Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0018.006 2006-2008 ~ ~ a~,• 1 LAND USE RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF HAWAII 70o Bishop Stree[, Ste. X928 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone 521-4717 Fax536-0132 December t9, 2006 Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Chair Committee on Planning Hawaii County Council Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa ~8-128 F1lultai Street Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 9644 Fax: (808) 96t-8912 Dear Chair Pilago and Members: Subject: Proposed Resolution No. i6-off To Temporarily Delay Council Action on Rezoning Applications in the Districts of North and South Kona Until the North and South Kona Community Development Plan is Adopted by Ordinance, or Until April i, 200, Whichever Shall Occur First The purpose of this resolution is to temporarily delay Council action on rezoning applications occurring in the districts of North or South Kona until the North and South Kona Community Development Plan is adopted by ordinance. Background: The resolution lists the hierarchy of the overall planning process in the State starting with the State Constitution, The Hawaii County Charter, and the Hawaii County General Plan. The process allows for community input and discussion in formulating the plans at each level. Once adopted, these plans provide a level of certainty and predictability to the land use entitlement process. As we understand the planning process for the County of Hawaii, the General Plan establishes the future vision for the County. It is a direction setting, policy document (guideline or tool) and not intended to be regulatory. It is intended to guide the County's actions and decisions on: Land use and land development regulations; zoning changes; preparing and adopting Development and Public Facility Plans; and preparing and adopting capital improvement plans. The Community Development Plans are intended to implement the purpose and intent of the General Plans for the specific areas in a more precise and detailed manner. Comm. No. ' Ref. To: Ref. Uote Most municipal infrastructure planning processes include a master plan for the development of a specific facility (i.e. building, road, pipeline or other capital improvement to serve the public), which may include a single capital improvement project or a series of capital improvements to be undertaken over a longer period of time based on the projected needs outlined in the General Plan and Community Development Plan. Comments on the $pecific Pm 1• The problem with Planning is once the plans are adopted, they are static while the world is dynamic. Thus, plans are updated periodically to account for changes that may not have been considered in the initial planning process. Postponing actions on projects while the existing plan is being revised creates a circular problem because one could always argue that a plan is outdated once it is adopted. For example, a particular condition or conditions in the plan may have changed since the planning process was initiated. We understand that part of the justification for the proposed "postponing" action on rezoning applications is based on the concerns of existing residence regarding the capacity of the existing infrastructure (i.e. roads, sewer, water, pazks, schools, etc) to accommodate more growth. Funding should be prioritized to target these existing needs. Postponing development also postpones new infrastructure; growth stimulates the need for new public facilities. It is uncleaz to us at this time, how updating the community development plan for North and South Kona will address the infrastructure capacity issue unless it is to severely restrict future development in the area based on exis ' infrastructure. If that is the intent, the County may be exposing itself to vested rights claims if the revisions involve down-zoning of existing properties. Nevertheless, the real issue seems to be the Count}~s ability to implement the vision set forth in both the General Plan and Community Development Plans by funding and developing the necessary infrastructure. Without the commitment and discipline to fund and construct the necessary infrastructure in the short-term, the long-range and mid-range planning objectives can not, and will not, be fully realized. The University of Maryland, National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education recently completed a study on Inappropriate Use, Inconsistent Standazds, and Unintended Consequences of Adequate Public Facility Ordinances (APFO). "APFO's are designed to assure that public schools, roads, sewers, water for fire fighting, police and rescue response times and/or other infrastructure or services aze "adequate" to support proposed new development. (In other parts of the country, APFO's are sometimes referred to as "Concurrency Requirements.") The study concluded that APFO's were responsible for deflecting as much as io percent of the new home development that otherwise would have been built within the designated growth areas. The effect of this shift is that the amount of housing available in those counties is reduced, housing prices are inflated, and the growth simply moves elsewhere, often to rural areas never intended for growth. In short, the APFO's appear to be fueling the same pattern of development the State's Smart Growth policy is intended to curtail." "APFO's consistency with local comprehensive plans is possible only if adequate funding is allocated to provide necessary infrastructure in the plan's designated areas. When roads, schools, or other infrastructure are judged to be insufficient to meet the standards established within APFO's, the result is often a moratorium on building until the infrastructure is ready to come online. The study recommended different financing options to provide adequate funding for infrastructure such as tax increment financing and special tax (improvement) districts. If the intent of proposed resolution is to find alternative ways to increase public infrastructure capacity for existing and future growth, than we suggest the Council consider bundling the following tools to provide the necessary financing: i. Increase and/or dedicate a portion of the real property tax revenues to specific infrastructure. z. The County may issue and sell bonds to provide funds for such improvement districts. Bonds issued to provide funds for such improvements maybe either bonds when the only security therefore is the properties benefited or improved or the assessments thereon or bonds payable from taxes or secured by the taxing power of the county. 3. The County has the power to levy and assess a special tax on property located in a district to finance the special improvements (Community Facilities Districts) and to pay the debt service on any bonds issued to finance the special improvements. 4. Tax increment financing (TIF) is a way for governments (usually municipal authorities) to help finance new capital projects by taking advantage of expected property tax returns. A county, for example, may designate as a TIF district a plot of land that is planned to be redeveloped. Then the county can borrow against expected increased tax revenues to build infrastructure such as sewers, roads and transportation services. 5. Impact fees are a municipal assessment against new residential, industrial or commercial development projects to compensate for the added costs of public services generated by new construction. We strongly recommend that the Council consider realistic ways to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate future growth. LURF is opposed to simply halting further development because of existing infrastructure capacity. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this matter.