Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 093 06/20/2006 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: June 20, 2006 Re: Comm. No. 972/Resolution No. 381-06 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa TIME: 10:30 a.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Communication No. 927 and attached Resolution 381-06, reports as follows: Resolution No. 381-06, transmitted by Communication No. 927 from Council Member K. Angel Pilago, dated May 25, 2006, presents a Resolution to Postpone Rezoning Applications in the Districts of North and South Kona until the Kona Community Development Plan is Adopted by Ordinance. Resolution No. 381-06, Draft 2, transmitted by Communication No. 927.1 from Council Member K. Angel Pilago, dated June 15, 2006, amended Resolution No. 381-06, adding the following provision: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that postponement of Council action on rezoning applications shall not affect or apply to any and all federal, State and County community-based and/or self-help housing projects involving agencies and programs including, but not limited to, the following: The State Department of Hawaiian Homelands housing projects; • The State Housing and Community Development Corporation ofHawai`i ("HCDCH") program; • The Waikoloa Employee Housing Project; and • The Habitat for Humanities program, elderly housing projects, and homeless shelters.' Communication No. 927.2 from Council Member K. Angel Pilago, dated June 19, 2006, is a correspondence that describes how "moratorium" tools were enacted and implemented by Maui County and elsewhere in the nation and proved to be a positive tool for effective smart growth. At the June 2Q, 2006 Committee on Planning meeting approximately nineteen (19) people testified in support of Resolution 381-06, seven (7) opposed the resolution and three (3) were undecided. Written testimonies were also received prior to the meeting from members of the public who were unable to attend and testify in person. Members of the public who testified in support of the resolution were: Janice Palma-Glennie, Andy Archibald, Dan Olson, Charles Flaherty, Gordana Leonard, Marshall Blann, Esta Marshall, Shazon "Samie" Stanbro, Brenda Ford, Lei Kihoi, Larry Ford, Judith Ferkeke (had to leave), Ambika Kosada, Kauwila Duell, John Carlstrom (had to leave), Shannon Rudolph (had to leave), Joel Gimpel, Elizabeth Meyerson and Mikahala Roy. Members of the public who testified in opposition to the resolution were: Alan Dickler, Ann Kern (had to leave), Barron Bernie, Mark Reisling (Loca17, Carpenters Union), William Pazis, Marnie Herkes, and Scott Bell (Hawai`i Island Board of Realtors). Members of the public who neither favored nor opposed the resolution bu[ offered statements were: Donald Rulo, Lisa Choquette and J. Curtis Tyler. PC REPORT NO. 93 Communication 927 Resolution No. 381-06 Page 2 of 4 Council Member Dr. Fred Holsuch stated he would be voting against the resolution, but acknowledged there is obviously a lot of concern expressed by the many people who testified. He also noted that hi the seventh "Whereas" of the resolution it states he contributed funds to the Kona Community Development Plan. Dr. Holschuh clarified that the $15,000 was given to Research & Development to be used in conjunction with the Island-wide community development planning process and not specifically to the North and South Kona CDP. Dr. Holschuh stated he did not want to give his constituents the impression he had given money to help another district and not his own. Dr. Holschuh concluded he intends no disrespect to the work that has been done, however, if Research & Development thereafter made a decision to use the fund for that purpose it was fine with him. Council Member Bob Jacobson stated although this may not be a perfect resolution and may not be enforceable since it is a resolution, towards the end of the day it seemed to be the development community versus the resident community. He believes the development community should be working with the resident community and although he'd like to see some minor changes in the resolution, he can vote for it quite easily the way it stands. Committee Chair Pilago noted there is a draft 2 of the resolution, however will move on with the main motion and called on Council Vice Chair Virginia Isbell. Ms. Isbell asked Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida if the word "postpone" could also mean "moratorium," whether it was interchangeable or was it clear this is just a minor postponement. Mr. Ashida stated he sees this resolution as a moratorium. Ms. Isbell then asked if there was no sunset of the postponement, could it be legally postponed to an indefinite date. Mr. Ashida stated that generally, to be legal, a moratorium must have a date certain or specific duration and cannot be contingent upon the manifest of an event with no date specified. Mr. Ashida noted that a few months ago Mr. Pilago's office contacted him asking for an opinion whether moratoriums were legal. He responded that generally, moratoriums were legal and asked to see a copy of the draft legislation. Mr. Ashida stated that did not occur until he saw the resolution on the agenda. He concluded that generally legislation can be independent of the CDP process but the key is the end date of the moratorium cannot be based upon completion of the CDP, because that is not a date certain. Mr. Ashida informed Mr. Pilago that the Planning DeparUnent had prepared a letter on June 16, 2006 and asked whether the committee was in receipt of the letter. None of the committee members had seen the Planning Department's letter Mr. Ashida was referring to and he advised the committee he was informed by the Planning Department secretary it was delivered to the Council office on Friday. Mr. Ashida noted the letter states that Planning Director Chris Yuen did not support the resolution and raised concerns about its effectiveness. Ms. Isbell stated her concern was that the resolution did not have a date certain and was tied to the adoption of the ordinance and that bothered her because it may take two or three years to come up with or finalize the Ordinance. Council Member Safarik stated that although the resolution may not be the vehicle has any kind of legal bearing on the administration to postpone rezoning actions other than those exempted, he has a sense from listening to all the testimony provided, that the people in Kona aze asking the council to recognize their dilemma and feelings of hopelessness. He noted that if people in Puna district were experiencing this kind of heartburn every single day and other social issues that accompanies this kind of growth, the resolution, though it has no weight of law, is a suggestion to the administration and an answer to a plea. Mr. Safarik said would like to find a way of listening to the people of West Hawaii, (not that he agrees PC REPORT NO. 93 Communication 927 Resolution No. 381-06 Page 3 of 4 with a postponement