Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-05 tgpamendment PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 5, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN PROCEDURES was called to order at 1:15 p.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Bill Graham presiding. PRESENT: Bill Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall C. Kimo Alameda Alvin Rho Fred Galdones Allen Salavea Andrew Iwashita Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And one person from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Review and comment on a draft ordinance regarding the General Plan amendment procedures. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Proposed amendment to the General Plan amendment procedures. GRAHAM: Third item of business we have a review and comment on the draft ordinance regarding the General Plan amendment procedures initiated by the County Council. This is unfinished business.Mr. Yuen, can you give us a rundown on this please. YUEN: Yes, I’d like to do Number 3 and Number 4 together because they’re related, they’re closely related. GRAHAM: Okay, so we’ll have both on the active agenda right now? YUEN: Right. EXHIBIT C 1 GRAHAM: Okay. So Number 4 is the proposed amendment to the General Plan amendment procedures as initiated by the Planning Director. Go ahead. YUEN: All right. And Number 3 is the result of a County Council resolution to amend the procedure for amending the General Plan. And Number 4 is a Planning Director proposed amendment covering exactly the same subject. The background of this, just to refresh everybody’s memory on this, towards the end of last year the County Council introduced a resolution to change the procedure for amending the General Plan. The procedure is part of the General Plan. So the amendment itself is an amendment to the General Plan. The Council expressed the desire to have a quicker procedure, basically. And the Council attached a draft bill to that and the bill, that is Number 3 on your agenda item. And the bill itself, you know, we can get into the details of it but essentially the bill shortened the timeframe for amending the General Plan. It still talks about, as required by the charter, that the interim amendments have to go through the Planning Commission and come up to the Council, but it basically shortens some of the timeframes involved. And then the request is, and then again this is because of this current procedure, the request was that the Planning Director takes a look at this and make a recommendation, and of course it has to be passed on through the Planning Commission. When I took a look at it I thought that we could improve the current procedure, but I wasn’t satisfied with the bill that the Council had as far as an improvement. So with the input from Corporation Counsel we came up with a different bill or different procedure for this. And we brought both that bill and the Council’s bill to the Planning Commission in November I believe it was. The Council resolution had asked for expedited consideration, I believe it was October. The Council resolution had asked for expedited consideration by the Planning Commission. At that time the Planning Commission did not pass out either bill. There were some questions by the Commission and so the Planning Commission did not take action within the timeframe asked for by the Council. And I think that the reason for the expected timeframe was that the Council wanted to take action on this before the change-over in Council terms. Now given that, I did talk with the Chair of the Council who was the initiator of the Council’s bill; and following up on a suggestion made at the Planning Commission suggested that my revisions rather than be considered as an amendment to the Council’s bill be done from scratch as an interim amendment to the General Plan under the current procedures. So that requires workshops, public workshops. So I did hold public workshops on that proposed change to the General Plan. There were no public testimony at either, or attendance in fact at either of the workshops; and that proposed interim amendment to the General Plan is the bill that’s tabbed as Number 4 on your agenda item. So the Department’s recommendation is that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation on the Council’s initiated interim amendment to the General Plan that’s tabbed as Number 3 on your agenda item, and that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Council on the item tabbed as Number 4 which is the Planning Director’s initiated amendment to the General Plan. EXHIBIT C 2 GRAHAM: Thank you. I remember in October or November, but I missed the st December 1 meeting here in Hilo so that was very helpful to me. Do we have any questions? