HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunication No. 2018-12- Ken Melrose TestimonyCommunication No. 2018-12
March 13, 2018
Mr. Charles Young
Chairman, Action Committee
Kona CDP
Subject: Support for proposed amendments to the Kona CDP
Dear Mr. Young and Action Committee Members,
Mahalo for this opportunity to participate in the review of the proposed amendments and
to participate in the sub -committee deliberations. I wish to express sincere appreciation
to the Administration for initiating the process and for honoring the Vision and Guiding
Principles of the Kona CDP. I am most thankful for the renewed attention and passion of
Nancy Pisicchio and Roy Takemoto in working toward more effective implementation of
the Kona CDP, in line with Guiding Principle # 8, to Promote Effective Governance.
1 support all the revisions proposed by the sub -committee, especially in LU 1.5 to retain
the Priority policy to retain a preference for a 1,000 foot shoreline setback ( a valuable
greenbelt component as we also seek to increase density and concentration of future
growth) and PUB 4.2 to retain the existing end of the public water system in South Kona
( so we do not encourage growth to follow water further south and exacerbate our traffic
congestion).
I ask that you swiftly approve the sub -committee report and recommend that the
Director move the package toward approval in a timely manner. Note the steps to
approval: Director's recommendation to the Leeward Planning Commission, with at
least one meeting there; then to County Council where the Planning Committee will
consider at least once then two readings at the full Council before signature by the
Mayor. 1 ask that the Action Committee provide unified support of the amendments at
each step and push to complete the process this summer.
I will join you through the process. Having been on the original Steering Committee
during creation and adoption, I feel partly personally responsible for the intemal
impediments the plan created and for its failure in realizing effective governance thus
far. I've sat in your chair and continue to support the Kona CDP as an individual
member of the community.
The revisions of many shall's to should's is helpful, aims to address a narrow
perspective of legal implications and was a good start to addressing internal challenges
to the implementation. During the sub -committee deliberations, it became clear that
1
Communication No. 2018-12
further improvements to the policies in the way of guidance to agencies and the removal
of unintended disincentives toward the desired outcomes are needed to improve
effective governance, as well.
The overall strategy of Transportation (4.1.2) and Land Use (4.2.2) of the Kona CDP is
to direct growth within the Urban area of the General Plan and to foster compact
neighborhoods that reduce sprawl and improve transportation choices.
Since its adoption in 2008 several positive outcomes have occurred, like the
transportation linkages: in the creation of Ane Keohokalole Highway from Palani to Hina
Lani (much needed to further extend to Kaiminani and link in the new University back to
Queen Kaahumanu Highway past the airport); extension of Laaloa to create a new
mauka makai connection; and, the widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway out to the
airport (seems it's been under construction the whole time!).
However, no such new growth pattern has emerged, and few new housing projects
have begun. Granted some of this delay is due to economic forces, but much has to do
with policy implementation. The biggest internal impediments are in details of
Connectivity and Concurrency, the workings of the Design Center and the interpretation
of the Village Design Guidelines. The further amendments included in the sub-
committee report to Policies in Transportation, Land Use and Housing sections would in
my opinion be appropriate to include in this amendment process.
I will address those directly in a moment but wish to point out an historical
circumstance- the Planning Department has asked for your opinion and support.
Two recommendations may emerge. One that narrowly addresses the proposed shall to
should changes. Another that directs policy interpretation to improve the working of the
plan implementation. The AC has taken that course before and I encourage you to take
it again now.
I am hopeful the AC will include the sub -committee recommendations for the further
amendments to Connectivity Tran 2.1 and Concurrency Tran 6.1 with Table 4-1 in its
base motion.
To further improve progress toward the desired outcomes, I suggest including the
following additions as recommendations to the Director:
Tran -2.1: Connectivity Standards. In #5, last sentence after shall insert "to the edge of
each phase", as almost all projects of significant scope get done in pieces.
2
Communication No. 2018-12
LU -2.2: TOD components. Suggest delete TND reference throughout this policy to
eliminate a future confusion created with policy LU -2.7 on TND floating zones.
LU -2.4: TOD Floating Zones. The proposed revisions by the sub -committee help
eliminate policy conflicts with other statutes. These clarifications are VERY important!
LU -2.5: Village Design Guidelines. Delete inclusion of TNDs here as well. It is essential
to make it clear these are intended as guidelines, not to be enforced as new code.
LU -2.8: Development outside TODs. #1 last sentence insert "intent of the" before VDG.
(Note that a PUD can only change density not use). #2. Rezoning b. iii. Greenfields, is
probably the biggest shortcoming and has held back many a good project over the last
10 years. For one, amending the Kona CDP is not an established trigger for a Ch 343
EA so there is no accepting authority. I suggest adding after the last shall " be
consistent with Policies Tran1.1 (OT Map), 2.1 (Connectivity), 3.8 (Internodal) and 6.1
(Concurrency)".
LU -3.1: Redevelopment of Rural Towns. I suggest dropping all references here to TOD,
retaining only TND as the appropriate floating zone.
LU -4.1: Design Center. It is essential that this entity improve its function to meet its
objective to "support and expedite" implementation, rather than delay as has been the
case to date.
Housing: Include these changes and those suggested by Keith Kato of HICDC. He is
the lone local private sector non-governmental entity actually creating affordable
housing.
Econ -1.1: Hospital. There is much State land within the already designated University
and Kalaoa TODs along Ane Keohokalole Highway, so creating a further incentive to
locate elsewhere seems counterproductive.
5.1 Financing: Ask the Administration and Council to fix technical details in the Tax
Increment Financing and Community Facilities District Ordinances/Statues that are
keeping these valuable tools from being used to create the infrastructure needed to
realize the connectivity and concurrency goals of the Kona CDP.
Mahalo for considering these comments as you deliberate on the sub -committee report
for amendments to the Kona CDP.
3
Aloha,
2;?? -‘.-------n Melrose
CC: Action Committee members
Director Michael Yee
Councilperson Karen Eoff
Nancy Pisicchio
Roy Takemmoto
4
Communication No. 2018-12