Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-20 TCOUNCILZONINGCODE LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 20, 2009 COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO A regularly advertised hearing on the CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) was called to order at 2:48 p.m. in the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, Ali‘i III Room, 69-275 Waikoloa Drive, Waikoloa, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe Brandi Beaudet Lani Bowman Fdq`kchmdFheehm Frederic Housel Wayne Iokepa Aq`mcnmFnmy`kdy , Deputy Corporation Counsel L`qf`qdsL`rtm`f`+CdotsxOk`mmhmfChqdbsnq Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner  Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And four people from the public in attendance INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) relating to concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and firefighting facilities in change of zone actions. WATANABE: Let’s move on to Agenda Item No. 3. The initiator is the County Council. Once again, this is an amendment to Chapter 25, Article 2, Division 4, Hawai‘i County Code 1983. Boy, you’re real popular today, Maija. COTTLE: Yeah, working hard here. Okay, this is an amendment by the County Council, related to concurrency standards. And the Planning Commission reviewed a similar amendment, I think, about a year ago. And the current amendment is setting concurrency conditions for parks and recreation facilities, as well as firefighting facilities, on change of zone requests. The Planning Director is recommending that an unfavorable recommendation be sent to the County Council for this, because she feels that they would have an adverse affect on small landowners who want to rezone their property, that some of the concurrency standards would be very difficult for them to meet. And so she is recommending an unfavorable recommendation to County Council. Are there any questions? EXHIBIT C 1 WATANABE:Any questions, fellow Commissioners? Okay, I do have two people signed up from the public to testify. So may I call up Margaret Wille and Mike Price, please? Okay, both of you have already been sworn in, so that’s not necessary anymore. Why don’t we start with you, Margaret, and invite your testimony. WILLE: Okay. Margaret Wille, again, from Waimea. And I just want to urge you to support this proposed legislation. It isn’t categorical so that it is a detriment to small subdivisions, I mean, this is, depends on what the impact the subdivisions would have on the surrounding area. And I just want to say we’ve as a community recently met with the Police and we’ve had various meetings. I recently worked on a community program for emergency preparedness, and met with the firefighters and others, and just they are sort of needing support. So I -. And that’s one. And the other area is really in terms of parks and trying to help get the whole community including large developments or even commercial developments that go on, whether it’s a Costco or a Target, and getting people to realize how important parks are. We are, since the district park in Waimea has really been on the book since 1992 when Richard Smart wrote it into the 2020 Plan and emphasized its importance as caring for our youth and enabling people to have ways of recreating that are positive. And a lot of these things, what I find they do in terms of practical purposes is they pull the development part of the community together and say you have to work with us, too, that it’s not just volunteers like Mike and I and others, like we have to all get behind these efforts and ensure that the, whether it’s the park or that there is adequate fire provisions. I mean I’m just looking around -. This program I worked on was emergency preparedness and I got to know a lot of the issues about wild fires and -. WATANABE: Okay, Margaret -. WILLE: How inadequate we are. So I just encourage you that these are important and it’s not a stop on all subdivisions, and it’s really a way to get people to work together on things that are important for the community. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions for Margaret? Seeing none, Mike? PRICE: Yeah, I’ll be brief. I think you ought to support this County’s recommendation, the Council’s, because we have a deficit in this county of parks and fire facilities. And to decide to waive them because of economic conditions just makes the situation worse. I think there’re other solutions. We have the same problem with traffic safety as far as new roads. There’s some innovative thinking of having capital facility districts, having the County step forward and provide some bonding to get the program in place. There’re a lot of avenues. But to come out with a blanket waiver sets us back ten years. And we need the parks; we have a large use population on the island, and we need to get people, you know, that are not as obese as I am, and I think it’s important to have that as a quality-of-life issue. I live in Waikoloa Village, and that 25,000-acre fire I would have wished we had about three more fire stations within a mile. We don’t have the structure and facilities right now, and you are talking about big safety items as far as fire stations. I think if the Director of Planning wants to find other solutions through these economic times, that’s no reason to just say I want a waiver of this concurrency. Thank you. EXHIBIT C 2 WATANABE: Thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you for your testimony. You may be seated. Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI: Yes, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out a technical flaw in this Resolution 219 09. If you look at the second page – and this was brought up at the Windward Planning Commission meeting – if you look at the voting portion of the Resolution, it notes that there are three councilmen that are no longer on the Council that have voted on this resolution, and that was in error; it identifies Mr. Higa, Mr. Jacobson and Mr. Pilago as being taken a vote on this resolution. I spoke with the County Clerk and he indicated to me that that was a mistake on their part, and that they were just going to send a letter indicating that they will submit a revised sheet, second page of the Resolution. Unfortunately, they are in the process of moving this week, so they weren’t able to get the original -. WATANABE: Corrected. HAYASHI: Yeah, correction. And they indicated to me that it will be forthcoming on Monday, this coming Monday. So as far as that we are on notice that it was an error on their part, on the Clerk’s part, and that there will be, I mean, I won’t say the Clerk, their office, and they’ll submit a new second page to the Resolution, I didn’t define the actual voting members of the Council. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. I don’t suppose there are any questions in terms of clarification, yeah? Okay, you all may be seated. Anyone care to make a motion? Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: Can I ask a question, Norman, before we decide on this. Can we assume, even though we don’t know who voted for what, that this did pass the Council? HAYASHI: Yes, it is passed by the current Council; it’s just the names are -. HOUSEL: Right, right, right. Okay, so it did pass. WATANABE: Anyone care to make a motion? BOWMAN; I move that we recommend, I’m sorry, how do I say it -? WATANABE: It’s favorable or unfavorable. BOWMAN: Unfavorable to the amendment to Chapter 25 to the County Council. WATANABE: Any second on this? GIFFIN: Second. WATANABE: Okay, Ms. Giffin. So just for clarification, your motion is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. EXHIBIT C 3 BOW MAN: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. Any discussion? HOUSEL: I’d like to make a comment. You know, concurrency is something that we all acknowledge is far behind in this county everywhere. And in fact, each of the approved Community Development Plans addresses concurrency and the need for it and the importance of it. And I don’t think that we should just kick it down. This came down the road without some kind of recommendation or suggestion. In fact, I think the language in this bill came – correct me, if I’m wrong – explicitly from the South Kohala Community Development Plan; the same language is in that Community Development Plan, which was passed as an ordinance last year. So as far as the South Kohala Community Development Plan, this is the law; they decided that this is what was appropriate for their neighborhood. The other thing that, I’m a little disappointed in reading this resolution; the language in it on the second page – and I hope this is correct even though the voting is not – there is a paragraph that’s scratched out and then the paragraph directly below it, which is asking the Planning Director to “submit comments and recommendations on the proposed zoning code amendments as set forth in the proposed bill for an ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’ and by reference made a part hereof, or” – and this is the key language – “or to prepare a similar bill for an ordinance to create concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and for firefighting facilities in change of zone actions.” In reading the Planning Director’s recommendations and some of the background, she did make some suggestions regarding how to address this very complex issue of concurrency; it’s not a simple issue, but she did state that it could be handled, as far as park requirements, in the County’s Park Dedication Ordinance. And those are very good, but I don’t feel she went far enough. I think, as far as answering what the bill was requesting, a similar bill, I don’t feel it’s far enough. The comments from the Planner, the Park Planner, I feel, are totally unresponsive in that it seems like he only describes the problems but doesn’t suggest a solution. And so as far as I’m concerned, his comments are unacceptable. This is a, you know, concurrency is very important, it’s much needed, and I think we all need to work on a solution for it. So I don’t believe that simply giving an unfavorable recommendation to this is a right answer. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Any further discussion? BOWMAN: I agree. But if it needs to be worked on, then we don’t want to give a favorable; it needs to be worked on is what you are saying. HOUSEL: Right. That’s correct. BOWMAN: Okay. So it’s kind of like the last one – to postpone it until there is more work to be done. But we can’t do that; we either have to make a recommendation or, you know, either yey or nay. That’s the problem. More work needs to be done, I agree. Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further discussion? Maija? EXHIBIT C 4 COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: No. COTTLE: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes, five to one. The discussion ended at 3:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission EXHIBIT C 5