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yes. I’m looking at page 5, 2(e) where it says “The Planning Commission shall conduct and complete its review on the proposed amendments to the General Plan, and shall submit its recommendations, within 120 days from the date of receipt of the proposed amendments. If the Planning Commission fails to act within the required period, it shall be deemed a negative recommendation.” What I want to know is considering that there are three community development plans in progress right now and they will be presented as amendments to the General Plan, will that apply to them as well? YUEN: Well, the community development plan will be passed as a separate ordinance. It’s not an amendment to the General Plan. The community development plan is a separate document that will pass as a separate ordinance. SIRACUSA: Okay, that answers that. GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair, when you’re ready I’m ready to entertain a motion. GRAHAM: Any other comments? There’s one little thing I just wanted to bring up myself. I remember in our discussions on all this before we were dealing with a lot of details in the text and all, but I don’t think we ever really discussed whether we thought the General Plan amendment procedure should be streamlined timewise, let’s say. Can you just tell us clearly if you believe that that’s appropriate, the whole thrust of what the Council is doing here as necessary and appropriate aside from the specifics? YUEN: I think that the timeframes in the proposed amendment are workable. On the Commission’s side it’s not really a drastic change. I mean, I can go through the changes and –. GRAHAM: No, I don’t need that, just the actual, not so much as how it affects us particularly but just the whole thrust of what’s trying to happen here. We do look at the General Plan like a long-range planning document. So to sort of facilitate interim amendments, is that in the public’s interest by speeding them out? Or just give some of us your own read of why you feel that this, the whole thrust of this is an appropriate thing. YUEN Well, the Council was concerned about the overall timeframe, especially when the Council initiates an amendment to the General Plan. The Council is given the power to initiate amendments to the General Plan by Charter. The Council Members serve two-year terms and when they looked at the whole timeframe it EXHIBIT C 3 potentially occupied the better part of the year. So that was the major impetus for it, and I can understand that. I certainly didn’t want to have the timeframes so compressed that there wasn’t adequate time to really deal with it. But let me just give you an example of some of the key things, some of the key timeframes in here. On the Planning Commission’s side the Planning Commission would have, let’s see, on the comprehensive review, which is, you know, the 10-year comprehensive review, the Planning Commission has 150 days. All right? On the interim amendment side, the Planning Commission has 60 days from its receipt of the Director’s recommendation and not less than two meetings. All right, so it, well, it gives the Commission 60 days to work on those; and in the meantime -. And it shortens the timeframe from, the current timefame is 90 days, so it shortens the timeframe from 90 days to 60 days. That’s the gist of what it does. GRAHAM: Okay, given your consideration before that you said it takes almost a year for the Council to go through this process to do an interim amendment, that seems a bit excessive. And so in general you support the idea of shortening -? YUEN: Right. The biggest cut in time is actually from the Council going to the Director. The present ordinance gives 120 days; and this would give 70 days. And I think that 60 days is sufficient for the Planning Director to evaluate it, especially -. The interim amendment has to start with a resolution from the Council, so the Director has some indication while the Council is considering the resolution that this may be afoot. So it’s not being, the Director won’t be caught completely off-guard. So the Director has 60 days to submit the recommendation to the Commission, and then the Commission has 60 days to make a recommendation to the Council. And, let’s see, if it doesn’t act, it’s a negative. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you, Director. Anything else? ALAMEDA: Let me just say, I don’t know if I’m missing the boat on this one but I see that the streamline effort and I cannot think of any negative, unless I’m missing something. So, Fellow Commissioners, if you don’t see any potential problems with this, then I’d like to make a motion. GRAHAM: Yes. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my view on this is that because the General Plan is supposed to be a long-range document that personally I don’t see any real need, I guess, to shorten the timeframes because, you know, when the General Plan is approved it’s supposed to be, you know, with the idea that it’s going to last for ten years; and it should be a rather extraordinary circumstance that arises that requires an interim revision of the General Plan. So, and to me that would require time periods which provide for deliberation, you know, of that scale because we’re not talking about zoning change or -. We’re talking about changing the general, some significant aspect of EXHIBIT C 4 the General Plan is what my impression of the interim amendment would be. So that’s my concern; and so, frankly, I don’t see a real need to do this. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: I don’t want to belabor the point, but I believe the Planning Director did make mention that the Council was concerned about the timeframe with regard, in relation to their term; and if the present process takes over a year to occur and th their term is only two years and the situation arises in the 7 month of their term its likely that nothing gets done. I think what we have to recognize also is that the public has input on who they elect to the Council. So whether we may agree with what course of action the Council may want to see occur, you know, interim amendment, it in theory is, you know, the voice of the people. So I don’t see any real issue with this because you still have public input and you have sufficient controls. Actually I think the Director and Corporation Counsel have done a good job of trying to balance off the issue of deliberating and not just pushing things through, and yet still give the Council some ability to make interim changes if at some point in time they see a need for them. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe. YUEN: I just want to add one more thing, that in addition to the timeframes the bill that we did which is Number 4 does clean up and clarify some of the existing language in the procedures in a pretty positive way, I think. GRAHAM: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Point of procedure, Mr. Chair. GRAHAM: Yes. ALAMEDA: On this document before me on the upper right-hand side it does suggest that Item No. 4 be presented today but it also suggested that it can be presented at th the Planning Commission meeting on the 19. So if we make a motion for today, will it resurface another way? WATANABE: Actually, I might be wrong on this but this is, I believe, the third meeting we’re having on this. The proposed amendments have not changed significantly and the intent certainly is upheld. And so, you know, both sides of the island have had a chance to hear and make comment on this. So I don’t know that we have an issue there. ALAMEDA: Okay, Mr. Chair, your thoughts? GRAHAM: Yeah, Mr. Torigoe, do you have thoughts of whether we should continue this for action to the Kona meeting. EXHIBIT C 5 TORIGOE: No, I don’t think there’s anything really that requires you to do that. I’m just wondering there is a notation that says 1/5/07 PC Meeting Item No. 4 is on th the 19, so I’d don’t know if the Director intended to give this another couple meetings. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen, do you have a sense of whether you’d like this to carry forward to another Kona hearing or -? YUEN: Well, there’s technical and reality. All right, technically yes. As an interim, as a Planning Director initiated amendment this is the first time this is on your agenda. In reality you did look at exactly the same bill two times previously and there was a hearing and there were workshops on both sides of the island. So I would, you know, it’s really up to the Commission. I’d be comfortable in your voting both of these out today as I recommended. But if the Commission wants to hold it for the Kona meeting, I would ask that you hold both 3 and 4 because I’d like to send them both to the Council at the same time. GALDONES: Mr. Chair? SIRACUSA: Is it already on the agenda for the Kona meeting, and especially the newspaper announcements? So would we have to do another newspaper announcement and have proper notice? HAYASHI: The Planning Director initiated proposal is on the agenda for th January 19. The Council initiated proposal is not. If the Council-initiated amendment th could be placed on the 19 agenda also -. YUEN: You have time to do that? HAYASHI: Yes, as long as it’s six calendar days prior to the meeting. So we have time. SIRACUSA: Okay, so to follow up on that is, if I may, that we could then vote on the Number 3 and defer Number 4 to Kona until you give both sides of the island an opportunity on that one, is that correct? GRAHAM: I think we could do that; but Mr. Yuen indicated he would prefer that we handle both at the Kona meeting. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to defer both items to the Kona meeting if it’s okay. WATANABE: Second if that requires one. GRAHAM: Is that a motion Mr. Alameda? th ALAMEDA: I move that we defer both items to the Kona meeting on the 19. EXHIBIT C 6 GRAHAM: Thank you. Second? GALDONES: Second. GRAHAM: Commissioner Galdones. Any discussion on that? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yeah. I didn’t receive the yellow copy and I’m looking at the one that I had that was marked with the sentence, let’s see, I had it as Number 5 on November st 1 agenda, Planning Department Exhibit Number 4. And not having a chance to compare the two of them, one seems to have a lot more pages than the other, I’m not really sure if, you know, I haven’t had a chance to read it and compare these two versions. So I would definitely like to see it on the Kona agenda so I would have time to actually prepare for this and do the comparison between the versions. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. So I think we can take a vote on continuing these two agenda items on to our Kona meeting. Chris, are you going to read the roll, or Norman you’re going step up and do that, or I just do a voice vote? HAYASHI: I’m sorry I was writing down something. GRAHAM: That’s okay. We were having a motion by Commissioner Alameda to continue both agenda items 3 and 4 for final action at our next Koa meeting th on the 19. So we’re ready for the roll call since we finished the discussion. HAYASHI: While I’m getting this, just to let you know that it’s not a requirement that we have two hearings, one on this side and one on that side. It’s just a matter of practice we’ve been doing that. And that was Commissioner Alameda who had moved and seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Thank you. I apologize for that. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. EXHIBIT C 7 HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Chair Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Motion carries. GRAHAM: Thank you. The discussion ended at 2:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT C 8