Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0820.003 2022-2024P/CR wo Gomm.s20 April 30, 2024 Hawai'i County Council Communications, Reports, and Council Oversight Committee 25 Aupuni St. Hilo HI 96720 Re: Communication 820 - Comments and Questions `' T°w Welina mai Madame Chair and CRCO Committee members,, r� I am submitting as written testimony to the committee essentially the same comments and questions submitted to the Planning Department on the April I` deadline for public comment on the General Plan Comprehensive Review process and draft General Plan 2045, Abbreviations: GP review=General Plan Comprehensive Review process, existing GP=existing 2005 General Plan (as amended), GP2040=first proposed General Plan, GP2045=cur7ently proposed GP, PD=Planning Department, Director --Planning Director, Land Use Patter Allocation Guide=LUPAG, GPLU maps=GP2045 Land Use map, CDP=Community Development Plan In general, the GP2045 has some great content and greatly enhances acknowledgement of cultural rights and resources. However, for a large number of reasons, many of which have already been communicated to the Director and PD in comments received to date, it has been practically an insurmountable challenge for the general public to conduct an effective, informed review of the GP2045. Without exception, members of the general public have struggled with the Konveio platform upon which the GP2045 and GPLU map have been placed. It doesn't work with all browsers, which members of the public had to discover for themselves. In addition, during community "informational meetings" PD staff admitted they were themselves still learning how to use the platform and software packages. Sometimes the GPLU map was inaccessible. In addition, insufficient information and documentation has been provided to allow the general public and decision -makers to be reasonably assured the existing GP has been fairly considered and addressed within the GP2045. The "Policy Rationale" document is a start, but should start with the existing GP and CDPs and work its way to the GP2045 to show the extent to which they have or have not been considered and/or included. As such, the GP2045 should be withdrawn and additional work done to enable the general public, the planning commissions, and the county council to be reasonably informed of all amendments the GP2045 is proposing to make to the existing GP. One potential solution would be for this committee to require the PD to provide you, other decision -makers, and the public with an annotated version of the existing GP. This version of the existing GP would have annotations for the Introduction and Analysis of each Section and Comm. o q 0- 3 Ref. To: Ref. Date __ MAY - 1 2024 each Goal, Policy, Standard, and Course of Action within each section that references where the substance of the language is contained within the draft GP 2045. Where there are no references to the GP2045 within the annotated GP, then we would know it.has been removed from the GP2045. This would enable a truly informed comprehensive review by the public and decision - makers, such as the planning commissions and county council. Regardless, when the next draft of the existing GP is released by the PD, the should conduct open forum presentations, such as charrettes, covering the GP2045 by section and take public comments in real time, as was done when the GP review process was begun back in 2015. Here are some of the reasons supporting withdrawal of the GP2045 by the Director with a resubmission after additional work has been done to allow for a true comparison and general public review of the GP2045 with the existing 2005GP, along with some questions: 1. At some point subsequent to the initial GP review process began in 2015, the Director and/or Planning Department made the decision to draft the GP2040 with completely new language and formatting, rather than amending the 2005GP. This decision was unprecedented in light of the fact the GP review process had been conducted within the same structure and content organization for over 40 years. The existing GP was passed in 2005, but the GP review process began in 2000 and was based upon the same structure and content of the 1989 GP. The 1989 GP review process was based upon the same structure and content as the 1978 GP. The existing GP, 1989 GP and 1978 GP all contained the same elements with each having updated goals, policies, standards, and courses of action. Even the 1971 GP had a similar structure and content organization. Therefore, the existing GP is easily compared to the 1971, 1978 and 1989 GPs, as amended. Those GP review processes also used Ramseyer formatting to clearly identify changes for the general public and decision -makers, such as the planning commission and county council. Changes to the LUPAG maps were specifically pointed out and explained. This provided an enormous amount of history and institutional planning knowledge and context,Questions: When and why was the decision made to draft and release in 2019 a completely rewritten general plan, GP2040? Why weren't obvious challenges to the general public's ability to review and comment not considered? 2. On February 8, 2022, the Director gave the county council an update on the progress of the GP review process. Community testimony and county council members expressed concern that it had been was extremely difficult to compare the existing GP with GP2040 because the formatting, structure, and language had been completed changed. During his response to the council, the Director revealed they were doing additional work on GP2040 in order to bring elements of the CDPs into the GP review process. He "promised" that existing GP would be easier to compare to the new draft. However, not only is the new draft GP2045 not easier to compare to the existing GP, but it bears no relation whatsoever to first draft GP2040. No explanation has been given by the PD or the Director, despite numerous complaints and questions from the public. Questions: When and why was the decision to draft a completely new rewrite of the GP2040? Why didn't the Director keep his promise to the county council and the general public that GP2045 would be easier to compare with the existing GP? 3. The PD hired an outside contractor to assist with drafting the GP2045. The PD decided to use the contractor's online platforms to place the GP2045 and GPLU maps within two separate A.I.