HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 006 01/03/2007 2006-2008 REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON PLANNING
DATE: January 3, 2007 Re: Comm. No. 32/Resolution No. 2l
PLACE: Councilroom (new locafion)
Ben Franklin Building
333 Kilauea Avenue, 2n° Floor
Hilo, Hawaii
TIME: 2:00 p.m.
Council Chair and Members
Hawaii County Council
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Your Committee on Planning, to which was refereed Resolution No. 21, reports as follows:
Resolution No. 21, transmitted via Communication No. 32 from Council Member Stacy K. Higa, dated
December 19, 2006, transmitting a Resolution proposing an amendment to Chapter 25, Article I, Section
25-1-5, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), by amending the definition for "Retail
establishment" and adding definitions for "Stockkeeping Unit or SKU" and "Superstore" establishing
limits on permitted retail uses in the Zoning Code.
Resolution No. 21 notes that communities across the United States have shown that development of
"superstores" occupying more than 90,000 gross square feet, having more than 25,000 stocldceeping units
("SKU"}, and dedicating more than 20,000 gross square feet of floor area to groceries, has tremendous
adverse impacts upon the community. Impacts include traffic congestion, increased demand on
govemment infrastructure, negative environmental consequences resulting in harmful and often fatal
impacts on small businesses.
Resolution No. 21 states that Chapter 25, Article 1, Section 25-1-5 of the Hawaii County Code, does not
adequately address negative impacts of "superstores" and, therefore, the council-initiated amendment is
being referred to the Planning Director and Planning Commission requesting comments and
recommendations, and also directing the Director and Commission to process the proposed Ordinance
attached to the Resolution.
The proposed Ordinance attached to Resolution No. 21 proposed to amend Chapter 25, Article 1, Section
25-1-5, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) as follows:
• Under the definition of "Retail establishment," it provides that "superstores," shall not be
permitted in any zoning district in the County of Hawaii;
• Adds a new definition for "Stocldceeping Unit" ("SKU"); and
• Adds a new definition for "Superstore," meaning a business exceeding 90,000 gross square feet,
offering for sale more than 25,000 different SKUs, and dedicating more than 20,000 gross squaze
feet of floor azea to sale of groceries.
At the January 3, 2006 Committee on Planning meeting, Council Member Stacy Higa was absent due to
personal circumstances. Public testimony was presented by Mr. John Yates representing the Kailua-Kona
WalMad. Mr. Yates read into the record the testimony of Wa1Mart District Manager, Brian Halsey
PC Report No. 6
Communication 32
Resolution 21
Page 2 of 5
expressing strong opposition to Resolution No. ZI-07 stating the proposal is very poor, based on false
premises, will not achieve benefits it claims, is anti-competitive and unfair. It also stated the proposal
will harm families by keeping the price of food high and enables supermarket chains to maintain such
high food prices.
Council Member Pete Hoffmann requested, as a matter of courtesy to Mr. Higa, that this item be
postponed to the next scheduled Planning Committee meeting on January 18, 2007. The motion to
postpone to the January 18, 2007 Planning meeting was unanimously approved.
At the January 18, 2007 meeting members of the public presented oral testimony at the Hilo Council
Room as fellows:
• Anthony Long (in opposition);
• Francis Benevides, Sr. (position is neutral; would like superstores to work with retailers;
• Rufus Sonognini (in opposition);
• Jeanne Ryan testified (in support);
• Rich Hedges (in support);
• Linda Hedges (in support);
• Mark McNett (testified that people want stores like Wa1Mart, Sam's Club, Tazget, etc.);
• Lary Saltzman (in opposition).
Committee Chair Pilago noted written testimonies of David Nardini (in support), Mary Marvin Porter (in
opposition), Charles Flaherty (in support) and oral testimony from Kelly Drysdale at the Kona Council
office (in support).
