Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP JConPWIRC/FC/PC 007 03/11/2008 2006-2008 REPORT OF THE FIRST JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING ON PUBLIC WORKS & INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, FINANCE, AND PLANNING DATE: March 11, 2008 Re: Comm. 997/Bill 235 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa 78-128 Ehukai Street Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 TIME: 8:27 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Because this item was one of several items on three committee agendas which were related, Bill 235 was postponed to a Joint Committee Meeting on Planning, Finance, and Public Works and Intergovernmental Relations, which was convened at the end of the scheduled committees for the day. The Chairman of each committee consecutively called the meetings to order and relinquished their respective chairs to Council Chair Pete Hoffmann. Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill 235, reports as follows: Bill 235, transmitted via Communication 997 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated January 29, 2008, presents an amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 96-7 by amending the portion of Condition MA relating to constructing a barricade or breakaway gate that prevents the use of Haleki`i Street as a vehicular thoroughfare prior to the opening of the entire Mamalahoa Bypass. Ordinance No. 96-7 reclassified lands from Unplanned (U) to Agricultural 1-Acre (A-la) at Honuaino 3rd and 4a', Hokukano 1'` and 2°d, Haleki`i, Keekee I" and 2nd, Ilikahi, Kanakau 1" and 2nd, Kalukalu l", 2nd and 3rd, and Onouli 1'`, North and South Kona, Hawaii, covered by Tax Map Key: 7-9-12:4 & 11; 8-1-4:3, 7, 65 & 68; 8-1-27:16, 20, 21, 27-43, 8-1-28:9, 10, 19-28, 30, 44-47; 8-1-30:1-3, 5-9,12-53; 8-1-32:1-54; 8-1-33:1-20; 8-1-34:1-25 (formerly 7-9-12: portion of 3, 4 & 11 and 8-1-4: portion of 3). The provisions of Condition M required the developer to build the Mamalahoa Bypass from Keauhou to Napo`opo`o and extend Haleki`i to connect with it. The purpose of Condition M 4 was to prevent the use of Haleki`i Street as a vehicular thoroughfare between the existing Mamalahoa Highway and a portion of the Mamalahoa Highway Bypass until the entire proposed Mamalahoa Highway Bypass between the vicinity of Keauhou and Captain Cook had been completed and opened for general public use. Completion of physical connection of Haleki`i Street to the Mamalahoa Bypass is expected to be usable by the public in April 2008, however, further extension to Napo`opo`o is uncertain due to resistance of one landowner (Coupe), to the acquisition of property necessary to complete the right-of-way. Director Yuen notes that despite severe traffic congestion on Mamalahoa Highway, the Mamalahoa Bypass (paralleling Mamalahoa Highway from Keauhou to Haleki`i Street), cannot JC-PWIRC, PC, & FC Report No. 7 I~ I Communication 997 Bill 235 Page 2of8 be used because of the Conditions of Ordinance No. 96-7. Mr. Yuen states the County Administration believes that opening the Mamalahoa Bypass to Haleki`i Street will help ease traffic problems on the Mamalahoa Highway in North and South Kona. The Planning Director notes the following history of the Hokuli`a project relevant to understanding the delays in completing the Bypass Highway: • Ordinance 96-7 rezoned a large area in North and South Kona from Unplanned (U) to Agricultural 1-acre (A-la). • Ordinance 96-8 amended Ordinance No. 94-73 (which earlier rezoned a large adjoining area) from Unplanned (U) and Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to Agricultural 1-acre (A-la). • One of the conditions of the 1996 rezonings required the developer to construct, at its expense, a public highway from Napo`opo`o to Keauhou. The only intermediate link from the Mamalahoa Highway to the Bypass was to be Haleki`i Street, which the developer was also required to construct the extension of Haleki`i Street to the Bypass. • In 1990 and 2000 subdivision approvals for the first two increments were obtained and most of the necessary right-of-way from neighboring landowners to build the Mamalahoa Bypass secured through negotiations. • In 2000 a lawsuit was filed against the developer and some governmental parties regarding claims that the project did not conform to state land use law regarding the use of land in the agricultural district. • In 2003, Third Circuit Court decision upheld claims based on Chapter 205 HRS and enjoined further development, including construction of the Bypass Highway within the project. At that time the highway was completed from Keauhou to almost the Haleki`i Street intersection. • In 2006, a settlement agreement was reached among the parties, allowing the project to continue, reducing the number of home sites from 730 to 670. • In October 2007, a Third Circuit Court Judgment was entered permitting the County of Hawaii to acquire the right-of-way through the Coupe property, and setting the amount of compensation. This decision is on appeal. • Haleki`i Street is about one half mile long between its intersection with Mamalahoa Highway and the point it enters Oceanside 1250 property. There are approximately 40 homes with driveways directly onto Haleki`i Street, and Mamao Street and Muli Streets intersect with Haleki`i. The