Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-10 Windward Transcript Bill 291 and PD on PUD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 10, 2013 COUNTY COUNCIL BILL NO. 291 AND THE PLANNING A regularly advertised hearing on DIRECTOR’S AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 RELATING TO PUD was called to order at 10:10 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Pro Tem Dean Au presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dean Au, Ronald Gonzales, Wallace Ishibashi, Raylene Moses and Stephen Ono STAFF PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), B. J. Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) And approximately 37 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (Bill No. 291) Bill No. 291 regarding a proposed amendment to Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). The purpose of Bill No. 291 is to clarify procedural guideli7nes, define the requirements of a P.U.D. permit, and to add the Planning Commission(s) and the County Council to the review and approval process for a P.U.D permit. Initiates amendments to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 6, Division 1, relating to P.U.D: Amends Section 25-6-1 relating to Purpose. Deletes Section 25-6-2 relating to Minimum land area required. Amends Section 25-6-3 relating to application for P.U.D. permit. Amends 25-6-4 relating to Notice of action on a P.U.D. Application. Deletes Section 25-6-5 relating to Procedure for processing P.U.D. Application when use not permitted in district. Amends Section 25-6-6 relating to Actions by director on P.U.D. permit applications and replaces it with Procedure for processing P.U.D. Application, adds Section 25-6-7 relating to Conditions imposed on P.U.D., and Section 25-6-8 relating to Review and approval of final site plans. Deletes Section 25-6-10 relating to Criteria for granting a P.U.D. permit. Replaces Section 25-6-11 relating to Height exceptions authorized with Construction in conformity with approved final site plans, and Section 25-6-12 relating to Approval of variances, use permits and plan approvals issued under P.U.D. permit with Plan approval issued by approval of final site plans. Amends Section 25-6-13 relating to Effect of P.U.D. permit on other zoning provisions. Amends Section 25-6-14 relating to Time extension and amendments. Amends Section 25-6-15 relating Appeals to Appeal of director's actions on P.U.D. final site plans. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawai‘i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). The purpose of the proposed bill is to clarify the purpose of a P.U.D., clarify procedural guidelines for submitting a P.U.D. Application, 1 EXHIBIT B define the requirements of a P.U.D. project, and to provide an opportunity for greater community involvement in the approval process for a P.U.D. permit. Initiates amendments to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 6, Division 1, relating to P.U.D. Amends Section 25-6-1 relating to purpose. Amends Section 25-6-3 relating to requirements of application for P.U.D. permit. Amends Section 25-6-4 relating to notice of action on P.U.D. Application. Amends Section 25-6-5 relating to procedure for processing application when use not permitted in district. Amends Section 25-6-6 relating to actions by director on P.U.D. permit applications. Adds Section 25-6-7 relating to community meeting required prior to submittal of an application for a P.U.D. Amends Section 25-6-10 relating to criteria for granting a P.U.D. permit. Amends Section 25-6-11 relating to height exceptions authorized. Amends Section 25-6-12 relating to approval of variances, use permits and plan approvals issued under P.U.D. permit. Amends Section 25-6-13 relating to effect of P.U.D. permit on other zoning provisions. Amends Section 25-6-14 relating to time extensions and amendments. Amends Section 25-6-15 relating to appeals. AU: Okay, agenda item number 4 and possibly 5. So go ahead, staff. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We submitted one background and recommendation report for Items 4 and 5. One is the County Council initiated bill to amend the Zoning Code related to Planned Unit Development. And then Item 5 is a Director initiated bill related to Planned Unit Development. So this presentation will address both items. So the County Council has initiated Bill 291. This proposes amendments to the Zoning Code related to Planned Unit Development. The purpose of Bill 291 is to add the Planning Commission and the County Council to the review and approval process for a PUD permit, and to clarify procedural guidelines and define the requirements of a PUD Permit. Currently PUD permits are issued administratively by the Planning Director, so the Commission and Council do not review them at all. This is the current PUD approval process. It kind of outlines the notification and opportunities for the public to get involved in the PUD process. So currently a PUD application is filed with the Department, and the Department files notice of the application