Committee Chair Pilago discussed the opinion of Corporation Counsel relating to disclosure of Council
Member Yagong's employment as District Manager of Food Pantry, Ltd. and Kalama Beach Corporation
and his oversight of several retail outlets. Chair Pilago noted that his January 2, 2007 response to Mr.
Yagong's disclosure states he feels Mr. Yagong is able to be fair and impartial in deciding this matter and
did not see a potential conflict that would require disqualification.
Council Member Stacy Higa stated this has not been a popular Resolution but he proposed it to be
consistent with other counties. In his research of big box stores, the "grocery" component intrigued him
and noted that although he is pro business and believes competition is healthy, the magnitude is his
concern and the resolution seeks to raise the level and set a cap limit at 20,000 SKU's. Having visited big
box stores on the mainland he found that these superstores were always placed neaz an interstate with no
other businesses nearby. He noted that history shows local farmers have been squeezed out and have to
sell their produce elsewhere. Mr. Higa hoped the resolution passes to allow the Planning Director and the
Commission to further study the matter.
Council Member Hoffmann said he did not come to any conclusion but would like to see more public
input and testimony. In Mc Hoffinamt's discussion it was noted that the Kona and Hilo Wa1Mart stores
would not be affected by the resolution and that Costco, although larger in size, would also not be
affected since it does not contain 20,000 SKU dedicated to groceries. Mr. Higa noted that the only
example or comparative of a business that would be banned currently exists only on the mainland at this
time. Mr. Higa further noted that in order for an establishment to be banned pursuant to the resolution, it
had to satisfy all three categories: exceed 90,000 gross squaze feet, have more than 25,000 SKU and more
than 20,000 gross squaze feet dedicated to groceries.
PC Report No. 6
Communication 32
Resolution 21
Page 3 of 5
Council Member Brenda Ford stated she made several investigative calls to stores in the Kona area and
found that most establishments were not sure or did not know how much area they had dedicated to
groceries. Ms. Ford felt that obtaining more information from the Planning Director and the Planning
Commission was important.
Planning Director Yuen requested copies of professional studies and/or reports resulting from Council
Member Higa's research and specifically, information on how lines were drawn to determine what would
be banned and what would not, Mr. Yuen did note that regarding developments within Hawaiian
Homelands, under the current Memorandum of Agreement between the County and the Department of
Hawaiian Homelands ("DHHL") Corporation Counsel's opinion is that the County can not exercise land
use zoning authority over property owned by DHHL. Council Member Jacobson stated that given the
relationship with DHHL and history of Wa1Mart in Hilo, this proposal would be unenforceable and would
limit options. Mr. Jacobson stated that a ban of superstores is not going to resolve existing problems and
that the resolution is not the vehicle to do it.
Council Member Higa stated he believed including a size restriction within rezoning applications could
satisfy some of the concerns outlined in the proposal, including protection from overdevelopment often
discussed affecting the Kona azea. Mr. Higa also wanted to note that since WalMart opened in Hilo ten
years ago, traffic has increased dramatically and that use of crosswalks in the immediate area is dangerous
and life-threatening. Mr. Higa believed Resolution No. 21 would assist in determining what kinds of
businesses would not overtax infrastructwe of our island and assist with the County's attempts at
concuttency.
Council Chair Hoffmann noted that similar bans could be imposed through individual zoning restrictions.
Director Yuen stated such a ban would only apply to new rezonings and noted there are existing zonings
that would allow for these kinds of stones. Mr. Yuen said keeping a commercially zoned area under 5
acres or, imposing a size limit on a particular establishment that allows for a large store (but not big box)
could be done on a site specific basis. Mr. Yuen advised the council that under existing zonings there are
large areas on which someone could bring in a big box store right now and also that an MCX (industtial-
commercial mixed use) would allow For a big box store. He said in that situation however, the "use"
could be changed.
