Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 089 07/30/2008 2006-2008• • 12EPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: July 30, 2008 PLACE: Councilroom Ben Franklin Building 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2"~ Floor Hilo, Hawaii TIME: 2:00 p.m. Re: Comm. ]300/Bill 318 Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill 318, reports as follows: Bill 318, transmitted via Communication 1300 From Mayor Harry Kim, dated June 18, 2008, presents the Puna Community Development Plan submitted by the Puna Community Development Plan Steering Committee and its consultant, PlanPacific, Inc. Communication 1300 reports that the Hawaii County Planning Commission, as required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter; considered the above request and conducted public hearings on May 6, 2008; May 22, 2008, and June 6, 2008 to review the draft Puna Community Development Plan. The Commission concurred with the Planning Director's four proposed amendments and voted to send a favorable recommendation, together with the Commission's three proposed amendments. Communication 1300 notes the Planning Directors proposed amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan, as follows: Section 2.3.3.d calling for a centralized sewage treatment plant and/orself-contained pumped septic systems within atwo-mile-wide corridor between Wao Kele O Puna forest preserve and the ocean was amended to reflect that the two-mile-wide corridor include the Wao Kele O Puna forest area, a~td changing reference from "ocean to the northeast'' to "State lands mauka of Highway 130 between Ainaloa subdivision and Pahoa. Reference that no wastewater discharge would be allowed within the corridor was deleted. 2. Deleting section 2.1.3.d relating to review of grading and grubbing permit applications by the State Historic Preservation Division (already a requirement), and by the newly formed County of Hawaii Cultural Resource Commission, which was viewed as over- regulation that would result in a decline of voluntary compliance. Amending Section 3.23.b relating to down zoning of all agricultural zoned parcels in the State Agricultural District in Puna, to a coning that would allow a subdivision no more PC Report No. 89 Communication 1300 • Bill 318 Page 2 of 6 • than nine additional lots per lot on record, and lots greater than 100 acres to be downzoned to Agricultural 10-acres. 4. Corrects the first sentence in the second paragraph on page 5-1 1 to refer to "Royal Hawaiian" Estates and not Maunaloa Estates. Communication 1300 also notes the Planning Commission's proposed amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan, as follows: 1. Include the Working Group papers and recommendations as an appendix for the purpose of information, intent and guidance on implementing future decision-making. 2. The "Regional Town Center" and "Village Center" maps be corrected to show current zoning and recommended zoning changes. 3. A "Native Hawaiian Implementation Committee' be formed, which may include representation from the Kanaka Council as well as other groups. At the July I, 2008, Committee on Planning meeting, numerous public testimonies received expressing the sentiment that given the Puna community's diligence in developing the Puna CDP and the 5,000-plus man hours of work involved, that the Puna CDP should be approved in its current form without amendments. Committee Chair Pilago recognized CDP representatives Nancy Pisicchio (North and South Kona), Alan Salavea (North and South Kohala) and John Olson (Puna). Corporation Counsel Amy Self presented a brief breakdown of the CDP amendment process noting that Council amendments to the Puna CDP, if substantive, must be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the CDP Steering Committee for comments, pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Hawaii County General Plan. Council Chair Hoffmann clarified that il' adopted by the Council, the proposed amendments submitted by both planning Director and the Planning Commission would have to go back to the Steering Committee, but only the four amendments proposed by the Planning Director required submittal to both the Planning Commission and the Steering Committee. Committee Chair Pilago noted there were approximately forty or more proposed amendments for consideration before the committee and that it would be impossible to discuss all the proposed amendments during this Committee on Planning meeting. Mr. Pilago noted that there was however, a structural and procedural amendment that should be considered at this time. Director Yuen clarified that procedural amendments set forth in Communication 1300.3 provides that the Puna CDP be attached as an appendix to 13111 318 rather than as a separate communication. Mr. Yuen also explained that because the amendment only changes the verbage of the enacting ordinance and not the plan itself, it did not require review by the Planning Commission and the Steering Committee. A motion to amend 13111 318 with Communication 1300.3 was thereafter approved. PC Report No. 89 Communication 1300 • Bill 318 Page 3 of 6 Councilmember Jacobson stated that given the large amount of work and grass roots democracy involved he was not inclined to favor amendments at this point. He concluded that he liked the process that the CDP has gone through and suggested the committee move ahead with the bill as is. Committee Chair Pilago said that considering the numerous amendments being proposed and the inadequate time for review, it was impossible for the committee to discuss these proposals in one afternoon and suggested calling a special meeting to consider this matter by itself. Mr. Pilago