sources identified -Emission components (point sources) Section 11. Water vapor (narrative) Section 12. Surface drainage and runoff (drawing and narrative) A. Description 1. Surface water on or abutting site w. _ 2. Lake watershed 3. Topography (general; portions subject to ponding/flooding) 4. Alteration of natural drainage war:, 5. Affects on other property B. Drawing -Elements • _ _ -Pre- and post-development watersheds with hydraulic length lines -Areas subject to ponding/flooding 49 _ C. Phosphorous control T 1. Preparer • 2. Worksheets 3. Site ite plane -Pre and post-development contours with scale, legend, north arrow a. Road segments and driveways - b. Clearing areas, buffers, ditch turnouts and/or spreaders c. Wetponds r d. Existing/proposed culverts, with sizes e. Location/flow of perennial and intermittent streams f. Location/flow of drainage ditches, swales, culverts, etc. g. Wetlands h. Worksheet areas i. Restrictions 4. Soil survey _ 5. Buffer strip submissions ' _ a. Cutting option b. Buffer locations c. Maintenance plan 6. Infiltration and system submissions a. General design -Sizing calculations -Separation tank, piping and infiltration specifications _ -Maintenance plans (narrative and homeowners documents) b. Locations and calculations for community or engineered system c. Operation/maintenance plan • 7. Wet pond submissions a. Statement (wetlands) _ b. Plan (drainage areas and sub-areas) c. Profile and plan view of wetpond d. Calculations _ e. Excavation f. Stabilization plan g. Dates h. Additional precautions i. Inlet/outlet details j. Maintenance provisions D. Monitoring Section 13. Stormwater management A. Off-site watersheds 1. Narrative and calculations _ -orientation -identification of ponds, lakes, wetland areas ~r -effects of runoff -supporting calculations -flood areas/structures 2. Maps a. U.S.G.S. (site boundaries, subareas, flowlines) b. S.C.S. (site boundaries, subareas, flowlines, soil types) B. on-site watersheds 1. Narrative and calculations • 2. Maps so a. Contour lines (2 ft maximum contour interval) • b. Development and drainage area boundaries c. Subarea boundaries d. Routing lines e. Ponded/wetland areas f. Drainage ways and easements g. Existing and proposed culverts h. Piping systems 3. Stormwater detention system a. Basin storage values and sizing calculations b. outlet and spillway detail and sizing calculations c. Embankment material specifications _ d. Locations (detention and outlet structure(s) with associated easements) _ e. Detail sheet (plan and cross sectional views of basin, outlet structure, emergency overflow structure and associated riprapped areas) f. Narrative (operation/maintenance) ^T 4. Easements and rights-of-way 5. Maintenance Section 14. Temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control Erosion Control Certification (if applicable) A. Narrative B. Plans 1. Disturbed area stabilization 2. Schedule • 3. Area of disturbed land 4. Maintenance _ 5. Removal of temporary measures _ C. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control 1. Site map a. Contours b. Limits of areas disturbed by construction c. Locations (general) _ d. Location of controls 2. Calculations _ a. Stone check dam spacing calculations b. Sizing calculations D. Permanent erosion and sedimentation control 1. Site plan _ a. Contours b. Locations (general) C. Drainage area and flow lines d. Disturbed areas 2. Calculations _ a. Surface capacity calculations _ b. Subsurface drainage systems capacity calculations E. Third-party inspections Section 15. Soils _ A. Soil survey map and report _ 1. Class A (High intensity) Soil Survey • 2. Class B (High intensity) Soil Survey 51 3. Class C (Medium High-Intensity) Soil Survey 4. Class D (Medium intensity) soil Survey • B. Limitations report C. Site engineering report D. wetlands investigation report Section 16. Wastewater disposal A. On-site subsurface systems wastewater disposal systems (investigation results) _ 1. Soil conditions summary table 2. Test pit profile logs 3. Systems "footprint" T- 4. Additional test pits, borings or probes _ a. Soil conditions A b. Soils with Profiles 8 and 9 parent material B. Common subsurface wastewater disposal systems (plans) 1. Specifications a. Design flow criteria _ b. Calculations and type c. Cross section .