Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 002 12/19/2006 2006-2008 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: December 19, 2006 Re: Comm. No. 18/Resolution No. 16 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa TIME: 9:00 a.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Resolution No. 16, reports as follows: Resolution No. 16, transmitted via Communication No. 18 from K. Angel Pilago, Council Member, dated December 6, 2006, transmitting the proposed Resolution 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 Ordianance, or Until April 1, 2007, whichever shall occur first. Communication No. 18 states that Resolution No. 16 is submitted in response to constituents who strongly believe that rezonings in North and South Kona should not occur during the critical Community Development planning process until all fact-finding, public input, and community based vision for future long-term growth of North and South Kona are finalized. Resolution No. 16 states that there has been an unprecedented increase in development and rezoning requests during the past several years and that many others are planned or currently under construction. It also states that North and South Kona comprised the first community selected for implementation of a Community Development Plan for which a 15-member Steering Committee, appointed by the Mayor, was confirmed by the Council on February 1, 2006. Resolution No. 16 notes that the North and South Kona Community Development Plan process has created an effective outreach program to gather public input through numerous facilitated community meetings and several major fact-finding public workshops to define community vision and determine methodologies for well-planned future growth in the Districts of North and South Kona. Rezoning applications that Resolution No. 16 will not affect or apply to include, but are not limited to the following: • State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands housing projects in accordance with its December 30, 2002 "Memorandum of Agreement Between the County ofHawai`i and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands"; • State Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii ("HCDCH") program; PC Report No. 2 Communication 18 Resolution 16 Page 2 of 5 • Public projects involving schools, water and sewer systems, and any other projects that specifically benefit the public's health, safety and welfare; and • Habitat for Humanities program, elderly housing projects, and homeless shelters. Resolution No. 16 also provides that if on or before April 1, 2007, the North and South Kona Community Development Plan has not been adopted by the Council by Ordinance, that an extension of time in increments of not more than six (6) months each, shall be requested by Resolution. At the December 19, 2006 Planning Committee meeting held in Kona, public testimony was presented by Joel Gimpel in support of Resolution No. 16, Sheryl King in support, Ken Melrose in opposition, and J. Curtis Tyler submitted comments relating to affordable housing. Council Member Brenda Ford raised an issue that impacts the public which was that the West Hawaii Today newspaper stated that public testimony for Resolution 16-07 and 17-07 was to be taken at 2:00 p.m. instead of 9:00 a.m. Therefore, Ms. Ford made a motion that when the Planning Committee adjourns in the morning, that it adjourn to reconvene at 4:00 p.m. on December 19, 2006 at the Sheraton Keauhou to allow for additional testimony from citizens who intended to present testimony at the wrong time specified in the paper. During discussion Council Member Ikeda stated that he did not mind adjourning the two Resolutions, but would like to continue with the remaining agenda items. Ms. Ford clarified that only the two Resolutions (16-07 and 17-07) were misstated in the paper. Discussions took place among Committee Members regarding methods of disposing of the resolutions to a later time to accommodate the public who already plan to testify at 2:00 p.m. County Clerk Casey Jarman stated that after research, the most efficient way to do this is by way of a motion to fix the time of adjournment. Ms. Jarman explained that everything on the agenda can still be taken up as if the meeting is going on. When the resolutions come up they can be fully debated but what would happen is, instead of deciding at the end of that particular discussion, a motion will be made to heaz and decide the matter at the adjourned meeting later in the afternoon. This is the method Robert's Rules of Order suggests that would address this particular type of problem. Council Member Higa suggested public testimony be taken at 2:00 p.m. so that the public does not have to wait around ti114:00 p.m. to present their testimony. A motion carried to fix the time for adjournment at 2:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa. Planning Committee meeting resumes following Finance Committee recess to allow public testimony on Resolutions 16-07 and 17-07. Mr. Andy Archibald submitted public testimony and concerns of the State and County Democratic Party and of the Kona Board of Realtors regarding development of West Hawaii occurring over the last several years and the lack of adequate infrastructure to support such approved developments. PC Report No. 2 Communication 18 Resolution 16 Page 3 of 5 Committee Chair Pilago noted written comments received from Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference and its President, Jacqui Hoover, cautioning the Council regarding unintended consequences and possible negative impacts should such decision-making be deferred. Chair Pilago also notes Ms. Hoover submitted similar comments with respect to Resolution No. 17-07. Mr. David Schope presented testimony in favor of Resolution 16-07 and stated his strong support. Chair Pilago notes written testimony received from Janice Palma expressing strong support for Resolution No. 16-07 and 17-07. Mr. J. Curtis Tyler presented testimony with a suggestion that the second whereas reflect that the General Plan is the "principal" policy document and not just a major policy document. With regard to the deadline of April 1, 2007 he noted it should state "whichever should occur last". With regard to the housing aspect, he thinks there should also be an exception for private housing when the majority of housing is truly affordable (that is 100% or less of the median income). Chair Pilago notes written testimony from April K. Bean of North Kohala regazding Resolution 17-07 and supports that effort and initiative. Oral testimony in support of Resolution 16-07 was then presented by Ambika Kosada. It was moved by Council Member Ford