Laserfiche WebLink
Draft 2 included facility planning with development planning. Draft 3 makes a distinction between <br /> development plans and facility plans, but requires both to be initiated by Council resolution. <br /> Draft 2 left the method of adopting a development plan up to the Council. Draft 3 requires that <br /> development and facility plans be adopted by ordinance. Once adopted, five-year reviews by the <br /> administration are mandated. <br /> Draft 1 places the responsibility for preparing a community development plan largely with a <br /> steering committee rather than the planning director. This appears to be inconsistent with the <br /> Hawaii County Charter. <br /> The annual reporting requirement of General Plan goals, objectives, and policies by the Planning <br /> Department in Draft 1 was dropped in Draft 2. The annual reporting requirement has been <br /> reinstated in Draft 3, but with greater specificity. <br /> District Vision Statements <br /> The existing General Plan and Draft 1 do not contain island-wide or district vision statements. <br /> Draft 2 contained eight (8) district visions statements by combining the districts of North Hilo and <br /> Hamakua. Draft 3 separates the district vision statements for North Hilo and Hamakua, reverting <br /> back to a total of nine (9) district vision statements. <br /> District vision statements have been refined by council members. However, we recommend the <br /> district vision statements communicate an understanding of the role of the district in relation to <br /> the rest of the island community. <br /> District Courses of Action <br /> District Courses of Action contained in Draft 1 have been included in their entirety in Draft 3. <br /> Please note redundancies, the lack of consistency across the planning elements, and the fact that <br /> numerous courses of action were moved to the appropriate policy section in Draft 2. District <br /> Courses of Action will require major editing. <br /> The inclusion of district courses of action will "front-load" the General Plan and, therefore, tend to <br /> mitigate the need for immediate implementation of development plans. Policymakers must also <br /> re-examine the function of district courses of action. If the County's capital improvements <br /> program and projects must be consistent with the General Plan, does that mean capital projects <br /> should be listed in the General Plan? What are the consequences of not stating a capital project in <br /> the General Plan? Should the General Plan's district courses of action be amended if a <br /> development plan's implementation differs or is expanded? What are the consequences of moving <br /> forward on a course of action not specifically listed in the General Plan? <br /> <br /> Formatting <br /> Draft 3 has been reformatted by (1) separately numbering headings in each chapter, <br /> (2) separately numbering the pages by chapter, and (3) showing the chapter title next to the <br /> right-hand page number and the document title "County of Hawai i General Plan" next to the left- <br /> hand page number. <br /> 4 <br /> <br />