COM 0110.004 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable James Y.Arakaki and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council Page 3 February 18, 2003 amendment for this property, refen•ed to as the "Suisan" property, to be changed to High Density. Attachment "9". At this point, the proposed General Plan ordinance was Bill 402, Drafr 4, and the subject property had been added as a specific amendment to Drafr 3. The Council's actions create a basic question, because if the Council thought that this property was already included in No. 11, there was no need for the Council to initiate this as a separate amendment. The Council's package went to the new Planning Director, Duane Kanuha; the subject property was item No. 8., p. 118. Attachment 0". Under the ordinance governing revisions of the General Plan in effect at the time, the Planning Director could refuse to initiate amendments proposed by the Council. (The ordinance has since been amended; the Planning Director no longer has that power). Kanuha refused to initiate the amendment and sent a message on May 8, 1989 giving a "Table of Disposition" on the amendments proposed by the Council; this clearly states that No. 8 was "not initiated". Attachment "11". It should also be noted that there were several amendments proposed by the Council that Kanuha believed were already contained in other amendments proposed by the Director, and he specifically refers to these in his Table of Disposition. Clearly, Kanuha did not believe that the proposed change to the subject property was already included in another pending amendment. Kanuha also prepared a document explaining the reasons why various amendments proposed by the Council had or had not been initiated. Attachment "12". Although as far as 1 can determine, this document remained within the Planning Department, it clearly shows that Kanuha rejected the Council's proposal to redesignate the subject property. The Director sent the council-proposed amendments that he did initiate on to the Planning Commission for further hearing; the subject property was not included. After the Planning Commission hearings, the new set of amendments went to the Council. Kanuha did explain, in response to a question that not all of the Council's amendments had been initiated, and the Council clearly understood that it was not getting to vote on those proposals that had not been initiated by the Director. See Attachment "13": minutes of October 4, 1989. The Council then enacted the revised General Plan, which passed second reading on November 1, 1989. The version finally enacted was Bill 402, Draft 5, and it was clear from the minutes that Draft 5 only included those