speed limit,on Haleki`i is 25 mph and the actual maximum grade is 18-19 percent and not 25 percent as noted on a warning sign. JC-PWIRC, PC, & FC Report No. 7 Communication 997 Bill 235 Page 3 of 8 • The "Traffic Assessment Report Mamalahoa Bypass Road," completed by Wilson Okamoto, analyzed effects of opening the Mamalahoa Bypass-Haleki`i Street connection for two-way travel, and also for one-way travel northbound and one-way travel southbound, as well as effects on various intersections in the area. The study concluded opening the Mamalahoa Bypass-Haleki`i Street connection would improve north-south traffic flow in both morning and afternoon peak periods and notes that although both alternatives are anticipated to alleviate existing traffic conditions, the "two-way Bypass" alternative is recommended because on-way alternatives require operational controls. The Planning Director recommended favorably on amending Condition MA by deleting the portion of Condition MA relating to construction of a barricade or breakaway gate to prevent the use of Haleki`i Street as a vehicular thoroughfare prior to opening of the entire Mamalahoa Bypass, and included a provision stating that use of Haleki`i Street as a public vehicular thoroughfare prior to the opening of the entire Mamalahoa Bypass shall not be allowed prior to enactment of an ordinance establishing interim controls and mitigation measures. At the February 20, 2008 Planning Committee meeting the following persons presented public testimony: Carol Kitaoka testified in opposition noting that there were no guarantees in writing that the mitigation measures are in fact going to be completed and when. Mr. John Harris, Chair of the Traffic Committee, Keauhou Outreach Group, commented that mitigation measures have to be embodied in some legislation to ensure measures are clearly in place when traffic increases, Mr. Curtis Tyler advised that the council to pay attention to citizens before making a decision, and Charles Flaherty testified in opposition to the amendment stating that Conditions MA and LA constitute a contract between the community and the County which will be broken if Haleki`i Street is opened. Director Yuen noted that the terms of a Settlement Agreement which ended the Hokulia lawsuit does not change the requirements of the zoning code and that dedication of the Bypass has not taken place but is in the works. Council Chair Hoffmann suggested including a provision in Bill 235 allowing for a test period upon the opening of the Haleki`i St./Mamalahoa Bypass and Director Yuen said that the parallel ordinance is where a provision such as that should be as the MA provision refers to the traffic ordinances which the Department of Public Works will be presenting. Council Member Yagong recalled that at the time Ordinance 96-7 was approved there was no question that the connection of Haleki`i St. to the Mamalahoa Bypass was to occur only when the entire bypass was completed. Mr. Yagong suggested that upon approval of the measure and removal of the barricades, could the opening be predicated on a two-month test period and monitored by the Department of Public Works, to which Director Yuen and Director McClure agreed. At the end of the two-month period a report would be provided to the Council who would decide whether or not Haleki`i St. is to remain open. Mr. Yagong concluded that he felt that the community's concern was that the proposal would be "permanent" without an opportunity to provide input after Haleki`i Street is opened and that at the very least, monitoring should be done first and then come back for a decision. JC-PWIRC, PC, & FC Report No. 7 Communication 997 Bill 235 Page 4 of 8 Council Member Higa's concern was if opening of the road would weaken the County's position with respect to the condemnation issue and would the Council be placing itself in a bad situation and would prefer that the entire road be built. Director Yuen stated the proposed amendment should not affect the validity of the condemnation process and felt confident, as did Ivan Torigoe, Corporation Counsel, that the County would succeed in condemnation and that opening ofHaleki`i Street would not jeopardize those proceedings. Also, Mr. Torigoe stated that although the possibility that the judgment authorizing condemnation could be reversed on appeal was very remote, he could understand the position the developer is taking of not moving forward with completing construction of the entire Bypass until a decision is reached in the Coupe appeal. Due to the complexity of issues and recommendations discussed, it was suggested that any proposed amendments should be done with a clear idea that it be provided within appropriate deadlines to allow Council Members an ample opportunity to review any changes prior to the next committee meeting. This matter was postponed to the Committee on Planning's March 11, 2008 meeting in West Hawaii. At the March 11, 2008 Committee on Planning meeting Council Member Pilago presented a chronology of the proposed amendment to Bill 235 as outlined in Communication 997.2. Director Yuen stated that the content with respect to the County's responsibility is fine, however he suggested that amendments be contained in the traffic code rather than in the zoning ordinance. Jiro Sumada of the Department of Public Works stated