HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-06 PL-INT-2024-008544 GP 2045 Draft Comments & Email Response - C. Flaherty DeVera, Ashley
From: Planning General Plan
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 3:54 PM
To: Chuck Flaherty
Cc: Planning - Long Range Admin; Planning General Plan; Planning Internet Mail
Subject: RE: Questions for today's General Plan webinar
Aloha Chuck,
Thankyou for your questions. Below we provide some answers and input in blue. Thankyou for your
continued engagement in this process.
Mahalo,
General Plan Team
County of Hawaii Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 I Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone: (808)961-8288 I Email:GeneralPlan@hawaiicounty.gov
Website:www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov
o tin
County of Hawai'i General Plan 2045
414;•$ Planning for a Sustainable Future
Or Project Website:cohplanning.konveio.com
From: Chuck Flaherty<
Sent:Thursday, September 5, 2024 8:52 AM
To: Planning- Long Range Admin <longrangeadmin@hawaiicounty.gov>; Planning General Plan
<generalplan@hawaiicounty.gov>; Planning Internet Mail <planning@hawaiicounty.gov>
Subject: Questions for today's General Plan webinar
Aloha,
Please see my questions below.
Mahalo,
Chuck Flaherty
Note #1: the draft General Plan 2045 released last Sept. 2023= 9/23 draft GP, the draft
GP2045 released in July 2024 = 7/24 draft GP.
Note #2: Questions 1-12 relate to the General Plan Comprehensive Review process
itself. Questions 13-21 relate to content involving a new section of the draft GP2045 and a new
term, "Biocultural Stewardship".
1. Why was the zoom link for today's online webinar not e-mailed to prior participants in the
General Plan Comprehensive Review until yesterday?
We posted the link to the website and in social media posts. A reminder was sent out yesterday. We had
over 120 people who preregistered.
2. Given the General Plan Comprehensive Review specifically requires the Planning Department
conduct "public workshops", what is the Planning Department's definition of a workshop?
There is no specific definition of workshop, but given it is the term used in the 2005 GP chapter 16 related
to the comprehensive review process, we are using the same term. As answered in the webinar last
night, early on in the process we did more technical and subject matter workshops and charrettes that
were more interactive. Then later in the process, we held open house style workshops with subject
matter stations and staff/agency representatives to talk story and answer questions one-on-one with
participants. This style was chosen because the public can engage directly with staff to get more
information, and we have found over the years that we receive many more comments from the public
this way. We have been hearing for the last year to have more of presentation style and this lends itself
to presenting the final recommended draft as we have done last and this week.
3. Why wasn't Ramseyer formatting used to show changes between the 9/23 draft GP2045 and
the 7/24 draft GP when the two are substantially the same, thereby once and again forcing the
public to play seek-and-find for changes?
We did a little reorganizing (like shifting the biocultural section to the front). We also shifted a few
policies around based on comments and caught a number of mistakes or errors that were
corrected. Providing this in Ramseyer format would have been more confusion for most members of the
public.
4. Given all goals, policies, standards, and courses of action in the current General Plan were
reviewed and evaluated for inclusion in the draft 9/23 and 7/24 GP2045s, why does the General
Plan Policy Rationale not identify the specific goals, policies, standards, and courses of action
that were or were not included in the draft GP2045s, thereby enabling the general public and
decision-makers to determine whether or not they agreed with the Planning Director's
recommendations?
Although many policies came from the 2005 GP, CDPs, and other planning documents, not all are
verbatim, and this was ultimately developed as a new plan that does not lend itself to the Ramseyer style
of revisions. It basically would have been a deletion of the old plan and insertion of the new, which would
not be helpful. There is also a lot of information in the CDP's regionally that is no longer needed in the GP.
Otherwise, they would continue to be redundant. It is very common in the planning profession to
overhaul a long-range planning document, revisit all aspects, and rewrite and replace it with a new
document. This has been done recently in Kauai and before that Maui. There are countless examples
across the country.
5. Why doesn't the Planning Department have a list of the changes between the current GP land
use map and the 7/24 draft GP2045 with the location of each change clearly identified and the
reason for each change, especially given the Planning Dept could not have prepared the draft
GP2045 without having produced this information?
2
Map changes were made based on CDPs and criteria outlined in the methodology reports, which
substantiate the change proposed. They were done in an electronic map via GIS that merges many
different layers including old and current parcel data, 2005 LUPG, many of which are noted on the
disclaimer of the extensive list of polygons provided under the UIPA request. Not all land use
designations follow TMK boundaries and there can be many polygons within 1 parcel. So, it is not as
simple as you might prefer to provide the information you want in today's world of technology.
6. Why were the number of detailed land use maps reduced from 24 in the current GP to 6 in
the 7/24 draft GP, thereby making it effectively impossible to compare printouts from the
current GP .pdf with printouts from the 7/24 draft GP .pdf?
To simplify the document itself given that the data will always live and be available electronically, which
further allows people to zoom in and out as needed for their specific use.
7. Given it is impossible to see the .pdf printout of the land use maps, why does the online
Konveio software platform prevent the online map from being copied and printed, thereby
impeding analysis and research on changes between the land use maps?
The Konveio site does not have a printing function for the GIS map. You could zoom in and use the Print
Screen function on your computer.
8. Why does the online Konveio software platform prevent text within the 7/24 draft GP from
being copied and printed? This forces people to download the .pdf copy and then switch back-
and-forth between the online version when preparing comments using key word searches in the
online version and then having to copy and paste from the .pdf copy.
The Konveio site does not have a printing function. It is designed to be interactive electronically. If you
require a hard copy, we can send one to you.
