Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 079 03/24/2008 2006-2008 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: March 24, 2008 Re: Comm. 1078Bi11266 PLACE: Councilroom 333 Kilauea Avenue, god Floor Hilo, Hawaii 96720 TIME: 1:30 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bi11266, reports as follows: Bill 266, transmitted via Communication 1078 from Mayor Harry Kim, dated March 6, 2008, presents an amendment to Chapter 2, Article 7, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), initiated by the Planning Director. Bill 266 seeks to amend Chapter 2, Article 7, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to the Planning Commission's review of a draft Community Development Plan or amendments thereof. Communication 1078 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 February 22, 2008 and voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council on the Planning Director's request. The proposed amendment would provide a time frame for the Planning Commission's review and recommendation to the County Council on a draft Community Development Plan or amendment. Planning Director Yuen explained that the General Plan approved in 2005 that established the Community Development Plan (CDP) program, states that a CDP must be adopted by the County Council as an ordinance, thus giving a CDP the force of law. The General Plan, however, did not provide a time frame for the Planning Commission's review and recommendation to the County Council on a draft CDP or amendment and that a set review period is necessary for the prompt submittal of recommendations by the Planning Commission. The proposed new Section 2-28A, Chapter 2, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) provides that within 60 days after receipt of a draft CDP or amendment, the Planning Commission shall submit its recommendation to the County Council It also provides that in the event the Commission fails to act within the 60-day period, such inaction shall be considered an unfavorable recommendation. In transmitting Bill 266 to the Council, the Planning Commission noted that it voted to change the Director's request from a 60-day period to a 90-day period and that Bill 266, attached to their communication, includes a 90-day provision. PC Report No. 79 Communication 1078 Bill 266 Page 2 of 3 At the March 24, 2008 Planning Committee meeting Director Yuen explained that there are currently four Community Development Plans scheduled to be completed very shortly. Mr. Yuen stated that although the General Plan does provide that the Steering Committee shall submit the CDP to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, it was missing a time frame to review and submit recommendations. Mr. Yuen noted that although the Planning Commission changed the review period from 60 days to 90 days, he strongly felt that the 60-day period was adequate and appropriate and therefore submitted Communication 1078.1 containing an amendment changing the review period back to 60 days. Council Chair Hoffmann expressed concern that "no action" taken by the Planning Commission would constitute a negative recommendation to the Council. Council Chair Hoffmann noted that Community Development Plans are generated out of community philosophies and not administrative or legislatively driven. Therefore, a "no action" that constitutes a "negative" recommendation is a slap in the face for the years of community work and would prefer that inaction on the part of the Planning Commission constitute "no" recommendation and not a "negative" recommendation. Director Yuen stated his hope is that the Commission will take action on CDPs however, in situations involving a split vote or insufficient number of votes, a negative recommendation would be the result. Mr. Yuen advised he would check with Corporation Counsel if a "no" recommendation instead of a "negative" recommendation can be implemented. Council Member Ford moved to amend Bi11266 with Communication 1078.1 from the Planning Director, changing it from 90 days back to 60 days. Council Member Jacobson spoke in favor of the proposed amendment noting the extensive work put forth by the communities on these crucially important plans. The amendment was approved. Committee Chair Pilago confirmed with the Director that the 60-day time frame will allow the Council to meet a December deadline and also expressed his concern regarding the provision that the Planning Commission has the power to reject the CDP entirely. Director Yuen noted that a full range of options under which the Commission is authorized to act had to be included and that an outright rejection of a CDP is just one of those options. Committee Chair Pilago confirmed that the County Council would be the final decision-maker and Director Yuen concurred, noting that it is clearly stated and understood that the County Council enacts Community Development Plans. Council Member Yagong expressed that since the General Plan states that the Planning Commission shall review the CDP, he honestly felt that a 60-day review period is too long. Mr. Yagong noted that rezoning requests were temporarily delayed because the Council wanted to allow time to complete the CDP process and therefore all draft CDPs should be forwarded to the Council as soon as possible to implement what the communities want. Mr. Yagong also noted that although it's been stated that the temporary delay on rezonings has not had an adverse effect, it has in fact impacted and slowed the construction and business economy. PC Report No. 79 Communication 1078 Bill 266 Page 3 of 3 Council Member Higa's concern was whether the Council's approval of Bill 266 establishing a time frame could be viewed or considered as amending the General Plan since the General Plan already contains a provision that a CDP shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and submittal of recommendations to the Council for action. Mr. Higa also questioned whether Bill 266 was necessary altogether. Director Yuen said there needs to be a time frame within which the Planning Commission must review and make recommendations to the Council and that the County Charter states that boards and commissions, except those advisory in nature, have to take action by majority vote of the full membership. A motion to amend Bill 266 with Communication 1078.1 dated March 24, 2008 from Planning Director Chris Yuen was approved. Council Member Higa confirmed that Director Yuen has in fact checked with Corporation Counsel and that the proposal presented is acceptable. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill 266, as amended to Draft 2, and recommends it pass first reading. and AvES rvoes a&e ex Respectfully submitted, FORD X HIGA X COMMITTEE ON PLANNING HOFFMANN X IKEDA X `'~`J(/1/ JACOBSON X ` 2 NAEOLE X K. ANGEL PIL ,CHAIR PILACO X YAGONG X PC REPORT NO. 79 YOSHIMOTO X ADOPTED: APR ~__Q~~~_