COM 0045.006 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

spills, among other things. Pepe'ekeo is not near the main sources of the incinerator's materials. On points 2 and 3 there is a clear prima-facie case against siting the incineratorfacility at the HCPC site. Regarding point 1, advocates need to present concrete, convincing evidence that pollution will not be blown toward inhabited areas by prevailing winds, or that the plant will not generate any pollution (including actual track records of similar ongoing operations, not simply the technical specifications of the equipment). If they can not produce that evidence (and satisfy points 2 and 3), how can advocates of the plant confirm that it conforms to standards in the general plan? Plant advocates bear a positive burden of proof. If County Council members want to discharge their duties faithfully under the Charter, they must demand this evidence. You will stand on solid ground if you argue that non-conformance to relevant standards in the General Plan constitutes a fatal impediment to making the proposed change. This county's charter contains relatively clear and strong language about the relationship between the General Plan and specific development proposals. 3-17): (a) The council shall enact zoning, subdivision, and other ordinances which shall contain the necessary provisions to carry out the purposes of the general plan. (b) No public improvement or project, or subdivision or other ordinance, shall be initiated or adopted unless the same conforms to and implements the general plan. Advocates for the plant will reply that the facility will implement the Plan, because the plan itself will be changed. That is legalistic smoke-and-mirrors, and makes a mockery of the whole General Plan process. The point to keep in mind is that General Plan includes standards like those on p. 381 for the express purpose of guiding decisions like the one you are called upon to make-- i.e., changing the existing Plan to allow a particular development or facility. The standards are real, they reflect current best practice in the planning profession, and they are not meant to be tossed aside when they lead to inconvenient conclusions. One final point. Advocates for the facility might argue that the Dec 21 2001 Plan is, technically speaking not the county's governing law at present, as it has not yet been adopted by ordinance. Technically we are still governed by the 1989 plan. Although this is true, it is not meaningful unless the County Council decides that the siting of a major, problematic facility should be decided by a legal technicality. To my knowledge, no one has objected to the three Industrial standards in question during the entire 2+ year review process that the Plan has been through with the County Planning Department, State departments, the Planning Commission, and citizen input. Council members should ask themselves, "Would I vote against including these industrial standards if the General Plan as a whole came up for a vote tomorrow?" If not, then it is the new General Plan policies and standards that should govern practical decisions about long-term development for the island, not the ghost of the 1989 plan. We have come a long way since then. ~w ,>D Ufa-eJ~R~-1 l 2