HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1033.002 2004-2006
Page 1 of 2
Mitchell, Megan
From: Council Testimony [counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.usl
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:57 AM
To: Mitchell, Megan
Subject: FW: Testimony on Bill 328
From: Charles Flaherty [mailto:oneheart@aloha.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:44 AM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Cc: 'Virginia Isbell'; 'Bob and Julie Jacobson'; Pilago, K. Angel; Hoffmann, Pete; Arakaki, James; Higa, Stacy;
Ikeda, Donald; Holschuh, Fred; Safarik, Gary
Subject: Testimony on Bill 328
September 19, 2006
Re: Bill 328, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983
Aloha Mr. Chair and members of the County Council Planning Committee,
I am testifying in favor of referring Bill 328 to the Planning Director for administrative review and
public hearings.
I believe that Section 1, "Findings and Purpose" are a sufficient statement of condition warranting the
proposed legislation, except that (b)(5) should read, "Provide for the preparation of a public facilities
improvement plan to fund, achieve, and maintain [estetbiished] county-wide levels of service required by
this chapter.
In association with the following sections, I make these requests at this time:
"Applicability of General Plans.". Expand to specifically include community development plans as
these will become ordinances and are included in the stated purpose of this chapter.
"Authority.". Research to determine that this is sufficient enabling legislation. What if the State LUC
allows for a district reclassification while County levels of service are inadequate?
"Applicability of this chapter.". Add: "New development" shall include any new application under
Chapter 23 and Chapter 25 from the effective date of this chapter.
"Establishment of Levels of Service Standards." Levels of service should be defined, determined and
fixed by this Council and executed by the Administration accordingly. Using the word "acceptable"
within the legislation is ambiquous since traffic level of service "C" is "acceptable, for instance. While I
agree that this Council should refer to the Planning Director for purposes of developing this legislation,
giving the Planning Director the legal authority to determine levels of service within this legislation
could allow a legal argument that it is arbitrary. This would be especially true if successive Planning
Directors make differing determinations as to what is an "acceptable" level of service or if any Planning
Comm. NoAPA3 -.71-
Ref. Tolr
9/19/2006 Ref. Date 50 19 200 .
Page 2 of 2
C
Director were to change their determination, for whatever reason. Levels of service must be established
through the legislative branch, not the administrative branch.
"Concurrency Management." (2) and (3): This language creates a loophole that makes it possible for
new development phases to be approved prior to construction if required capital improvements are
financially secured by an acceptable surety. For instance, Hokuli'a Phase 1 was approved in 1999
upon the Mamalahoa Bypass Highway being financially secured. Phase 2 was approved in 2000, even
though construction of the Bypass had not begun. The current Planning Director gave Phase 3 tentative
approval in 2002, while construction of Phase 1 of the Bypass had only begun. Seven years after it was
financially secured, the Bypass Highway has yet to be completed. Lesson: Build the capital
improvement, THEN give approval to new development phase. (4) Legislation must set level of service
standard and objective methods of determination in order to remove discretion.
"Public Facilites Improvement Plan." Public facilities improvement plan should become ordinance in
order to make concurrency ordinance legally defensible through argument of reasonable effort.
Mahalo,
Charles Flaherty
9/19/2006