Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0358.003 2006-2008 5- l S^-~ ~ To: County Council Planning Committee From: Margaret Wile 65-1316 Lihipali Road Kamuela Hawaii 96743 Tel: 887-1419; email: mazgazetwille@mac.com Re: Comm. 331 Res. 158-07: Requires discretionary review for subdivisions and provides for public hearing in the development approval process. Date: April 30, 2007 Preface to Testimonv: As a member of the Mayor's Advisory Committee for the South Kohala Community Development Plan, I was asked to inform the Council that I am a member of this committee but my testimony today represents my own views and not those of the Advisory Committee. Likewise, I am an attorney but testify as a concerned citizen and not on behalf of another party. Position of Suuaort: I support this effort to enact an ordinance that will provide for discretionary review of subdivision and other development applications along with an opportunity for public participation in the approval process. Baclc¢round: Residential development has exploded in Hawaii County, but the public facilities and services needed to accommodate this massive residential development lags far behind- including for essential services and infrastructure such as roads, pazks, and schools. The resulting crisis is not in the future. It is here now. The residents of this county, and in particular our island youth, face a critical lack of public facilities in large part as a result of this County's continued failure to impose reasonable exactions on subdivisions and other special development approvals. The public wants a system in which there is discretionary review of subdivisions and other development approvals, so that those developments can henceforth be subjected to appropriate conditions and exactions that are commensurate with the impact of the development not just in the immediate area but also in the entire affected region of the County. 1Likewise the public wants accountability in the approval process, specifically by way of a public hearing before the County Council or an appropriate agency boazd. Currently there I James Rushner in his treatise on Subdivision and Growth Manasement explains this dilemma as follows: "Communities often falter in the financing of infrastructure due to escalating costs, limited tax revenues, and legislative concerns with burdening taxpayers for these costs. The subdivision process can become very subjective and political in approving or denying proposals, and in some communities' pet projects sponsored by powerful developers or projects anticipated to contribute needed tax revenues may be approved despite inadequate facilities. This process, in turn leads to premature subdivision, and eventually results in congested roads, overcrowded schools, inadequate sewa~e treatment, insufficient parks (page t-10 § 1:T' Need for Growth Management" 2° edition 2007). ,3 s s>_,.-. r ~ ~ Y ; 2,...~...-----~ .l ~ . is no significant accountability in the Planning Director's handling of subdivisions applications and special. development applications, such as PUD's. Instead this Planning Director has sought to "fly below the radar" of public scrutiny. Examples of major residential zonings that are not yet subdivided, as listed in a Mazch 20051etter from the Planning Director to the Council, are: --Waikoloa Village, approximately 1600 acres of unsubdivided RS-10 zoning, for a potential of at least 5000 more units -could triple current population in the area. --Bridge Ainalea, zoned for 2600 residential and timeshaze units. --Kohala Ranch, Project IV, zoned for 1490 units. --Former "Y.O" property neaz the top of Hina Lani Street about 1100 units. --"University Terrace" [Hilo] above Komohana Street, 500 units. --Wilder Road property has about 333 water commitments. --Pazker Ranch 2020 plan, Waimea -potentially about 600 more units. --Former "Haseko" ~roperty, south of Kona Palisades - about 400 units. According to this same 2005 communication from the Planning Director to the Council, the existing major resorts are still zoned for a large number of units. That communication also points out major pending DHHL expansion projects: --La'iopua Village 4-236 units and potentially 7 more villages --Lalamilo Phase I -36 units, Phase 2 - 400 units --Maku'u Mauka - 3741ots --Panaewa Residential-401ots --Honokohau project --Waiakea Residential -500 units.3 Discussion: Chairman Hoffmann's Resolution 158-07 can be broken down into several questions. Question 1: SHOULD THERE BE A SYSTEM OF DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS AND FOR OTHER SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS? The common sense answer to that question is YES. It is at the subdivision or special development application stage that the development proposal is for a specific use and design where the long-term impacts can be assessed. In James Kushner's treatise Subdivision Law z Given that this list was prepared in 2005, it is presumably out of date. s Quoting from Letter from Planning Director Christopher Yuen dated March 9 2005 to Chairman Safarik and Members of the County Council. and Growth Management, he states that subdivision administration "remains the most significant process for managing and financing growth and community design". a He explains as follows: It is principally through the process of subdivision approval that communities take a serious look at the problems of growth, the environmental impact of growth, and the availability of adequate facilities and services to accommodate growth... The subdivision process is also the central technique for controlling the extent and rate of urban growths Question 2: IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SUBDIVISION REVIEW APPROPRIATE, AT LEAST IN CASES INVOLVING LARGER SUBDIVISIONS? Yes, certainly public participation is appropriate in the subdivision and development application review process. To impose, or to fail to impose, discretionary conditions or exactions on subdivision approvals has an enormous long-term impact on our quality of life in this county. There should be an opportunity for meaningful participation at this stage of the development approval process. On this point, James Kushner in Subdivision and Growth Mana eg ment explains: The due process clause requires some kind of hearing as a condition to interfering with property rights. The due process requirement in the subdivision process would require some notice to affected neighboring landowners of the pendency of the application and an opportunity to be heard and to participate in the deliberative decision-making process. It is typically satisfied by a provision of the subdivision ordinance requiring public hearings prior to the decision to grant tentative or preliminary tract approval. 6. There is a clear need for discretionary review of these developments and the imposition of reasonable exactions commensurate with the impact of each development. It is through the participation of members of the public that concerns are raised and deliberated and addressed. a James Kushner, Subdivision and Growth Management (2nd edition 2007) Preface page x. ` Ibid at page 1-2. 6 1d at pages 8-94 and Question 3: SHOULD THE COUNTY COUNCIL. BE THE ENTITY THAT HOLD5 THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION AND OTHER DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS? In order to ensure accountability to the public, Resolution 158-07 proposes that the County Council, as a body of elected officials, hold the hearing for lazge subdivisions and render its decision in an ordinance. In Hawaii County discretionary review of significant developments by the County Council is particularly appropriate because the Subdivision Code, section 23-23 requires conformity with the General Plan and therefore also with applicable Community Development Plans.' Accountability to the policy courses of action in the General Plan is beyond the scope of the Planning Director's ministerial approach to subdivision review. If for whatever reason the Council is unwilling to take on this discretionary review procedure, at least the following procedure should be implemented. Instead, designate the planning commission as the agency board to hold the public hearing on subdivisions. The planning commission, is an agency board with representatives from all districts, aswell as ex-officio non-voting members from the public works and water supply departments. The board would heaz the public presentation, and review the development based on all relevant statutory and regulatory criteria as well as based on the pertinent "Courses of Action" in the General Plan and any community development plan. Following that hearing, the planning commission would publicly issue its advisory decision to the County Council and to the Planning Director. The Director would render a fmal decision based on the criteria in the subdivision code. The County Council would at least review that decision based on conformity with the General Plan, applicable zoning criteria, and other statutory requirements-such as for parks and public access to the beaches and mountains. The approval of both the County Council and the Planning Director would be required. Summary: I support Resolution 158-07, as an effort to establish (1) A process for discretionary review of subdivisions and other development approval, and (2) A public hearing as part of the subdivision approval process. PLEASE APPROVE RESOLUTION 158-07 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Thank you for your consideration. Margaret Wile ~ Section 23-23 of the Hawaii County Subdivision Code specifically requires that subdivisions shall conform to the County General Plan.