Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0641.001 2008-2010 KENNETH G. GOODENOW County Clerk RODNEY OSHIRO Depuly County Clerk County of Hawai 'i Office of the County Clerk 25 Aupuni Street Hila, Hawai 'j 96720 Telephone: (808) 961-8255 Facsimile. (808) 961-8912 January 19, 2010 o 00 Co Z,- --I:::;; -<' ,;. ..... ~ 5"- z ::n ....... m CD (") r I', J Yoshimoto, Chair and Members of the Hawai'i County Council County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 11(') ~.rh,; ):;c~l ~>< >. --0 ~. :::3 .t::...~. ...... ITl t::J C' "-> ....... Re: Resolution 283-09 Dear Chair Yoshimoto and Members: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in support of Resolution 283-09, which, if adopted, would amend Rule 14 of the Council Rules to include a procedure for the referral of council- initiated amendments to Chapters 23 and 25 of the County Code. The process of referring council-initiated amendments to Code Chapters 23 and 25 has been problematic. This matter first came to my attention when I was deputy clerk in April 2007, Please review the attached portion of minutes (Exhibit "A") regarding Bill 79 (2006-2008). The procedural problems evidenced by the discussion found in these minutes, such as the making of a second motion after the motion to close file had already passed, an interpretation that the term "Council" did not include the actions of a committee, together with the Code requirement that amendments to Chapters 23 and 25 must be referred prior to first reading, resulted in the creation of a new procedure: I) a resolution would pass the Council requesting comments from the Planning Director and Commission on a proposed bill which was attached to the resolution; 2) once comments were received, those comments were placed on an agenda as a communication for discussion purposes; and 3) a Council member would, if desired, introduce a bill identical to, or similar to, the proposed bill, i.e" the exhibit to the original resolution. This rather complex and lengthy process, however, was not incorporated into our rules and was not always followed. For example, Resolution 158-07 requested recommendations from the Planning Director and Commission of two bills attached as an exhibit. The title, however, was to request the Planning director to initiate amendments. Despite the fact that Resolution I 58-07 stated "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the council shall consider said draft bills for ordinances following said Comm. No. ~ t{.-I ./ Ref. TOl pc.- Ref. Pats ,JAN 2 0 2a111 . - Serving the Interests afthe People afOur Island Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer J Yoshimoto, Chair and Members of the Hawai'i County Council Re: Resolution 283-09 January 19,2009 Page 2 120-day review period," no one introduced any such bills after the Planning Commission gave unfavorable recommendations. Bill 167 (2006-2008), was introduced and put on the Council agenda without a waiver from committee, following review of Resolution 21-07 by the Planning Director and Commission. Bill 190 (2006-2008) was referred to by the Planning Director as being initiated by the Council, but the communication transmitting that bill stated that the Planning Director prepared the bill "to implement the Council resolution on this subject" and was thus considered a Planning Director- initiated amendment by the County Clerk. Bill 199 (2006-2008) which amended Chapter 25 was passed by the Council without review of the Planning Director or Commission, though its provisions may have been reviewed as part of their review of Bill 79 (2006-2008) which failed to pass. It is the Council's prerogative on how it wishes to proceed; one route is to do nothing and let the Council Chair decide how to handle council-initiated amendments on a case-by-case basis. I, however, am recommending that the Council includes an express provision in its rules to allow the Planning Committee to refer council-initiated amendments to Chapters 23 and 25 prior to first reading. The main reasons for this are as follows: . Section 25-2-43(b) of the County Code requires that the Council refer these matters prior to first reading. Charter Section 31-10(a) states: "Reading of bills may be by title only. Full readings and public hearings may be required by a one-third vote of the entire membership." While it is my opinion that defining "reading" to include a positive vote, e.g., "Bill X passes first reading," is a reasonable interpretation of our charter, I respect and acknowledge our former clerk's decision to be cautious. . Providing an explicit process in our Rules makes it clear that the "Council" is referring any proposed council-initiated amendments as opposed to an independent unilateral act of the Planning Committee. . An explicit rule is easily referenced and provides predictability and transparency to the process. Thank you again for this opportunity to provide comment. Respectfully, <,~ KENNETH G. GOODENOW COUNTY CLERK PC-9 April 17, 2007 passes, then I would really like to have it sent over to the Planning Commission to have them review it, and I'll make that motion at the appropriate time. I yield the floor. CHR. PILAGO: Thank you. We have Bill 79, which is being anlended by Communication 267.1. By show of hands, please, all those in favor of the amendment, please raise your right hand. The motion to amend Bill 79 to Draft 2, as proposed in Comm. 267.1 was carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Ford, Higa, Hoffmann, Jacobson, Naeole, Yagong, Yoshimoto, and Chair Pilago. Opposed: None. Absent: None. Excused: Committee Member Ikeda. CHR. PILAGO: Eight ayes and one abstain, thank you. So, the motion to amend carries. We're back to the main motion, Bill 79, as amended. Ms. Ford. MS. FORD: Ms. Jarman, keep me honest on this