stated this would afford credence to the public and allow them time to review and examine the proposed amendments and Councilmembers and their staff to do the same. Councilmember Naeole noted that she and her staff worked with the Legislative Research Branch, Planning Director Yucn and Mr. Larry Brown oP the Planning Department and that her proposed amendments represent what she felt was her kuleana as Councilmember of District 5. Ms. Naeole stated it's not that she didn't like the Puna CDP, she appreciates the work that was done, however these were amendments she felt were needed. Councilmember Higa said that he felt the issue was to either pass Bill 318 as is or vote to amend and send the amended bill back to the Plamiing Commission and the Steering Committee. Based upon the Planning Director's stated timeline, he felt there was enough time to make amendments, send the bill with amendments back to the Planning Commission and Steering Committee for review, and have the Council vote on it before the end of the current council term. Director Yuen confirmed that the process outlined by Mr. I-liga was accurate but only if the council acted promptly. Mr. Yuen added that if after review by the Planning Commission and Steering Committee the Council decided to make further amendments, it could take another three or four months to process and would not be decided in the current council term. Councilmember Fliga said he would prefer if someone made a motion to amend Bill 318 with all the proposed amendments, sending the entire package containing all the proposed amendments to the Steering Committee and Planning Commission atone time. Councilmember Naeole's motion to amend Bill 318 with Communication 1300.4 was seconded. Councilmember Higa said he supports amendments at this time and prefen~ed to use the process itself to get further public input, obtain recommendations from the Steering Committee and Planning Commission as to what amendments are good and what are not good and then the Council can take final action. Council Chair Hoffmann expressed concern that the Steering Committee did not have an opportunity to see any or all of the amendments being proposed by Councilmember Naeole. Therefore, if the Council amended the bill as a package, how could it determine, without any further information at this time, if something in the plan was eliminated that should have otherwise been included. Director Yuen stated that whether the Council considers [he amendments today or at another meeting, if the Council is inclined to make further amendments, it should make that decision very soon, vote on it and send all amendments to the Steering Committee and Planning Commission as one group. PC Report No. 89 Communication 1300 • • Dill 318 , Page 4 of 6 Council Chair Hoffmann expressed concern regarding voting on any package of amendments without first having full knowledge of potential impacts. Mr. Hoffmann said he would rather pass this particular bill in its current form and entertain Ms. Naeole's proposed amendments at first reading. Councilmember Yagong stated that at the very least the Council should not act upon any proposed amendments until due consideration had been given to the community who worked long and hard on the CDP. Mr. Yagong suggested possibly scheduling another time and place prior to the next committee meeting when Cowicilmcmbcr Naeole and Mr. Yuen could share and discuss these amendments with the community. Mr. Yagong felt that discussion regarding the proposed amendments should begin with the community first and' not with the nine members of the council. Councilmember Jacobson stated that he spoke with Commissioner Siracusa today who confirmed that the Planning Director's four proposed amendments were already voted on and approved by the Planning Commission and therefore need only go to the Steering Committee fot review. Following discussions regards Mr. Jacobson's motion to postpone, Councilmember Yoshimoto stated that the amendments as proposed by Councilmember Naeole made good sense to him, however his concern was about all the other amendments being presented, and he felt uncomfortable trying to make a decision without having all pertinent information. Ms. Naeole was agreeable to a postponement. Council Chair Hoffmann said he hoped the public understood and would not be discouraged with the efforts being made, as the Council is addressing an issue which has no precedence and being very cautious of making snap decisions, especially when the Puna community has spent so much time and ef(ort.carrying forth what the Council had asked them to do. Following further discussions; Bill 318; as amended by Communication 1300.3, was postponed to June 30, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. in the Hilo Councilroom. At the July 30, 2008 special Committee on Planning meeting, Planning Director Chris Yuen; Larry Brown, Puna CDP coordinator and liaison for the Puna CDP Steering Committee; Jon Olson, Chair of the Puna Steering Committee; and leaders of the Puna community were recognized. Director Yuen gave a brief explanation of the proposed amendments and stated that the department absolutely supports passage and adoption of the plan prior to the end of December and that discussion and summary of procedures and timelines might help to address questions that may arise during public testimony. Mr. Yuen stated Chat although it's not absolutely necessary, the department would like to have all Community Development Plans enacted by December I st. I-Ie explained that some of the proposed amendments to the plan are substantive and need to go back to the Steering Committee and Planning Commission for comment. I-however, even with