2007-08-31 TCOUNCIL-SUBDIVISION - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

which prohibits the Council from substituting itself for the administration in terms of having the final say on Planned Unit Developments. Under the current practice, as it laid out in the Zoning Code, these applications go to the Planning Director, there is a time frame, there is notice to neighbors, there is publication in the newspaper, but the Planning Director makes final decision. The Council bill as proposed would say that the Council would make final decision for Planned Unit Development. Again we have a negative recommendation on that. We think that this would actually discourage people from using this route, by creating a much longer and more political process to get something that does not change the ultimate use of the property or the ultimate density of the property. And taken as a whole, the existing requirements do safeguard the opportunity for public to comment on Planned Unit Development. So again we have a negative recommendation on this with no alternative bill. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. So you spoke to both Item 7 and Item 8 on our agenda here. I might ask the public – I have no one signed up to speak on neither these Items – if you want to speak, please sign up at the end of the table. Since I only announced Item 7, I think that’s all we should really deal with here first. Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Yuen? Yes, Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Well, not so much a question, as a comment from looking over this information that I have. I have a couple of concerns with it. One is the question of taking a function of the administration and turning it over to the legislative branch. The second is you’re going to be taking it to people who have no expertise in that area.You have expertise. I’d much rather have you review it and give a recommendation than to have a bunch of politicos go over it and hash it out for political reasons. So I think for a number of reasons both of these are bad bills. And I think that the crossover between taking something that was an administrative function and the legislature co-opting it is a really bad precedent. And again, I get back to the question, too, of giving the item to somebody who has expertise, and it’s not the County Council. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Woodward. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree totally with Commissioner Woodward. I think it’s a bad idea. I agree with the Director.And I’m just waiting for a motion. GRAHAM: Any other comments from the Commissioners? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: You are not waiting for me to talk? I think, you know, my limited experience on the Commission thus far, last couple of years, has taught me one thing; and that is that there is a lot of concern in the community about how development is going, and concurrency, and those kinds of issues. And I think that part of that is based upon just looking to the other side of the Alenuihaha Channel and seeing what happened over there in the last 30, 40 years. And then going past Molokai and seeing what happened on Oahu. And you know, that’s just a general concern that, and so these kinds of, and we’ve seen these kinds of Band-Aid legislative remedies being proposed to try and slow down that or get more control over it or change the way things happened. But the concern is they are not, I don’t think that, you know, the concern’s going to go away. My view is that the box that we work in, Land Use Law, and I don’t call it planning, because everything on Oahu was planned and everything on Maui was planned. You know, using these laws, if you want to use that term, I for one don’t like the result EXHIBIT F 3