Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2017/06/06 (2016-2018)Committee on Planning Stn Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii June 6, 2017 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 1:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair. R(1T T CAT T Present: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Vice Chair Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Absent & Excused: Mr. Aaron Chung, Member STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS COMMUNI- C A TTnNC ORDER OF RESOLUTIONS: The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. The following individuals registered to speak in opposition to Bill 37 (Comm. 299), and came forward when called by the Chair: Leilani Bronson Krielly. Joyce Alberta Folena. Gregory T. Smith. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Communications. (There were none.) The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) June 6, 2017 BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills ORDINANCES: for Ordinances. CHR. EOFF: Mr. Clerk, can you read in Bill 37? Bill 37: AMENDS CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 4, SECTION 23-41, HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO SUBDIVISION STREET DESIGN STANDARDS Reduces the "Minimum Right -of -Way" width from 50 to 40 feet for minor streets in rural and agricultural areas. Reference: Comm. 299 Intr. by: Ms. O'Hara CHR. EOFF: Thank you. It's been brought to my attention that because this bill amends a Subdivision Code, the proper motion at this point in time is to refer—is a motion to refer Bill 37 to the Planning Director and the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations. Ms. O'Hara. Motion to Refer: Ms. O'Hara moved to refer Bill 37 to the Planning Director and Planning Commissions pursuant to Section 25-2-43(b), Hawaii County Code. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. EOFF: At this time though, we can entertain discussion before— MS. O'HARA: We can? CHR. EOFF: Yes. MS. O'HARA: That kind of caught me off guard. I wasn't sure whether we were going to discuss or not. Okay. Just some clarification because we've heard a couple testimonies that, with all due respect, our, not current narratives at all, I just saw on Facebook, for instance, that someone from HPP (Hawaiian Paradise Park), has put up a survey describing a 120 foot right-of-way, which is what one of the testifiers just referred to, going all the way through Paradise Park and creating—that's a four -lane highway, to put it in perspective, a 128 -foot right-of- way is a four -lane highway, running through Paradise Park. And that has never been the intention of any effort that I have discussed with the communities in the last 15 years. This goes back before the Puna Community Development Plan even really got underway, in the early 2000's. What the public, and I've talked to hundreds of people in Hawaiian Paradise Park having walked door-to-door during my campaign, and everybody wants an alternative access, they're not looking for a four -lane highway. And so there's Page 2 June 6, 2017 background discussion going on, but that's all we've gotten to in terms of getting a right-of-way. And although the Community Development Plan has this map that shows extending Railroad Avenue all the way from the end of its existence in Hilo, all the way out to Nanawale I believe, is what shows in the map in the plan, that is not anywhere on the radar at this point in time. I mean not anywhere, but that is not on the radar at this point in time. There's some preliminary discussion going on about acquiring an easement that would bring an alternative road from Kea`au to Paradise Park, but it's in preliminary stages. I have a meeting later this month, I think, a couple of them actually, to discuss that further. So that's where things stand, but that would not be 128 -foot right-of-way, we're talking a two-lane road, whether or not it's even paved is still up in the air. But I just want to put that out there because there's a certain individual from HPP that keeps driving this Trojan horse through the neighborhood and getting people very concerned and worked up, and that's never been the intention. So I just wanted to put that out there in this discussion. The second thing is, I'm glad this is going to the Planning Commission for vetting, I understand that, and Frank De Marco may want to come up if he wants to answer any questions, but I understand from his testimony that there is no legal reason not to drop the standard for rural and agriculture to 40 feet, except, because he hasI hope you have his testimony CHR. EOFF: Council Members, do you have testimony 299.1? MS. O'HARA: Yes, 299. 