Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 003 01/04/2005 2004-2006 MINORITY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: January 4, 2005 Re: Communication No. 493/Bill No. l63 PLACE: Councilroom TIME: 2:00 p.m. Chairman and Council Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, HI 96720 In accordance with Rule No. 11, subparagraph 5, Rules of Procedure of the Hawaii County Council, I am filing a Minority Report to the Report of the Committee on Planning No. 2 concerning Bill No. 163, adopting a new General Plan for the County of Hawaii and repealing the current General Plan and its subsequent amendments. I have the following substantive reservations with Draft 4 of Bill No. 163: 1. Bill No. 163 has been before the Council since January 2002. This is the third Council to review the bill. The Council has conducted numerous meetings, hearings and workshops on this bill. The Council has received much public testimony. Yet, little has changed. Legitimate input has not been considered. Substantive concerns by the public have not been addressed. 2. Bill No. 163 implies that the operating budget must comply with the General Plan. This is suggested in Figure 1 (found on page 4 of the bill and page 6 of the Ramseyer Version) as well as the annual report requirement (found on page 334 of the bill and page 429 of the Ramseyer Version). If the operating budget had to be consistent with the General Plan, the County could face legal liability from the failure to provide adequate operational funding to meet General Plan standards and policies. 3. Bill No. 163 does not include community vision statements. The purpose of the General Plan, as laid out in its own introduction, is to "identify the visions, values, and priorities important to people of this County." The community has called on us to include vision statements. This draft fails to include them. 4. Bill No. 163 does not identify the time horizon for which it is planning. 5. Bill No. 163 identifies Important Agricultural Land without sufficient analysis. Are these lands being designated because they are important to agriculture, or because they are important for open space or for lifestyle issues? Constitutionally, Important Agricultural Lands should be identified by the State. Because of this constitutional mandate, it is not currently the County's legal responsibility to identify Important Agricultural Lands. However, the most meaningful designations should be done by those actually farming the land or planning to do so. I support the Committee's efforts to restore the classifications for Hokulia and the surrounding properties. However, the basis of those amendments should be applied in a comprehensive manner, rather than aproperty-by-property decision. 6. I see no reason to create the new definition for "Conservation" where we already have an "Open" designation. I worry that the more restrictive classification of lands opens up the issue of takings litigation. Accordingly, 1 support the Committee's efforts to restore the classifications for Keopuka and Kohanaiki. 7. Bill No. 163 requires that the Council enact the comprehensive changes to the General Plan within I20 days. This timeframe makes a mockery of the Council's decision-making process when it comes to complex, islandwide measures. The Council's hands should not be tied. 8. Bill No. 163 should be amended to allow the Council to amend the General Plan even if the planning director disagrees with the Council's proposal. 9. Bill No. l63 includes internal inconsistencies. For example, while the bill calls for rezonings to be consistent with the LUPAG map, there is language in the text that allows for development to be inconsistent with the map (see e.g., pages 296, 297, 298, and 301 of the bill and pages 383, 384, 386, 388, and 389 of the Ramseyer Version). 10. Bill No. 163 appears to be rigid in its requirements and does not offer sufficient flexibility to respond to new community or island needs or demands. 11. The Council has failed to examine the consequences of requiring the implementation of rp oposed regulations of other levels of government. This County does not have the resources to monitor and enforce the rp oposed laws of other levels of government. For example, this County should not be requiring the implementation of the State's draft nonpoint source pollution program until it has been adopted by the responsible State agency. 12. The fire and police departments should have provided more input into the standards applicable to them. Have the other departments been given an opportunity to review and comment on goals, policies and standards affecting them? 2 13. The General Plan may not identify all projects and programs to be funded through the capital program. For example, Bill No. 163 fails to identify the importance of waste reduction technologies, other than landfills, recycling and green waste diversion. Will this failure jeopazdize the County's desire or ability to develop high technology solutions and, therefore, to obtain capital funding? Similazly, other projects or programs that are not mentioned in the General Plan may lose their legitimacy. Does the Council know what those projects or programs could be? For these reasons, I am not in accord with the intent and purpose of Bill No. 163, and am recommending that it not be approved. Respectfully submitted, h~ ~K JAME ' AKAKI COUNCIL MEMBER I have been on medical leave for the December 20, 2004 and January 4, 2005 Planning Committee meetings. My request to defer Bill No. 163 was also denied by the Committee at the December 2004 meeting. Noting the Committee made several amendments on January 4`h, I concur with the issues raised in this report and do not recommend approval of Bill No. 163, Drafr 4. Respectfully submitted, FRED HOLSCHUH COUNCIL MEMBER PC Report No. 3 3