HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-23 KCDP Minutes Final
1
2
3
4
Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee
5
County of Hawaii
6
Minutes
7
Meeting Date: October 23, 2013
8
Call to Order 2:00 p.m.
nd
9
Place: Kona Planning Conference Room. Bldg. E, 2 Floor
10
West Hawaii Civic Center
11
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway
12
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
13
Roll Call:
14
1. Members Present: George (Keoki) Schattauer Jr.,
15
Hiram Rivera, Bo Kahui, Greg Ogin, Elaine Fukushima,
16
Douglas Payne and Ken Melrose, Chauncey Wong Yuen
17
2. Planning Department: Duane Kanuha, Bennett Mark, Keola Childs and Terry Dunlap
18
3. Public in attendance: Marnie Herkes, Janice Palma-Glennie, Paul Strauss, Karen Eoff,
19
Wendy Baez, Leilani Wessel and Laura Dierenfield,
20
21
The meeting was called to order by the chair, Greg Ogin and introductions of AC members occurred.
22
23
STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING ITEMS ON AGENDA
24
Janice Palma-Glennie spoke on the thousands of voices that made the KCDP possible. Challenged the
25
current Action Committee to follow the original concepts of the community.
26
27
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
28
Minutes were unanimously approved as amended.
29
No amendments to the Agenda.
30
Terry Dunlap distributed a copy of the memorandum from the State of Hawaii Department of
31
Accounting and General Services indicating that Site G parcel offered for the Kona JUD Complex is
32
being terminated. The memo is date stamped October 8, 2013 by the Planning Department.
33
Discussion about the impact of this memorandum was noted. Bo Kohui is disappointed that it took 3
34
months to approve the letter from the Action Committee. Bo recommended that the letter should still
35
be submitted. Ken made a motion to send the letter to the Planning Director for approval and it was
36
seconded and the motion was unanimous. This is the latest letter written by Ken Melrose.
37
38
BUSINESS OF COMMITTEE
39
Duane Kanuha, Planning Director, presented comments on the review of the Kona CDP. The following
40
points were discussed:
41
Discussed work history from 1975 to show the intent of a CDP
·
42
The mandatory review is 10 years, but annual reviews are also required.
·
43
Questions to the Director about What are you going to do about the CDP?
·
44
Staff was unanimous that the planning principles are sound except for some implementation
·
45
problems including interpreting the code against existing statuory provisions and how to interpret
46
some concepts. So how do we fix it? Discussions occurred and three components were brought
47
to the Directors attention by the staff:
48
1.The first item involves a significant increace in the population to allow the concepts of
49
the CDP to function. An increase, greater that our current population of the Kailua-Kona
50
area, is needed to fulfill the housing requirements for the plan to be successful.
51
2.A second item involves concurrency. No program is in place for financing these
52
improvements. This lack of a program makes it very difficult to achieve concurrency.
53
3. The third issue involves integration into the existing codes and policies. This CDP is
54
adopted by ordinance and conflicts with other ordinances such as the General
55
Plan, zoning and subdivision codes must be resolved.
56
Planning Department is working on resolving these situations and wants to work with the
·
57
community and the Action Committee through meetings and work sessions.
58
Planning is not taking away the basic concepts of the CDP, rather to allow things to happen.
·
59
Appreciate the candor of the planning staff to resolve these problems.
·
60
61
Questions to the Director followed.
62
Hiram asked if we fix one CDP will we fix them all? Director responded, yes
·
63
When will Public Works get involve? The CDP can not be implemented without PW agreeing to
·
64
the concepts.
65
Duane wants to hear the responses from the Action Committee so that he can move forward to
66
resolve these differences.
67
Director indicated that these problems should have been addressed at the time of approval.
·
68
Ken Melrose said that the group thought that enacted by plan meant that it was enacted. The
·
69
Ordinance was drafted by the assistant to the Mayor. Important to recognize that the Planning
70
Department engage fully in the review of the CDP. Disappointment that it is not working. The
71
public was heavily involved and it is important to everyone that the Planning Department confirm
72
their commitment to the concepts of the CDP. Calibrations of the VDG were processed without
73
the Planning Departments technical engagement. Welcomes the involvement of the Planning
2
74
Department in solving any problems. If we continue on concurrency, then a linkage of finance
75
and components is required. Ken offered to work with the County regardless of his involvement
76
with either the CDP AC or as a community member. --------------------------------------------------
77
Bo Kohui spoke on population and the need for growth. Duane stated that in order to make the
·
78
TODs work, you need a minimum population to make it happen. Duane mentioned that the
79
amount of population needed may never be reached in our lifetime. Also planning will focus on
80
areas of implementation where infrastructure can be expanded by need and not by mandate.
81
Bo also asked if the various departments work together to resolve differences, can the plan be
·
82
implemented? Duane said that this has to be resolved; otherwise, it will never work. Planning is
83
looking forward to working with the Action Committee and feels that the Action Committee will
84
be a major asset to the review process.
85
Duane said that in terms of planning rules and concepts, there is nothing wrong with this plan
·
86
however, in order to make it go, we need some major tweaking.
87
Ken Melrose asked if the planning department could identify which policy or policies are creating
·
88
the problems and how can we fix this. This is the most productive and the shortest time
89
necessary to accomplish the task.
90
Greg Ogin asked about basic inventory issues. What happens if the market gets hot? Many
·
91
properties are zoned and ready to go so what infrastructure programs are ready to receive this
92
growth? We do not know how many units are ready to go if the surge occurs. Can this
93
information be provided to the Action Committee? Greg is asking how do we plan for this
94
growth in schools, traffic, water and treatment of waste water if we do not know how many units
95
could develop in the future on lots already approved for development? How do we plan for this?
96
This is referred to as developable density or lots ready to go.
97
Keola Childs responded by noting that many lots exist from zoning that occurred over 45 years
·
98
ago when zoning was first implemented on the Big Island in 1967. That data is not kept by the
99
planning department. A lot of development today is the result of new zonings or rezonings with
100
many projects returning to the planning department requesting for time extensions because the
101
infill or sales are too slow. The numbers are too small to determine what we need and were we
102
need it. Also water availability is critical to all developments. If water is not available, then
103
development on that property does not occur.
104
Keola discussed population growth over the past 10 years.
·
105
Ken Melrose also commented on Volume 2 for the KCDP as a reference for population growth.
·
106
The CDP used the same timeline as the General Plan and was intended to be consistent with
107
existing documents. The answers on growth may exist in Volume 2. Constraints existing along
3
108
some roads could be achieved in sections if not along its entirety. Much of this information is
109
available and with some dedicated time it can be retrieved.
110
Greg asked the Director how he sees using the current Action Committee and the past members to
·
111
assist the county in its review. The Director responded that the planning department needs first to
112
understand the areas of concern, and then with solutions, planning will go to the Action
113
Committee first to review the documents. Planning will remain flexible with Action Committee
114
recommendations as to what will be the process.
115
Bo asked when the Director though he would have something to discuss. The Director responded
·
116
with maybe another month or two.
117
Terry noted that our next meeting will be on November 20, 2013, and the committee can decide
·
118
whether they wish to hold a meeting in December.
119
A question about whether Volume #2 is available was answered by Keola that if it is not on line,
·
120
a digital copy would be made available to any Action Committee member upon request.
121
122
Questions from the audience was approved by the Action Committee to take place at this time
123
124
Janice Palmer-Glennie asked how will refocusing issues affect connectivity? Greg stated that
·
125
many roads in Kailua-Kona are currently under design or construction. Keola stated that this is
126
why we need public participation in the concurrency situation. State Highways Division is
127
involved with many very critical highways within our community and they need to be part of
128
these meetings to help the State understand the urgency of these improvements. The public can
129
assist in the emphasis of State Highways needs to move forward as soon as possible.
130
Marnie Herkes stated that the cost of 800 million is a small amount to seek for these
·
131
improvements and the improvements need to be done over the next 20 years. The plan needs to
132
be tweaked not be changed. I hope you stay true to the plan.
133
Karen Eoff spoke on impact fees and implemented in the areas involving the CDPs. Maybe we
·
134
could bond or borrow the money to provide for a solution. Marnie encouraged her to get her 6
135
votes together. She will have her staff start looking at other communities to see how they
136
accomplished these needs.
137
Duane mentioned that impact fees, in order to not be a tax must be applied across the board and
·
138
this has been a problem in getting impact fees approved.
139
Ken mentioned that vacant lots that are already zoned, when developed, will impact the
·
140
infrastructure without impact fees. Fair share only applies to a new application.
141
Janice Palma-Glennie is worried about the use of the word charrette because it would go back
·
142
to where we started. What are you rolling out to the community that would lead to a charrette?
4
143
Duane commented that this would be working with the community groups.
·
144
Marnie said if you want to avoid trouble, then you need to tell the community that you are not
·
145
changing the CDP, rather you are working on implementing the plan. Important that you
146
introduce this as a further step of the plan and not as a change. Marnie recommends that planning
147
should get an outside professional involved.
148
Karen noted that County Council will be reviewing any changes as well.
·
149
Hiram said that we should not only look as what has worked and has not worked, but we should
·
150
be looking as to what can work.
151
Keola offered areas that staff is working on three areas:
·
152
1.All existing zoning outside of a transit-oriented development (TOD), but within the Kona
153
Urban area, must comply with parks policy, affordable housing policy, street standard,
154
wastewater, concurrency and sensitive resources. Is this what was intended? Staff is
155
looking for comments on these items. Wording has a conflict in the document.
156
2.Clustered Rural Subdivision guideline process is stated in the CDP that these guidelines
157
are encouraged, but a judge ruled that these guidelines are required.
158
3.Open Space Standards and greenbelts are called for in the CDP yet there are no
159
guidelines for staff to enforce. We need standards in width, shape and density of the
160
greenbelts. How do we apply standards for a greenbelt without standards. What does the
161
community have in mind? We need this discussion with the public so that the decision
162
on greenbelts in not made by staff alone. We need clarification.
