Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0045.049 2002-2004 CO~.JN`I"Y ~IAWAI`I ~ILI, 1V0. X63 Daft 3 °~c~~~~a ::f<::::>::: I~.:4i~~i~trL >r €~,~~risLeQ ' ti43k27 ~s: ..::.::::;tl ':.f:'::::.:..:. ':.rC.vv:::::Ci? is?: .#.~:~d~.RJ j n~:; ::;/.,f ~~tt iii:•{r'' . . :~il+: . r,C.. :~i% n r.rfr......r...?r.> . ....j e:. ..{..rtr . ..l. i r'.'rrf:•••i• .r r'li... ~ + ~f£ ~ :f• 'f. .''•~f . t..:S''. :::Y::::$:r ~S:ih. SY rl iiiiin. t • :..g::::::::::s:: nom' ~:'tia'~ f >f s: %f o.e.o s• f- ~a ~ dr e n ~~~lfj°Jn s • a a~. p 8 ~ B: 4` i ~5~~ Abp... ~pgY,::~.r~.'y~'~~~ ~~~g 94OT BA°s~- ?v os Leningrad Elarionoff Hilo Tel: (808) 961-8225 Councilman •tI'p'~V~' Fax: (808) 961-8912 RECEIVE COUNTY COUNCIL ~ ~1~~ ~zBy County of Hawaii Coumy Coundl Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 November 10, 2004 MEMO TO: James Y. Arakaki, Chair embers,~Hawaii C ty Council FROM: L mgrad Elario , Cuh ' Committee on Pl ing RE: Bill 163, Draft 3 relating to the Hawaii County General Plan Attached is Bill No. 163, Draft 3, relating to the comprehensive revision of the Hawaii County General Plan. Please have it referred to the Planning Committee for consideration at the next meeting. It is my intent to request that Bill 163, Draft 3 be deferred in order to allow for public hearings and further amendments by the incoming Council. Bill No. 163, Draft 3 is inclusive of many of the additions and modifications that have been suggested by members of the public, Councilmembers and the Planning Director. The attached letter from the Auditor's Office explains changes in Bill 163, Draft 3 in more detail. In summation, Bill 163, Draft 3, includes the following: I . Renumbering and reformatting of the document 2. Addition of District of Courses of Action 3. Adoption of Development Plans by Ordinance 4. Revision of language in relation to the General Plan and maps 5. Addition of language for departmental performanceand/or strategic plan adoption and General Plan implementation at the County Level 6. Revision of Agriculture Designation to include Prime & Unique Lands For informational purposes, I offer the following comments on parts of Bill 163, Draft 3. Renumbering & Reformatting: In the hopes of making the General Plan even more reader friendly, a decimal and chapter system has been integrated into Bill 163, Draft 3. Comm. Ho: y Jam. / Ref. To: 1311 Dr j~ DrsTRICT9 Ref. Dote,NOV 12 2 04 _1 Kohala, Waimea, Waikoloa, Kawaihae Courses of Action: District Courses of Action (COA's) are included now in Draft 3. Upon review, it will become obvious that there exists a redundancy between policies and COA's; and that COA's are inconsistent because items are present in some districts as well as elements, but not in all. It maybe more appropriate for the Council to develop Island-Wide Courses of Action or to further adapt COA's into policies so that they are applicable Countywide. Development Plans: Draft 3 includes language that mandates the adoption of Development Plan's by Council ordinance and sets the criteria for plan formulation. Often in govemm~ent the "squeaky wheel gets the grease", whether it is in need of it or not. Draft 3 seeks to move beyond simple vociferous demonstration. It not only challenges the Council to prioritize plans and to initiate plans by resolution, but also to justify prioritization based on actual conditions, population and other tangible factors. There are several areas on our Island that are underserved in terms of infrastructure and facilities that aze also faced with continuous population growth. In some places, these conditions have existed for many years. Specifically, the Puna District comes to mind. Such areas should be considered high priority in development plan formulation. General Plan & Maps: Misconstrued language regazding the role of the General Plan and maps have been removed in Draft 3. In relation to the LUPAG, statements presently included on Planning Department LUPAG maps aze incorporated into the Land Use Element and throughout the document. The intent here is two fold. First, to implement Charter language, this stresses consistency with the General Plan as a whole. Secondly, to balance the importance of all the elements of the General Plan. To reiterate, eazlier communication, the LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide) is a graphic expression of the plan, particulazly on land use. It does not and should not stand-alone. There have already been applications that have come before the Council, in which map consistency was questionable, yet the item received a favorable recommendation from the Planning Department. In many regards, this is reflective of the fact that there aze a lot of policies and objectives not expressed on the LUPAG or other maps that aze just as crucial in the proper development of our Island. For example, azeas of Natural Beauty aze not mapped. Does that mean they aze not as vita] as the LUPAG or the Roadway Map? Another is the idea of rural districts and communities expressed in many vision statements. For many of us, even the mapped urban areas or centers aze meant to have an underlying rural feel or atmosphere rather than the typical skyscraper city-like make-up. This is not completely reflected on the LUPAG map. At the least, it would be necessary to read several parts of the General Plan as well as perhaps