CHC 1979-06-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

If you have a system where the Planning Commission would be in a position to actually initiate or stop general plan amendments, I think that we may be moving in an area where the Planning Commission should become an executive commission. An executive commission would be something comparable to the Water Commission, Liquor Commission, the Police, and so forth. Where the respective directors would be appointed by the commission. In the current setup, under the existing charter, the Planning Director is appointed by the mayor and with the commission then would serve more or less as a sounding board. In researching the whole general plan amendment process, I checked with the three other jurisdictions, the Kauai County, the Maui County, and the City and County of Honolulu. Kauai County is the only county where you have an executive commission where the director is appointed by a planning commission. Maui and the City and County of Honolulu, they were both appointed. by the mayor. In terms of general plan amendments, then , you will find that only in.__ Kauai County would the Planning Commission be in the position to initiate or stop general plan review. In the Counties of Maui and the City and County of Honolulu, similarly like the County of Hawaii , you would have the Planning Director being the initiator and, again, the commission serving more as a sounding board, or as a testing for the Planning Director' s proposals. My general impression, just for overall is that I think that, basically, the existing setup which discusses the general relationship between the commission, the director and the board of appeals, is an acceptable one. I prefer that kind of system as opposed to an executive sort of planning commission. I think if you go back again and just think about the overall need for county wide coordination to the extent that you have many, many executive typesof commissions where none of the directors would become responsive or responsible, directly, to either the council or the mayor then you could, in a sene, have each commission, so- called, pulling at each other. In terms of the other--from what I can understand, the Planning Commission being in a position to delegate some of the variance, or administrative, responsibilities to the Planning Director, I have perfectly no objections to that. I discussed that provision earlier. And also with respects to having the Planning Commission serve like an intermediary appellate body where the authority is granted to the Planning Director to deny or approve variances, if the guy wants to appeal , he can go before the Planning Commission, that, too, I would have no objections. But I think that what really has to be made clear then under that circumstance whether what would then become the function of the Planning Board of Appeals, as it right now reads the Planning Board of Appeals hears action of both the Planning Director_ and the Planning . Commission. So, if you are going to change the function of the Planning Commission wherein they would be in the position to hear appeals by decisions made by the Planning Director then you would also have to change what would then become the function of the Planning Board of Appeals. -7-