COM 0045.048 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

intent was to relay the same concepts expressed in Draft 1 more simply and clearly. For the record, I want to state that the charts provided in Bill 163, Draft 2 were provided in order to demonstrate the action taken on policies. I encourage everyone wishing to be involved to first familiarize themselves with the charts and then make specific input and suggestions at the appropriate time. District Courses of Action were removed for reasons that include redundancy as well as the lack of consistency throughout the elements and districts. Many Courses of Action were incorporated into Draft 2 as policies. However, as requested, Courses of Action have been reinstated, as is, into Bill 163, Draft 3. Upon review, it will become apparent that the aforementioned problems still exists and will need to be addressed by the next Council. Development plans are a vital part of implementing the General Plan. As we know, as of now, any group or person may surface a plan, but the finality of making it into law must be carefirlly weighed. Development plans have in the past caused severe community strife when considered by the Council. This being the reality, Bill 163, Draft 2 provided the Council, as the Legislative body, with the option to choose the adoption mechanism. However, because of numerous requests Bill 163, Draft 3 has reinstated the ordinance language proposed in Draft 1 and attempts to organize the compilation of development plans. When addressing development plans in the future, I encourage individual Councilmember's and communities to investigate how many plans currently exists, the number that are adopted, if they are currently adhered to and the validity of each. In closing, I would like to personally thank the Office of the Legislative Auditor who so willingly and tirelessly pursued the task of reorganizing the General Plan into a more practical document. I appreciate the many hours Council Chair James Arakaki and other Councilmembers spent in reading and commenting on the drafts. Planning Director, Chris Yuen, is appreciated for being very supportive of the many proposed revisions in Draft 2 and for tmly exemplifying the spirit of cooperation on matters of disagreement. With the cooperation of all concerned, this document has evolved into a collaborative effort of a "work in progress" to provide a clear General Plan that is understandable, practical and functional. Dealing with the General Plan this past year has been a daunting task as well as being an educational and enlightening one. It has allowed us to make an attempt at describing what we envision for the future of the Island on which we were bom. We undertook this privilege in the hope that our children will be the benefactors for generations to come. 4