HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0307.007 2006-2008 Murashige, Laura
From: Margaret Wille [margaretwille@mac.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 6:24 PM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Bill 318 concurrency 4-18-07
Attachments: Bill 318 concurrency .doc, ATT00004.txt
I
I-
Bill 318 ATT00004.txt (161
mcurrency .doc (28 B)
Please distribute this testimony to the council members for bill
318 to be heard on 4/18/07.
30?.1 _
1 _ . .
To: Hawaii County Council: Testimony for 4/18/07 Hearing
Fr: Margaret Wille, Waimea resident
Re: Bill # 318: relating to adequate public facilities: "CONCURRENCY"
Date: April 17, 2007
Testimony on behalf of: I am submitting this testimony on behalf of myself as a concerned citizen
and not as the representative of any other party. Also, I am on the steering committee for the
South Kohala Development Community Plan, however these views are my own and do not
represent those of the South Kohala Steering Committee.
1. STATEMENT OF GENERAL SUPPORT: CONCURRENCY IS A KEY ISSUE THAT
IS GENERALLY SUPPORTED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AS A STEP TOWARDS
ALLEVIATING OUR TRAFFIC CRISIS. ANY FURTHER DELAY IN IMPOSING A
REASONABLE CONCURRENCY STANDARD WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE.
2. COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE EXCEPTION FOR EXTRA AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS :SECTION 25-2-46(h). YES WE ALL SUPPORT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING BUT PITTING THE NEED FOR ROADS AGAINST THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IS INAPPROPRIATE. EVEN IF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DEVELOPED, THOSE
HOMEOWNERS AND ALL ADJOINING HOMEOWNERS STILL NEED ADEQUATE AND SAFE
ROADS.
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A DEVELOPER, KNOWN REQUIREMENTS ARE CERTAIN
AND ACCEPTED AND BUDGETED IN FROM THE START. ON THE OTHER HAND IF THERE
IS AN EXCEPTION, SOMEHOW THE NATURAL INCLINATION TO TO SPEND WHATEVER
ENERGY IT TAKES TO FIT THROUGH THAT EXCEPTION, ESPECIALLY IF IT DELAYS
BUDGETING FOR THAT ITEM -EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE MORE COSTLY IN THE LONG
RUN. DEAL WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS A SEPARATE AGENDA AND NOT IN THIS
ORDINANCE.
3. SET A MORE REASONABLE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHEN
TZAR IS REQUIRED: SECTION 25-2-46(I) A TIAR FOCUSES ON CONGESTION.
WHEREAS THERE IS NO NEED FOR A DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL MINIMALLY IMPACT
THE EXISTING ROADS IN THE AREA TO CONDUCT A TIAR, ELIMINATING THIS
REQUIREMENT BUT FOR VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENTS (WHETHER THAT LARGE
DEVELOPMENT GENERATES 50 OR 100 CAR TRIPS) WILL RENDER THIS LEGISLATIVE
RESPONSE TO THIS TRAFFIC CRISIS CLOSE TO MEANINGLESS. IT WILL INSTEAD BE
ONE OF THOSE MAKE THE COUNTY RESIDENTS FEEL LIKE THE COUNCIL IS
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM -BUT REALLY YOU ARE ONLY TOUCHING THE TIP OF
THE ICEBERG -AND DOING SO REPLETE WITH LOOPHOLES. FOR EXAMPLE, IN TERMS
OF DECIDING WHEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYISIS IS REQUIRED HOW ABOUT THE
STANDARD OF
"TEN OR MORE PEAK HOUR TRIPS"
AND PLEASE TRY TO GIVE SOME INFORMAL EQUIVALENCY OF WHATEVER
STANDARD YOU USE [SUCH AS INCLUDING A PARENTHETICAL STATEMENT OF
APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY RESIDENCES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GENERATE (X
MANY) OR MORE PEAK HOUR TRIPS]. REMEMBER WE ALL WANT TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT IS BEING REQUIRED IN THE LAW.