1, and he refers to the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), is that what you guys call it? (Note: At this time, Department of Public Works Director Frank De Marco came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DE MARCO: Frank De Marco, Department of Public Works, yes, that's correct. It's also referred to as the Green Book just because the cover is green. MS. O'HARA: The Green Book? AASHTO the Green Book, which does allow for a safe road with 40 foot right-of-way, that road would contain 12 feet of travel lanes in each direction, that's 24 feet of asphalt or pavement or gravel or whatever, any feed or shoulder, and that is based on a daily traffic volume of over 2,000 vehicles a day. Now this is a safe street so there is no federal rule or State that I could find, but our County Code does say, "additionally, any roadway that services more than six lots should be designed within a minimum right-of-way of 50 feet to provide for property sight distance and utility placement." Now I don't know that those six lots are necessarily agricultural subdivision lots, or urban, or does it matter? Page 3 June 6, 2017 MR. DE MARCO: I think it—any six lots as I understand it, but we have— MS. O'HARA: Any six lots, okay. And this would refer, if I'm not mistaken, to future development? MR. DE MARCO: No, it could be current. MS. O'HARA: It could be current? Okay. But there is nothing on the books that prevents us from maybe stipulating existing roads can be 40 feet for the purpose of dedication. We just went through this and I think you were in the room earlier when Mr. Kamelamela was opining in our previous Finance Committee meeting about the dedicable application of fuel tax. That's what we were discussing in that context. MR. DE MARCO: Yeah, I thought I heard him indicating those are not illegal, but anyway MS. O'HARA: Yeah, but on the three counts, it has to be involved in dedication and it has to be involved in condemnation. Right. MR. DE MARCO: Emergency. MS. O'HARA: Emergency. Okay. So what I'm getting from your testimony is you're not supportive, but you don't have a firm legal basis. Is this correct? MR. DE MARCO: Well, I assume you've read through my written testimony, I don't know if you want to read that into the record or are you? MS. O'HARA: No, we have it, we all have it. MR. DE MARCO: I mean, if you look at the Green Book as we refer to it, or the AASHTO Manual, I mean it is stating that the rural roads should be designed, I'm just going to read from this, for specific traffic volume and specific, acceptable level of service, and you cited correctly the table that was attached to this. So for 40 foot road, roadway width was traffic volume of 2,000 or more, and it goes on to say to accommodate the highest practical criteria compatible with the traffic and topography. I know there were some testimony here that I think rang true, at least in my mind, in terms of use change. I mean you've got a road designed for a 40 foot right-of-way, and that's based on a particular use of that time and to anticipate future change in use, I mean that goes on, I'm sure you're aware of that, and now you're locked into this 40 foot right-of-way. The purpose for the 40 foot right-of-way is, as its stated in here, you've got topographic conditions, vertical curves, that's the road going up and down, horizontal curves, driveways, to make them safe. Also utility corridors, if you make it too narrow, it makes it a little Page 4 June 6, 2017 more difficult to set those utilities, you know water, telephone poles. Also, to accommodate all use complete streets looking into the future. I know there was testimony about pedestrians, bicyclists, theseI think you made mention to families trying to get out of these road right-of-ways. Again, you make them too narrow, you don't anticipate future needs, you're locking yourself in. You're setting precedent also, you set this 40 foot roadway width, any subdivider that comes along in the future is going to see that. I mean it's a cost savings for them of course, why would they give up another 10 feet of right-of- way if they can get away with a 40 foot right-of-way? And we'll let Planning expand on this issue, but I'm not a supporter of this bill, I think 50 foot is the minimum, it provides certainly a higher level of safety, which is my summary on this. Based on the need to protect public health and safety, future traffic volume increases, future widening needs that are not currently anticipated but could occur, and the lack of consideration for future land use changes, the Department of Public Works does not support this bill. MS. O'HARA: I get that. Thank you. And I just want to point out that the major subdivisions of Puna, and I can't speak for Ka`u because I'm not that familiar with your right-of-ways, we're laid out primarily with 40 foot right-of-ways for all the minor streets. The major subdivisions, 60 feet, but they weren't up to standard when they were dedicated in my district. Those boulevards that were dedicated to the County were not up to County standards when dedicated, and we're still bringing them up to standard, that's why I have the CIP request in for paving shoulder in Leilani and paving along Kahakai Boulevard. These are County roads and they're not up to standard, but we have other subdivisions that are still with major boulevards that are not dedicated and yet we can'tI'm being told by Public Works we have to lay the cost of that dedication on the subdivision homeowner associations, and we're not allowed to dedicate them even though they meet the required right-of-way, and maybe even the paving widths, I don't know, I haven't gone out and measured the pavement. But that seems very discriminatory, we've been talking about discrimination in Puna. Now, if we want to provide public health and safety, the fact that our major subdivisions and most of our road miles in lower Puna that are in the private subdivisions are all laid out with a 40 foot right-of-way, conducting eminent domain across thousands of properties. I don't know that would be necessary because I don't see the County assuming dedicated roads, except for perhaps an emergency corridor of dedication. So I don't see it as realistic to go after maybe