or a moratorium), but thinks smart growth is what should be strived for, not no growth, since a lot of his constituents drive to West Hawaii to work. Mr. Safarik said he would support this resolution if it had a sunset clause & recommended a 6-month period to sunset on January 1, 2007. He also said if he votes positive on the resolution he would like to see two things added to the resolution. First, that the resolution include a sunset date of January 1, 2007 and second, that a word other than "postponement" be used that does not mean moratorium. Mr. Safarik stated if Committee Chair Pilago assured him that his amendments would be considered and agreed to, he would support the resolution. Committee Chair Pilago stated he agreed and assured Mc Safarik and the committee that the amendments would be made. Mc Safarik concluded that the resolution is not going to stop anything, but instead it's a message from this council to the community and the administration that there is concern about this type of growth, infrastructure deficits and social impacts. He noted he does not view the resolution as threatening, but instead, as something to build upon and convey a message that this council is not against development, not against growth, but against unplanned and unbridled growth to the detriment of the communities involved. With regard to Mr. Safarik's request to find another word that does not mean moratorium, Mr. Ashida stated as long as it remains in resolution form, you can use whatever word you want because it will not have an effect of law and it is not a legal moratorium. Mr. Safarik stated with the two suggested changes he requested, when the resolution comes to the full council, he will support the measure. Council Chair Higa stated he was worried about the time frame and how long the CDP process may take. He stated Mr. Pilago is very effective in getting his point across but he still stands by his statement that if a council member wants afull-blown moratorium in his district and not an amended moratorium, he would support a fiall-blown moratorium. Mr. Higa stated that the resolution, in his opinion, is not afull- blown moratorium. Mr. Higa stated he took a helicopter ride to look at the development occurring in Kona and confirmed that development is running rampant and it may be time to do something about it. However, he would not be supporting this. Mr. Higa noted that if this resolution was adopted, discussions and negotiations occurring between the developer of Hiluhilu/Palamanui would stop and the council could not continue to have these discussions. Mr. Higa said in speaking with Planning Director Chris Yuen to ask his opinion about the resolution, Mr. Yuen stated if you really wanted to slow down the process, you'd have to do it through the permitting process, not rezoning, since rezonings approved now will not take place until years later. Mr. Higa commended Mr. Pilago for bringing this forward, but stated he could not support this. Council member Arakaki stated he will not support the resolution because there is no force of taw, however, he commended Committee Chair Pilago for making people aware of this. Mr. Arakaki stated he contacted Governor Lingle regarding the road problems in Kona and suggested she consider funding for grade separations on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. He noted the Governor was agreeable in constructing grade separations at the Airport, Honokohau and Palani Road. Mr. Arakaki also noted that the reason Kona is ui this traffic situation is that years ago the State took a position that it didn't want grade separations because it didn't want Kona to look like L.A. Mr. Arakaki concluded this was his contribution in resolving some of [he traffic issues in West Hawaii. Vice Committee Chair Hoffmann agreed there should be no more traffic lights on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Mr. Hoffmann also noted he disagreed with Director Yuen's position regarding the resolution as he's seen a number of incomplete applications over the past several months. Mr. Hoffmann stated this is only a resolution and the people are saying wait and let us do ourjob properly and resolve some of the PC REPORT NO. 93 Communication 927 Resolution No. 381-06 Page 4 of 4 problems first. He concluded that the resolution will not stop construction, as it will look at rezonings that will occur 15 years down the line. Dr. Holschuh stated that we have to listen to the people of Kona, but his understanding is that the people involved with Hiluhilu and Palamanui are trying to work these very problems out with the community and doesn't want to see discussions with Hiluhilu and the University stopped. Council Vice Chair Isbell moved to amend Draft 1 with Draft 2 and stated that her concern when she first heard of the resolution was that it stated we couldn't do anything. However, although Draft 2 did address some of her concerns with respect to workforce housing, she was not sure why it included reference to the Waikoloa Employee Housing project. She also noted that draft 2 did not have adrop-dead clause, however, because this was a resolution and very flexible, and also because the Hiluhihlu is ahead of this resolution before the council, it does not stop us from doing anything. Ms. Isbell stated she will support the resolution and appreciates the ability to be flexible. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann stated that reference to the Waikoloa Employee Housing Project should be deleted from the resolution and noted he didn't think that would garner any legal challenges. There were no objections to a friendly amendment to make this change. Council Member Bob Jacobson suggested that the resolution also exempt public projects such as schools, water and sewer projects and all other projects that benefit public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Arakaki inquired of Corporation Council Ashida whether the county has jurisdiction in Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) projects and the State HCDCH programs. Mr. Ashida stated he believed the county has a Memorandum of Agreement with DHHL and would have to check into the HCDHC matter. Corporation Council Lincoln Ashida stated for the record he does not speak for deparGnent heads and wanted to clarify that Planning Director Chris Yuen submitted his position on Resolution 381-06 before hearing the public's testimony. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Resolution No. 381-06, as amended to Draft 3, and recommends its adoption. and AYES NOES A&E Ex Respectfully submitted, ARAKAI4 X IHGA X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X HOLSCHUH X ~ IKEDA X ISBELL X JACOBSON X K. ANGEL PILAGO, CHAIR Pll~GO X PC REPORT NO. 93 SAFARIIC X ADOPTED: OFFICE INFORMATION ONLY Meeciag: July 19, 2006 -Council Meeting (41g~ Session) Filed Resolution 381-06, Drafts 3 and 4. Action: PC Report 93 transmitted Resolution 381-06, Draft 3, for approval. C-927.28/RESOLUTION 381-06, DRAFT 3/PC-93 Re: