Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-15 KCDP Minutes DraftHarry Kim Mayor 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 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Wednesday, November 15, 2017 DRAFT Meeting Minutes CALL TO ORDER Michael Yee Director Daryn Arai Deputy Director Chair DeFranco called the Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP) Action Committee (AC) to order at 2:03 p.m. in the Department of Liquor Control Conference Room in the West Hawaii Civic Center. The following persons were present: ROLL CALL Action Committee Members Present: Barbara DeFranco (Chair), Charles Young (Vice -Chair), Shirley David, Kari Kimura, Shane Palacat-Nelsen, Janice Palma-Glennie, Douglas Payne, Arnold Rabin, and Hiram Rivera. Action Committee Members Absent -Excused: None. Staff: Keola Childs, Kona CDP Planner, and planners: Hans Santiago, and Heather Bartlett. Members of the public: 18 ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: NONE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: Two people signed up to provide comment. Both chose to speak at the start of the meeting. James Sogi, representing himself, testified on agenda item #1 — Kona Open Space Network (OSN) Subcommittee November Report. Mr. Sogi introduced himself as a member of the Kona OSN Subcommittee and explained his goal to identify a series of walkways and pathways to become part of a Kona Open Space Network. Mr. Sogi displayed on a projector an image of a map he had created to exemplify a Kona Open Space Network within the Kona urban area (Communication number 2017-05). The map showed where greenways, bikeways, shoreline access, and parks could link to create this network. He explained that the Kona OSN Subcommittee seeks to work toward hiring a consultant to create an OSN map. He shared his view that the community should decide upon where the elements of the network should go instead of a consultant. He submitted his mapping data to Planning Staff to be considered in the development of this future OSN map. Communication No. 2017-05 James Sogi Kona Open Space Network Mop can be viewed and downloaded from the following website: http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/weblink/1/doc/90287/Pagel.aspx 2. Ken Melrose, representing himself, testified on agenda item #6 — Presentation regarding potential amendments to the Kona CDP. Mr. Melrose recognized the hard work that has been Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page I done by the Kona Action Committee since the plan's initial adoption. He expressed feeling that the Kona CDP has yet to realize its full potential, however, and that adaptations such as the amendments proposed by the Mayor's office may be a necessary step toward clearing up legal confusion and reinforcing the authority of the KCDP in an effective manner. He recommended that those present read the KCDP critically, with particular attention on Chapter 2 Kona Today and Volume 2 Background Information. He expressed hope that these proposed amendments may help bring the Action Committee out of their "circular motion" and create more forward progress. Mr. Melrose suggested that should the Action Committee decide to create a subcommittee to explore these amendments prior to the next meeting in January, he would be glad to join. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Committee member Palacat-Nelsen moved to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2017 meeting as submitted. Second by Committee Member David. The motion to approve the minutes as submitted passed unanimously. BUSINESS: 1. Kona Open Space Network Plan Subcommittee Report (Communication No. 2017-04): Committee member Kimura introduced the report to the Action Committee and thanked everyone who participated for their hard work. In particular, she acknowledged the work of Mary Metcalf, Lele Kimball, and James Sogi for carrying the project. She expressed a desire to talk further about the report in a future meeting. Committee Member David read the vision statement out loud. Communication No. 2017-04 Kona Open Space Subcommittee Report November can be viewed and downloaded from the following website: http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/weblink/1/doc/90192/Pagel.aspx 2. Kailua Village Redevelopment Subcommittee Report: Chair DeFranco reported that the Kailua Village Redevelopment Subcommittee met on November 6th and attendees included Barbara DeFranco, Doug Payne, Hiram Rivera, Greg Ogin, Bill Moore, Jane Clement, Debbie Baker, and Ken Melrose. Chair DeFranco explained the project complications due to the many landowners in the area, who have indicated that incentives may be necessary to bring about changes in their land uses. The subcommittee also suggested changing the name of the project, for example, to: "Kailua Village Revisioning" or "Kailua Village District Improvement". Chair DeFranco shared 3 concerns which were brought up during their meeting. 1. Parking 2. Circulation 3. Revisioning Hale Halawai (as the piko (center) of the redeveloped project area) She expressed the group's desire to find a consultant who will be mindful of the community culture of the area, and have a portion of allotted redevelopment funds go to the Hale Halawai redevelopment project identified by the Kailua Village Business Improvement District. Committee Member Payne expressed feeling that the subcommittee has already accomplished everything they reasonably can by identifying their concerns. He added that constructing underground utilities should also be considered as part of a redevelopment plan. Committee Member Rivera suggested drafting a vision statement. Members discussed the possibility of having a vision statement brought to the Action Committee at a future meeting, www.hiplannin,-dept.com konaCdhawaiicounty.-ov Page 2 the need for regulatory compliance advisories, better communication with the AC regarding Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) priorities, and increasing community involvement in the process. BUSINESS: 3. Presentation by Lucas Mead, Planner, Planning Division of the Planning Department, regarding the mission, goals, and objectives of the County's Cultural Resources Commission (CRC). Hawai'i County Planner Lucas Mead gave a brief PowerPoint presentation overview on what the County CRC does and under what authority it operates. His presentation placed particular focus on how the County CRC operations may help to classify sites or identify them as appropriate for inclusion in the OSN. Mr. Mead described the general structure of the County CRC, which contains 9 members, is established by ordinance and acts as an advisory body to the Planning Director/County. He explained that the County CRC became a Certified Local Government in 2014 which gives the commission the ability to apply for certain funds over a 2 -year cycle. The guiding document for the County CRC is the General Plan (and therefore also the various district CDPs) which define its goals, objectives, policies, and actions. Mr. Mead described where the County CRC responsibilities overlap with the Kona CDP - proposed "Kona Cultural Resource Committee" which has not been established. His presentation displayed maps of the Big Island and the Kona district showing locations of known historic sites and historic districts. Mr. Mead explained the process of identifying culturally sensitive sites, and when development triggers the need for archaeological, architectural, and cultural surveys. He further explained that storage of this information is dispersed throughout many different repositories, registers, and communities. He explained that the County CRC, as a County board, hosts all of its meeting information online for the public. Hawai'i County Cultural Resources Commission meeting materials and information may be viewed and downloaded from the following website: http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/weblink/Browse.aspx?dbid=l&startid=66501&cr=1 This presentation PowerPoint (Communication 2017-06 Hawai'i County Cultural Resources Commission Presentation) may be viewed and downloaded from the following website: http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/weblink/1/doc/90361/Pagel.aspx 4. Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission (PONQ: Cynthia Nazara, the Chair of PONC, gave a brief presentation about the process and new deadline for nominating parcels to their board for consideration as priorities for acquisition by the County. Ms. Nazara stated that the new deadline for nominations will fall on February 28, 2018. She stated that last year there were about 12 properties which were approved and that as new nominations are made their priority list gets reorganized. She explained the process that goes into considering sites including creating ad hoc committees to go out to visit the landowner(s) and community in the area. She described a process of active engagement, which involves approaching their decision making and acquisition process with sensitivity and caring. S. A Presentation Regarding Potential Amendments to Various Policies of the Kona CDP: Nancy Pisicchio and Roy Takemoto came before the AC to present proposed amendments to the Kona CDP as drafted by the Mayor's office. Ms. Pisicchio began the presentation by explaining the process of getting CDP amendments approved. First, recommendations and comments on proposed amendments are solicited and received from the www.hiylannin,-deyt.com kona(a�hawaiicounty.Qov Page 3 respective Action Committee. Then the Planning Director refers the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission for that body's comments and recommendations, to the County Council for its consideration and adoption. She explained that these proposed amendments are largely in response to the Missler lawsuit, which established the CDP documents as legally binding. An implication of this was an emergence of liability applied