The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREP PC 025 04/03/2007 2006-2008 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: Apri13, 2007 Re: Comm. No. 181.1/Bill No. 75 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa 78-128 Ehukai Street Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 TIME: 2:00 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 75, reports as follows: Bill No. 75, transmitted via Communication No. 181.1 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated March 14, 2007, presents an Ordinance amending the Hawaii County General Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. OS 25, Relating to General Plan Amendment Procedures, initiated by the Planning Director. On August 23, 2006, the Hawaii County Council passed a resolution (Resolution No. 430-06, Draft 2) expressing concerns regarding procedures for council-initiated General Plan interim amendments, and requesting that the Planning Director study ambiguous provisions, conflicting and contradictory language and reasonable aspects of timing relating to procedures. Attached as an exhibit to Resolution No. 430-06 was a draft amendment of Section 16-2 (Interim Amendments) of Ordinance OS-25. On January 19, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed and acted on the Council's request for review and comment on a draft ordinance regarding the General Plan amendment procedures as set forth in Resolution No. 430-06 and voted to send a denial recommendation to the County Council. On March 2, 2007 the Planning Commission voted to send a favorable recommendation to the Council on the Planning Director's modified version of the draft bill that was attached to Resolution No. 430-06. Bill No. 75 is an ordinance amending the Hawaii County General Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. OS 25, Relating to General Plan Amendment Procedures. Bill No. 75 amends section 16.1 relating to Comprehensive Review, section 16.2 relating to Interim Amendments, and section 16.3 relating to Rules and Regulations. Communication No. 181.1 reports that the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, considered the above request on March 2, 2007 and recommends favorable consideration of the Planning Director's modified version of the draft bill which was as an exhibit to Resolution 430-06. PC Report No. 25 Communication 181.1 Bi1175 Page 2 of 4 Bill 75 proposes changes to Sections 16.1 and 16.2 of Ordinance No. OS-25, Hawaii County General Plan, as follows: 1. Amends Section 16.1 (Comprehensive Review) to require that the Planning Director submit recommended amendments to the Council not more than 10 years after the adoption of previous comprehensive amendments, establish a deadline for Council-initiated amendments, submit recommendations to the Planning Commission, and notify property owners of amendments re-designating property to Open or Conservation not less than 21 days before the first Commission hearing. Within 150 days of receipt of the Director's recommendations, the Commission shall submit its recommendations to the Council, after which the Council shall adopt an amended General Plan, provided that any modifications which substantially change the general intent or subject matter of a proposed amendment shall be processed as a new interim amendment. 2. Amends Section 16.2 (Interim Amendments) to require the following: (a) In Council-initiated interim amendments, the Director shall submit recommendations to the Commission within 60 days of receipt and comply with the foregoing property owner notification requirement, the Commission shall consider proposed amendments at no less than two meetings and make its recommendations to the Council within 60 days of receipt, and the Council may make modifications within the general intent and subject matter of the proposed amendments provided that any substantial change shall be processed as a new interim amendment; (b) in Director-initiated interim amendments, the Director shall submit recommendations to the Commission and comply with the foregoing property owner notification requirement, the Commission shall submit its recommendations to the Council within 120 days of receipt, and the Council may make modifications within the general intent and subject matter of the proposed amendments provided that any substantial change shall be processed as a new interim amendment; and (c) in applications for interim amendments filed by the general public, aDirector-initiated amendment shall be processed in accordance with the foregoing procedures, and if the Director rejects such application, the Council may initiate the proposed amendment at any time, except during the comprehensive review process, in accordance with the foregoing procedures. At the April 3, 2007 Planning Committee meeting, public testimony was presented by Charles Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty expressed concerns relating to adequate public notice and holding of workshops, the need to allow public submission of proposed amendments to the General Plan and application of automatic approval standards for amendments that are not acted within the required review period. Planning Director Chris Yuen presented a brief overview of how amendments proposed in Bill No. 75 came about and explained that because the amendment process could take as long as seven months to complete, he felt the timeframe could be shortened. Mr. Yuen stated that since there were some inconsistencies and vagueness, he felt the department could come up with a PC Report No. 25 Communication 181.1 Bill 75 Page 3 of 4 revised process instead of reworking the earlier Council-initiated proposal. Mr. Yuen said that Bill No. 75 improved the process and that a major change was that the maximum time within which Council-initiated interim amendments to the General Plan could be processed was no more than four months before it came back to the Council for action. Director Yuen said that under the existing ordinance the Planning Director has 120 days to review General Plan amendments and make recommendations. What is being proposed here is that the Director now has 60 days to complete the review and make recommendations and thereafter, the Commission has 60 days within which to review and make recommendations for consideration by the Council. Council Member Stacy Higa stated he recalled that his concern had to do with the issue of the amount of time it took to complete the review and recommendation process. Mr. Higa noted he finds the Director's proposal more efficient and affords Council Members, especially new Council members, an opportunity to bring forth amendments and complete the process before his or her council term expired. Council Member Brenda Ford reiterated concerns expressed by Mr. Charles Flaherty relating to publication of notices and press releases, allowing the public to initiate General Plan amendments and holding Commission meetings in each district. Director Yuen explained the County ordinance requires that the Planning Director give notice of workshops and though it does not specifically call for publication in a newspaper, that is usually the manner in which notice is given. Director Yuen stated that the County Charter provides that only the Planning Director or the Council may initiate amendments, but that the public may submit written proposals for amendments, requesting the Director or a Council Member to consider initiating the proposed amendment. Mr. Yuen didn't think it was necessary to include public-initiated amendments as part of the process. Council Chair Pete Hoffmann noted that having reduced the timeframe from 190 days to 120 days, he had concern about paragraph 8, section 16.1 of the proposed ordinance that refers to a 150-day period. Director Yuen responded that under the current ordinance the Planning Commission is allowed 90 days within which to hold public hearings and then another 60 days after the close of the public hearings to prepare and submit recommendations. Mr. Yuen explained that the proposed ordinance eliminates reference to the term period for public hearings and rolled both the public hearing and recommendation time periods into one, for a total of 150 days. Council Member Jacobson stated he views the proposed ordinance as a major improvement which demonstrates a great attempt for better results and noted that removal of the provision regarding automatic approval is a great thing which he would like to see applied to other agency processes as well. PC Report No. 25 Communication 181.1 Bill 75 Page 4 of 4 Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 75 and recommends it pass first reading. and nrES NOES w&E Ex Respectfully submitted, FORD X RIGA X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X Ik~DA X ~ ~ L JACOBSON X / NAEOLE X K. ANGEL PILAGO, HAIR PILAGO X YAGONG X PC REPORT NO. 25 YOSHIMOTO X ADOPTED: APR ~ A POO7