Committee Vice Chair Dominic Yagong stated that at 90,000 gross squaze feet it would seem easy for an
establishment not to fail under the ban and that his vote today, in terms of banning big box outlets, would
be no. Mr. Yagong suggested this issue be placed on the ballot similaz to that of the 2% fund initiative,
however, Director Yuen said that could not be done due to State Supreme Court opinion that states zoning
cannot be done by initiative or referendum. Mr. Yagong's reasoning for suggesting placing this item on
the ballot was that although the Council and the Mayor voted against the Z% fund, when placed on the
ballot, the citizens voted for it. In that instance Mr. Yagong stated, the governmental or legislative body
was not in step with the pulse of the community on that particular issue and wondered whether this would
be another one of those issues or decisions that the council may want to put out to the voters of the county
of Hawaii. Mr. Yagong recommended the possibility of looking at banning big box stores over the next
2 years until November 4, 2008 which is when this would come up on the ballot for the people to decide.
Council Member Brenda Ford expressed concern regarding enforcement and monitoring compliance in
situations where a store increases SKUs in the future. Mr. Yuen stated there would likely be one or two
possible violating entities in this situation which would not be too difficult to enforce. Mr. Yuen stated
enforcement is a concern, however, if the resolution is referred, the Planning Department would be
addressing these and other issues and report back to the Council,
PC Report No. 6
Communication 32
Resolution 21
Page 4 of 5
Committee Vice Chair Yagong suggested that input and comments from the Hawaii Chamber of
Commerce be solicited.
Planning Director noted that the timeline for processing, review and comments by the Planning
Department and Planning Commission is 120 days and assured Committee Chair Pilago that the
department would do its best to meet that deadline. Director Yuen also noted that the General Plan does
not specifically address the issue of big box stores and contains general policy statements about
increasing opportunities for commercial enterprises.
Committee Chair Pilago stated he started out opposed to Resolution 21-07, however, having listened to
the discussions, he now supports the resolution but for entirely different reasons. Mr. Pilago stated one of
the things he dislikes about big outlets is that a lot of the products sold come from overseas, through
sweat shops utilizing child labor and therefore a social context has to be considered. Mr. Pilago said it's
disturbing that we would be in support of those kinds of difficult and oppressive societies and actually
become outlets. The other reason Mr. Pilago noted is the need to suppoR the local farmers and producers
because the social and economic context in the present situation demands that of us.
Council Member Yoshimoto spoke in favor of the Resolution. Mr. Yoshimoto stated the resolution was
reasonable despite testimony that it would prohibit free enterprise. He felt that the resolution fostered a
reasonable compromise and noted that although businesses should be free to operate in a way that they
choose, he believed we need to view the economy per scale and who has the most resources. Mr.
Yoshimoto said while he understands that generally superstores can reduce prices in a short term, we need
to look at long-term options because once a big box store is allowed, it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to take away. The long-term future of the County and how it affects the community are
reasons Mr. Yoshimoto supports the resolution.
A motion by Council Member Ikeda to call the question failed. Committee Vice Chair Yagong asked
Director Yuen that if the resolution fails, could a stipulation be included through the zoning process that
requires a business to purchase a percentage of their products locally. Director Yuen stated that when
local government restricts the choice of a business to buy something from out-of--state rather than in state,
he believed it violates federal control of interstate commerce. Mr. Yuen agreed to look into matter further
when Mr. Yagong stated it was his understanding this in fact was being done elsewhere.
PC Report No. 6
Communication 32
Resolution 21
Page 5 of 5
Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Resolution No. 21 and
recommends its adoption.
and
AYES NOES A&E EX RaspectfullY Sllhnntted,
FORD X
HIGA X COM/MI/Ti'EE ON PiLANNING
HOFFMANN X L~/ i
II~DA X ~ v U
JACOBSON X
NAEOLE X K. ANGEL PILA ,CHAIR
PILAGO X
YAGONG X PC REPORT NO. 6
YostmKOTO x ADOPTED: FEB D 7 2007