163
Ken Melrose requested that planning provide one or more of the three things he feels is necessary
·
164
for the Action Committee to respond and to provide by the next meeting:
165
1.Planning Department provide to the Action Committee (AC):
166
a. Concise articulation of the process and timeline to be followed.
167
b. A precise definition, by Policy number reference, of the areas of Chapter 4 considered
168
problems, together with proposed text of changes perceived as necessary and the
169
rationale therefore.
170
c. A statement of desired outcomes for the review and follow on steps committed for
171
implementation of the Kona CDP.
172
This will help the lay person understand the technical approach to the review.
173
Ken also mentioned that no help on open space network plan was offered by the county staff.
·
174
Action Committee could not accomplish this task without technical assistance. We need to do the
175
simple things but not open all elements; rather address what needs to be addressed.
5
176
Terry asked for help in getting Public Works to become involved with the new regulations so that
·
177
we can all move forward with assurance that when applicants submit, departments will not reject
178
the submittals because of policy inconsistencies.
179
Keola mentioned that it is better to ask the public for their input than to make changes without
·
180
their input. We are seeking guidance from the Action Committee.
181
Ken asked for a motion to submit to the planning department his request for the above referenced
·
182
three items for the county to respond to the Action Committee. Motion was unanimous.
183
184
Greg noted we are working on mission statements and goals of the sub-committee. Terry noted that we
185
stay focused on these goals and to not set the goals too large with the timeline allotted that the goals can
186
not be accomplished. Pick goals that are achievable. Please submit these to Terry so that we can discuss
187
the goals at a future Action Committee meeting. Follow the goals and guidelines in the CDP.
188
189
Bo Kohui noted his work on the regional park and missions of the sub-committees. He suggested that
190
members of the community be included on the committee.
191
192
CIP funding and the lobbying needed to help the departments is encouraged by Ken Melrose. Goals and
193
objectives need to be reviewed and supported by the Action Committee. We need to create a relationship
194
with County Council to achieve these goals. Reference to the minutes on page 4 where each of the CIP
195
items have been assigned to sub-committees for continued work with the departments for achieving
196
allotment. Transportation committee needs help as too many CIP projects are assigned to one committee.
197
Please report to the Action Committee when progress is made in the CIP process to get the line item
198
approved for allotment.
199
Bo mentioned the regional park and is working on getting money assigned to this CIP project. The park
200
is estimated to cost 72 million dollars. Bos committee is working with Robert Fitzgerald to seek the
201
funding.
202
Discussion on how to proceed with seeking funding for the specific projects with comments from Karen
203
Eoff.
204
205
Greg asks the Director to discuss the letter sent to the state on our aquifer. Director commented on the
206
letter distributed to the Action Committee.
207
Defer the petition on National Parks Services until December 2014
·
208
This will allow studies to be completed and time then for staff to review the studies and then
·
209
to present these finding to the commission.
6
210
Ken mentioned that he hopes that National Parks will be required to release their data to the public. Fish
211
& Wildlife and National Parks hold the future of this community and its development. The worst case for
212
this community deals with water aquifer and its allotment of water supply and or commitment. The
213
current commitment is only 15% of the aquifer and this estimate may not be correct.
214
215
Greg asked if the water supply estimate is really accurate? Bo asked, what is the actual intend of National
216
Park? Bo also said that the County of Hawaii should seek its own petition to manage the watershed.
217
The Director said that everyone wants to know what are the facts and what is fiction? Then we can move
218
forward once the truth is known.
219
220
Committee Reports
221
222
Hiram reported that land use and environmental needs to coordinate a meeting with Department of Public
223
Works. Chauncey said he will attend all meetings so that he is not assigned to so many new committees.
224
He is involved with State DOT and will work with bringing these projects forward so that the projects can
225
be part of the county discussions and planning. State has 35 million dollars in funding now and 78
226
million dollars in the pipes for future work. Chauncey will work on bringing the status of these projects
227
to the Action Committee for their information.
228
229
Greg discussed the meeting schedule with planning and public works to begin discussions on the
230
coordination of the CDP. He is encouraged with the progress.
231
232
Duane commented: implementation not revision!
233
234
Comments from the public
235
236
Janice spoke on various topics including the review of the CDP, National Parks, National Heritage and
237
other projects.
238
239
Bo asked that Corporation Counsel be consulted on the public recording of public meeting. Also, Bo
240
clarified that he has been working with National Parks to resolve the problem that has evolved on Queen
241
Kaahumanu Phase 2 section 106 consultations.
242
243
Elaine thought that people who wish to record the meeting should announce their intention to record the
244
meeting.
7
245
246
Next meeting is November 20, 2013 which was found to be acceptable with the Action Committee. The
247
December meeting is eliminated and the break will give the Action Committee members time to consider
248
the review of the CDP.
249
250
Motion to adjourn.
8