HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0307.009 2006-2008 To: Hawaii County CounGL Testimony fa 812/07 Nearing 5!2!07 DRAFT
Fr. Margaret WIIIe:B&1318 Lihipeli Road, Kemuele Heweii 96743 TEL: 887-1419
Re: Bill i 318' relating to adequate public facilities: °CONCURRENCY'
Testimony an behaH of: I submit this testimony on behaM of myseB as a t:oncemed citi:!e- arul not as Uw
representative of any other party. Also, I am on the steering commktee for the South Kahn a Da?~ilopment
Community Plsn, however these views ere my own end do not represent those or the $OUt' Koha a
Steering Com m Ittee
STA7FJdENT OF GENERAL SUPPORT: CONCURRENCY IS A KEY ISSUE THAT (3ENEFALLY
SUPP0~1: D ROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AS A STEP TOWARDS ALLEVIATING Oll'•~:'"FLU"F C
CRISIS. V11E NEED THIS LEGISLATIl7wl NOW AS A STEP TOWARDS ADDRESSING THIS. CRI iL'i. MY
COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. ADDITIONALY RE(~u1RE CONCURR~N~YAT THE SUBDIVISION PHASE: THERE
REQUIREMEMS SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED AT THE SUBDIVISION STAGE OF APPROVA_, Siff: PLAN,
AND LIKEWISE WHEN THERE IS A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SOUGHT SUCH AS FOR P PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THIS OBJECTIVE GAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A SEPARATE ORDIrI ~ NC:E:
2..FI tMINATE THE EXGEP'T1ON FOR EXTRAAFFORDA3LE HOUSING I
(NITS IF
ADDITIONAL ROADS ARE NEEDED: SECTION 25-2-48(h). YES WE ALL SUf~PJRT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT PffTING THE NEED FOR ROADS AGAINST THE NEED 1=0R ,V=F JRUABLI:.
HOUSING IS INAPPROPRIATE. EVEN IF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DEVELOPED, Tf•ID: E
HOMEOWNERS AND ALL ADJOINING HOMEOWNERS STILL NEED ADEQUATE AND E~Pf~E R0~1D5
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A DEVELOPER, KNOYIM REQUIREMENTS ARE GERTI~ItI AND
ACCEPTED AND t3UDGETED IN FROM THE START. ON THE OTHER HAND IF THERE I:i AN
EXCEPTION, SOMEHOW THE NATURAL INCLWATION TO SPEND WHATEVER ENERGr IT 'FAKES TO
FIT THROl1GH THAT EXCEPTION, ESPECIALLY IF IT DELAYS BUDGETMIG FOR 7rWT ITEM ^EVEN
THOUGH R MAY HE MORE COSTLY IN THE LONG RUN. DEAL MATH AFFORDABLE HOIIS!/.G AS A
SEPARATE AGENDA ANO NOT IN THIS ORDINANCE.
3. SETAMORE EFFECjNE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHEN TLAR I;ZREQUIf?,E0
SECTION 25-2-46(p A TZAR FOCUSES ON CONGESTION. MMEREAS THERE IS NO NEED ~=OR A
DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL MINIMALLY IMPACT THE EXISTING ROADS IN THE ARf:A TO CGNDUCT it
T?AR, ELIMINATING THIS REQUIREJNENT BUT FOR VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENTS (NAiET}(ER THAT
LARGE DEVELOPMENT OENERATE9 50 OR 100 CAR TRIP8) WILL RENDER THIS LE013LATP/E
RESPONSE TO THIS TRAFFIC CRISIS A VERY SMALL STEP TOWARDS ADDDRESSINti A VERY BIG
PROBLEM. SET A CLEAR STANDARD AND £LIMINAT£ THE LOOPHOLES.
4. CLARITY IN (?~SENTA710N: PLEASE 7RY TO GIVE SOME INFORMAL EOUI'?P.LEWCY OF
WHATEVER
STANDARD YOU USE [SUCH AS pCLUDING A PARENTHETICAL STATEN I°_NT I?"
APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY RESIDENCES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GENERATE 'X' NUMBER OR
MORE PEAK HOUR TRIPSI. REMEMBER WE ALL WANT TO UNDERSTAND NM/1T IS 9? tNG R.QUIRED
IN THE LAW.
S. ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM: A MAJOR PROBLEM HERE IN HAW411 COUNTY IS THE FNILURE TG
ENFORCE EXISTING CONCURREHCY REQUIREMENTS tN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ;)RDINANCES.
YOUR LAWS ARE ONLY MEANINGFUL IF THEY ARE ENFORCED. IT IS COMMON KNC~VULEDGE3 THAT
THE KIM ADMINISTRATION GENERALLY ACCOMMODATES DEVELOPERS WHEN A FtE?aUE.l~ f IS
MADE TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE REZ LNG CONDITIONS INCLUDING ROAD CON.STF!UCTION
REQUIREMENTS. IT SEEMS AS IF LOPERS /0'IOW THAT IF THEY CAN POINT '1'p ANY
CONCEIVABLE LOOPHOLE OR P033gILE VAGUENESS OF TERMS TWEY REQUEST P REb 1310N -
VIMETHER THAT REVISION OCCIA'tS FOFJNALLY OR INFORMALLY (BEHIND CLOSE.:1 COORS).
DEVELOPERS ARE INCLINED (NATURAIt1~ IS TO SEEK ACCOMMODATION RATHER THAN
ASSUMING THAT THE COUNTY WILL ENFORCE ALL CONCURRENCY AND OTHER Rf11)NIMG OR
SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS.
_ _ , t,,~ _3~7~