Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-23 KCDP Minutes.v02N1Y OF N1 Harry Kim,�.G� ! MichaelYee 6i Mayor t � " Director Duane Kanuha OF•NF'� Deputy Director County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fa (808)961-8742 Tuesday, July 23, 2019 Draft ORA FT.Meeting Report CALL TO ORDER BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE Planning Committee Chair Ashley Kierkiewicz called the County Council Planning Committee meeting to order at 1:02 pm in the West Hawai'i Civic Center, Council Chambers, Building A. The following persons were present: ROLL CALL Action Committee Members Present: Charles Young (Chair), Franz Weber, Janice Palma-Glennie, and Shane Palacat-Nelsen. Action Committee Members Absent -Excused: Shirley David (Vice -Chair), Barbara DeFranco, David Huerta, Hiram Rivera, and Kari Kimura. Councilmembers Present: Ashley Kierkiewicz, Herbert "Tim" Richards, Karen Eoff, Maile David, Matt Kaneali'i-Kleinfelder, Rebecca Villegas, Susan "Sue" Lee Loy, and Valerie Poindexter. Councilmembers Absent -Excused: Aaron Chung. Staff: Bethany Morrison, Heather Bartlett, Kamuela Plunkett, and Michael Yee. A complete video of this meeting is available to view on the County Council website: http://hawaiicountV.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view id=1 PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: 1. Shane Palacat-Nelsen, representing himself, testified in support of the proposed amendments. Mr. Palacat-Nelsen shared an 'olelo no'eau with the Planning Committee. He ali'i ka 'dina, he kaud ke kanaka —the land is a chief, man is its servant. He introduced himself as a member of the Action Committee and chair of the CDP Amendments Subcommittee. He stated that the CDP has a big influence on Kona's future and reiterated the idea that the plan will undergo a comprehensive review every 10 years. He shared his opinion that as a representation of the Kona community, the intention is not to stall development and that some of the outcomes of the plan have not been productive on its implementation. He explained the process which the Kona CDP Amendment Subcommittee went through to vet the proposed amendments; stating that it was a thorough and lengthy process which allowed for public participation. He expressed his support for the plan as amended and his appreciation for those involved in the original drafting process. Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page I 2. Brenda Ford, representing herself, testified in opposition to the proposed amendments. She introduced herself as one of the original Kona CDP Steering Committee members among the other hundreds of participants in the drafting process. She stated a history of struggling to get the County to put in the infrastructure and roads needed in the Kona area. Ms. Ford expressed her strong opposition to changing any of the "shalls' to "shoulds' or "musts" to "wills' in the plan. She stated that softening the language will only enable developers to get around the requirements and that developers need to pay their share for infrastructure improvements. 3. Dwight Vicente, representing the Hawaiian Kingdom, testified in opposition to Bill 87, Kona CDP Amendments. He expressed that lands referenced in the CDP still belong to the Hawaiian Kingdom and that the County has no legal jurisdiction. 4. Corey Harden, representing herself, testified in opposition to the proposed amendments. She shared that after the hundreds of hours of hard work that community volunteers put into drafting the plan, she did not want to see it amended by a few public officials. She expressed concern for environmental protections that are in place in the adopted plan and praised the Missler case for protecting Waikaku'u. She expressed concern that without the mandating language stated in the plan, all (or many) of the trees in Waikaku'u would have been cut down. 5. Franz Weber, representing himself, testified in support of the proposed amendments. Mr. Weber expressed his appreciation for the work the County has done to work on these amendments and to explain and educate participants during the process. He shared his concern for the liability issues the County is subject to due to the mandating language of the plan. He stated that many of the policies provide very little flexibility for the County to implement the plan, for example, when delineating future roadway alignments. He expressed gratitude that the Planning Department had recorded the concerns that did not make it into this amendment package for consideration during the future comprehensive review. He shared that the County needs to be more careful in the future with how they draft community plans. 6. Charles Young, representing himself, testified in support of the proposed amendments. Mr. Young introduced himself as the chair of the Kona CDP Action Committee. He shared that the AC went through great lengths to discuss to try to resolve each amendment that they were uncomfortable with. He stated that while he is not an expert on all of the proposed changes, he was concerned to find that some of the originally adopted language was inhibiting processes that would otherwise be favorable and in alignment with the CDP. 7. Larry Ford, representing himself, testified in opposition to the proposed amendments. Mr. Ford shared that the Kona CDP provided assurances on how the Kona community would grow and develop. He shared that it is imperative that the clauses in the plan be abided by in order to follow the community's wants. He stated that mischaracterizing the amendments as a liability is a fear tactic and goes against the spirit of the plan. He concluded that County Council members have the responsibility to implement the plan as written. 8. Michael Matsukawa, representing himself, testified in opposition of the proposed amendments. He introduced himself as an attorney from South Kona and an original member of the Kona CDP Steering Committee. He explained that the plan requires backing by County Council to fund and implement all the infrastructure that it calls for and expressed disappointment that the Council www. hip Ian ningdept.com konana,hawaiicounty.gov Page 2 had not put more effort into it in the time since the plan's adoption. Mr. Matsukawa explained that the Missler case made the plan legally relevant again and expressed that removing the Ishalls" in the plan will make it become a static document. 