to the County and developers alike as they attempt to comply with the KCDP. She explained that this legal confusion has left the County and the Kona Action Committee members in a state of legal ambiguity. While all County districts were affected by this lawsuit, Kona is the most affected due to its specifically binding language. Since the Kona CDP is written in recommendatory language as well as mandatory language, understanding with absolute clarity which policies are legally binding has been important but difficult. She described the process of going through the KCDP to find where legally binding language (often signified with the word "shall") may cause unexpected consequences. As an example of the potentially excessive use of the word shall, Ms. Pisicchio provided the following quote of Policy PUB -3.4, Universal Access: "As its expression of compassion and caring, the Kona community shall take pride in having all public facilities accessible to the disabled and respectful of the accessible parking stalls." Ms. Pisicchio explained that this usage of the word "shall" has aspirational motivations and cannot reasonably be complied with. She explained that much of their work revising the KCDP was to replace such mandatory statements that were intended to be more aspirational or discretionary, with less litigious language. Mr. Takemoto explained that he and Ms. Pisicchio had been involved in the Kona CDP creation and adoption process from the beginning and hoped that their understanding of the intent behind the language drafted at the time, as well as their knowledge of the outcome of the Missler lawsuit, would provide a well-rounded view of the most appropriate revisions. He also mentioned the importance of getting input from the Action Committee. Mr. Takemoto stated that within the adoption of the Kona CDP in 2008, there were no concurrent Hawaii County Code ("HCC" or "the Code") amendments submitted, and that this affected the legal viability of the plan from the beginning. Mr. Takemoto explained two guiding principles when amending the Code: that one should not change the meaning of the Code but instead further define or supplement the Code provisions that already exist, and that any supplements to the Code need to be regionally specific. He displayed their proposed ordinance which would amend the Kona CDP, which stated that the substance of the amendments would be in Exhibit A (Kona CDP communication number 2017-03) incorporated by attachment. He further explained that the exhibit is only an extract (or compendium) of policies within the KCDP because the Missler lawsuit established that "actions" do not have the force and effect of law. Mr. Takemoto explained that while there are opportunities for a developer to deviate from a recommendatory policy and use it only as a guideline, there should be an explanation as to why they have chosen to do that. Ms. Pisicchio added that any known deviation from the CDP needs to be acknowledged. Mr. Takemoto displayed Exhibit A: Kona CDP Amendments on a projection screen and scrolled through the document providing input on areas where they had altered the wording of the document (shown in blue.) Listed below are explanations on the specific proposed changes to the CDP. While all of the proposed policy amendments were displayed in the presentation, only those which were addressed by Mr. Takemoto are reflected in these meeting minutes. A complete view of the amendments is shown in Communication number 2017-03 CDP Proposed Amendments. www.hiylannin,-deyt.com kona(a�hawaiicounty.Qov Page 4 PolicyTRAN-2.1: Connectivity Standards. Mr. Take moto explained that they propose leaving the "shall" language in this policy due to the importance that new developments in Kona follow the connectivity standards mentioned. Policy TRAN-6.1: Official Concurrency Map. The changes proposed included new wording to define when a project triggers "area mitigation", this would not include small projects that do not require a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR.) This amendment would also make it so that a developer may define a right-of-way on their property if it overlays with a proposed road area, in lieu of constructing a new roadway in the project's concurrency zone. It also adds that area mitigation can also be deemed satisfied upon guaranteeing the performance of that commitment through bonds (or an equivalent security) as defined in HCC §25-2-46(f)(2). He explained that in the concurrency table they proposed removing concurrency requirements from new developments within many of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) areas as a way of incentivizing more projects in those areas as well as giving developers a choice on which road projects they will work on instead of making all the road projects within a concurrency zone mandatory. Ms. Pisicchio explained that the motivation behind changing this policy, in general, was that the current Kona CDP has resulted in