hundreds of eminent domain. It's not a matter of avoiding law because that is not a favorite action any way, it's a recourse that you fall back on when you don't have a better approach. I don't see that as a realistic way of creating a safe and public access in Puna for emergency vehicles and for the public when the highway is closed, etc. So this is why the drive to try and put this together. Page 5 June 6, 2017 I do appreciate the fact that any future street should be designed appropriately for all multi -modal uses but we're stuck with what we have in Puna today. And if we want to drive up the cost of any future infrastructure then the way to do it is to require a 50 foot right-of-way on minor streets, we're talking minor streets that are in agricultural and urban areas where we do not require sidewalks. Currently, people do bicycle on the shoulders. Currently, people do push their baby carriages on the shoulders. In my subdivision, we keep our shoulders mowed and they're in pretty good condition, but in a lot of subdivisions, they're nasty, and they aren't safe, and we maintain County roads throughout my subdivision. Go through Pahoa Village, you've got lanes that are maybe 20 feet right-of-ways, they are County and they are maintained by the County. We've got roads that are not up to County standard that are on the County inventory all over the place. So, I see kind ofI see this from a different perspective, that if we're ever going to provide public health and safety in my district, and ensure that people can get to the hospital when Highway 130 is closed, we might have to consider dropping that right-of-way to 40 feet. I would like to know how we can maybe put some amendments to this bill so it applies to the streets that are existing and not to future development. But that's just my thought on it at this point in time from hearing your testimony, and I do appreciate your testimony. Thank you, Mr. De Marco and thank you Allan for coming forward, I appreciate it. I'll yield, thank you. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Thank you for your testimony and thank you for bringing this forward because a couple years ago I think, Council Member Dru Kanuha and I went on a tour with the Blue Zones Complete Streets Projects, and I'm hoping that we'll get to do that again soon with the new administration, hopefully. We did go to Oregon, and in Oregon, they have a neighborhood street design guideline and they talk about why narrow streets and actually, they're moving towards, this is real interesting, towards more narrow, curvy streets because it slows down traffic and it makes it safer for pedestrians. But the studies have been done so I'm going to send you a PDF (Portable Document Format) of their guidelines. We even met with the Oregon Department of Transportation, I think it was, Dru, when we went up there, and what they did, because some areas, not necessarily in neighborhoods, well near neighborhoods, they had straightaways that was—they had to put roundabouts in to slow traffic down. But within the neighborhoods themselves, they tried to figure out how to make streets narrower. So I don't know this opens up a good conversation piece for our island and for a lot of areas and when we're talking about—we just had talked about earlier, paving private roads, which most of them are all these narrow, small streets, in small neighborhoods. So we may want to start to look at what would work and what wouldn't work, and in what areas would it work and what areas it wouldn't Page 6 June 6, 2017 work in. And how did Oregon get to select maybe the different locations? Maybe it was a pilot project, I don't know. I can send you more information. But I've been looking at the pros and cons of more narrow streets. So there's some benefit to that and when we're talking about cost as well, I think the way they laid even the material and what was needed was more cost effective as well. But again, it's a great, open conversation to have. I'm not saying we should go and do it right now, but I definitely think this could be real beneficial for this island because of the uniqueness of some of the rural communities. I want to save us some kala. So thank you for bringing this up and thinking of whether a task force or ad hoc, but I would say go into our communities, start talking stories and doing all of that. But I'll send you that PDF of some of the guidelines and some information that we had and hopefully, we'll get to go on that trip again. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. I'm not going too deep into complete streets because that's a conversation hopefully Val can approve of—my presentation. No, but it's extremely interesting to learn about complete streets and how they plan, and this is again, one of the issues that was brought up by one of the testifiers, how do you plan for the future? You're going to need space to do a lot of the complete streets, even though the complete streets, yeah, they narrow it down and kind of have things here and there but there is a sizable buffer zone through the streets that would need to happen in order to complete them. Can I hear from Planning? (Note: At this time, Deputy Director of Planning Daryn Arai came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. EOFF: You can stay at the table. MR. KANUHA: It's not going to be difficult. MR. ARAI: Aloha. Daryn Arai with the Planning Department. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. We heard from Public Works, we hear what Ms. O'Hara is attempting to do with this, but if you could just briefly, or not what is the Planning Department's position on this and just kind of give us some information of how you would deal with something like this? MR. ARAI: I appreciate the opportunity. Based on the comments offered by Public Works, we're inclined not to support the proposed bill as well. When you're affecting an amendment to the Subdivision Code, especially specific sections, what happens is, it becomes—you're affecting the minimum standards, which means it applies to everyone regardless of location, regardless of physical Page 7 June 6, 2017 and topographical constraints. So it's kind of like a one size fits all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AASHTO standards are like alternative standards. Is that a correct characterization? It's acceptable but maybe alternative, which is why I'm glad you stayed at the table. I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't have asked him like that. MR. DE MARCO: Frank De Marco again, Department of Public Works. I mean we use the Green Book if you will, AASHTO Manual, as our standard for road design and so it's the criteria that we use for subdivision review and have been doing that for decades. MR. ARAI: And I apologize for stepping out of protocol, but the reason I asked is because that is why we have variances from the minimum requirements of the Code, or things like plan unit development permits that does allow us to consider exceptions to the minimum requirements. If you have special circumstances or design constraints that warrants maybe a reduced standard, then you can make the ask of it through those processes and then we'll look at it on a case-by-case basis to make sure that Public Works is okay with the design layout and the alternative standards. But once you affect it within the Subdivision Code, it becomes the law of the land so to speak, so anyone can take advantage of the minimum standards. And is that the type of standard you want applied? Because I'm not a developer, but if someone told that I could go 40 automatically in lieu of 50, I'm going to go 40, right? So hearing the concerns about things like utility placements, whether or not the geometries are okay so you have adequate sight distance, that is a practical thing that we need to be aware of because it comes down to safety. And I'm not sure exactly the premise—the Code amendment, the reason being is because, and correct me if I'm wrong, too, Public Works, that once you change the standard, it becomes the standard for the County and I don't know off hand if it's a dedicable standard when it pertains to agricultural road rights-of-way. I may need to go look at the Code real quick but there's—because I know there's a State statute that says if roadways are designed to the County standard, that the County cannot refuse dedication. And I know the travel way is another issue, but right-of-ways, especially in the substandard subdivisions in Puna, is already substandard, which is why before you dedicate it, you have to bring it up to the standard before the County can accept dedication. So anyway, it's just something else to think about, depending on—because you're affecting the basic minimum standards of the County. MR. KANUHA: Thank you and I hear what you say. I definitely don't want to affect public health and safety obviously because that's one of our main functions as County government. I'm glad to hear that with the standards that we have now, there's room for variances for certain developments or whatever it is. I know we hear about it all the time, we go through the processes all the time, you Page 8 June 6, 2017 guys do, so there is a current mechanism to do exactly that. Okay, thanks for the information. CHR. EOFF: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Listening to the conversations, and Planning and Public Works, don't run away because this may be part of the conversation, but I'm missing something here. Why? What's the reasoning behind the legislation? What is the intent of lowering it from 50 to 40? MS. O'HARA: You're asking me? MR. RICHARDS: Yeah. MS. O'HARA: Okay, I just wanted to be clear. Chair, is this? CHR. EOFF: If you'd like to, you can answer. MS. O'HARA: The purpose is that, as I explained, the subdivisions of Puna are laid out with an average of a 40 foot right-of-way for all their minor streets, and it prevents us from doing connectivity because, well I won't say it prevents us, but it makes it more difficult to create connectivity between the subdivisions. I don't know if you're aware of the layout maybe a map would be appropriate at this point, but most of our subdivisions are very long and narrow and so you have to travel five or six miles to get up to the only highway that serves as an entrance into Puna. MR. RICHARDS: I appreciate that. MS. O'HARA: So how we develop connectivity, which is a plan we're currently working on for lower Puna, it's already been adopted by the Council for upper Puna, has to do with bringing streets up to potentially dedicable standards so that the County can ensure that there is a connection through the subdivisions for the purpose of emergency access and emergency vehicles. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so MS. O'HARA: So it is about public health and safety, this is why I'm kind of bemused with Mr. De Marco's argument because this is really what we're pushing for. MR. RICHARDS: No, but the push back on that is that I'm listening to Planning, I'm listening to Public Works, and I get what they're saying as far as the structure, and the 50 foot, and if we throttle that back, we've now set it for 40 and the concern for that going forward, because it'll be all the way across the books. Page 9 June 6, 2017 So if I understand what I think I'm hearing, is that in order to get a road, whatever road it is, it doesn't matter, in these areas up to a County standard so eventually it could potentially be dedicated to the County as a connectivity road, you're trying to make it so a 40 foot easement would allow it to be dedicated. Is that what I'm understanding? MS.O'HARA: Right-of-way. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so right-of-way. So if that's the case, I think a better way, and maybe I'm not right here, but is to somehow come up with an exemption to allow that because of a pre-existing deal and I think about my roads in Kohala, some of those things—lucky if you get 30 feet. MS.O'HARA: Exactly. MR. RICHARDS: To me, in my mind, I hear what you're trying to say, I want to support getting that done, but—and I understand probably an ease way, if it was 40 foot, then it would be easy to do it, but I would think this body could come up with a way to fix that problem as an exemption but not going forward, I think. MS. O'HARA: Ask Daryn. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so that's what I'm trying to understand, so I appreciate that, Council woman. Does that sound reasonable, Planning and Public Works? don't know who to ask. MR. ARAI: I think that's a better approach personally because, while the County cannot refuse the dedication of a dedicable standard road, it doesn't mean that the County cannot accept a less than dedicable standard road. I mean I believe it's the Council who accepts those roads, so you can elect to accept them and it becomes a County road, but to change the law is actually MR. RICHARDS: Problematic. MR. ARAI: Yeah. So I agree with what you recommended. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so that explains the intent in what we're trying to accomplish here. I appreciate that. Thank you, Public Works and Planning, and I yield. CHR. EOFF: You still have the floor, Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, I still yield. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. I'll go to Ms. Lee Loy. Page 10 June 6, 2017 MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I always appreciate having these two guys with us, sharp. I agree with everything that Mr. Richards has said, I really don't think this is the right vehicle, I think there are other vehicles that we should look at. I don't like the one size fits all. I've worked with a ton of developers, and let me tell you, 10 feet means millions to them, millions of dollars. And so I don't support this. I do have a couple of other questions and maybe this is for Mr. Kanuha or Ms. Poindexter, when they went and visited for their Complete Streets Programs, were these rural communities, or were they urban communities? And therein lies the issue. These communities in lower Puna, they're ag and we're trying to get to urban likeness with ag standards, so there is a lot of heavy lifting that has to happen. And that's why that one size doesn't fit for Ms. David because that's ag. I just don't want to support this, I think there's another vehicle that we can use. There are other exemptions or some other mechanisms we can come up with. I also think we should do some homework and see how other city and counties have done it because I know they have other standards, and I see Mr. Arai and Mr. De Marco nodding their head because the Green Book, everybody uses the Green Book, right? Just like the IBC (International Building Code) Book, right? Just like the Residential Code Book, there are some standards for these technical pieces that these guys have to comply with. And we have to take those technical standards and training and try and fit them in to our communities. The other thing I want to try and preserve is because we have to look towards the future and I believe one day, lower Puna is going to be urban and we're going to need as much rights-of-way that we can get and I really see that place thriving and getting out from the rural agricultural standards into urban. And I see the same actually for Ocean View. We'll get there on day, too. I mean that's how Kea`au started, right? And look at what's happening at Kea`au. So I'm not going to be supporting this and I place a lot of weight with what Mr. Arai and Mr. De Marco is saying and I think there's another way like Mr. Richards is talking about. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Thank you Director De Marco and Mr. Arai because I really—that explanation confirms what my comments are going to be. think in this day and age, we're taking a standard that's set and for me, because we're moving towards complete streets, walkable communities, etc., I think to do a blanket minimum, which is lower than what we have, is going to have a great impact on the future. So I think I like the idea of addressing it on a case-by-case basis because I think we can make more informed decisions based on what the proposals are going to be, right? Right now, we're just kind of assuming that everything should fall within this minimum. Page 11 June 6, 2017 I thank Ms. O'Hara for thinking about his, but I really have to agree with what's been said thus far, that this will, in the long run, benefit setting a minimum that's lower than what we already have. And just say we change this and lower it, what other sections in our—what would that decision impact in doing other addressing other issues like for Planning, not only subdivisions or easements, but there's other places in the Code that this might have an impact on, the minimum? So, without knowing that up front, I think there's a lot more thought to be put into this and I think if you guys can address some of the concerns that Ms. O'Hara's having through an exception basis, then maybeI would really prefer that method of addressing this as opposed to legislation, changing this blanket minimum. I yield. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Ms. David. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Even if the place that we visited was urban, they still do it in some rural areas. I was checking some classifications because they have urban and rural roadway classifications, and with what Council Member Richards spoke of, waivers, they also had that provision in there as well. But it was a long, drawn-out process, I already sent you a PDF, Mr. De Marco, and Allan, and a copy to Ms. O'Hara. Anyway, I have a hard time functioning after 14 and a half hours, not sharp like Council Member Richards. He feeds on that drive. But anyway, there are possibilities, it's a long process, there's a checklist that I think the Complete Streets had on how you develop these kinds of guidelines, with going through these community meetings and key stakeholders, meeting with the Fire, meeting with Police, there's a lot of things that go into it, and the Planning Department. So there's a process and thank you, Council Member O'Hara for bringing this up because I think we need to start this, it's important. This island needs that and if—we just went through the budget, and I think this is one way to look forward to ways of cutting costs while maybe helping with the safety of our communities as well, but we have to look at all of this. And it cannot be just a select few people coming in, we need to get out there and doing outreach and attending peoples' community meetings, not ones that we set but the ones they set that we can attend and ask to be on the agenda and start moving this forward. So thank you for starting this process. I yield. CHR. EOFF: I think would you like to add something, Mr. Simeon? (Note: At this time, Deputy Director of Public Works Allan Simeon came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. SIMEON: Good afternoon. I just want to make a comment. CHR. EOFF: Can you identify yourself? Page 12 June 6, 2017 MR. SIMEON: This is Allan Simeon, Public Works. And thank you for allowing me to speak. I just want to make this contribution to the discussion. So basically, making the road skinny, meaning narrower lanes, and also making it curvy is two mechanisms that we use to slow down the motorists. However, having lived in the Park for many years, I do notice that there are those motorists who think they own the road and they just speed up like nobody else cares. So I want to introduce to you for your consideration later on, when you talk about this topic, the idea or the concept of clear zone. So clear zone is basically the space between the travelled lane, which is the white line, and the area adjacent to that, which is available for motorists or vehicles so that in case they go errant on the street, they'll be able to pull over. That part of the road design is very important. Also, in consideration of a skinnier right-of-way, we have to think about the future as far as the existing improvements in that right-of-way. So if somebody has built big walls or add improvements, and when you come later on to provide for your complete streets, utilities, and drainage, please bear in mind that very location of those improvements is now an additional cost to the overall project, on top of buying the necessary right-of-way. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: I think Ms. Poindexter MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, I just wanted to say, I'm hoping that if we do get that funded from, I think it was Department of Health, to go on the Complete Streets tour, I'm hoping that you can come as well because things that you said, making the streets skinnier, they actually officially call it, skinny streets, like us girls, we love that. But anyway, so I would hope that you would because it's a little different, you're thinking out of the box and what we just said. We have options. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: This is a very fruitful discussion, and thank you, Daryn and Allan and Frank for being here, I really appreciate it. And I know that looking into the future is important. They didn't do that 40, 50 years ago when they did these subdivisions, obviously, or we would not be in the situation that we're in now. So I am going to stay on the point that we need to provide for the public health and safety of Puna and thein many regards, we continue to be discriminated against. We had this discussion earlier today in terms of State law and what it allows us to do with these public streets. And I'll continue to say this until you prove me wrong, of all the private road miles in lower Puna, which I suspect are probably more road miles than we have in County roads in lower Puna, okay, so I am right? It's just guessing because we have miles of private roads that