2007-08-31 TCOUNCIL-PUDCPD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

from actually adopting their change. But on No. 8, they can actually adopt it and proceed. And what I think the Planning Department is not doing is providing an alternative to what they’re at least thinking about doing. I don’t know whether I’m making sense, but if you combine with what I just said with what Commissioner Iwashita says – and I’m not saying that I’m in favor of his entire thoughts about planning and development – but you know there is this community pressure to change, and I guess the Council is reacting to that. And if the Planning Department doesn’t come up with an alternative solution, or convince the Council that what we are doing presently is the best way, and the public convincing them that this is the best way, we are going to have, I’m afraid, No. 8 adopted by the Council, which you know I guess everybody on this table agrees that we don’t want to happen. But at the same time, we don’t want it to happen, but we propose no solution whether political or whatever to assist the Council and getting them to think in a different way. That’s my whole thrust. Thanks. GRAHAM: Thank you for those thoughts. They seem very clear. Do you have any comment, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: I actually think that, I’m sure that there is more concern about subdivisions actually than Planned Unit Developments; and what you raised, it’s always a][ question when there is a proposal that may have some things wrong with it; do you simply oppose it, or do you present an alternative? In many cases, as you see, we presented alternatives. I don’t have a great alternative, particularly with respect to P.U.D.s because I think that the process is basically sound. The P.U.D., you are not making a basic change in the use of the property by granting a P.U.D. And my feeling is that if the Council fully reviews it, they will see that the P.U.D. process is not currently the problem. I did mention in the Recommendation, although we did not do a bill to this effect, that there is one aspect of the P.U.D. that I think is questionable; and that is the increase in height limits, possible for the Director to do under a P.U.D. That, I think, is a kind of thing that would concern and affect a lot of people, and I would have no problem if the Council took that out of the P.U.D. power. But we did not do a specific bill on that. And basically as far as the overall thrust of the bill, because it was a bill that took this and made it a matter that would be processed in front of the Council like a rezoning, we did oppose that. GRAHAM: All right. Any further comments? Oh, there is Jeff. I thought you disappeared. Would you take a roll call vote on that motion by Commissioner Watanabe? DARROW: Sure. The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the County Council initiated amendment to Chapter 25 regarding P.U.D.s and C.P.D.s, and also to Chapter 23. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? EXHIBIT G 3