in the newspapers on our island, and then the applicant posts a sign on the property. You’ve probably seen those white, white signs around the island. And then the applicant also sends a letter notifying the surrounding property owners of the PUD application. So those are the three opportunities that the public currently has to be notified and to become involved in the PUD approval process. After that’s done the public or neighbors can mail in letters to the Director letting her know of their concerns about the application. And then the Director considers those concerns and then makes a decision to approve or deny the PUD permit. Bill 291 which is the County Council initiated bill wants to change that process a little bit. In addition to the notification requirements in this first box here, after that is done the Planning Department would make a recommendation rather than a decision. And that recommendation would go to both of the Planning Commissions. They would make a recommendation to the County Council on the PUD Permit and then the County Council would make the final decision to approve or deny the permit. So 2 EXHIBIT B it’s changing the process from an administrative decision to a legislative decision, similar to like a rezone application that the Commissions currently make recommendations on. So what is a PUD permit? Essentially it allows a comprehensive set of variances from the zoning and subdivision codes relating to building site standards such as lot width and size, building height, yards and open space, and road standards. Changing the approval from the Director to the County Council may be in violation of the County Charter, this is the Director’s concerns with Bill 291, because the Charter says that “The Planning Director shall render decisions on proposed variances….” And since the PUD Permit is essentially a comprehensive set of variances, the Charter says that basically the Director should be making those decisions. So before Bill 291 could be adopted, the County Council may first have to amend the Charter. So with the Director’s concerns and mine, the Department staff met with Councilperson Hoffman, who is the author of Bill No. 291, to try to find a way to come up with a new bill that addresses his concerns with wanting more community involvement in PUD decisions, but also addressing the Director’s concerns related to the County Charter. As an alternative to Bill 291, the Director proposed her own bill. This bill would require that the Applicant conduct a community meeting prior to submitting a P.U.D. Application to the Planning Department, and that the P.U.D. development must be consistent with the intent of the recently adopted community development plans. The Director feels that holding a community meeting prior to submittal of a P.U.D. Application is both beneficial to the applicant and the community because it allows for the concerns to be identified ahead of time, early on in the process so that the applicant can modify development plans before submitting the application to the Department. So the approval process that the Director is proposing in her bill would require the community meeting to solicit comments from the neighbors ahead of time, and then the application would be submitted to the Department. And then the same notice requirements that currently exist would occur - notice in the newspaper, a sign posted on the property, and letters to the surrounding property owners notifying them that the application was filed. And then the Director would consider any additional written letters that come in of concern and then make a decision on whether to approve or deny the PUD Permit. So that’s the two bills that we’re proposing in a nutshell. The Director is recommending an unfavorable recommendation for Bill 291, and obviously a favorable recommendation for her proposed bill. I also want to point out to you that we did submit a revision to the background and recommendation on a yellow piece of paper to clarify the PUD process and what it’s used for, as well as make a correction on the Director’s proposed bill. 3 EXHIBIT B Are there any questions? AU: Any questions for staff? No? Seeing none, okay. Well, if there’s anybody that wants to speak on Bill 91 please come forward. COTTLE: Two. AU: I’m sorry, 2, 291. Okay, Mr. Fuke is actually a testifier. But what I was getting at is if anybody who authored the bill wants to come testify or talk about it. FUKE: Oh, I’m sorry. AU: But Mr. Fuke since you’re already there, you can stay there. And if our Madam Director would like to elaborate on her proposed bill, before we go into public testimony? LEITHEAD TODD: No. AU: Okay, well then we’ll just go into public testimony. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission today? FUKE: I do. AU: Okay. Please state your name, where you reside, and you have three minutes. FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, Happy New Year. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant. And my business address is 100 Pauahi Street, which is located directly across of this building. On this matter, I think that the purported concept that the bill is proposing, which is Councilman Hoffman’s bill, is commendable, which is to enable more public input. The recommendation of the Planning Director is much more appropriate. Very briefly, the reasons are two-fold. One is that it’s an appropriate separation of functions between the legislative branch and the executive branch; and, secondly, it’s a question of efficiency. First as it relates to the separation of functions between the legislative branch, we know that the legislature or in this case the County Council, it establishes and adopts the policies. And once these policies are established then it becomes the responsibility of the executive branch, be it the Planning Department or the Public Works Department, to implement and administer them. In this case, the County Council adopted the Zoning and the Subdivision Codes and amendments, such as rezoning for example. These Codes establish standards for subdivision and zoning, such as roadway width, water, height, lot size, setback and such. To use an old cliche, however, because “one size does not fit all,” a process - such as the variance or PUD - to allow relief by the Planning Director from these standards was created. Further, notification to surrounding property owners, notices in the newspaper, posting of 4 EXHIBIT B a sign on the property were also required to better enable the public to weigh in on the request, as the staff had kind of pointed out. To minimize abuse, however, criteria to allow these reliefs were also established. The Codes also identified what kind of variances can or cannot be granted. Thus, while the Director can grant a setback or a height variance, it would be prohibited from granting a variance or a PUD to allow, for example, a hotel in a single-family residential zone. That’s clear that they cannot do it. Such a change, appropriately so, must go through the rezoning process, which means to the Commission and to the County Council. Thus, in summary, the Director administers and enforces the Zoning and Subdivision Codes adopted by the Council. If these are standards or areas where the Council finds that the variances or PUDs are not appropriate, it would be best to have them clearly defined in the Zoning or Subdivision Codes, rather than having the Council assume the administrative task of approving or denying the variances. The second item relates to the mater of efficiency. Prior to 1968 the County Charter, prior to the 1968 County Charter, the Planning Commission, this body actually, was the approving body of all subdivisions in this County. This function was delegated to the Planning Director in 1968 to relieve the Commission of being the administrator of the Subdivision Code, while reserving its time for acting on variance and recommending rezoning and other policy-related applications to the Council. Can you imagine if the Commission today were to review and act on over 500 subdivision applications annually? It would probably require a full-time commission. Now because processing variances dominated the Commission’s agenda between 1968 and ’78 and the realization that this was really an administrative function, the Charter was amended in1978 to relegate this function to the Planning Director. Checks, however, were put in to minimize abuse by increasing the role of the Board of Appeals. The Commission now had more time to focus on and act on major land use policy matters such as Special Permits, Use Permits, and making recommendations to the Council and Mayor on critical land use issues such as the CDPs or the General Plan. All of these require public hearings and, understandably, can be quite time-consuming. Bill 291 proposes to now have PUD applications (which is really like the variation of the variance) processed through the Commission and Council, purportedly to enable more public input. Such a move will again unnecessarily add to the burden of the Commission and Council and could further risk politicizing an issue, particularly since legislative actions are not appealable. On the other hand, retaining this function at the Director’s level, with the appropriate checks afforded by the Board of AppealS, it provides a more efficient and fair approach to processing PUDs. In sum, if the intent of Bill 291 is to increase the opportunity for greater public input and beyond the current requirement of notices to surrounding property owners, etc., then the Director’s proposal addresses this. The proposal mandates the applicant to hold a community meeting, and I think that’s a good thing. On the other hand, if there are concerns regarding the outcome of the decisions on PUDs, then it would be more appropriate to have the Zoning or Subdivision Codes amended to further define what kind of 5 EXHIBIT B exceptions can or cannot be considered and/or create new guidelines or standards. Just transferring what is normally an administrative function to the legislative branch does not necessarily address the concern and it could excessively politicize an issue. And that’s the reason