-T d. Plan view e. Material and installation specifications 2. Data C. Nitrate-nitrogen impact assessment 1. When required a. Density b. Combined system _ c. Engineered system d. Location 2. Assumptions _ a. Initial concentration b. N03-N background concentration T_ c. NO-N in precipitation d. N03-N from development e. Mixing and dilution f. Severe-drought scenario g. Wastewater flow to subsurface wastewater disposal areas 3. Assessment report minimum requirements _ a. Narrative b. Plan view map c. Topographic map d. Calculations e. Background groundwater quality data f. Logs of test pits and borings t- g. Cross sections h. Monitoring well information _ i. References 4. Reduction methods a. Peat-bed and peat-filter systems -Design plans -Information concerning installation -Sampling point -Monitoring plan • -Maintenance requirements 52 b. Denitrification systems -Back-up system • -Design specification -Documents -Oversight -Groundwater monitoring plan _ 5. References 6. Site plan D. Municipal facility or utility company letter E. Wastewater discharge information Section 17. Groundwater A. Narrative 1. Location 2. Quantity 3. Sources 4. Measures to prevent degradation B. Maps C. Report D. Spill prevention, control and countermeasures plan Section 18. Buffers Section 19. Noise A. Developments producing a minor noise impact (statement) 1. Residential developments 2. Certain non-residential subdivisions • 3. Certain gravel pits 4. Schools and hospitals y_ 5, other developments a. Type, source and location of noise b. Uses, zoning and plans _ c. Protected loctions d. Minor nature of impact e. Demonstration w _ B. Developments producing a major noise impact (full noise study) _ 1. Baseline T a. Uses, zoning and plans _ b. Protected locations c. Quite area T _ 2. Noise generated by the development a. Type, source and location of noise b. Sound levels c. Control measures T d. Comparison with regulatory limits e. Comparison with local limits Section 20. Historic sites (narrative) Section 21. Unusual natural areas (narrative) Section 22. Sunlight (statement and drawing, if required) • Section 23. Visual quality (narrative, description, visual impact 53 analysis) • Section 24. Wildlife and fisheries (narrative) Section 25. Open space (letter or description) Section 26. Flooding (explanation, site drawing, flood zone map) T Section 27. Sand dune (explanation) T Section 28. Blasting A. Site plan and narrative B. Report 1. Assessment 2. Discussion in relation to pre-blast survey Section 29. Notices A. Evidence that notice sent B. List of abutters for purposes of notice • 54 10. Page 14-28, SVWaiakeaselots urses of Action. Add new cou(f) Withiium density" area commercial develo ment shall be o c ed on the ma'or streets ---Kekuanaoa Piilani Manono and Lan' ula while the interior blocks should be zoned primarily for sin and multi-family residential use. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION --II~-- 11. Page 15-4,15.3 ANNUAL REPORT f}LC.Q U y~ tv [The Planning Department shall prepare an annual report to monitor progress towards achieving the General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. To the extent possible, the annual report should develop measurable indicators related to the policies. The Planning Department shall submit the annual report to the Mayor for review. The Mayor shall submit the annual report to the Council together with the capital and operational budgets in accordance with the budget submittal timetable set forth in the Charter. The annual report and CIP shall be the means to reconcile and prioritize competing community needs from a County-wide perspective. The Planning Department may organize an interagency committee to provide input for inclusion in the annual report.] Rationale: The compilation of the monitoring progress for each goal, objective and policy as listed in the General Plan and the preparation of the annual report would be a huge task and require many man hours by the department staff. This is a workload problem for the department. 