the zoning and building codes in order to fully grasp this concept. This being the case, future consideration of the General Plan and Maps, should only be done collectively with other pertinent core materials and with full acceptance of the role and purpose of the General Plan as well as other regulatory codes. If there is a need to implement supplementary regulatory measures at a subsequent level in the hierazchy ofstatutes/ordinances. then the Council should pursue that avenue. Doing so will ensure the adoption of a functional General Plan for our County and applicable ordinances to enforce and implement it. Strategic Performance Plans: Included in Draft 3 is language that mandates County departments to develop Strategic/Performance Plans to implement the General Plan. This is a new concept and addition to the plan. The aim here is to compel the County as a whole to examine our functions, responsibilities, goals, and objectives. At some point, as a County we need to move beyond simply maintaining the "status quo" and plan for our needs, i.e. parks, roads, protective service, into the future. Agriculture Intensive Definition: The definition has been expanded to include lands that aze classified by the State as Prime and Unique. This hopefully will address concerns in relation to IAL. In the months ahead, I urge the Council to lobby the State to act on this matter. I also challenge the Council to thoroughly review all background information when considering the idea of IAL. It may also be beneficial to the Council to run various models and scenarios of possible impacts in relation to the use or not of the IAL designation. In recent weeks, there has been much clamor about the future of General Plan and its adoption. There is even talk of going back to draft 1 and adopting it in entirety. Of course, this is the Council's prerogative. However, it is important to note that it was never expressed to me by any member of the Council that this Bill 163, Draft 1 as proposed, was the best and only possible alternative for Council action. In fact, since the plan was first received in 2002 and before Bill 163, Draft 2, the Council held the proposed plan with no significant action. At anytime during this period, a member could have officially initiated the process for consideration, adoption, or make amendments. No amendments were proposed nor did anyone officially request review of the plan. When I took this job on, I confirmed that the lengthy deferral represented that Council's desires to make more then minor editing adjustments, but to actually make amendments to proposed revisions to the plan. No resistance was presented. If the Council's real intent was to simply, adopt what was presented in Draft 1 in totality that could have been done by this Council long ago. Instead, Councilmembers participated in the amendment process by meeting with the Auditor's Office and adding significant modifications and additions of language via district vision statements and various map changes. There is still much work that needs to be done on the General Plan. This is true no matter, which draft is pursued. I do not believe that any one document can be considered an exemplary canon, by which to plan for our future. I do believe, however, that the final document should be easily understood and present a clear and positive picture of the future for all of us. The General Plan should be representative of all our hopes and desires for our Island not selectively, but collectively. Above all, like it or not, it must plan for and address growth. In this regazd, I believe Bill 163, Draft 3 is a start on the right track. In closing, I urge the Council to remember that it is this body's responsibility to adopt a General Plan for our County. Yes, it is a difficult task, but it is one that is statutorily required. Of course, it would be much easier to bid it out, send it back to the planning depaztment, or even give it to someone else to tackle. However, the people of this Island have elected you to handle their business and this is a very big part of it. At this point, to pawn it off on someone else because it is simply too hazd to complete would clearly be punting your public service duties and legislative responsibilities. I wish you luck in pursuing this matter in the months ahead. I am confident that the new Council will persist with this task diligently, and in the end adopt a viable, applicable and forward thinking General Plan for the Island we all call home. LE/ctd Attachment Bill 163, Draft 3 AL KONISHI `~~`rp~`` CONSTANCE R. KIRIU County Clerk Legislative Auditor JAY MENDE Deputy County Clerk County of Hawai `i Office of the County Clerk 25 Aupuni Stree7 Hilo, Hawaii 96710 Telephone: (808) 961-8386 Facsimile: (808) 961-8572 November 9, 2004 TO: Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair Committee on Planning FROM: Constance R. Kiriu Legislative Auditor Charmaine Doran Assistant to the Legislative Auditor RE: Bill No. 163, Draft 3 General Plan Comprehensive Review As you requested, we have prepared the attached Bill No. 163, Draft 3 after considering public testimony, council member comments and Planning Director Chris Yuen's memorandum dated June 14, 2004, on Bill No. 163, Draft 2. We also met with the Planning Director and interested council members after the Planning Committee workshops