why I think what the Director is proposing is way better and, I think, is legally sound. Thank you very much. AU: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Okay. So what we have in front of us, Commissioners, is we have, we’re going to take each item separately, okay? So we have Item No. 4 which is to either give a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. And then after that we’re going to take No. 5 and give either a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. So we’re going to take it as two separate items. Oh, yeah, and our discussion may overlap the two. So I’ m ready to entertain a motion. COTTLE: Mr. Chair? I’m sorry –. AU: Yes. COTTLE: I found one other correction that needs to be made in the Director’s proposed bill. It’s just very minor but I need to put it on the record. On page 5 of her bill, Section 25-6-10, Criteria for Granting a PUD permit, we want to strike out “permit” and put “approval,” which is consistent with the rest of the language in the bill. And that’s it. AU: Okay, thank you, Maija. At this point, ready to entertain a motion for Applicant No. 4, County Council Bill No. 291? ISHIBASHI: I entertain a motion that we reject Bill 291. AU: Send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council? Is that your motion? ISHIBASHI: Yes. AU: Okay. ONO: Second. AU: Okay, thank you. Discussion? Maija, could you flip back to that screen where it shows the current process and the new process. Okay. You know, one thing that I do like is our Planning Director is getting the community involved; and I think that’s very important, especially for this next application that we’re going to hear. You know, the community needs to get involved; and I think that’s a great thing. But I think Bill 291, I think maybe they’re trying to micro-manage. Maybe the County Council might want to try and do that. That bill might make, you know, bring these issues to them when it should be an administrative matter. So maybe I just think the County Council is maybe trying to micro-manage. GONZALES: I agree. I think the Director should be allowed to do her job. 6 EXHIBIT B AU: Okay. Any more discussion? Okay, well, Maija, we’re ready to take a vote. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the vote is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council regarding Bill No. 291. Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? AU: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes five-zero. AU: Okay, moving on to Item No. 5. I just have to ask, is there anybody here to testify, or if the Planning Director wants to elaborate on it more? MARKS: I’d like to testify. I did sign up but I -. AU: Okay, can you have a seat. Okay, please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of the Windward Planning Commission today? MARKS: I do. AU: Okay, please state your name, where you reside ad speak clearly into the microphone. MARKS: Good morning, Commission. I’m Kerri Marks. I live in Kaumana City in Hilo. I just wanted to comment that the community meeting, the way that you have it set up that you’d like to do it is actually not as far-reaching as you might think. Posting in the newspaper is good. But I’m poor, I can’t afford the newspaper. I read it on-line for free. Those kinds of things are not posted in the on- line section. Okay, the posting on the property, I have been driving past that sign on it, by the Kaumana Cave for months, and months and months, and never read it. Never read it, had no idea it would even apply to 7 EXHIBIT B me. The way they put the sign and where they put it, you can’t read it when you’re driving by. The words are too small. You would have to park up at Kaumana Cave and walk down to where the sign is to read it. So that’s not a valid – I still haven’t read it. As many meetings as I’ve been to here about the Kaumana Charter School, I still haven’t stopped and read the sign. The public meetings, I went to one last month, they had a big bulletin board with about six or seven dates of public meetings they’ve had over the last several years. I never heard about any of them. Last month’s meeting was the first one I was ever notified of. And the only reason I was notified is because I was in the room when they announced that they were having it. So notifying people that live within 500 feet, or 1500 feet, or whatever your rule is, is not enough. Everybody that drives past that subdivision or that development is also affected, especially in a bottleneck neighborhood like where I live. There’s only one way. Well, there’s two ways. If I’m going to Puainako I can take the extension. But pretty much I take Kaumana Drive up and down the hill, 99 out of 100 times that’s how I go. So I just wanted to point that out that to you, that it may not be as awesome as you think for those reasons. Okay, mahalo. AU: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? MOSES: What suggestions, sorry, what suggestions do you have? MARKS: I like the County Council thing. They have a process and I’m, you know, the whole community, the whole island is tapped into that