7 ' ,s ,nom or -n fP.Wf ~ it lli'? #v~ S N aooB` To: Mayor Kim, Hawai'i County Council, Planning Commission, South Kohala Traffic Safety Comm. CC: Governor Lingle, State Legislators h n/~ From: Concerned Residents 1V t~~ cOy~'V PETITION: COMPLETE THE WAIMEA MINI-BYPASS BY 2008 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, TRUST IN YOUR LEADERSHIP to use the 10 million dollar county bond fund for its intended purpose to complete the County's section of the Waimea Mini-bypass Connector Road from Kawaihae Road near the transfer station to Mamalahoa Highway by the rodeo grounds. If that previously estimated cost is now insufficient, please immediately seek additional funding. At the same time, make certain that Parker Ranch completes its section of the Mini-bypass Connector Road by 2008. (Note: Parker Ranch is responsible to construct the "Town Center" section of this Mini-bypass from Mamalahoa by the rodeo grounds and around the shopping center to Kamamalu Street near the fire station with connections on to Lindsey and Pukalani.). Please immediately draft a specific plan to complete the entire Mini-bypass by 2008. We oppose the alternative proposal to instead construct a wider highway through the center of town. The choke point at the Lindsey Road-Mamalahoa Highway intersection would still exist. This alternative would also squarely conflict with the community's goal to create a pedestrian friendly "small town" center. WE ARE IN A WORSENING TRAFFIC CRISIS. WE NEED YOUR COMMITMENT! Name: and Home Town and Address: (attach ad ' 'oael- for more signatures) "tl.'ChQe- L arm) f i~ll r B 60(2 f<_~ ()W,4 euse~ ~e~1- ci£ Macy T1 43Ux 1390 Ka u8l a 71 ti'~c~r~2l~r LC/1 y nl=,a~~~ Wie3~ 1 O BO 513 k~aM VL~LA ?,0, 131Y WoL7 Vet"Q4 -717 VLA M 14 d, ~~~~~5 ~<<FL7 ~d li3.f KA '~atn Ae(esk_~ d er D ~C l1~11 eturn P ono elmes Traffic Crisis Committee P.O. Box 548 Kamusis H 743 and for more Petitions contact: WalmeaTraffieCriaie0hawall.rr.com or call 887 1419 / - t0n" 6Az4k-c u../ G I1°ro 3 i i j1 777j < a C_ o o ;U N: '`II `(iY', mC14 O m < <O 7 w c~ cb y rho o > R2 gm om Ca (A 3 :1 CL o) ; -0 g a m d 'n. w al 3 r, m O3m*-< LM -0 0 CD `p, T Yom- y 7,?W01CD CL (D Z N N SN (n CL 0 l -Cj N CD R z .o m m ' o~ G m 3?' m m c m TO r Pt ommy0 ` O i`X• ti ~r b o c~u w gr p a a CD (D CD a) _ 3oC ~O~ yJ, 7 m o-C~-IV Or 0 COO w a C O I O aa0 0So r z z t n. o'° « A~ l • 03,< o CD *0 (D uo 51 I _ C 7 ° ( D a n Qm~ o ca R o S 103 • Y ct 1 m v~ m p~ T-- st CL a* ~C.D\ sv•.a ~cJ~ :r Z: . 14 of g ~ n t9 ~ O ~ afx X ' O I ~ la ~;r 1N 1 t 3 N ~ - ow. µ c i 4 S, ~F 40 q I y 5 7 O 1 To: Mayor Kim, Hawai'i County Council, Planning Commission, South Kohala Traffic Safety Comm. CC: Governor Lingle, State Legislators From: Concerned Residents PETITION: COMPLETE THE WAIMEA MINI-BYPASS BY 2008 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, TRUST IN YOUR LEADERSHIP to use the 10 million dollar county bond fund for its intended pu=se to complete the County's section of the Waimea Mini-bypass Connector Road from Kawaihae Road near the transfer station to Mamalahoa Highway by the rodeo grounds. If that previously estimated cost is now insufficient, please immediately seek additional funding. At the same time, make certain that Parker Ranch completes its section of the Mini-bypass Connector Road by 2008. (Note: Parker Ranch is responsible to construct the "Town Center" section of this Mini-bypass from Mamalahoa by the rodeo grounds and around the shopping center to Kamamalu Street near the fire station with connections on to Lindsey and Pukalani.). Please immediately draft a specific plan to complete the entire Mini-bypass by 2008. We oppose the alternative proposal to instead construct a wider highway through the center of town. The choke point at the Lindsey Road-Mamalahoa Highway intersection would still exist. This alternative would also squarely conflict with the community's goal to create a pedestrian friendly "small town" center. WE ARE IN A WORSENING TRAFFIC CRISIS. WE NEED YOUR COMMITMENT! Name: and Home Town and Address: (attach addtional sages fo~ore sianatores) Return Petitions to: Waimea Traffic Crisis Committee P.O. Box 648 Kamuels HI 96743 and for more Petitions contact: WaimeaTrafficCrisisChowaii.rr.com or call 887-1419- DO YOU WANT THE WAIMEA IN-TOWN TRAFFIC CRISIS SOLVED BY 2008? If so, we need a specific plan to complete the Waimea Mini-bypass b,, 2008_ Waimea residents must voice this demand now to the County's traffic consultants. Otherwise, we will not be able to force into play the necessary political leadership to achieve this goal. SPECIFICALLY WHAT MUST WE DO TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL? 1. COLLECT signatures for the "Complete the mini-bypass by 2008" petition. 