COM 0042.027 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

- _-05: 9-13AA~; iP,065983453 iR0651e?a6? 4 ~i -l 1~ 1 Honorable Pete Hbffinann and K. Angel Pilago, Co-Chairs, and Members Committee on Planning Illl January 3, ?005 1 Page 2 understandable." The Auditor then submitted Draft 2, containing a statement of value-based 3 principles, a purpose section, and vision statements projecting desirable concepts for growth and ' lifestyles in each geographical district of the island. On June 14 and 15, 2004, the Committee on Planning held workshops on Bill No. 163, Draft 2, which proposes to repeal the current General Plan (adopted in 1989) and replace it in its entirety. Draft 2 was intended to guide fiiture I development and the provision of infrastructure with less regulatory reliance on a Land Use Pp Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map such as contained in the current plan. Major substantive changes in Draft 2 included; (1) emphasis on concentration and infiIling of urban form and settlement patterns rather than designation of specific urban uses; (2) inclusion of a rural- t agriculture designation which is intended to be distinguishable from the State Rural Distract; and ~ (3) deletion of designated important agricultural lands, which the Auditor believes must first be Y identified by the State. In a detailed respouse, the Planning Director pointed out on June 14, 2004, that the Comrcil had taken no action on Draft 1 of the revised plan, let alone Draft 2, which must first be reviewed by f the Planning Commission before the Council could adopt it. The Director expressed particular concern that map consistency continue to be required between Zoning Code maps and the LUPAG map in the General Plan, which has the force and effect of ]aw. Accordingly, Draft 1 had removed the "floating zone" concept. The Director also noted with concem that Draft 2 retains the Hawaiian Riviera major resort project; retains a large expansion area for Kea'au town; rejects designation of certain Ka'u coastal lands as conservation; and deletes State lands around Kealakekua Bay as conservation. Additionally, the Director recommended that no commercial development be permitted along the Hokuli'a Bypass Highway. Finally, he urged the County not to wait for State action to identify importattt agricultural lands, on the premise that the County has the zoning power under State law to enact programs to protect such lands. Following additional Plaruung Committee workshops on Draft 2, the Legislative Auditor prepared and submitted Draft 3 on November 9, 2004. Major substantive changes in Draft 3 include: (1) deletion of the statement that the General Plan is "not intended to be regulatory"; (2) regnirernent that development and facility plans be adopted by ordinance; (3) inclusion of "district courses of action"; (4) identification of intensive agricultural lands, prime and unique ALISH lands, and the Kona coffee belt; and (5) distinction between the descriptions of State and County conservation lands. We have the following general areas of concern regarding the General Plan Revision Program: • The maior specific concem is that basic infrastructure, particularly highways and schools, is not being developed concurrently with the completion of major development projects. i In recent years, private developers have borne the primary burden of providing adequate offsite infrastructure for their projects, without which the projects will not be processed I I li