on Draft 2. Many suggestions have been incorporated into Draft 3 as a result of those discussions and public testimony. Those include requiring development plans to be adopted by ordinance, dropping the reference to the non-regulatory nature of the General Plan, making a distinction between development plans and facility plans, providing separate objective and policies for intensive agricultural lands, reinstating district courses of action, restoring several policies in the'Natural Beauty, Resources, and Environmental Quality Element,' and changing the page numbering format. Except for one correction, no map changes have been proposed from Draft 2 to Draft 3. Individual LUPAG map and facilities map changes should ultimately be reflected as the text is amended by council members. COMMENTS Doesn't the County have aGenera/ P/an? Another common misunderstanding we heard in testimony was the idea that Bill No. 163 should be passed in order to have a General Plan. The County of Hawaii has a General Plan (Ordinance No. 439, as amended) which is fully in effect and will continue to be the comprehensive policy planning document for this County until otherwise amended. The process currently undertaken is the comprehensive review of the existing General Plan, which is mandated by the plan itself. The existing General Plan until otherwise amended, will continue to be implemented through the County's public improvements and projects, and adopted subdivision and zoning ordinances. Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Genera/ P/an phi/osophy i+evisited? The General Plan as adopted in 1971, and as amended since, was developed as an innovative departure from traditional planning efforts at that time. Whereas previous planning efforts for the County were regional (i.e. Hilo, Kona) and were primarily land use oriented with no real island wide integrative coordination, the 1971 General Plan set forth policy statements to guide the comprehensive future growth of the entire island. Driven by these interrelated elements, the General Plan is a true policy document in that a change in one or more elements would be reflected in a greater or lesser degree in all other elements as well as the land use allocation pattern(s). Similarly, a change in County goals and objectives would in turn be reflected in all elements including the land use allocation pattern(s). The interrelationship of the General Plan elements begins with the Economic Element, the cornerstone that describes the island's economic opportunities and related factors which generate population growth. The Environmental Quality, Energy, Historic Sites, Natural Beauty, and Natural Resources and Shoreline Elements describe those natural and social conditions which influence and set parameters for development opportunities on the island. The Housing, Public Facilities, Flood Control and Drainage, Recreation and Transportation Elements provide guidance to implement those services, facilities and public improvements required to support the economy and associated population growth. The Land Use Element articulates the use allocation and preferred distribution pattern of the various activities described in the other elements of the General Plan, and the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map identifies general locations of categories of use in relation to each other. For example, if the Economic Element gave more weight to the projected economic impact of the military's presence on the Big Island, adjustments would be necessary in all elements to reflect that policy direction. The Energy Element is another example of how the General Plan and its policy-oriented approach responds to changing economic and social trends in a comprehensive manner. The Energy Element was added to the list of original planning elements during the General Plan review of 1978. At that time, Hawai'i's near total dependence on imported petroleum and the gasoline crisis of 1974 launched a Statewide coordinated effort to address Hawai is future energy needs. Although the General Plan mandatory review was primarily with the LUPAG maps, the focus on the Big Island for energy alternatives, such as geothermal and OTEC necessitated the development of a separate General Plan policy element to address the Energy issue in relation to all the other existing policy elements. Drafts 2 and 3 reduced the number of elements from thirteen to seven. Nevertheless, the planning philosophy and methodology have remained the same. As a policy planning document, the General Plan tells us what broad interests we have identified, what to protect, and what to strive for. It does not, however, specifically tell us where, when, how, and in what order a certain program or project should be started in order for us to achieve the kind of future it identifies. That is the role of the "mid level" plans, such as community development plans (CDP's), functional plans (recreation, historic sites, etc.), and area improvement plans (Hilo Downtown Development Plan, Kailua Village Design Plan, Keahole to Kailua Plan, etc.), which, in conjunction with implementing programs at the "action" level of government (capital improvements programs, operating budget, zoning and subdivision codes, park dedication ordinances, etc.) round out our County's comprehensive planning and implementation program. 