they generally agree with most of the mitigation measures being proposed, aside from having to further discuss specific provisions with staff and some minor changes, and concurred that the amendments are things that should be completed if Haleki`i Street is opened. Council Member Yagong expressed concern whether these amendments can be embedded and be legally binding within the zoning ordinance instead of the traffic code. Corporation Counsel Ivan Torigoe stated that strictly speaking, it could be placed in either the traffic or the Zoning Code, but felt a better fit would be the Traffic Code. Council Member Pilago stated the reason these amendments were embedded within the ordinance was because the Departments were reluctant to include a detailed breakdown of mitigation measures agreed to by the Departments in either the Traffic Code or zoning ordinance. Mr. Pilago felt these protective measures needed to be specifically set out, and this was the first opportunity, as a Council, to take control and aggressively address concerns that have been discussed and promised to the affected communities. Council Member Ford stated her support of Mr. Pilago's amendment and that having these mitigation measures, if embedded in the Traffic Code, would be too easily changed. Mr Sumada stated there have been some changes in mitigation measures since he went out into the community and obtained input and that his staff has not yet been able to make an assessment, except preliminarily, and noted the following: Item number 8 should state that Haleki`i Street JC-PWIRC, PC, & FC Report No. 7 Communication 997 Bill 235 Page 5 of 8 runs east/west; item number 9, the test period should also include that the director has the authority to suspend the test if there are operational concerns or problems; and that depending upon his staff's ability to deliver on the mitigation measures and follow proper procurement procedures, it may require longer than a year to complete all mitigation measures. In addition, the mitigations agreed to that could be done in six months, the staff now feels it may have been too ambitious of a commitment to make, and completion within 12 months may be pushing the limit. Mr. Sumada stated that if there was some flexibility with respect to some of the items, they could probably follow through with intent of the mitigation measures. Joint Committee Chair Hoffmann Pete clarified that some mitigation measures will take six months to complete and others may take twelve, but that it was clearly stated in the amendment that before the test is instituted, all mitigation measures must be completed. Mr. Sumada stated that because of the sunset provision, the Department would have to focus solely on having to deliver these requirements at the expense of other projects planned around the island. Traffic Division Chief Ron Theil's concern was in following NATCD requirements for safe projects, the fact that traffic mitigation measures are being included in the Code as law, there may exist a lack of understanding of the repercussions when a Department is required by law to do something that may be paramount to misconduct. Council Member Pilago stated he appreciated Mr. Theil's comments, however, the amendment does specifically state that all mitigation measures shall be done in accordance with appropriate engineering standards and specifications. Mr. Sumada the department had the time to look at its ability to deliver, with much of work to being done in-house and some contracted out. In agreeing to the list of things that are identified, there have also been items added on that increased the scope of what had to be done and the time frame to do it in. Therefore, although the original intent was to complete these items within two or three months or by summer, due to scheduling and the work involved to implement these measures, the Department recently determined a longer timeline is necessary. The Department's main concern however, is that the sunset clause locks the Department into completing these items within 12 months. Council Member Pilago stated that a sunset date must be included and if 12 months is inadequate, then the Department should advise the Council what timeline is appropriate. Mr Pilago stressed that there must be something that binds everyone's responsibility (the County's, the applicant's and the communities). If safety measures are not implemented, then Haleki`i Street does not open until the Bypass is complete. Mr. Jacobson's concern was that no matter what timeline we work from regarding mitigation measures, would the 36-month clock discussed at the last meeting would still be ticking that requires Hokulia to complete the remainder of the Bypass Road. Director Yuen confirmed that the 36-month clock is ticking. JC-PWIRC, PC, & FC Report No. 7 I Communication 997 Bill 235 Page 6 of 8 Council Member Higa's concerns were if the amendment passed would it alter time frame and construction costs, and whether the proposed amendments could jeopardize the test. Mr. Sumada stated that the amendments would not jeopardize the test, just prolongs it. Council Member Yagong felt that this was a local issue and that the people really affected are the people from Ka`u, Oceanview, South Kona and North Kona. Those are the people who have to live with what the Council decides