Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 106 08/21/2006 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: August 21, 2006 Re: Comm. No. 998Bi11 No. 318 PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 1:00 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 318, reports as follows: Bill No. 318, transmitted by Council Member Pete Hoffinann via Communication No. 998, dated July 31, 2006, amends Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-44, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition) Relating to Conditions on Change of Zone. Bill No. 318 adds requirements to existing provisions within the Zoning Code relating to conditions on change of zone ordinances. The new subsections state that conditions of approval for change of zone ordinances should require that water supply improvements or strategies as specified by the department of water supply to accommodate the impacts of development, as well as transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development on state- or county-owned transportation facilities, be made concurrent with development associated with any change of zone in order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government services in the County. Bill No. 318 requires developers to ensure that the level of service (LOS) on a state- or county-owned transportation facility not decline below LOS "D" on a scale of LOS "A" through LOS "F" unless transportation strategies to mitigate traffic impacts to an acceptable LOS level ("D" or better) aze made concurrent with the proposed development. For the purposes of Bill No. 318, "concurrent with development" means that transportation improvements aze either in place at the time of development or that a financial commitment is in place at the time of preliminazy plat approval to complete the proposed improvements within a period of six years. Similazly, Bill No. 318 requires developers to secure a water commitment for full build-out of a proposed project from the departrnent of water supply and to make required improvements "concurrent" with the development of the subdivision. Bill No. 318 also exempts affordable housing projects wherein 100 percent of the units aze affordable for qualified households earning no more than 120 percent of the median adjusted gross income. Companion Bill No. 319 proposes that similaz "concurrency" provisions be added to Chapter 23 (Subdivision Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition) Relating to Large Scale Developments. Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Section 25-2-43(b) provides that any proposed council-initiated amendment to the Zoning Code shall be referred to the dvector and the commission "with requests for their respective comments and recommendations thereon, prior to the first reading of any such amendment. The duector and the commission shall each submit comments and recommendations on the proposed amendment to the council within one hundred and twenty days from the date that the amendment is transmitted by the council to the director and the commission." PC REPORT' NO. 106 Communication 998 Bi11318 Page 2 of 5 At the August 21, 2006 Committee on Planning meeting public testimony in support of Bill 318 was presented by Bob Hunter and Margaret Willie at the Waimea Council office. At the Kona Council office, public testimony in support of Bill 318 was presented by Brenda Ford. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann noted that Section 25-2-43 provides that council-initiated changes to the code must be approved as a committee and then moved and referred to the Planning Director and Commission for comments and recommendations. Mc Hoffmann asked to amend Ms. Isbell's motion or have Ms. Isbell withdraw her motion, then moved to approve Bi11318 and refer it to the Director and Commission. Ms. Isbell accepted the motion, however stated she wanted to have discussions on it. Committee Chair Pilago raised his concern that prior to actually referring the matter, the Committee is in fact going to read and discuss this and noted that the motion on the floor, not yet referred or discussed, if moved for approval, will break the sequence of events that must occur. Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self noted she didn't think the Code says the bill can't be discussed, however it does state it has to be referred to the Director and Commission. Committee Chair Pilago noted that as the Chair he is willing to discuss the bill but at some point within the discussion there has to be a motion to refer and the committee should not be voting it up or down since part of the code rule states council-initiated amendments shall be referred prior to first reading. Mr. Hoffmann stated this matter is in committee and not at first reading, and that there is a distinction between Committee and Council. He said the idea is to approve Bill 318 and then refer it to the Director and the Commission. Ms. Isbell said she did not support this as it didn't seem that the committee would refer something to the Planning Duector and Commission that it did not approve of Ms. Isbell noted Bill 318 as well as Bill 319 only provide for transportation and water and doesn't address anything else, while her adequate public facilities ordinance is a much more comprehensive ordinance and suggested Mr. Yuen look at what she and the department have already been working on. Director Yuen stated that generally he would prefer to work with council members on a comprehensive ordinance beforehand and would be happy to take Bill 318 and BiI1319 as a "vehicle" and recommend changes during the course of the department's review. Mr. Yuen said with respect to timeframe, this bill represents a major change to the zoning process and as such, is not something that can be done in a short period of time. Committee Chair Pilago received clarification from staff that the stated motion was to "close file on communication 998 and recommend passage of Bill 318, first reading." Mr. Pilago said therein lies his concern since the committee is not discussing a referral It was then moved by Council Member Jacobson (and seconded) to amend the motion to include a referral to the Planning Director and Commission. (Recess called). Discussion to the amendment restuned with Council Chair Higa stating he would not speak on the amendment with the understanding that he could return to the main motion as Mr. Higa felt the proper motion would have been just for a referral to the Director and Commission and not included with the motion to approve to which Mr. Jacobson attached his amendment to refer. Mr. Higa then called for the question which was unanimously passed. Mr. Jacobson's amendment to refer was defeated and discussion then resumed on the main motion. PC REPORT NO. 106 Communication 998 Bill 318 Page 3 of 5 Postponement and method of referral was then discussed which Deputy County Clerk Bill Smith noted that postponement to a time certain would be in order. Committee Chair Pilago clarified that initially there was a motion to approve, an amendment to refer, and then a call for the question to refer. The call for the question to refer passed, however, the amendment to refer failed. Mr. Pilago questioned whether a conflict in parliamentary procedure existed since it did not appear proper for something that was not passed to be brought up again with slight adjustments (i.e. to postpone to a date certain and/or to refer to Planning Commission.) County Clerk Connie Kiriu stated it is cleaz in law of the zoning code that the Council needs to refer to the director and commission and somehow the committee must get to that point. Mr. Higa withdrew and restated his motion as follows: to postpone and refer this bill to the Planning Director and Planning Commission with a time sensitive date of one year. Ms. Kiriu stated Mr.Higa's motion was pazliamentarily correct. Mr. Higa clarified his motion was to postpone and refer Bill 318 to the Planning Director and Planning Commission for a period of up to one yeaz. Mr. Safarik stated he would vote in favor of Mr. Higa's motion if the word postpone was taken out and be just a referral. Ms. Kiriu restated the motion as follows: motion to refer or commit the bill to the Planning Director and Planning Commission for its comments and recommendation as set forth in the county code. It was so moved and seconded. Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann stated that it was his understanding that whether or not the bill was approved, it would go to the Council, who would then refer it to Planning Director and Planning Commission. However, Ms. Kiriu stated that if the bill failed and moved to council with a negative recommendation, it would not go forwazd and referred to the Planning Director and Planning Commission because the council itself had determined it was something it did not want to act on. Thus, the bill would be filed and not taken through the review process. Mr. Hoffinann stated we have a motion already on the floor to approve this bill, we tried to amend it once and that failed, now we have another motion on the floor to refer directly to the Planning Director and the Planning Commission under the teens of 25-2-43. He questioned whether the committee was still in the right doing it in this manner. Committee Chair granted County Clerk Kiriu's request for a short recess. In answer to Mr. Hoffmann's question Ms. Kiriu stated that in discussions with Corporation Counsel (Ms. Self and Ms. Leithead-Todd), it was determined it is the council who must initiate and therefore the motion to refer to the Planning Director and Planning Commission would go forward in a committee report that would state to the council that the Committee recommends the bill be referred to the Planning Drrector and the Planning Commission. The Council would then take action on it and, if the Council decides in favor of referral, it moves forward and later comes back to the Planning Committee with comments and recommendations of the Director and Commission. Ms. Kiriu stated the bill can be discussed in committee right now, and amendments made, however she said one has to be certain and careful that bill that goes forward is what you want. Ms. Kiriu explained when the bill comes back to the council it would have completed the process of public input and, although the council could make further amendments to the bill, it cannot go beyond certain parameters, substantively. Ms. Kiriu stated that under these circmnstances, ultimately, the motion is to forwazd to the full council and for the council to make the rcferral to the Director and Commission. Council Vice Chair Isbell stated that this was not a simple referral. It is a bill which she cannot support and in her estimation does not know why the committee is even talking about a bill that is flawed to begin with. PC REPORT NO. 106 Communication 998 , Bill 318 Page 4 of 5 Ms. Isbell said that if it were a bill that everyone worked on for a long time then it would be fine, however, she had not seen the bill before yesterday. Ms. Isbell felt this should have been discussed with the Planning Department first and suggested voting against the referral and the bill, even though she said she made the motion. She noted the motion was made just to get it on the floor and thinks the Planning Director should informally look at the bill first. Council Member Jacobson noted that Mr. Higa's motion was only to refer and not refer and approve, and asked whether Mr. Higa's motion to refer erased the thrust of the original motion to approve with the amendment. Ms. Kiriu noted that sometimes there is an override when there's an amendment because the override is with a different type of action. Ms. Kiriu stated that ut this case the amendment actually changes or diverts an action, however if it fails to pass by vote on the amendment, then you go back to the main motion. Mr. Higa stated he would like to see the bills have it's day in court and go through the process because if the Planting Director chose not to work on it informally with a council member, the bill may never see the Tight of day unless we do what we're trying to do right now by referring the matter to the Planning Director and Planning Commission. This would trigger the 120 plus 60 days and, like it or not the bill comes back before the council for further action. Mr. Higa stated that the bill needs some work but totally understands this is the only way Mr. Hoffmann's bill stands a chance of becoming law. At least in 120 days it comes back to the council to be voted up or down, but on the other hand, if discussions were done informally and did not go through the process, it may never come before the council for consideration. Council Member Doc Holschuh stated that basically, the concept and the concurrency ideas aze good and tthat no question something needs to be done now. Doc Holschuh said he didn't like certain aspects of the bill and doesn't want to support it because he agrees with Ms. Isbell. However, he does want the bill to go to the Planning Duector and Planning Commission and would vote only for a referral of the bill, without agreeing or endorsing its contents. Doc Holschuh confirmed with Ms. Kiriu that by referring the bill it did not mean the committee was voting yes on the details. Committee Chair Pilago noted that if the amendment to refer occurs and goes to the Planning Commission, it returns to Council and not Committee. Ms. Isbell stated she could not vote for this as she feels it should go informally before the Planning Department and Commission. Council Member Jacobson stated he could not see complying with sunshine law regulations through an informal process which would also potentially subject members to serial communications. Ms. Kiriu then read the full amendment as follows: A motion to recommend to the full council that bi11318 be referred to the Planning Director and Planning Commission for their recommendation and comments in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 25-2-43, Hawaii County Code. The motion to refer carried. Ms. Kiriu also noted that it was not necessary to vote on the main motion due to the affirmative vote on the referral, and therefore the main motion is gone. PC REPORT N0. 106 Communication 998 ~ , Bill 318 Page 5 of 5 Your Committee on Planning recommends that Bill No. 318 be referred to the Planning Director and Planning Commission for their recommendation and comments in accordance with the procedures set forth hi Section 25-2-43, Hawaii County Code. and AYES NOES A&E EX ReSpeCtfully SU11mIttCd, ARAKAICI X H[GA X COMM/ITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X HOLSCHUH X IKEDA X ISBELL X K ANGEL PII,A O, CHAIR JACOBSON X PILAGO X PC REPORT NO. 106 SAFARIK X ADOPTED: OCT ~ E ZOOG