are open to the public and the public can preventI mean the citizens can't prevent others from driving on their roads, we can't put up gates and that's been challenged by the County in several of the subdivisions. I would hate to see that happen, but we Page 13 June 6, 2017 have a very difficult time in the subdivision structure, paying for all of the roadways, etc. and it also makes it very difficult for the subdivisions to work together to create that connectivity to prevent everybody from having to go up and spill out on the County Highway 130. So some connectivity would really reduce the pressure, and that's not County, that's State, on the State Highway 130, would really reduce the pressure if we had better connectivity. Then there's the whole emergency access, I mean this is really a public health and safety. You know, Allan, because you say you live in HPP, about being closed out from HPP when there's an accident that closes the highway for five to six hours, or a flood event, those are the two typical things that close Highway 130. And it inevitably happens in that area between Shower and Kea`au, and everybody's backed up. So it is a public health and safety issue, and I appreciate having alternative ways to go at it. Thank you for expressing that Daryn, that exceptions can be provided because we're not necessarily talking a lot of streets, and I understand that in changing the Code, you're changing it for everything. That's why I was looking at, should we do this for pre-existing and not for future and even that doesn't resolve that problem because there are different sizes. Anyway, they don't all fit into one size, so I can see the wisdom of approaching it in a different way, but we need to approach it. We need to get this baby underway and under control, or we're never going to be providing for that future. It's going to come to us without us providing for it and Puna is growing by leaps and bounds out in HPP. What is it, about five house starts on every street, up and down? It's growing. My block alone, which is very short, two new house starts just in the last few months. We're expanding beyond our capacity to deal with it, and maybe we need to put a cap on that now, until we catch up, I don't know. Maybe that's a route that we need to consider because we are so far behind in the infrastructure needed to service my district and upper Puna as well. We're not quite as hard hit in the other rural districts, but it'll come. It's just that we had the disadvantage of having these monster substandard subdivisions and we are the only place in the state where this occurred. So we have a unique situation and any help we can get in resolving that would be greatly appreciated. So thank you for all of your testimony. CHR. EOFF: I think Mr. Richards had one more comment before we move to the next item. MR. RICHARDS: So I'm not sure procedurally the best way to do this. Is this something that we vote on? CHR. EOFF: Well I guess we should ask Ms. O'Hara, given the information that we've heard, do you still want to refer this bill to the Planning Department and the Planning Commission? Page 14 PC -8 June 6, 2017 MS. O'HARA: No, I would like to defer this action at this time because I think what we need isif we send something to the Planning Commission, we need to revise it. CHR. EOFF: So, Mr. Clerk, would it be best to postpone this or to withdraw it then? MR. HENRICKS: That would be at the—Ms. O'Hara's—well, of course to the will of the body, but she can make a motion to postpone or she can withdraw. Of course they have different implications. MS. O'HARA: Is it time? CHR. EOFF: Ms. Ruggles. Sorry, I didn't see your light. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just want to applaud Council Member O'Hara for bringing this to the table and addressing this in such a productive way. I know we've spoken a lot about alternative dedicable standards for associations in a way that would help them, and I think this is a good compromise, as far as helping people help themselves, because the 50 foot current required minimum right-of- way for the association is really difficult to meet. So if we were to reduce that to something that's a little bit more realistic for them, they might be able to do their part and working with the County to make the roads better for Puna and for the residents, especially for the streets that are well travelled. I also really appreciate the exemption idea so I support both, and so I just wanted to say that and say thank you. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you. Ms. O'Hara. Withdraw Bill 37: Ms. O'Hara announced the withdrawal of Bill 37. CHR. EOFF: I don't think you need a second. MR. RICHARDS: Do I have to say anything? I can't remember if I seconded it. CHR. EOFF: She can just withdraw it. I'd like to thank you both for being here, all three of you on this topic and you'll stick around, right? Planning will stay and I think Public Works. We're running a little bit late, but we will get to the Public Works Committee pretty soon. Mr. Clerk, can you read in Bill 38? Page 15 June 6, 2017 Bill 38: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-11 (LALAMILO-PU'UKAPU ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — FIVE ACRES (A -5a) TO FAMILY AGRICULTURAL — TWO ACRES (FA -2a) AT PU'UKAPU, WAIMEA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 6-4-001:152 (Applicant: Peter A. In, M.D.) (Area: approx. 