9. Why were all comments made on the online Konveio platform Sept 2023 GP2045 removed?
They have been captured word for word and provided as reports linked here. The 2023 comments would
not be able to translate over to a new draft document.
10. How do people who made comments on the Sept 2023 map know whether or not their
comments were addressed in the July 2024 draft GP2045?
We incorporated as many comments as we could maintaining generally consistency with process and
criteria noted in the methodology reports. As noted in the workshop we always have to balance different
perspectives and opinions about what individuals may desire.
11. Why doesn't the Planning Department have a list of the changes between the current GP
land use map and the July 2024 GP2045 which clearly identifying the location of each change
and the reason for each change, especially given the Planning Dept could not have prepared the
draft GP2045 without having produced this information?
We have just uploaded an interactive map on the General Plan project website, which we link below. It
shows all areas that have proposed changes to the land use in a color and all areas that have not
changed as white. Like the land use map, there is a pop-up information box that appears when you click
on a polygon. General Plan Land Use Change Map is linked here.
3
12. Why have all lines delineating privately-owned TMKs in the 9/23 GP2045 online land use
map been removed from the 7/24 draft GP2045 map when that same information is available
online through the tax assessor's office?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. I do not recall that we provided a distinction between public and
private parcels. I will have to inquire about this. In the interactive map when a parcel or polygon is
clicked, an information window appears and one of the items is "Link to Property Assessment" which
goes to the RPT website and shows the owner.
13. Why are following essential terms used in the state constitution and in state Supreme Court
legal precedent scarcely mentioned and. when mentioned, not stated within the context of the
legal operating environment in which the General Plan exists?
"Public trust", page 39, Biocultural Stewardship Challenges, "The county has a limited budget for
its large-scale geographic responsibility for the protection of public trust natural and cultural
resources." 14. Why is budget a limiting factor when policies, procedures, and processes are
the methods by which the county carries out its affirmative duty to protect the public trust?
This is noted as a challenge because budget is often a limiting factor with a lot of things the county may
want or need to implement. Our island is very large and has relatively low tax revenue per area as a
whole. Most policies and procedures are implemented through some process that requires funding.
"Public trust", page 40, Biocultural Stewardship Opportunities", "The county can take a more
proactive role in exercising its protective public trust role for natural and cultural
resources." 15. Why is this an "opportunity" when it should be policy, such as "The county has
affirmative duty throughout any decision-making process to protect the county's environmental
and cultural resources."?
Many of the policies in the biocultural chapter are related to different elements of public trust without
using the term specifically each and every time, such as protection of forests, watersheds, groundwater
recharge, riparian and natural environments, etc.
"Public trust", page 41, Biocultural Stewardship Policy 1.1, "Minimize and mitigate significant
impacts, such as degradation, incompatible uses, or other threats to Native Hawaiian habitats
and public trust resources." 16. Why are cumulative impacts not addressed as required in
Hawai'i Revised Statutes 343?
Cumulative impacts are inherent in the policy language. Feel free to add a comment to add cumulative
to the language.
17. Why is there no "Action" for protecting the public trust in the 7/24 draft GP?
Again, there are many actions related to public trust without using the term, such as preservation of
wetland, native species, wildlife, rivers, coastal waters, and other noted above.
18. Why is there no mention of the term "affirmative duty" in the 7/24 draft GP, when the state
Supreme Court has ruled the county has an affirmative duty to protect public trust resources,
which includes kanaka maoli resources, at every stage of any decision-making process?
4
Using such terminology is not required as stated in a court case. Per notes above, the plan does address
the counties public trust.
19. Why is there no mention of the term "Precautionary principle" in the 7/24 draft GP, given
the state Supreme Court has this principle must be followed all decision-making processes
ensure protection of the public trust?
Again, notations in a court ruling does not require that we use the exact language.
"Traditional and customary practices", Collaborative Biocultural Stewardship, p. 47, p. 234,
Action 4.g., "Continue the dialogue between State and County agencies to identify guidance to
protect Native Hawaiian customary and traditional practices." 20. Given county agencies have
a policy of delegating all responsibility for the protection of Native Hawaiian cultural resources,
as well as traditional and customary practices, to the state and there is no "dialogue between
State and County agencies, why does the Planning Director believe this to be a valid action"?
"Traditional and customary practices", Land Use, p. 80, p. 237, Action 10.c, "Collaborate with
the State Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (OPSD) to create criteria to help
identify and protect Native Hawaiian customary and traditional practices." see question 20.
Above
The county and state agencies do have dialogue, and this should be continued and even improved. In
striving to improve stewardship, it is critical that the county collaborate with other state agencies like
DLNR and OPSD to ensure consistency in how HRS is interpreted and implemented.
"Historic trails", Transportation, p. 111, Policy 17.5, "Ensure that existing active living corridors
that are publicly owned or available by easement are properly identified and that their access
elements are secured and documented. a) Primary examples include but are not limited to
historic trails and roads, roads-in-limbo, 'paper roads', former sugar cane roads, train
infrastructure remnants (Rails to Trails), and pedestrian and bicycling paths." 21. Given the list
of references includes "93., The Daily Bulletin (1892). The Highways Act, 1892.", why is there no
policy acknowledging that all trails, paths, and roads in existence when the Highways Act of
1892 was passed are public right-of-ways owned by the state?
Because the Highways Act already does that, it is unnecessary for the GP to say it again.
22. Why is there no action stating that the county must protect these public right-of-ways
throughout all decision-making processes?
Action17.a would address including ROW from the Highways Act. "Develop and adopt a program to
establish public access to historic and modern active living corridors and facilities that provide an island-
wide route and connect to major destinations." Further, the Highways Act gave ROW to the state which
differs from county ROW. In this action, we seek to create a network of trails that can include these
historic trails.
5