Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-18 TRULE9 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 18, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the PLANNING DIRECTOR INTIATED AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION RULE 9 was called to order at 11:01 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:William GrahamABSENT & EXCUSED:Rene’ Siracusa Jeffrey McCallEarl Fujikawa C. Kimo Alameda Francis Smith Hannah Springer Fred Galdones Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And 7 people from the public in attendance INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Amendment to Planning Commission Rule 9 to incorporate changes adopted by Act 169 and Act 76 of the 2001 and 2004 State Legislative Sessions, respectively, and for consistency with other applicable sections of Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Minor housekeeping changes are also proposed. GALDONES:Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 10 initiated by the Planning Director. This is an amendment to Planning Commission Rule 9 to incorporate changes adopted by Act 169 and Act 76 of the 2001 and 2004 State Legislative Sessions, respectively, and for consistency with other applicable sections of Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Norman. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. We did send a th memo to the Commissioners back in December- on December 27, 2004 transmitting the proposed changes to the Rule 9. Just for your information that, there’s a typo on that memo. It states on the third line Act 169 and Act 78, actually it should be Act 76. So if you can make that change to your- to the memo. Basically this particular request would be- the changes proposed is to make the rules consistent with the current statutory requirements, and we also did some housekeeping changes to the rule. We also included information relative to the PASH and Ka Pa’akai decision to the rules. We also as part of the memo we transmitted to you, and the rules, we transmitted to you the reasons for the proposed amendment to Rule 9. So if you want me to EXHIBIT E go over some of those changes- if you have any questions, I’ll be more than happy to go over them with you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Norman? Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:And this goes also to the Council? HAYASHI:This will be- no, this would be adopted by the Planning Commission as its rules. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Seeing no further- Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Could I just ask the Planning Director if he believes any of these changes will be substituted in the way we handle our SMA permits. GALDONES:Mr. Yuen. YUEN:They would put existing practice into the rules. In- see where the statute has changed, we’ve been following the statute, but people should be able to read the rules and see what’s going on. The second thing is that the PASH and Ka Pa’akai cases with respect to Native Hawaiian rights are an important requirement of an SMA permit now. But if you just- if an applicant just picks up the rules they should be able to read the rules and see what they have to do. There’s nothing in the rules that requires this kind of statement and description of Hawaiian rights. So, it’s things that we’re currently doing but they aren’t in the rules. The two major areas that we are- that have caused us to do this update are the changes in the Chapter 205 (a), the State statute, and the Pash and Ka Pa’akai cases. Then, there’s a little mention of something called a short form SMA (a)-. That’s really on the processing side for the Planning Department and that- we have a form that you’re supposed to fill out, and typically it’s when there’s an action within the SMA that’s not going to end up needing a permit. But we need to review what you’re planning to do. And the form that we are working on with the current rules are somewhat too elaborate for the kind of things that people are submitting; and so that’s a small point there. I have a slight change. If we could just take a couple of minutes, I need to write something as a slight change to one section here; and then I’ll discuss that with the Commission. GALDONES:The Director will be putting together something for the Commissioners to consider so if- we should give him a few more minutes to put it together. We’ll be on short recess. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 11:45 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 11:55 a.m. 2 GALDONES:Commissioners, Hawaii County Planning Commission be back in order. We are back on Agenda Item No. 10. Director Yuen would like introduce an addition. YUEN:Yeah, this is a slight change. If you go to page 9, the section written on number 6 and this is essentially what- puts in the application- says that they have to put consideration of Native Hawaiian Rights in the application. The slight change would be at the very beginning to say, “Unless otherwise exempted by law, a written description of the anticipated impacts,” and so forth. That’s the only change. And the reason for this change is that there are some kinds of properties that the- what’s required here by the PASH case doesn’t apply, and that is a property that’s considered fully developed. And this would be the- referencing the Hanapi decision. So that for- to give an example, a single-family lot with a home on it that came in for a B & B in the SMA would not have to do this full analysis because the Hanapi decision says that that’s not required when the property is fully developed. SPRINGER:Question. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:In that regard and considering Hanapi on agricultural land, if the land is fenced and has a water trough is that fully developed? YUEN:No. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Further questions? Hearing none, then the recommendation is to have this approved. Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair, I move that the Hawaii County Planning Commission approve the Planning Director’s proposal to amend Planning Commission Rule 9 to incorporate changes adopted by Act 169 and Act 76 of the 2001 and 2004 State Legislative Sessions, respectively and for consistency with other applicable sections of Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, for the reasons indicated by the Planning Director and including those additional changes that we just discussed in Section 6. GALDONES:Do I have a second? MCCALL:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Springer, seconded by Commissioner McCall, the amendment to Planning Commission Rule 9 to incorporate changes adopted by Act 169 and Act 76 of the 2001 and 2002- 2004 State Legislative Session, along with the amendment introduced by Mr. Yuen be approved by the Planning Commission. Further discussion? Hearing none. Norman. 3 HAYASHI:Before I take the roll call vote if I can ask the Director could- if he can repeat that change, the changes. SPRINGER:And that’s the Section 8, I misspoke. Sorry. YUEN:Well this is- it’s on Page 9, Section 8 of the Amendment to the Rules, but it’s actually 9-10 B6. And at the very beginning of 9-10 B6 we would say “Unless otherwise exempted by law,” and then we go into the same, the text of- that exists in the proposed change, “a written description”, etc. HAYASHI:So, just one more time. As far as- it’s 6- under 6. “Unless otherwise exempt by law”. YUEN:“Exempted by law”. HAYASHI:“A written description”. YUEN:Yes, and then everything else follows the same. HAYASHI:Okay, got it. With that, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:And I over- Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair, motion carries, and thank you very much. GALDONES:Thank you, Norman. 4 The discussion ended at 12:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Sanemitsu, West Hawaii Secretary 5