Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 111 09/19/2006 2004-2006 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: September 19, 2006 Re: Comm. No. 1033Bi11 No. 328 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa TIME: 2:30 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 328, reports as follows: Bill No. 328, transmitted by Council Vice Chair Virginia Isbell via Communication No. 1033, dated August 23, 2006, amends the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, As Amended) by adding a new chapter relating to concurrency. Bill No. 328 adds requirements to the County Code which attempt to accommodate for impacts of new development. Bill No. 328 provides for the establishment of County-wide level of service standards for public roads, public water, public wastewater, public pazks, solid waste management, police protection, and fire protection. Bill No. 328 also provides for a concurrency management system to ensure that the County public facilities and services needed to support new development are in place concurrent with the impacts of that development. Additionally, Bill No. 328 provides for the preparation of a public facilities improvement plan to fund and maintain County-wide levels of service. Bill No. 328 requires the Planning Director to determine the acceptable level of service standards for public facilities within one hundred and eighty (180) days from the effective date of the bill. Bill No. 328 requires the Finance Director to identify the public facilities which are necessary to meet General Plan requirements, to identify potential funding sources for the necessary capital improvements, and to prepare a public facilities improvement plan within one hundred and eighty (180) days from the effective date of the bill. Bill No. 328 requires developers to ensure that capital improvements required to meet the adopted level of service standards aze available concurrent with the impacts of their development. At the September 19, 2006 Planning Committee meeting public testimony was presented by the following persons: Anika Glass of Waimea stated that both Bill Nos. 328 and 329 should be forwarded through the process of review by the Planning Commission and Planning Department and noted that she fully supports the process. Charles Flaherty of Kona testified that it was a mistake for the Council to have deleted Bills 318 & 319 and requested that Bills 318 and 319 be reintroduced and combined with Bills 328 and 329 introduced by Council Vice Chair Isbell. Council Member Jacobson encouraged Mr. Flaherty that should Bill 328 pass and in fact be referred, that Mr. Flaherty follow through within the Planning Commission process to raise the issues and concerns expressed by him today. PC Report No.lll Communication 1033 Bill No. 328 Page 2 of 4 Brenda Ford of Kona testified that Committee Vice Chair Hoffmann's concurrency ordinances (Bills 318 and 319) was a good start, but was killed in lieu of an ordinance not yet introduced. Ms. Ford stated that the proposed concurcency ordinance has no set standard for level of service and leaves determination of a standard to the discretion of the Planning Director and allows for arbitrary decisions unanswerable to the voters. Ms. Ford suggested that both sets of bills (Mr. Hoffmann's Bills 318 and 319) and Ms. Isbell's Bills 328 and 329, be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Cheryl King testified that both sets of concurrency bills have merit and was inclined to think it would be most sensible to take the best from both sets however, she felt that 180 days was an inadequate amount of time for review and recommendations. Ms. King stated that with regard to companion No. Bill 329, although the water provisions were strong, the roads provision was inadequate. Ms. King also questioned the validity of the developer being charged to complete a traffic study and hoped the council deals with the concurrency issue by passing legislation, referring it to the Planning Department for review and encouraged public hearings. J. Curtis Tyler of Kona stated he was pleased to see Ms. Isbell and Mr. Hoffmann coming from the same place regarding concurcency and suggested that Chair Higa make a motion for reconsideration and do what's right for the community. Mr. Tyler stated there is a great lack of specificity in these concurrency bills that should be addressed and noted that discretion should not be left up to the director but that the council should set the standazd of cooperation with appropriate experts. Mr. Tyler expressed the need for accountability and suggested that all four concurrency bills be referred to the Planning Commission without voting on the measure, and instead make a recommendation to refer. Mr. Alex Leonard of Kona testified that level of service standazds should not be left to the discretion of the Planning Director. Mr. Leonard stated there is not enough data on a community specific basis to determine curcent levels of service and questioned how can impacts be determined if no levels of service have been determined. With regard to companion Bill No. 329, Mr. Leonard stated that the definition of "adequate" is ambiguous as there is no reference to an established minimum, nor is there any quidelines for which to make a determination of adequacy. Council Member Safarik stated there are issues that specifically face his district as well as other colleagues in their district and that because of these varying issues, it didn't seem like one size would fit all. Mr. Safarik stated the need to look at levels of service and various components that would tailor concurrency issues for specific districts and that in order for the ordinance to be an overall blanket, there has to be included components that satisfy issues applicable to different areas. Council Vice Chair Isbell stated there is a need to look at all types of concurrency and that two of Mr. Hoffmann's and her Bills still have a way to go, but that this was a good beginning. Ms. Isbell said these bills need to be given to Mr. Yuen to look at a new process or noted the need of finding someone who can specifically concentrate on concurrency alone. Ms. Isbell said there is now a concentrated effort to move forward on concurcency and adequate public facilities and suggested that this bill be passed and sent to the Council for refercal to the Planning Department. Ms. Isbell suggested that to get a fresh outlook, the proposed ordinances should be looked at by someone from the administration that is outside of the Planning Department. Council Member Safarik stated he liked the idea of having someone dedicated to keeping the concurcency issue moving forward because it will be a complex policy to craft. Mr. Safarik said he supports the notion of moving forward at committee level, but reserved his right to question or not support if it does not PC Report No.lll Communication 1033 Bill No. 328 Page 3 of 4 adequately address his district's concerns. Mr. Safarik stated concurrency will take everyone's collective participation without stopping development and will net out a positive result, assuming everyone cooperates. Ms. Isbell stated it might be possible for a task force to be formed of council members and also to be in conformance with the sunshine law which would be an opportunity to carry through. Committee Chair Pilago stated his support of Bill 328 and wishes to move forward with a cohesive concurrence document. Mr. Pilago further stated he will support Bills 328 and 329 on the condition that Bills 318 and 319 be reconsidered at Council level. He stated he liked the idea of an ad hoc committee at the council level and suggested one be created to work specifically on the concurrency initiative. Mr. Hoffmann noted that the request for reconsideration of Bill Nos. 318 and 319 must be made by a member of the prevailing party at the last council meeting which meant that he and Council Members Pilago and Jacobson could not make such a motion. Council Member Jacobson stated he will be supporting this bill as there are things in this bill that aze very good and there were also very good things in Mr. Hoffinann's bills. Mr. Jacobson noted that if these bills could be merged, he believed it could result in the best of both worlds, but expressed concern regarding defining levels of service for which a solid policy must sbe established. Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida summarized the requirements of Rule 17, Reconsideration, and stated he believed reconsideration must comply with notice requirements of subsection 6 and must be made in writing. Suggested clarification be obtained from County Clerk Connie IGriu. Council Chair Higa stated he had previously discussed this very issue with County Clerk I{iriu and confirmed that the reconsideration request must be in writing. Mr. Higa also noted that if Ms. Isbell was on the prevailing side she could submit the request at the September 20, 2006 Council meeting, otherwise the opportunity to request would be lost. Mr. Higa said once the request was made it would then be agendized for the next meeting. Ms. Isbell stated she would be making such a written request at tomorrow's Council meeting because that's the right thing to do. PC Report No. 111 Communicazion 1033 Bill No. 328 Page 4 of 4 Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill 328 and recommends to commit to the Planning Commission and Planning Director. and avES reoES n&x Fac Respectfully submitted, ARAKAHI X HIGA X COMNIITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X HOLSCHUH X IKEDA X ISBELL X JACOBSON X K. ANGEL PILAGO, CHAII2 pII,AGO X PC REPORT NO. 111 sAFAll,x X ADGPTED: ncr ~ 6 coos