one so I do it correctly, or correct me, if I'm wrong. I move that we as it---once we---wait. We have to pass this first, right? Or, can I send it to the Commission now? Can I make a motion to send this over to the Commission now or do we have to vote on it as it stands? MS. JARMAN: You would probably want to vote on it as it stands, and once you've voted on it, then move that it goes to the Planning Commission. MS. FORD: Thank you. MS. JARMAN: And after it gets back from the Planning Commission, to the Council. MS. FORD: Alright, the motion is already on the t100r. CHR. PILAGO: Yeah. MS. FORD: Right. CHR. PILAGO: (Bill) 79, as amended. MS. FORD: Okay. CHR. PILAGO: All those in favor, please say "aye." f)(}\ \l?, rr ,It. /I Page 45 PC-9 April 17, 2007 The motion to close file on Comm. 267 and all related Communications and passage of Bill 79, as amended to Draft 2, was carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Ford Higa, Hoffmann, Jacobson, Naeole, Yagong, Yoshimoto, and Chair Pi1ago. Opposed: None. Absent: None. Excused: Committee Member Ikeda. CHR. PILAGO: Thank you. Ms. Ford. Ms. Ford moved to commit Bill 79, as amended to Draft 2, to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the full Council. Seconded by Mr. Jacobson. CHR. PILAGO: Can you qualify that and tell us why, please? MS. FORD: Yes, I do think it's important that we have more public input on this bill. I realize that a lot of people are uncomfortable with it. While I believe that this should be done, I understand that because this is a change of zoning, it should go over to the Planning Commission. CHR. PILAGO: Thank you, I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you, all. MR. JACOBSON: I have a question, this is actually to Casey, isn't this if we pass this out of Planning Committee, don't we automatically commit it to the Planning Commission? MS. JARMAN: This is one of those special provisions in the Code for what happens, and when you're recommending an amendment to the Zoning Code, prior to first reading, it has to be sent to the Planning Commission for their review. They have 120 days in which to review. Under the Code, it says, "The Council shall refer any proposed Council-initiated amendments to the Director and the Commission prior to the first reading." So, you can either bring it back here and then you can have a resolution sending it prior to first reading. MR. JACOBSON: So, it's not automatic? We would actually have to make this motion and vote on it? MS. JARMAN: Yes. Page 46 PC-9 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: April 17, 2007 MR. HIGA: Okay, thank you. CHR. PILAGO: Ms. Ford? MS. FORD: When I made the motion to send it to the Planning Commission, I believe I left out the Planning Director. I'd like to amend my motion to include the Planning Director. CHR. PILAGO: Thank you very much. Is there a second? MR. JACOBSON: Second. CHR. PILAGO: Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Mr. Hoffmann? MR. HOFFMANN: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to,just to clarify for my own edification, a question that Mr. Higa was raising. As I understand the Charter, as we look at it, once the zoning changes, the proposed zoning changes come back to us, since we voted it out of Committee, it goes back to Council. There's nothing that prohibits the Council, at that time, if they felt it necessary, to send it back to Committee, and I think that's the proper path that we have to take. We should not allow either the Chair of the Councilor somebody else to the direct the traffic, but that since it has already passed Committee at the moment, the Planning Director and the Planning Commission are going to bring it back; it comes back to the Council; if we feel it requires further work in the Committee, we can always send it back there and discuss it further. MS. JARMAN: And that's partially because I understand that there's an interpretation that Council means the Council, not the Committee. MR. HOFFMANN: Yeah. MS. JARMAN: Which is why we want to go to Council after it comes from the Planning Commission. MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all; I just wanted to make clear we---we sort of flip-flopped on some of these previously, and it's because we haven't been down this path before. But, what, quite frankly, I don't want to see the Chair assuming the responsibility to say, "Well, I'm going to send it back to the Committee, or it should go one place and then the Council determine whether it should go back to Committee or it should stay where it is for first hearing." Thank you. CHR. PILAGO: Where are we now, Ms. Clerk? Page 47 PC-9 Aprill7,2007 MS. JARMAN: I believe you have a motion and a second to refer this to the Planning Commission and the Planning Director asking them to make its recommendation through the process and the procedure of full Council. CHR. PILAGO: I thought there was a motion and a second? MS. HOFFMANN: There was, now we have to vote. CHR. PILAGO: Now we have to vote? MS. JARMAN: So, now you have to vote on the motion, sir. CHR. PILAGO: Thank you very much. MS. FORD: I need an amendment to my motion to approve the Planning Director with the Planning Commission. MR. HOFFMANN: We'll take that as a friendly, perhaps. CHR. PILAGO: Thank you, very good. All those in favor ofthe motion, please say "aye." The motion to commit Bill 79, as amended to Draft 2, to the Planning Commission and Planning Director for their review and recommendation to the full Council was carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Ford, Higa, Hoffmann, Jacobson, Naeole, Yagong, Yoshimoto and Chair Pilago. Opposed: None. Absent: None. Excused: Committee Member Ikeda. CHR. PILAGO: Thank you. Motion carries. We're at the end of the our calendar; a motion to adjourn, please. Page 48