5.001 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into two parcels to allow each unit owner to have a separate title and tax map key. Reference: Comm. 291 Intr. by: Ms. Eoff Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 38 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR. EOFF: Mr. Fuke, can you come up to the table? (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. EOFF: Okay, before we entertain any questions from the Council Members, you can provide a background for us. MR. FUKE: Sure. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of this body, my name is Sidney Fuke, I'm a Planning Consultant and I'm here assisting the applicants, Dr. Peter In and Robin and Shinji Inaba. Essentially, it's a five -acre property, they got two homes on the property, they got it CPR'd (Condominium Property Regime) when CPR was questionable and allowable at that point in time. The reason for going through the rezoning and ultimately, if successful, the subdivision process is that if approved, then they'll be able to get their respective two and three -acre parcels, not designated as a CPR parcel but be fully conferred a separate tax map key. There are two water meters on the property and basically, the bottom line is at the end of the day, what you see today will be what you'll see tomorrow. That's the nature of their request. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Council Members, questions, comments? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair and thank you for being here. I think the way this body has worked it, and I'm not sure if it was in the past, but the representative from the district, for the most part, usually knows the properties and can speak on behalf of those properties, and I like that process. I know this property and I'll say it, I've known Doctor In for many years. I'm very familiar with the property and it's exactly as it's characterized. What you see is what's Page 16 June 6, 2017 going to happen going forward. If you look at the surrounding development, this is just almost an extension but it's just very conforming with the neighbors. My understanding, contact has been made to the neighbors and there have been no concerns whatsoever. I did have one question, and going through the application, there's a burial on the property and as I read through this, it would appear that it's preservation in place and that's going to continue. Is that a true statement? MR. FUKE: That is correct. There is a burial on the site. There was an approved burial treatment plan back in 1997. It's approximately a 4,000 square foot area, that's already been set aside and there's an easement that allows for lineal decedents to get access to the burial. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Again, I will be supporting this because I think it's a good thing, it's just a natural evolution of the properties, and thank you very much for bringing it. CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Any other comments? Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. I support it as well. I just wanted to—Sid, can you just briefly explain the Condominium Property Regime? I know that's a huge conversation, but MR. FUKE: What used to happen, like before the State changed the law, was that the State allowed like condominium property regimes to occur whether you have a multiple structures on or one single-family structure, without going through the County subdivision process, so in years past, on agricultural parcels for example, a person used to just put up a basic dwelling and put up a shed for example, and apply for the CPR, which would then be approved by the State. And subsequently, that shed turns out to be a single-family dwelling and all this was done without the proper infrastructure being in place, whether it's water system or your road access. So that was kind of like a backdoor way of getting the subdivision, so subsequently, the counties had expressed some concern to the State, the law was changed, which is also reflected currently in your Zoning and Subdivision Codes, which basically states that if you're going to try to condominiumize a property that's in an agricultural or the residential zone, then you have to go through the normal subdivision process. So this was a way to address what was happening in years past. MR. KANUHA: Okay. That's it. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: I just wanted to say I'm going to support this, too because basically I know from what Mr. Richards has said, he is very intimately—he has intimate knowledge about this place and I respect his opinion and judgement. And I just Page 17 PC -8 June 6, 2017 wanted to say thank you, Sidney for explaining the CPR and for Mr. Kanuha asking because that was an issue back in the day. So thanks for explaining that. MR. FUKE: You're very welcome. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Vote on Bill 38: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 38 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung —1. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: Bill 38 will move to Council with a positive recommendation. MR. FUKE: Thank you very much. ADJOURN There being no further business, at 2:09 p.m., Ms. David moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung — 1. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: Eight ayes, we're adjourned. Thank you, Council Members. Approved: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Planning Committee KE/j m 6,14 1% (Date) Page 18