Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 047 09/18/2007 2006-2008 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: September 18, 2007 Re: Comm. No. 662/Bill No. 175 PLACE: Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa 78-128 Ehukai Street Kailua-Kona, Hawaii TIME: 1:00 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 175, reports as follows: Bill No. 175, transmitted via Communication No. 662 from K. Angel Pilago, Council Member, dated September 7, 2007, transmitting an ordinance to Initiate a Charter Amendment to Article VI, Chapter 4, of the Hawaii County Charter (2000), establishing Windward and Leewazd Planning Commissions. Communication No. 662 reports that over the past several decades, construction and development occurring in leeward Hawaii is the result of rezoning applications approved many years ago. It further states that the windward district is also experiencing an unprecedented rise in development and infrastructure pressures similar to that which has manifested in leeward Hawaii over the years. The proposal for two independent planning commissions would focus deliberations upon and assure sensitive consideration of the unique demographics with Hawaii County and eliminate the perception of a "one-size-fits-all" method of planning. Communication No. 662 also notes that a windward planning commission and a leeward planning commission would be based upon judicial districts as demarcated by district boundazies set forth in §4-1(1), Hawaii Revised Statutes. Communication No. 662 reports that the proposed Charter Amendment would amend Article VI, Chapter 4, Hawaii County Charter (2000) by including references to a windward and a leewazd planning commission to section 6-4.1 relating to "Organization," and to section 6-4.2 relating to "Planning Director." It also states that section 6-4.3 is repealed and new sections 6-4.3, 6-4.4, and 6-4.5 have been added. At the September 18, 2007 Committee on Planning meeting, the following people presented oral testimony at the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa: Joel Gimpel (in support); Mamie Herkes (opposed); Denny Coffmann (in support); Sandra Scarr (in support) and Marianne Stone (in support). Council Member Ford concurred with the suggestion of Ms. Stone that the County develop a map showing projects already approved and proposed projects for which the mayor and planning PC Report No. 47 Communication 662 Bill 175 Page 2 of 6 director have informally supported through discussions with a developer because she felt it is very important that the public is aware of what's going on and what's being planned in their communities. Committee Chair Pilago relinquished his seat to Vice-Chair Dominic Yagong. Council Member Pilago outlined a proposed floor amendment to Bill 175 incorporating discussions with Corporation Counsel and Planning Director Yuen and noted the following: 1) the term "advisory" was deleted from the Purpose clause in Section 1; 2) that Section 6-4.5(c) expressly provide that each commission havejurisdiction over land use matters within geographic areas covered by each commission, that each commission reviews rezoning ordinances within their azeas, but both commissions review changes to zoning and subdivision codes; 3) a "Transitional Clause" is added to allow current commission member hold over for the remainder of their term in their respective districts, that vacancies are appointed by the mayor and that the new planning commissions become effective April 1, 2009; and 4) Uniform rules of procedure be adopted by majority vote of the combined membership and that the old Planning Commission Rules, except for meeting places, shall apply until new rules are adopted. Discussion on the proposed amendments relating to nomination of new members should be subject to approval of the Council and how to address a perceived difficulty when a matter falls between two geographical areas and how it would be heard and voted upon. A motion to approve the floor amendment as proposed by Council Member Pilago was unanimously approved. Council Member Pilago noted the importance of letting the people decide through the proposed charter amendment, how best to deal with our future land use planning decisions. Mr. Pilago noted that the commissions were divided into judicial districts with geographical boundaries that aze permanent and not subject to change every ten years through reapportionment. He also noted that two commissions is a valid tool, it decreases the perception of Hilo/Kona differences, it promotes sensitivity to regional and unique demographics and clear and concise level of services and eliminating a "one-size-fits-all" method of planning. Planning Director Chris Yuen outlined pros and cons of two commissions noting more advantages than disadvantages. He explained the advisory authority of the planning commission over rezoning ordinances and state land use boundary and general plan amendments that ultimately come to council for final decision. Therefore, the advisory function under two commissions is less significant because final decisions are made by the council. Under state law however, the planning commission is the authority and do render final decisions on SMA permits in the Ag district and on SMA permits, shoreline setback variances and Use Permits. The favorable aspects of two planning commissions for these matters aze that the bulk of the decision-making are primarily local in effect, generating public interest primarily from people living within the community and considered by commissioners from the area better in tune with community attitudes. A second favorable factor is that the