and seconded to postpone discussion on Resolution No. 16-07 and 17-07 to 4:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa. When the Planning Committee reconvened Council Member Brenda Ford stated there is a serious problem with rapid growth for over a decade and she supports this resolution because infrastructure needs to catch up. She noted that West Hawaii is now the economic engine for this island and that we need the adequate infrastructure to support this economic engine. Ms. Ford stated that ifthis growth with inadequate infrastructure continues, we risk losing our tourism industry. Council Chair Hoffmann stated he is strongly in favor of this resolution and that the doom and gloom heard that this measure is a moratorium is just not so. Mr. Hoffmann reiterated that he has voiced continuous disagreement with moving forward with development while the Community Development Plan is in process and wants to see the CDP process continue. Mr. Hoffmann stated this could not be achieved with ill-conceived and perhaps incomplete zoning applications being rushed through Council, at least not while the CDP process is being worked on. Mr. Hoffmann said he believes a moratorium is not good public policy, but that this is only a delay and not a moratorium. Council Member Jacobson noted Director Yuen's letter dated December 18, 2006 which refers to an ordinance as opposed to a resolution. Mr. Jacobson reiterated suggestions made by Mr. Curtis Tyler regarding the April 1, 2007 deadline and noted that the list of exempted agencies and PC Report No. 2 Connnunication 18 Resolution 16 Page 4 of 5 programs should include affordable home projects because there are some that may not fall under government projects. Planning Director Chris Yuen stated the main point of his letter is that even if the Council passed this Resolution, because there is a zoning code enacted by ordinance it requires the Planning Department to continue to process these applications, send them to the Planning Commission and then to the Council. The zoning code does not require the Council to act within a certain time frame, but the Department still needs to process these applications. Council Member Ford inquired of Mr. Yuen that if an ordinance was enacted and in force, would it allow the department to stop processing rezoning applications. Mr. Yuen said if the Council passed an ordinance that established a set period of time that the Planning Department could not accept applications in a certain district on the island, then the Department would do that. However, he recommends that the Council look to the office of the Corporation Counsel for advice relating to proper timing because the ordinance must have a closure point. Council Member Yoshimoto inquired whether the Department had any legal concerns regazding this resolution. Director Yuen stated he did not see any legal problems, however a legal concern would be if a rezoning is deferred indefinitely there may be a problem with that because at some point you would have to come to a decision and give the applicant the right to challenge the decision. Mr. Yoshimoto asked that if the council passed this resolution and chooses not to act on rezoning applications, what period of time would be reasonable. Mr. Yuen stated that generally, this is a moratorium and a moratorium in order to be legal, must have a time frame which can be a timeframe such as the enactment of a plan or a set date in the future. As far as specifics, Mr. Yuen thinks the Council should discuss what affect it would have on Council procedures if the resolution passes. If the Council wants to stop the Department from processing applications, the only way to do it is by ordinance. This resolution delays the Council's own actions. Council Member Yagong stated he sees this resolution as being based on frustration. He stated he feels this resolution is a moratorium and thinks the April 1, 2007 date is unrealistic. Because he knows the CDP will not be completed by that date, and the clause in the resolution states should the CDP not be adopted by ordinance on or before the April I, 2007 date then an extension of time of six month increments shall be requested by resolution, in essence what this does is automatically extend the date. Mr. Yagong stated maybe what is needed to deal with this issue is an ordinance. He said an ordinance would be extremely clear that the wishes of this Council is to not have any new rezoning applications processed by the planning department and gives an opportunity to set a time frame. Mr. Yagong feels that if the Council really wants to put its foot down an ordinance is the way to do it because it would bring all stakeholders to the table. Director Yuen stated that with regard to the listed exemptions, the Department would be able to determine whether a project is truly an exempt project. Mr. Yuen stated he does agree that Kona is suffering from rapid growth without the necessary roads and services, however, he takes exception that rezonings within the last two years are at fault, as virtually all development that has occurred had been approved prior to the last two years. PC Report No. 2 Communication 18 Resolution 16 Page 5 of 5 With respect to the potential of litigation as a result of the resolution, Corporation Counsel Bobby Jean Liethead-Todd stated that in a Lake Tahoe moratorium case that moratorium prevented people from building a home on already zoned property. Ms. Liethead-Todd stated since the Council is not precluding a person from building under existing use and existing zoning, she feels very comfortable defending the County in a moratorium. She would feel more comfortable with a date certain as opposed to an indefinite date. The difficulty she had with Mr. Tyler's recommendation is that by flipping the language to "whichever occurs last," the date becomes uncertain. You can continue to extend the resolution and the effective moratorium through subsequent resolutions as long as you have a set date and it would be entirely defensable. She also clarified that a resolution does continue past Council terms. Chris Yuen stated that picking an exact date for this resolution is less important when you have a clause as in the current resolution that says that it can be renewed. Committee Chair Pilago acknowledged support letters from Mr. Doug Perrine, Ms. Shannon Rudolph and Dore Dokos-Loewenthal. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Resolution No. 16 and recommends its adoption. and wYES Noes aa.E ex Respectfully submitted, FORD X HIGA X COMMITTEE ON ANNING HOFFMANN X IKEDA X ~ L JACOBSON X L--~~ NAEOLE X K. ANGEL PILA ,CHAIR PII,AGO X YAGONG X PC REPORT NO. 2 YOSHIhfOTO X ADOPTED: IAN ~ T