COM 0045.048 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

convened a public workshop on Bill 163. Almost all members of the Council were present at this workshop. It was at this time that I restated the Committee's intent to condense the material, separate the goals, polices, and the meat of the plan, from the narrative text. No one present at this workshop expressed any opposition to this proposal nor was any specific input provided by Committee members. The Auditor's Office was chazged with this arduous task. In June of this year, Bill 163 Draft 2 was completed and circulated. Upon surfacing Bill 163, Draft 2, and since then, there has been the presumption that the Council would immediately adopt the proposed draft. As such, the accusation of "shoving it down the public's throat" has been uttered. Existing procedures in the General Plan Charter "require" the Council to request the Planning Department and Planning Commission to review any proposed revisions. After the receipt of the Council's proposed changes, they have a combined total of 120 days to return it back to the Council with recommendations and further revisions. After return of the document there would be, at the minimum, one more public Council meeting before the plan's adoption. From the point the Council sends it to Planning level, until the point the plan can be adopted by the Council, there is a bare minimum of 130 days. At each point along the way and at each level, there is opportunity for public input and amendments. The Counci] adopting a plan expeditiously on the sly without public input is simply impossible. To my surprise, much of the dissatisfaction with content of Bill 163, Draft 2 has been aimed at information that was proposed in the prior draft. This is particularly the case with several map changes and many policies. For example, there has been some concern over an urban core designated on the LUPAG Map for both Niulii and Paipaikou. Both designations were carried forward from Draft 1. Draft 2, in its simplicity, was more readable and therefore the objections were only then noticed in Draft 2. Along the same line, is the definition and use of the LUPAG map and the General Plan. Conceptually, the LUPAG is a graphic expression of the plan, particularly those relating to land use. The LUPAG is not the General Plan. Nor is the General Plan an exact expression of the map. The Charter states that zonings and CIP projects must be consistent with the General Plan, not just the map. The map or plan itself does not stand- alone. They are interconnected counterparts. The LUPAG is also not a zoning map done to scale, which is clearly noted on LUPAG Maps sent to the Council for review. Appropriately, the Land Use Element language in Draft 1 says that other factors besides simply map consistency must be considered in determining appropriate land use (GP, D 1, pg. 340). Draft 1 also allowed for land uses not delegated on the map through district Courses of Action as the need arose for such (GP, D1, pg. 383, 384, 386, 388, 389). The wording in Draft 2 in relation to the LUPAG and retention of the "floating zone" concept from the current General Plan aimed at putting the expressed intent of language in Draft 1 2