the required 60-day review period, Mr. Yuen felt there still was enough time for this matter to come back to the current Council for action before the December I S' deadline. Director Yuen stated he believed the amendments should be voted on as a group by communication and not bifurcated and voted on separately. He PC Report No. 89 Communication 1300 • bill 318 Page 5 of 6 explained there were few areas where significant issues existed with the plats as presented, such as how village centers are formed and that he fell the need to foster having village centers in various areas of Puna rather than relying on major towns that exist today. Mr. Yuen said some of the procedures spelled out in the plan are more complicated and would create obstacles in forming village centers. Mr. Yuen said that in his opinion the amendments proposed by the department, Councilmembers Naeole and Yoshimoto do not affect the fundamental thrust of the plan and none of the amendments affects implementation of the plan. In response to Council Chair Hoffmann's question whether or not there exists any legal or constitutional.question if the plan was adopted without amendments, Director Yuen stated there was nothing illegal in passing the plan itself "as is," but there may be issues relating to follow-on. actions and how those follow-on actions are performed. Mr. Larry Brown expressed his own desire to get the Puna CDP adopted within this Council term so that the Puna Community and the County can begin implementation. Approximately fifty-five (55) members of the public presented testimony of which thirty-five (35) were in favor of approving the plan without amendments, ten (10) testifiers who felt the plan should be approved with the proposed amendments, and ten (10) testifiers who offered comments. Councilmember Naeole stated her amendments were not done with any malice and believes her proposed amendments will help the people of her district. Councilmember Higa stated that the CDP implementation section of the General Plan allows for the Council to make amendments and to submit the amendments to the Planning Committee and Steering Committee for review. Mr. Higa said he supports the existing process and therefore it is the Council's job to make amendments if necessary and that the time to make such amendments is now. Discussions continued regarding passage of Bill 318 with or without amendments and at what point in the process could amendments be made. Councilmember Yoshimoto stated that as long as the Council follows the legislative process and, as noted by Director Yuen, the Council does have the authority to make amendments at this time. Mr. Yoshimoto said he felt it was easier to do the amendments now especially since a new Council may take another approach. Mr. Yoshimoto's fear was that if Bill 318 was approved in its current form and amended at a later time, the plan itself might be at risk of not being amended at all and therefore preferred to approve Bill 318 in this term with all proposed amendments. Deputy Corporation Counsel Brilhante stated that the proposed amendments were discussed in detail with Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self and with Planning Director Yuen, and then read through the list of proposed amendments noting which were deemed to be substantive amendments and which were not. Councilmember Yagong's concern was that if the Council did not pass the amendment package, could the amendments be brought back again before the current Council, or would the rule that PC Report No. 89 Communication 1300 Bill 318 Page 6 of 6 states once a bill is defeated it cannot be reintroduced in the same term, apply? Councilmember Yagong stated that what is on the table for discussion are the amendments; however, no one is discussing the amendments but rather the entire discussion is really about whether or not this , body was going to pass Bill 318 with or without amendments. Mr. Yagong concluded it was very important for him to be a community advocate and allow the community to take part in the process. A motion to approve secondary amendments as contained in Communication 1300.17 (that amends communication 1300.4) failed. A motion to approve proposed amendments contained in Communication 1300.4 failed. Councilmember Yoshimoto explained his proposed amendments contained in Communication 1300.19. Deputy Corporation Counsel Brilhante stated that items numbered 1 through 11 and 13 through 16 were deemed substantive amendments requiring submission to the Planning Commission and Steering Committee for review and that item 12 was anon-substantive amendment. A motion to approve the secondary amendments contained in Communication 1300.22 (that amended Communication 1300.19) failed. A motion to approve proposed amendments contained in Communication 1300.19 failed. With respect to Communication 1300.2]; Planning Director Yuen explained that except for item number 14, the remaining amendments were non-substantive technical corrections. Councilmember Jacobson confirmed with Puna CDP Steering Committee Chair, Jon Olson that dividing the question and approving the non-substantive amendments except for item number 14, was acceptable. A motion to bifurcate and take all non-substantive amendments was approved. A motion to approve item 14, the only substantive amendment contained in Communication 1300.21, failed. Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent oP Bill 318, Draft 2; as amended to Drafr 3, and recommends it pass first reading. and AYES NOES A&h: h:S FORD X RICA X HOFFMANN X IKEUA X dACOBSON X NAEOLE X PILACO X YAGONC X YOSHIMO'1'O X Respectfully submitted, COMMI'I"I'EE PC Report No. 89 PC REPOR"I' NO. 89 A~oP"fE~: AUG t 3 Anne