2 There is no denying that over the years, the "mid level" implementation efforts have largely been non- existent and thus, the burden of implementing the General Plan has been left to the "action" (administrative) level of government. It is not surprising, then, that many of the proposals advanced in Bill No. 163, Draft 1 appear to bring more specificity to the various elements and sub-elements of the General Plan in an effort to' regulate and enforce' rather than to implement its policies. The Council should carefully consider the long-term ramifications of this shift in planning philosophy. Fundamentally, the Council has no choice in the matter; the statutes and Charter are clear: the General Plan is the comprehensive policy planning document of the County. Changes to such a document should not be made nor taken lightly, and the Council should carefully consider each and every amendment to ensure that the integrity of the plan is maintained. Revisions should strengthen the policy aspects of the plan and not burden the document by the inclusion of procedural and other implementing details that could inhibit and constrain the equal application of County policy on a comprehensive rather than site specific or issue specific basis. It is very important that the Council understand the philosophy of the General Plan, for without it, it could easily turn into a document that may not follow the framework envisioned by its founders in statutes and the Hawaii County Charter. What must this Genera/ P/an amendment o~ revision process aaaomp/ish? Chapter 46-4, Hawai i Revised Statutes, requires the preparation of a comprehensive general plan to guide the overall future deve%pmentof the county. The Charter provides similar language. The Council's role is clear in that all revisions or amendments to the General Plan shall ensure that they are, in the Council's judgement, beneficial to the social, economic, and governmental conditions and trends of the County; to assure the coordinated development of the County; and to promote the general welfare and prosperity of its people. Considered revisions should be positive rather than negative; inclusive rather than exclusive; and more importantly, be thoughtful and have foresight. MAJOR CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT 2 AND DRAFT 3 Statutory Authority Chapter 226-58, HRS, has been added to Draft 3. It was not cited in Drafts 1 or 2. General Plan Program Implementation Draft 2 contains the statement "It is therefore, not intended to be regulatory like the zoning code or other land use regulations, but flexible and resilient." This statement has created misunderstanding and confusion as to the mandatory role of the General Plan as a County policy document and has thus been deleted in Draft 3. The General Plan is the Council's comprehensive policy document for directing the future of the Big Island, and serves as the legal foundation for all of the other elements of the County's planning structure, including the adoption of such implementing, rather than regulatory, mechanisms such as the zoning and subdivision codes, or other land use reviews and standards. In this enabling context, the General Plan is clearly non- regulatory and thus no further statement in that regard is deemed necessary. 3 Draft 2 included facility planning with development planning. Draft 3 makes a distinction between development plans and facility plans, but requires both to be initiated by Council resolution. Draft 2 left the method of adopting a development plan up to the Council. Draft 3 requires that development and facility plans be adopted by ordinance. Once adopted, five-year reviews by the administration are mandated. Draft 1 places the responsibility for preparing a community development plan largely with a steering committee rather than the planning director. This appears to be inconsistent with the Hawaii County Charter. The annual reporting requirement of General Plan goals, objectives, and policies by the Planning Department in Draft 1 was dropped in Draft 2. The annual reporting requirement has been reinstated in Draft 3, but with greater specificity. District Vision Statements The existing General Plan and Draft 1 do not contain island-wide or district vision statements. Draft 2 contained eight (8) district visions statements by combining the districts of North Hilo and Hamakua. Draft 3 separates the district vision statements for North Hilo and Hamakua, reverting back to a total of nine (9) district vision statements. District vision statements have been refined by council members. However, we recommend the district vision statements communicate an understanding of the role of the district in relation to the rest of the island community. District Courses of Action District Courses of Action contained in Draft 1 have been included in their entirety in Draft 3. Please note redundancies, the lack of consistency across the planning elements, and the fact that numerous courses of action were moved to the appropriate policy section in Draft 2. District Courses of Action will require major editing. The inclusion of district courses of action will "front-load" the General Plan and, therefore, tend to mitigate the need for immediate implementation of development plans. Policymakers must also re-examine the function of district courses of action. If the County's capital improvements program and projects must be consistent with the General Plan, does that mean capital projects should be listed in the General Plan? What are the consequences of not stating a capital project in the General Plan? Should the General Plan's district courses of action be amended if a development plan's implementation differs or is expanded? What are the consequences of moving forward on a course of action not specifically listed in the General Plan? Formatting Draft 3 has been reformatted by (1) separately numbering headings in each chapter, (2) separately numbering the pages by chapter, and (3) showing the chapter title next to the right-hand page number and the document title "County of Hawai i General Plan" next to the left- hand page number. 