9. Janice Palma-Glennie, representing herself, testified on the proposed amendments. Ms. Palma- Glennie explained that the creation of the plan was in response to unplanned growth in Kona and involved thousands of participants. The goal was to create a legally binding, regionally driven, smart growth plan with judicious protection of natural resources. She stated that she had been involved with the CDP since its inception and was the only Action Committee member to vote kanalua on the amendments due to reservations she has about some of the proposed language. She expressed concern for removing the mandating language from policies ENV -1.5, TRAN-3.3, TRAN-3.5, section 4.3.2(4), and action PUB -8.2(c). She expressed her opinion that noise pollution should be better addressed in the document. She closed her statement by expressing that the proposed amendments to narrative section Land Use 4.2.2 will weaken plan elements such as alternative transportation, concurrency, and Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) structure. 10. Nancy Pisicchio, representing herself, testified on the proposed amendments. Ms. Pisicchio introduced herself as a previous County Council member who was elected for her interest in regional planning. She shared the CDPs are required to undergo a comprehensive review every 10 years and that therefore the Kona CDP comprehensive review is overdue. She shared that Hawai'i County Code Chapter 16 and the 2005 General Plan Chapter 15 has several requirements that the Kona CDP followed. Ms. Pisicchio stated that these mandates cannot be met without some legally binging language. She urged the Council to focus efforts on restructuring the program which mandates CDPs and to have a County -wide conversation about creating guidelines for when the use of the word "shall" is appropriate. 11. Ken Melrose, representing himself, testified in support of the proposed amendments. He introduced himself as the previous chair of the CDP Steering Committee as well as the first chair of the Action Committee. He explained some of the history behind the original drafting process of the CDP, that it involved intense input from the community and the Mayor's office, was drafted by a consultant, was run by the Research and Development office and not the Planning Department, and that they wrestled with connecting their collective aspirations with the realities of the Hawai'i County Code. He shared that there are numerous ways in which the plan benefited the community and that several infrastructure projects in the plan have been constructed within the urban area. He recounted that the amendment process thus far has included input from the Action Committee, the CDP Amendment Subcommittee, Planning Department staff, the Department of Public Works, Water Supply, Corporation Counsel, and the Leeward Planning Commission. He shared his opinion that sensitive environmental resources would still take a high priority in the amended plan and would be strengthened by the proposed language regarding roadway alignments. He believed the proposed concurrency section amendments would align better with the Code and lead to more accurate TIAR measurements. He expressed that parts of the plan are not easily implementable because of lack of resources. Some examples he provided included a lack of funding to maintain street trees, water www. hip Ian ningdept.com konana,hawaiicounty.zov Page 3 restrictions on public landscaping, and the Kona area possessing few areas with large enough acreage for a privately developed TODs. He expressed that the district's transit system is not currently conducive to the plan's goals and that the Design Center should be optional and not become another Planning Commission. He shared that the plan's Village Design Guidelines need to be flexible, allow for creativity, and not create another layer of regulations. Business: 1. County Council Planning Committee's Public Hearing Regarding Planning Director Initiated Amendments to the Kona Community Development Plan. A complete video of this meeting is available to view on the County Council website: http://hawaiicounty.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view id=1 This meeting was a concurrent Hawai'i County Council Planning Committee meeting and a Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee meeting to abide by the Sunshine Law (HRS Chapter 92) and enable the CDP Action Committee members to attend and provide comments to the County Council Planning Committee. The purpose was to determine passage of the Kona Community Development Plan Amendments to go before the County Council in its first reading. Members of the Kona CDP Action Committee attended this meeting and were able to testify and answer questions from the Councilmembers. Councilmember Lee Loy moved to forward Bill 87 to the Council with a positive recommendation. Second by Councilmember Richards. Planner Plunkett gave a brief presentation that gave some background of the process to amend the CDP so far and the reason for its initiation. He explained that after the Action Committee had submitted their recommended changes, the Planning Department had discovered additional items that required amending such as the plan's narratives and actions. Planning Department staff had cross-referenced the language of the plan with the Hawai'i County Code and Hawai'i Revised Statutes and had additionally sought consultation from other County departments and agencies. Planner Plunkett additionally explained that they had received additional suggestions from the Department of Public Works and the Department of Water Supply that were included in the amendment package [Communication Number 2019-19]. These agency comments may be viewed or downloaded at the following website: http://records.hawaiicounty.gov/Weblink/1/doc/100705/Pagel.aspx Planning Director Yee added that he feels confident they are putting forward something that represents and benefits the community and that these are necessary steps to take in the time before the initiation and completion of a comprehensive review. The Planning Committee engaged in discussion and asked clarifying questions to Planning staff. They shared various thoughts about the input opportunities during the drafting of the amendments, the thoroughness of the review, the relationship between the CDP and the General Plan, and the importance that conflicts with the Hawai'i County Code are mitigated. Upon the motion a vote was taken, the motion passed unanimously. [Councilmember Chung was absent]. www. hip Ian n in, -dept. co m konana,hawaiicounty.zov Page 4 ADJOURNMENT: The hearing was adjourned at 2:39 pm. All Action Committee information can be viewed and downloaded from our website: http://www.hawaiicountvcdp.info/north-and-south-kona-cdp www. hip Ian ningdept.com kona(i hawaiicounty.gov Page 5