2024-09-07 PL-INT-2024-008544 C. Flaherty Additional GP Comments

Home

3. Why wasn't Ramseyer formatting used to show changes between the 9/23 draft GP2045 and the 7/24 draft GP when the two are substantially the same, thereby once and again forcing the public to play seek-and-find for changes? We did a little reorganizing (like shifting the biocultural section to the front). We also shifted a few policies around based on comments and caught a number of mistakes or errors that were corrected. Providing this in Ramseyer format would have been more confusion for most members of the public. 4. Given all goals, policies, standards, and courses of action in the current General Plan were reviewed and evaluated for inclusion in the draft 9/23 and 7/24 GP2045s, why does the General Plan Policy Rationale not identify the specific goals, policies, standards, and courses of action that were or were not included in the draft GP2045s, thereby enabling the general public and decision-makers to determine whether or not they agreed with the Planning Director's recommendations? Although many policies came from the 2005 GP, CDPs, and other planning documents, not all are verbatim, and this was ultimately developed as a new plan that does not lend itself to the Ramseyer style of revisions. It basically would have been a deletion of the old plan and insertion of the new, which would not be helpful. There is also a lot of information in the CDP's regionally that is no longer needed in the GP. Otherwise, they would continue to be redundant. It is very common in the planning profession to overhaul a long-range planning document, revisit all aspects, and rewrite and replace it with a new document. This has been done recently in Kauai and before that Maui. There are countless examples across the country. 5. Why doesn't the Planning Department have a list of the changes between the current GP land use map and the 7/24 draft GP2045 with the location of each change clearly identified and the reason for each change, especially given the Planning Dept could not have prepared the draft GP2045 without having produced this information? Map changes were made based on CDPs and criteria outlined in the methodology reports, which substantiate the change proposed. They were done in an electronic map via GIS that merges many different layers including old and current parcel data, 2005 LUPG, many of which are noted on the disclaimer of the extensive list of polygons provided under the UIPA request. Not all land use designations follow TMK boundaries and there can be many polygons within 1 parcel. So, it is not as simple as you might prefer to provide the information you want in today's world of technology. 6. Why were the number of detailed land use maps reduced from 24 in the current GP to 6 in the 7/24 draft GP, thereby making it effectively impossible to compare printouts from the current GP .pdf with printouts from the 7/24 draft GP .pdf? To simplify the document itself given that the data will always live and be available electronically, which further allows people to zoom in and out as needed for their specific use. 7. Given it is impossible to see the .pdf printout of the land use maps, why does the online Konveio software platform prevent the online map from being copied and printed, thereby impeding analysis and research on changes between the land use maps? The Konveio site does not have a printing function for the GIS map. You could zoom in and use the Print Screen function on your computer. 8. Why does the online Konveio software platform prevent text within the 7/24 draft GP from being copied and printed? This forces people to download the .pdf copy and then switch back- and-forth between the online version when preparing comments using key word searches in the online version and then having to copy and paste from the .pdf copy. 3