4 Land Use • Draft 1 designates certain lands as Important Agricultural Lands and adds related policies. Perhaps the greatest concern expressed of Draft 2 was its elimination of Important Agricultural Lands as a LUPAG designation and placing the responsibility for identifying, protecting, and conserving Important Agricultural Lands with the State of Hawaii. This action was taken because of the State of Hawaii Constitution and a Hawai'I Supreme Court decision that places this responsibility with the State legislature. While the County can assert its authority to guide the physical development of the island through the General Plan and its implementation, it should be methodical in the identification of the agricultural lands. Draft 3 identifies Intensive Agricultural lands as the starting point for a comprehensive Intensive Agricultural program. It also acknowledges the need for detailed mapping and a program that promotes agriculture through degrees of government protection, intervention, and support as well as the extent of private action. Like Draft 1, Draft 3 includes (1) lands identified as Intensive Agriculture in the existing General Plan, (2) Prime and Unique land classes in the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) system, and (3) lands in the Kona coffee belt. Unlike Draft 1, Draft 3 does not contain Draft 1 category of "Lands classified as at least "fair" for two or more crops, on an irrigated basis, by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service's study of suitability for various crops. " Through recent Finance Committee meetings on the County's real property agricultural tax policies, the Council learned the complexities of the agricultural industry, 'gentlemen' farming, backyard gardening and subsistence living. Council Members heard about the breadth of agricultural activities occurring on this island. The Council learned, in part, that (1) farming cannot be forced, (2) the success of agriculture does not necessarily depend upon the size of a parcel of land or the quality of the soils, and (3) there is more land than farmers. Almost everyone supports agriculture, but far fewer people are actually working farmers who support their families by farm-earned income. It is ironic that zoning and preservation of important agricultural lands does not, in itself, assure successful agricultural enterprise. Farms are cultivated and preserved by hard-working and dedicated farmers. So, will the General Plan objectives and policies and their implementation promote the agricultural industry or are they designed to promote a desirable lifestyle? Are the objectives and policies of open space and rural lifestyle compatible with those of agricultural land use? Therefore, the encouragement of productive utilization of the County's agricultural lands must be done with great insight and clarity to assure the Council achieves its objectives. That will be the Council's challenge. • The description of Conservation lands in Draft 1 is problematic in that it does not distinguish between the State's conservation lands and those distinctly designated Conservation by the General Plan. Draft 2 rolled back the Conservation lands description to the existing General Plan. However, it was learned that the reason for the description in Draft 1 was to accommodate particular circumstances, such as Keopuka. Knowing that, Draft 3 makes a distinction between the two Conservation districts. Otherwise, it is possible that the County General Plan Conservation description of uses will supercede uses permitted in the State Land Conservation District. If that is the intent, the General Plan should say so and the Council should understand its implications. 5 Land Use Table Puna Makai-Resort Area should be listed as "Retreat" rather than "Minor." Natural Beauty, Resources, and Environmental Quality Draft 1 new policy reinstated in Draft 3: "Protect the views of areas endowed with natural beauty by carefully considering the effects of proposed construction during land use reviews." Existing General Plan and Draft 1 policy reinstated in Draft 3: "Encourage an overall conservation ethic in the use of Hawai'i's resources by protecting, preserving, and conserving the critical and significant natural resources of the County." Existing General Plan and Draft 1 policy reinstated in Draft 3: "Review the County's grading and grubbing laws to ensure that they adequately address potential erosion and runoff problems." Thank you for your patience and consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. 6