creating an unofficial developmental moratorium in the Kona urban area. Ken Melrose brought up that he felt without a public facilities/infrastructure financing package in place, the County would need to take additional steps in order to prevent new projects from being halted when they can't afford to comply with the concurrency requirements. Roger Harris asked rhetorically in what order road segments need to be completed within a specific concurrency zone and why longer portions of road are not broken down into segments or phases with an implementation scheme. Various members of the public questioned as to which party should be responsible for building new road segments (public or private); what other means might be available to make financing these projects a possibility; the disproportionate burden on developers to guarantee corridor on land they do not own in order to be consistent with the requirements in their concurrency zone; the idea of organizing future financial commitments from developers; and keeping the conversation in context with HCC §25-2 —46 and understanding the CDP policies as a supplement to the County Code. Councilmember Karen Eoff suggested an idea of scheduling required or county -provided road improvements to correlate with the timeline of the completed development in order to account for new roadway demands when they occur. It was responded that tweaking of a developer's required Traffic Impact and Analysis Report (TZAR) may be required to accommodate that phased concurrency objective. Hawai'i County Code may be viewed and downloaded here from the following website: http://www.hawaiicounty.gov/lb-countycode/ (Concurrency requirements are on page 43 of chapter 25: Zoning) Policy LU -2.4: Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Floating Zones Established. A proposed change to this policy included changing the minimum land area for a new community to be consistent with the zoning code's requirements for project districts (50 acres) rather than 80 acres as currently stated. This was explained to improve consistency with zoning code as well as encourage more condensed TOD areas. Policy LU -2.5: Village Design Guidelines. Concern was raised over the potential of eliminating the effectiveness of implementing the Village Design Guidelines through the amendments. Mr. Takemoto requested help from the Action Committee to improve the language of this policy to clear up any confusion. www.hiplannin,-dept.com konaCdhawaiicounty.-ov Page 5 Policy LU -3.3: Clustered Rural Subdivision Project Unit Development (PUD). Mr. Takemoto stated this policy was the subject of the Missler case; he explained that they changed the wording to reflect the Planning Director's new role to issue recommendations to the Planning Commission, who is now the deciding body. Policy LU -3.4: Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines. Mr. Takemoto explained adding the words "at the applicant's option" to the policy to reflect the original intent of the policy to be optional. Policy LU -4.2: Mandatory Review. Mr. Takemoto explained that the conceptual intent of the Design Center was to be recommendatory and encourage TOD development. Policy CR -1.1: Kona Cultural Resources Committee (KCRC). The amendment suggests removing the requirement for creating a Kona CRC and instead encourages the AC to work closely with the existing County CRC. Mr. Takemoto explained that this is an area where they are seeking AC input. Action Committee members expressed concern about the following: the legal definitions of words "shall", "should", "will", and "must"; the lowering of the authority of policies from mandatory to recommendatory and the attached implications, and Policy LU -1.5 Shoreline Setback rephrasing. Committee member Payne moved to establish o subcommittee to look of the Exhibit A: Kona CDP Proposed Amendments (communication number 2017-03). Second by Committee member Polocot- Nelsen. A vote was token, and the motion passed unanimously. Committee Members Polmo-Glennie and Robin were not present. Chair DeFranco identified Committee Members Rivera, Palacat-Nelsen, Young, and David to be on this subcommittee. Committee member Rivera nominated Committee member Polocot-Nelsen to be choir of the subcommittee. Second by Vice -Choir Young. The motion to appoint passed unanimously. Communication 2017-03 Proposed Kona CDP Amendments may be viewed and downloaded from the following website: http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/weblink/l/doc/90193/Pagel.aspx AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING: (January 2018). 1. Subcommittee reports 2. Proposed CDP Amendment discussion No additional agenda items were identified at this time. ADJOURNMENT: The Chair, without objection, adjourned the meeting at 4:11 p.m. All Action Committee information can be viewed and downloaded from our website: http://www.hawaiicountycdp.info/north-and-south-kona-cdp www.hiylannin,-deyt.com kona(a�hawaiicounty.Qov Page 6