Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-03 TCOUNCILpud_cpd_7-lot PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 3, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) AND CLUSTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT (C.P.D.) APPLICATIONS FOR SEVEN OR MORE LOTS was called to order at 11:11 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: William Graham Takashi Domingo Rodney Watanabe Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rene’ Siracusa Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Brad Kurokawa, Deputy Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 4 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Amendments to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and Cluster Plan Development (C.P.D.) applications. The proposed amendments would 1) require P.U.D applications consisting of seven or more lots to be processed in the same manner as a change of zone in accordance with Hawaii County Code Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Sections 25-2-42 and 25-2-43; and 2) require C.P.D. applications to be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23 (Subdivisions), “Application for Subdivision of Seven or More Lots.” ALAMEDA: Agenda Item No. 5, Initiator: County Council. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Similar to our last agenda item, this initiated bill by the County Council would require PUD applications consisting of seven or more lots to be processed in the same manner as a change of zone in accordance with the Hawaii County Code, Chapter 25. And it will require CPD applications to be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23 under applications for subdivisions of seven or more lots. The proposed bill would give the Council the final authority over the approval of the Planned Unit Developments and Cluster Plan Developments, or CPDs. The Council finds that the developments proposed in a particular area should be assessed considering a number of EXHIBIT C 1 factors, including how much public infrastructure is challenged by recent or anticipated growth in the area. The Council also finds that conditions of approval should be imposed to accommodate the impacts of development, a planned unit or cluster plan developments, which consists of seven or more lots in order to manage growth and coordinate the delivery of government services in the County. The proposed bill is attached as Exhibit 1. The Planning Director gives an unfavorable recommendation on the bill. Reasons are stated within the recommendation. Just to briefly touch upon these reasons, these particular applications do require the process denoted to require notice of neighboring properties and also to publish notice of these particular applications. Additionally, the Planning Director recommends that the Council retain the current administrative control over PUD and CPD because these applications rarely involve issues of overall policy or general public concern. If PUDs and CPDs must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council with an open-ended possibility of various conditions being attached, the timeframe for approval will inevitably be much longer than under the current practice. Worse yet, the developer will not be aware of conditions that will be ultimately placed on them. The result will be that developers will not apply for PUDs or CPDs and apply for a subdivision according to the Code and try to achieve the same result by applying for a series of variances. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA: Let me ask Mr. Kurokawa anything that might have been missed during that background introduction. KUROKAWA: You know, not a whole lot that I want to add except that, you know, the PUD and Cluster Plan Development process is actually one of the tools that encourages a little more creative, you know, more creativity than, you know, just sticking by the current Zoning and Subdivision Codes. So by making it more onerous, you know, it actually will work against that, and so I just wanted to reiterate that. And, also, I wanted to recognize besides Phyllis and Darrow who you already know, we have Daryn Arai who’s the ministerial program manager who actually reviews in conjunction and does a lot of the background work for the Planning Director at the Planning Department. So if you have any questions, in terms of the nitty gritty of the process, he’s here to answer those. So, thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Kurokawa. Thank you, Mr. Arai for coming out. Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Domingo, you have a question for Mr. Kurokawa or Mr. Darrow? DOMINGO: I was just going to make a statement. ALAMEDA: Go ahead. EXHIBIT C 2 DOMINGO: You know, you’ve got to keep politics out of this decision-making process. It’s just a blunt statement. It can often be, and I’m not saying it will, but it can be a very political issue and it’s a dangerous position that we’re putting -. They don’t know it but they’re putting themselves in a dangerous position. And it’s going to leave the door wide open for any kind of influence that comes in to get what they need for what, for whom they represent, or for themselves. You know, we have a check and balance system, all the way out from the Federal government, the State, and down to the Council level.Keep that which is for administration, for administration; and leave the policy making body alone and let them come up with the policies, and administration do all the necessary work that needs to be done in order for that policy to be implemented, plain and simple. Other than that, you’re asking for trouble. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner Siracusa, you had a statement? SIRACUSA: Well, no, I had a question for clarification, because this refers to that the applications be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23, application for a subdivision of seven or more lots. Is that referring to the previous amendment that we were just discussing? And is it based on that? In other words does the first one have to pass before this one will, is one dependent on the other? ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow? DARROW: If I can defer this to our Deputy Director. ALAMEDA: Mr. Kurokawa? KUROKAWA: I believe that it’s not, you know, hinged on it. I think they may have just set a number in terms of the scale and scope of the subdivision as well as the PUDs and CPDs. SIRACUSA: Do you mean that there is an application called application for subdivision for seven or more lots already? KUROKAWA: I’m going to defer to Daryn on that. But -. SIRACUSA: Cause that’s what’s referred to here. ALAMEDA: Daryn. I suppose you can have a seat. Mr. Arai? ARAI: I have read the bills and my understanding is that those two processes are totally independent of each other. It just so happens that they use the seven lots or seven units as the benchmark in which to have Council consider -. SIRACUSA: I’m showing Daryn Arai the first paragraph of the background and recommendation. And the very last line of the first paragraph refers to what I read before. It refers to application for a subdivision of seven or more lots. And what I’m asking is is this an EXHIBIT C 3 application that already exists or is this something that is contingent on the passage of the previous amendment that we were just discussing which referred to seven lot subdivisions. ARAI: Well, I can definitively say that there is no such thing currently as an application for a subdivision of seven or more lots. There is no such thing currently. DARROW: Okay, I think what the issue is is that in the previous proposed amendment by the County Council, the one we just finished reviewing, there is an added subsection (e) under Section 23-58, and that is an application for subdivision of seven or more lots. So this is actually something that is not in place at this time but is proposed. And so, with that, they’re also referring to this proposed amendment under the previous initiated bill, also inclusive of this amendment. Is that clear? SIRACUSA: Yeah, now it’s clear. And that’s one of the possibilities that I thought of. So technically if the other one fails then this one we can’t even consider this. Because it’s based on something that doesn’t exist right now and would have to be passed since it’s only proposed at this point. ALAMEDA: Are there other questions for Mr. Darrow? Mr. Arai? All right, this is another agenda item that I think will be continued. Mr. Darrow, do you have anything else to add or -? DARROW: No. If you folks are finished with discussion, we can go ahead and continue the matter until the next meeting. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA: Sure, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, normally I would have reserved my comments to probably the next meeting, but because of the long agenda where we’re going to have -. I just wanted to, on the planned community development plan, these two particular types of developments, you know, developers -. What I would really like to see and what I think the Deputy Director referred to in part was, you know, how these can be creatively used to implement things that aren’t really provided for in the rest of the planning laws. And that’s really good. And I really think that, or the point I wanted to make was that, you know, from all of our perspectives what we really want to do is end up with a system where developers have, you know, have a real clear path on how to get their “entitlements,” because they need that to get the financing done. And if you don’t get the financing done, you know, if there’s no clear path on how to get to the financing, the project is not going to get done.So, again, you know, our laws, to the extent we implement what we have, and you all know what I’m talking about, community development plans, if that’s done, that should be done in a way where the developers can look at where their land is located and say here is a clear path to what can be done on this property. And if, you know, it’s for a residential subdivision or it’s for higher density residential use or it’s for commercial, or whatever it is, you know, whatever the community development plan says it is going to be used for and that the community agrees, that the Council approves it, the developer has it. The developer then knows he can come to the Planning Department and EXHIBIT C 4 pretty much have an unobstructed path to getting it done. So I really think that’s how it should be done. The PUDs and the CPDs are sort of, you know, examples of a process where they can do it; but it’s not as good because, you know, the developer still has to come out and say this is conceptually what I want to do, this is how it’s going to be implemented. And until the Department actually approves it, they really can’t get the financing for it, right, or, you know, be assured of how it’s going to come down. So I just wanted to, again, make the plug, especially to this, again, to really look at community development plans as a way, as a possible way, to help developers get clear entitlement pictures in terms of what can be, where development is going to occur on this island, how it’s going to get done, and get a really clear picture of what this community is going to look like. And then, you know, there will be lots of money to do it once we get that done. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: From now, I will refer to Mr. Iwashita as Mr. Development Plan. IWASHITA: Community Development. DOMINGO: Okay, Community Development Plan; and I support him 100 percent. You know why? Because the General Plan is a primary planning document for the County. Everything is done in behest of the General Plan. The community development plan is a step lower which grabs the different General Plan designations and come out with a more final, more finer detail of planning and what can be done. Now when you have a community development plan, the people in the community would come in and look at certain General Plan designations and they will decide in a collaborative fashion with everybody what would be best suited in that particular area, where would growth best be directed, and what kind of growth, and how it should be directed. That’s one part of the community development plan. Whether one likes it or not, it can work for or against you. But if you want controlled growth, controlled development, the community development plan is the best way to do it. And I think I for one would strongly support community development plans for all the communities on the island. You know, that way it makes the job easier for administrators, the Planning Commission, and ultimately the Council. Because what comes up to them is what they actually agreed upon when they review the General Plan. And that’s it. ALAMEDA: I must add my two cents in. I would agree with that if the community development planning process has integrity. Because we know that it takes a real good facilitator to bring people to the table, everybody from every walk of life, diversity in every way and to get people to communicate and collaborate on what’s in the best interest for the community. Because I’ve sat in many meetings as a facilitator and I’ve watched many meetings in group collaborations, so called, and the voice that gets written on the paper tends to be the audience or the participants with the loudest voice who can interrupt real quickly who has, you know, that cultural communication style. And many times it’s not the local people or the Asian people. So if the community development plan has integrity, all right, if it has integrity and it includes the voices of the diversity that we have here in the islands, then, yeah, it is a voice and a representation of the people.But I think we’re real quick to assume that the community development plan would be the voice of the people. That’s a big assumption, as a facilitator I can tell you that. That’s my final statement. So you guys don’t have to respond to that. EXHIBIT C 5 IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA: You know what I’m saying? IWASHITA: I know I don’t have to. But the Chair is correct, the integrity of the process will be integral to whether we succeed in doing something different and that will really help the community. I just want to point out that, you know, the Downtown Hilo, I never can remember, the name of their plan is too complicated. But, you know, the effort what they’re doing or what they’re trying to implement, that whole process, no one has really challenged, you know, how it was done. I think that’s a good example of how, you know, it can be done. And that was done for Downtown Hilo, right? So I think that that process should, you know, be applied from Downtown Hilo up through house lots, you know, and do another one, The Kanoelehua Industrial area can do one. You know, and just as an aside, my wife is a principal and, you know, as a community one of the things, education is not monetarily in our kuleana. But as far as our economic future is concerned having the best schools on this island, is, has to be at the top of our list. And if we can do community development planning right, we really should be planning for smaller schools. The default in DOE is for bigger schools. They shut down the smaller ones, right? And, you know, as a community if we all get together and we say, you know what, we really want smaller schools, smaller class sizes, we’re going to set up the residential developments around these schools so the kids can walk to the schools and not have to be bussed for miles and walk for miles, that, you know, those are the kinds of things that can be done, that are possible. And the Chair is right, it needs to be done in a very -. ALAMEDA: Pono. IWASHITA: Pono, very good, pono way; and then if it’s done that way the community will see that it’s being that way and will come out. And we can have excellent, you know, community development plans for all the areas of our island. So thank you for those concerns, and I really hope that all of us in this room continue to talk about it and get the message to the Council and the administration to get on it. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, you remember I said it depends on what way it goes and who really wants the development plan within a district. It can go one way or the other. You may have a group that would be certainly anti everything and you have nothing for the community; and that’s a scary part of it. So, you know, be aware of what you ask for. And I think this would have to be done in a deliberate fashion, make sure things are done right if we’re going to have to do it. And at the end, at the end, a development plan should be adopted by ordinance so that it has the cause and effect of law, rather than just a suggestive kind of plan which would not be much because it’ll just be put aside. ALAMEDA: All right, every good. Well, I liked the discussion. I think we are ready to make a motion to continue this to our Kona meeting. You have testimony? EXHIBIT C 6 WILLIAMS: Public testimony to listen to? ALAMEDA: Sure. WILLIAMS: Do I have to sign anything? ALAMEDA: Let me ask, Sharon. NOMURA: You can use the same sign up sheet. ALAMEDA: Okay. Please come forward, Mr. Williams. We already swore you in and got your address. You may proceed. WILLIAMS: Okay, I just wanted to say a few words. And, again, the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce supports Planning Director Yuen’s analysis on this proposal by the County Council for many of the same reasons I discussed before. One, that we have a separation of government; and it seems like the County Council wants to be taking over the executive branch as well as being a legislative branch. Two, you know, there are very few cluster plan developments and planned unit developments on this island. It is something that Commissioner Siracusa was talking about a little while ago, was modernizing the Subdivision Code, moving ahead. Well, planned unit developments, cluster plan developments, are one method of doing that. It’s a more advanced type of planning. The problem with having the County Council take over this process is it becomes a political tool. If you don’t have a set of clear of rules as a developer when you go into doing this, you have no idea if this project makes any sense. Can you buy the piece of land and try to move forward to do it? No. You have to go to the County Council. The County Council is totally capricious. It depends on who’s on the Council, it depends upon if the Council likes you. So it should be done administratively; and that is the process the way it’s set up. To change that, to make the Council handle each individual one will not encourage cluster plan developments, will not encourage planned unit developments; and that’s the type of planning we want to see going forward. ALAMEDA: Seeing nobody is grabbing the mike, we have no questions at this time. You may be seated. Thank you, Mr. Williams. All right, can we do a voice motion? DARROW: Yes. Just one brief, I forgot to add that the Deputy Director asked me to make one minor change to Item No. 3 on page 2, this was for the off-street parking background; and I’ll just bring that to your attention before we go into that vote. It’s under, on page 2, hotels and lodges, it says the recommended ratio is 1.25 stalls per guest. We’re going to add in the word “room” right after “guest.”Just a minor change but I wanted to bring that to your attention. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Mr. Kurokawa? KUROKAWA: I have one more correction that I noticed on this last, let’s see, I’ve got to find it. EXHIBIT C 7 ALAMEDA: Okay. While Mr. Kurokawa is finding that -. KUROKAWA: I’ve found it. ALAMEDA: Oh, go ahead. KUROKAWA: Yeah, this is on the Chapter 25 amendment relating to this last planned unit development, cluster plan development. On page 2, the second paragraph, it actually should read, instead of the Council should retain the current administrative control, I’m sure it is intended to be the Planning Department or, you know, the executive branch should retain the current administrative control, rather than the Council. ALAMEDA: That’s good. Do we have an -? SIRACUSA: So how does that read? ALAMEDA: Again, Mr. Kurokawa. SIRACUSA: You said the administration should retain the control? KUROKAWA: Yeah, yeah. ALAMEDA: Anybody has questions of that? Phyllis? FUJIMOTO: Thank you Commissioners. Yes, regarding that sentence, I read that; and I found it rather odd. But that’s how the Director had instructed me to write it. It could be an error. Thanks. ALAMEDA: So, -. FUJMOTO: Okay, also, we have another change. For the subdivision, page 2, this is rd like the 3 paragraph, there is a missing word “is.” The sentence should read, “The subdivision process is also a point of which the conditions of the zoning ordinance applicable to the property are reviewed for compliance, such as affordable housing.” So it’s just missing one word; and we’ll add it in. ALAMEDA: Okay. So what are the, can you review the corrections again, I mean, except the last one, just the first two. DARROW: Okay, first two is under Agenda Item No. 3, page 2, under hotels and lodges on the first sentence, we’re going to add in the word “room” next to “guest,” so it would be “guest room.” And then, additionally, there is still a question, we should maybe wait till we make a correction regarding whether the last sentence should be Council or Planning Department. The Planning Director may have specifically put in the word “Council,” so that the County Council would keep the current administrative process, rather than changing it. Or it could be that it was in error and it could be the “Planning Department.” EXHIBIT C 8 ALAMEDA: Yeah, I think that’s a big one. So if you could clarify it for us for the next meeting. DARROW: Sure. ALAMEDA: Thank you. All right, all those in favor of continuing this agenda item to the next meeting say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. ALAMEDA: All those not in favor say nay. Seeing no objection, we’ll continue this Agenda Item No. 4 to our next meeting in Kona. The discussion ended at 11:33 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT C 9