2. Rally and ATTEND June 1st Waimea Community Association meeting at the Waimea YMCA Hall; please arrive by 5pm in advance of the presentation by the County's traffic consultants which is scheduled at 5:30. WE NEED EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC SITUATION TO BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING AND TO EXPRESS LOUD AND CLEAR THAT WE WANT THE COUNTY AND ITS TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS TO PUT TOGETHER A SPECIFIC PLAN TO COMPLETE BOTH SECTIONS OF THE MINI-BYPASS BY 2008. 1. Don't accept a response that we should be content to wait for the State bypass from the South Kohala Coast to Mud Lane -which is scheduled to be constructed in 2014-2019. That road has a different function. It will not provide a second way through town - which is essential for emergency vehicles and local in-town traffic. Both roads will be needed. 2. Don't accept a response that we should be content to widen the highway through town - by cutting down trees and sidewalks - which would not remedy the gridlock at the Lindsey Road-Mamalahoa Highway intersection and means construction traffic delays; 3. Don't accept a response that building this road by 2008 is unrealistic. Recently the County Council put pressure on the Mayor's Office to construct a road from Ali'i Drive to Kuakini Highway in 18 months which road project may involve complex negotiations and possibly eminent domain legal proceedings. 4. Don't accept a response that we must shelve the Mini-bypass road project because people who purchased lots along the road corridor are now objecting; instead we must ask that the Mini-bypass be constructed to minimize harmful effects on their properties such as by using buffers of berms, trees and other vegetation: a "neighbor friendly" road. 5. Don't accept a response that the County will help construct the Parker Ranch section of this road, and claim the Kawaihae Road-Mamalahoa Highway section is not so important. HOW IS THE WAIMEA TRAFFIC CRISIS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AROUND THE STATE? The difference is there is at hand an immediately available solution to Waimea's traffic crisis. The Waimea Mini-Bypass alignment has been in place since the 1950's and there is close to 10 million dollars available to fund a major portion, if not all, of the County's section of the mini-bypass. Parker Ranch is obligated to complete the other section of this road and the County should insist on compliance with that obligation. NOTE: There are two sections to the Waimea Mini-bypass: see attached road plan. The County's Kawaihae Road to Mamalahoa Highway section connects Kawaihae Road near the transfer station to Mamalahoa Highway near the rodeo grounds. Parker Ranch's "Town Center" section of the Mini-bypass then continues from Mamalahoa Highway by the rodeo grounds, around the shopping Center, to Kamamalu near the Fire Station and Parker Ranch's senior housing development, with extensions on to Lindsey and Pukalani Road. Parker Ranch was required to construct this "Town Center" section of the Mini-bypass as a condition to approval of its 340 acre Waimea in-town development. According to the 1992 plan submitted by Richard Smart, Parker Ranch proposed to complete its section of the Mini-bypass road before beginning the project (now includes 730 residential units and 100 acres of commercial development). However in 1996, Parker Ranch requested to delay construction of this road, and the County granted that request despite the concerns raised by the County Police Department that this delay would result in unsafe traffic congestion. Recently Parker Ranch again requested the Planning Department to delay construction of this road. Although the County initially appeared ready to agree to Parker Ranch's request, following demands from the Waimea community, the County administration is now negotiating with Parker Ranch "to step up to the plate" and comply with its road construction requirement. Considering the worsening traffic crisis, we hope the County will insist that Parker Ranch now complete its section of the Mini-bypass. Likewise we hope Parker Ranch will comply with this obligation and in doing so honor the spirit of Richard Smart's intent that the Parker Ranch Trust address the needs of the Waimea community.