-assisted software packages. This decision was made without regard to the general public's ability to access and navigate online content, much less to have the time and expertise to learn the two software packages necessary to read and comment on the GP2045 and GPLU snap. The contractor's online website shows that the platform and software are primarily intended for in-house work communication for businesses and government agencies. Yes, the platform has been used on occasion by governmental agencies, but the PD did not follow those agencies' example of engagement with the public. If it had, the PD would have broken up the GP2045 into sections to be presented and discussed in open community forums and charrettes, rather than being pigeon -holed into "informational meetings" that attempted to teach how to navigate to and within the two software platforms while having the entire GP2045 presented as well. It would have allowed for open discussion in a community setting, rather than being relegated to an individual screen. It would have allowed those who do not have the technical expertise or access to prerequisite technology to actively participate, learn, and comment. At numerous times, members of the public, including former county council members asked that additional public meetings be held using a more informative, open forum format, such as charrettes. In addition, community -based working groups could have been organized by the PD with volunteer subject matter experts to provide support for the PD and the general public in the GP review process.Question: Why did the PD and/or the consultant not listen to members of the public who suggested the using a process similar to the successful one that assisted in drafting and getting the Kona CDP passed within two years? Who were the members of the "Advisory Group" and is there documentation of the results of their work? 4. At some point during the public comment period, the PD placed a document "Policy Rationale" on the contractor's platform. Personally, I only learned about this document about three weeks ago. I do not have a record of receiving notice that this document had been posted and wonder if an e-mail was sent from the PD to participants who had signed up to receive e-mails. Regardless, this document lists GP2045 Objectives 4-34 and 38-49 with the Policies listed under each. Beneath these are specific references to the existing GP, "2019 draft General Plan", and the six Community Development Plans that support these GP2045 Objectives and Policies. This comparison was done the exact opposite of the comparison that should have been made. The content of the existing GP and six CDPs should have been presented with references to where the substance of that content is (or is not) addressed in the GP2045.Question: Why was the Policy Rationale document not prepared and presented to allow the public and decision -makers reasonable assurance that GP2045 effectively addresses all goals, policies, standards, and courses of action within the existing GP? Why were Priority Actions in the GP2045 not similarly compared to existing GP Courses of Action? 5. When reviewing the agendas and minutes of the six CDP Action Committees, it is clear the Planning Department did not sufficiently prioritize and advocate for CDP AC review and comment on the GP2045. For instance, it was only during the last Kona CDP AC meeting that it was pointed out the GPLU maps where inconsistent with the Kone CDP maps. Question: Do other CDP maps conflict with the GPLU map? Will the PD make a better effort to guide and engage with the CDP AC and their communities? G. The changes contained within the GPLU map are not specifically identified and explained. People must learn how to use the "swipe" tool and how to apply data layers in order to identify changes. The PD should withdraw the GPLU until it is able to present it to the public with all changes clearly identified and explained, especially since the GP2045 and GPLU snap trumps subdivision and zoning.Question: For instance, why is the Hokuli'a development moved from "Agriculture" to "Rural" when variances to infrastructure have been granted over the past twenty years because it is designated as agriculture and there is an outstanding petition before the state Land Use Commission to have the subdivision redistricted? How does this change related to Policy 9.1 "Support rezoning and State Land Use reclassification to Rural in alignment with General Plan Rural designation."? Are county resources involved? Is the State Land Use District a layer contained within the GPLU map to allow for review and comment? How does this policy relate to the proposed county legislation related to Transient Accommodation Rentals and Additional Dwelling Units? Why have "Open" and "Important Agriculture Lands" been removed when the county has a Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Committee? Doesn't Priority Action 9.b. undermine the state Agriculture Land Use District? 7. The GP2045 does not contain the term "scenic corridors", despite the fact that enabling county legislation was passed in 2006 to provide for scenic corridors and the 1989GP and existing GP contain language for the highway from the Mamalahoa Highway/Napoopoo Road junction to Keauhou to be a scenic corridor.Question: Why is this scenic corridor removed from the GP2045? May is the Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies report not an Appendix to the GP2045? 8. During a Kona CDP AC meeting, a representative of the PD stated that the GP2045 was going to have an Appendix.Question: Will there be an Appendix to the GP2045 and, if so, shouldn't the release of the GP2045 have been delayed to allow for public review, consideration, and comment of that part of the GP2045? 9. Collaborative Biocultural Stewardship is a great addition to the GP2045, especially considering that lack of guidance in the existing GP and the fact there is no thin red line between constitutionally -protected environment and cultural resources and traditional and customary practices. Still, it is still a new concept for the county and the general public. Please refer to these articles related to biocultural resources. htt s://www.researcli rate.net/ ublicatioti/340167879 Biocultural restoration in _Hawaiialso achieves score _conservation goals and https://www._researchgate.net/publication/359528123 The Legal Framework behind Biocu ltural_Ri�. As the latter article states, "Currently, there are an increasing number of international and national laws, policies, court cases, declarations, and guidelines concerning indigenous peoples, local communities, and the protection of the environment, which provide rights regarding access to land, benefit -sharing, traditional knowledge, carbon emissions, protected areas, and much more. These rights are essentially fragmented: addressed by different bodies, found in diverse sources, and differently treated by different courts, Consequently, indigenous peoples and local communities must engage with a plethora of legal sources to obtain protection for interconnected aspects of their lives which are all part of the same biocultural landscape." The legal environment in which this concept exists within the context of current county law needs to be better explored to ensure that the Policies and Priority Actions under this section manifest the best intentions of Collaborative Biocultural Stewardship. Mahalo for your consideration, Chuck Flaherty