workload of one island wide commission borders on unreasonable for a body of citizen volunteers who are required to attend PC Report No. 47 Communication 662 Bill 175 Page 3 of 6 a tremendous amount of meetings that which take up a lot of time, especially in situations where commissioners have jobs and children, which two commissions could cut that workload substantially. Mr. Yuen's major issues of concerns of having two planning commissions is that some final decisions truly have an island wide effect and deserve to be looked at and considered by people from around the island. To address the complicated issue of what matters would go to both planning commissions Mr. Yuen stated a solution could be that the Planning Director decide which applications would go to both commissions based on certain criteria and noted that it must be kept in mind that when presenting something to voters it's important to keep it as simple as possible. His second issue was a legal one concerning a provision in state law that refers to decisions being made by the planning commission and whether or not that meant that the County is supposed to have only one planning commission. If that be the case, Mr. Yuen stated that Maui County has three planning commissions which to his knowledge has never been legally challenged and that in his judgment, he believes state law does permit a County to have more than one planning commission. A final issue was that which was raised by Mr. Pilago regarding unity of the island which he noted could work both ways. Although Mr. Yuen believes very strongly that as an island community we are interdependent and should stay together as one governmental unit, he said having two commissions wouldn't necessarily complicate that. With regard to technical matters, Mr. Yuen noted the issue of transitioning from one system to the next but said his suggested transitional language as proposed in the charter amendment that allows members of the old planning commission to hold over to the other commissions is good and provides continuity and commission member experience. The second technical matter is a situation involving a matter that should be considered by both commissions, noting one raze and clear example being a land use permit involving a property that straddles both commission boundaries. Mr. Yuen clearly felt in a situation such as this both commissions should be involved and a joint decision would make sense. Most other matters that would go to both commissions but were not geographically specific, are text amendments to the zoning and subdivision codes but saw no real need for those kinds of matters to be heard jointly. Mr. Yuen also stated that general plan amendments whether arising in one part of the island or another, should be looked at by both commissions as well as text changes to the General Plan as well but that those could be voted on by separate commissions and result in separate recommendations. Corporation Counsel William Brilhante stated that upon evaluating the legality of the proposed amendment under state statutes as well as the County charter in was his opinion the proposed charter amendment fell within legal requirements of both the State statutes and County charter. With regazd to Maui County's three planning commissions, Mr. Brilhante stated he was unaware whether that issue was legally challenged but in his opinion it sets the precedence for the proposed leeward and windward planning commissions. He stated their office also recommended that the transitional provision include a date certain when the old commission's jurisdiction would terminate and the proposed new leewazd and windwazd commissions would commence. PC Report No. 47 Communication 662 Bill 175 Page 4 of 6 Council Chair Hoffmann discussed the status of Community Development Plans when that process was completed and the possibility of continuing the relationship between a CDP body (whatever it may happen to be) and either one of the two planning commissions. Mr. Yuen stated the concept of a local advocate CDP group is a good one but it would need a lot of work as he could not say how CDPs would interface with the commissions. Mr. Yuen stated the commissions would need to become very familiaz with the CDPs after it's enacted and that applications that come before the commissions would have to conform and implement CDPs as well. In response to Council Member Jacobson's inquiry relating to how many projects have an island wide impact on an SMA permit level, Mr. Yuen stated he guessed roughly one per yeaz and that there are more major SMA permits over $]25,000 in value (approximately 10 to 15 a year) that go to the planning commission. Mr. Jacobson noted that his area of concern is basically that the shoreline should be the concern of every citizen in the state of Hawaii since the shoreline theoretically belongs to the people under the Constitution. Mr. Jacobson for the most part was generally in support and for the most part in letting the people decide. Council Member Yagong also shared concerns about the process of addressing something that had island-wide considerations and suggested that if the Planning Director determines a matter requires island wide representation then it would be those members appointed to serve as district representatives, not the at large members, who make island wide decisions. Mr. Yuen stated that it could be done, however, from a west Hawaii point of view he was concerned that it sets the commission up with four leeward members and five windwazd members. He explained that under the proposed ordinance there are seven members in each commission so if you have the two commissions sit together