today which, from what he's hearing, is unacceptable. Mr. Yagong stated that if Hokulia is going to take three to four years to build the road, another 18 months for the Department to put in the mitigation measures, do we really want to wait six years before we do a test. Mr. McClure stated Hokulia only has three years to complete the Toad and that the mitigation is to be done simultaneously and not incrementally. Director Yuen stated that the basic purpose behind the initiative was to give some significant traffic relief in a reasonable short period of time. Mr. Yuen recalls that Public Works feels that just about all of the mitigation can be done within six months, except for the signal at Kaleiopapa Road and the crosswalk signal of which these two items add a substantial amount of time to complete. Council Member Ikeda stated these problems can be solved by not opening the road at all. If the road has to be completed in three years and all the mitigation measures are going to take just as long, then what the Council needs to do is defeat the bill. In an attempt at resolving any impasse, Council Member Pilago proposed withdrawing his amendment and having the Department embed the mitigation measures within the Traffic Code. However, Mr. Pilago said he would do so on the condition that there needs to be some kind of an agreement that the Departments would continue to work with the Council to ensure that the intent and purpose of the proposed amendments are not lost. Mr. Sumada stated that the Department's presentation to the communities included a short-term time frame of six to eight months and a long-term time frame of one to three years. He said the only concern is if the Council is going to impose and add to the short term list, then the Department would request additional time to re-evaluate how long it would take, especially in light of the sunset clause. There was further discussion of Mr. Pilago withdrawing his proposed amendment and Council Member Ford's objection to the withdrawal. It was noted that if Mr. Pilago's withdrawal was accepted, then Council Member Ford could not introduce her proposed floor amendment. Mr. Yagong encouraged Mr. Pilago not to make the withdrawal and allow the Department to come back at the next meeting and provide a time frame that the Council could determine whether or not it's acceptable. Following a discussion with the County Clerk, the proposed amendment submitted by Council Member Pilago was approved. Council Member Ford then moved to amend Bill 235, as amended by Mr. Pilago, with her proposed floor amendment. During discussions of Ms. Ford's proposed amendments, certain minor secondary amendments were discussed. Also discussed was whether the amendments from Council Member Pilago and JC-PWIRC, PC, & FC Report No. 7 I Communication 997 I Bill 235 i Page 7 of 8 I Council Member Ford would require a referral back to the Planning Commission for further hearings. Director Yuen said both amendments do not require a referral back to the Commission, however, reminded the Council of a technical problem with how these amendments are being proposed. Director Yuen further explained that because the title of the bill is amending Section MA, and the amendment adds a long list of numbered sections to Condition M, those numbered Sections should technically be a lettered list that amends Section MA specifically. If the change was made, Mr. Yuen stated that the amendments as proposed would be within the scope of what the Council can do without having to go back to the Planning Commission. Council Member Yagong stated he supports the amendments and looked forward to the Department putting a time frame on how long it will take to complete. However, Mr. Yagong did want to note that there are also other communities that have been asking for traffic signals for many, many years without success. Council Member Higa said although he doesn't want Haleki`i Street opened, he supports the amendment because if it does open, at least the mitigation would be in place. Mr. Sumada stated the Department would like to have a chance to review Ms. Ford's amendments and submit comments regarding the timing issue as well as feasibility, including the overall intent of the initiative. Upon the request of Director McClure, Council Chair Hoffmann stated that this matter will be agendized for the April 9, 2008 Council meeting to give the Department ample opportunity to respond. The proposed floor amendment and secondary amendments presented by Council Member Ford were approved. JC-PWIRC, PC, & FC Report No. 7 Communication 997 Bill 235 Page 8 of 8 The First Joint Committee on Public Works and Intergovernmental Relations, Finance, and Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill 235, as amended to Draft 2, and recommends it pass first reading. and AYES NOES A&E EX Respectfully submitted, FORD X FIRST JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING ON PUBLIC WORKS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL HIGA X RELATIONS, FINANCE, AND PLANNING HOFFMANN X 1?;'- BRENDA J. FO 10D, CHAIR IKEDA X PUBLIC ORKS & INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATI COMMITTEE JACOBSON X NAEOLE X DOMINIC YAGON C R FIN E CO E \ PILAGO X YAGONG X K. ANGEL PI GO, CHAIR PLANNING COMMITTEE YOSHOMOTO X JC-PWIRC, FC & PC REPORT DAR NO. 9 7