there would be fourteen with a total of nine representing the districts, five being at large. Council Member Yoshimoto stated he had full confidence that the current planning commission will review all issues that address the island and that one of his concerns is the overlap that Mr. Yuen and Mr. Yagong raised and he believed the bill should be clazified to make certain there is a process that is fair and comfortable with everyone. He also noted that the shoreline issues raised by Mr. Jacobson should be island wide issues and that's another concern he had with the current bill. Mr. Yoshimoto stated that the council is a reflection of our island and having one commission is another excellent way of demonstrating that. Mr. Yoshimoto stated that in looking at island wide issues and being aware of what's happening in all parts of the island is something that one commission would have distinct advantages, noting his perspective the current system is working. In response to Mr. Yoshimoto's concerns, Mr. Pilago stated that this is why the proposal was brought up so very early and because this will be on the ballot and open to the voters to decide, he felt it very important to start the process at this time. Mr. Pilago noted the comments and concerns are valid ones and the purpose of bringing this forward was to begin to improve the planning commission process now. PC Report No. 47 Communication 662 Bill 175 Page 5 of 6 Council Chair Hoffmann stated that in supporting this effort, we're asking people to make a determination and not that the council is establishing the two planning commissions. It's whether or not we give people the right to decide as a charter amendment whether there should be two commissions and he always favors having the people decide these issues and that's the purpose of this effort. Mr. Hoffmann also stated he believed two commissions would provide better local analysis of land use issues and is one step forward in a series of steps that should be taken to try to adjust the way we consider land use decisions in this County. Mr. Jacobson noted that one of the most important issue is the enormous workload that we put upon the volunteers and that's probably one of the biggest reasons to support this proposal so that those volunteers are not overworked and we also end up with a better quality of work. Council Member Ford stated her support based upon the current workload of the planning commission, her support of home rule where decisions are made closer to home and ultimately, supports that the people have the right to choose. She also supports the fact that the proposed charter amendment is drawn on judicial boundaries and not council district boundaries that can change every ten years. Council Member Yoshimoto stated he would not make a motion to postpone but felt it would be beneficial in order to explore what can be done since he still believes one planning commission would result in consistent decisions. He stated if it's the will of the council to move this forward today, he could not be in support of this. Council Member Higa was concerned whether this measure should move forward and work on details later and after considering the comments of other council members, whether the bill as written is flawed. Corporation Counsel Brilhante stated that historically their position has been that they would like to see a good bill move forward and not a flawed bill move forward and then corrections made later. Mr. Brilhante stated that with respect to the proposed bill, as it is presently written, legally he did not believe the bill is flawed. However, the issues raised regarding matters that affect the whole island is a legitimate issue and he believed clear guidelines should be included. Mr. Higa stated in theory he support this and wants to see these issues worked out. Council Member Ford expressed the importance of differentiating between what is intended language for the charter and what is administrative rule language and noted the need to be very clear not to mix administrative language into the charter language. Mr. Yuen noted that basic functions should be clear from the text of the charter amendment and that the way it's currently written, it's reasonably clear the commissions act by a majority of the full membership which would mean 8 votes out of the 14 total votes. Council Member Pilago expressed his desire not to postpone and to move this matter forward as a work in progress. The benchmark that we need to lay and the foundation that has been laid is that the corporation counsel finds this is proposal is legal and that the Director reminds us that there is a procedural process within the proposal that can be relied upon which is if you have a PC Report No. 47 Communication 662 Bill 175 Page 6 of 6 joint meeting of the commissions of 14 people, a majority wins. Mr. Pilago concluded that this should betaken to the greater body, the voters of this County. Council Member Yagong noted that he himself was going to propose a leewazd/windward commission however, in finding out that Mr. Pilago had actually done one previously and expressed his support if Mr. Pilago pursued this again. Mr. Yagong stated that our island is so big that logistically it makes sense and is more efficient for the people of the County of Hawaii. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill No. 175, as amended to Draft 2, and recommends it pass first reading. and wvES NOES w&E Ex Respectfully submitted, FORD X HIGA X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X IKEDA X ~ 6'I JACOB50N X NAEOLE X K. ANGEL PII,A ,CHAIR PII.AGO X YAGONG X PC REPORT NO.,__ _ 47 Yost~toTO x ADOPTEn:OCT 1 7 X007