process. You could post it on the website too, that would be helpful. The whole County Council website needs, honestly, to be burned down to the ground and restarted. It’s kind of a tragedy. But that would help. That’s more, you know, accessible. The internet is free. You’ve got to figure out how to use these things. That would be my suggestion, was at least post them on the website. Posting stuff on the bulletin board behind the glass at the County Building is also a waste of time. As much time as I spend down here and at the County Building, that’s still not the best way to get stuff. I really have a problem with the 500 feet notification thing. It’s not enough. It’s not enough. AU: Okay, thank you. Any more questions for the testifier? ONO: I’m sorry, I have one. AU: Commissioner Ono. ONO: I kind of am disturbed by your comment that you’re not willing to, maybe I’m may be phrasing this in the wrong way so please tolerate my question here. We provide information regarding, through the newspaper which is the more common way of doing it apparently. And you’re saying, and I agree with you, it’s kind of expensive to be subscribing to the papers. However, your suggestion of a website, who’s going to be maintaining those things? MARKS: There should be staff to do it. ONO: Yeah, so you’re -? 8 EXHIBIT B MARKS: That’s really easy. That’s copying and pasting something. That would take minutes, especially if it was a process for all Boards and Commissions and -. ONO: I see, I see. MARKS: Yeah -? ONO: Well, I guess what I’m looking at is that we’re trying to stay within budget, that means that we now need to look at someone else being assigned a responsibility for the entire County activities. Two, we have notices posted and you say, you know, you don’t have time, not you don’t have time, it’s too small to be read while passing by. But I guess I’m thinking that we, the suggestion is maybe you need to come up with other suggestions more than just saying that the website -. I guess, the means of the communication is -. MARKS: Okay, expand community involvement then to a mile. ONO: I’m sorry? MARKS: Expand the community, the radius that you notify neighbors to a much larger radius. ONO: Yeah, see, but the thing is, I guess what, I hope we’re not getting into an argument here. But to be mailing things out to the residences more than 500 that’s going to cost us more money and therefore your tax money again and -. To what extent is it going to be enough for you to say, okay, I’m satisfied with the means of communication? MARKS: When I for the first time in five years and seven meetings am notified of a meeting that affects my neighborhood. That hasn’t happened yet. Honestly do away with the newspaper notices. Does anybody really read that page? They’re all kind of jammed together in the tiniest print possible. AU: Okay, well, thank you very much. Any further questions for the testifier? Okay, Fellow Commissioners, maybe we can also get to some of this stuff in discussion. So I’m ready to, if there’s nobody else to testify, I’m ready to entertain a motion. We do have somebody here to testify? WILLE: Yes. AU: Okay. AU: Can you, hi. Can you raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of the Hawai‘i County Planning Commission today? WILLE: Yes, I do. 9 EXHIBIT B AU: Okay, please state your name and where you’re from before you get started. Speak into the microphone, please. WILLE: Margaret Wille, Waimea. I’m speaking on behalf of myself as an individual member of the community, Waimea, and just really responding to Mr. Ono’s questions. I, too, if we were to adopt this, the Director’s proposed changes, have concern about the extent of public notification. And I would like to see it go to the, if there’s a community plan, action committee in that area. I feel that’s a good forum. They get notice out to people where they are community members. We actually did that with two of the PUDs that came up recently, Puako 1010 -. And I thought that was a good forum and I think it would develop over time. And you already have that notice in place. I also agree with the utilization of the internet. I actually tried to get a charter amendment to make that a requirement. And as I recall, as I recall, Mr. Ashida, Corporation Counsel Ashida at that point said, well, we’re working on that and doing it. But if you get these things onto the internet it is not, it’s very accessible; and I st think that that is the modern way. It’s just bringing us up to the 21 century. I don’t think it’s asking a lot. You can even get a volunteer to come in and help. So I would like to see it both in the internet and, to the extent there’s a CDP committee or an equivalent, there’s a Hilo Neighborhood Board. It’s still, what their input is advisory. It’s going to the Director. And I think that it, there’s a greater sense of trust that you have an informed community. So thank you very much. LEITHEAD TODD: I -. AU: Okay, okay. Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, just for clarification purposes – I guess the difficulty in what you put in the bill is, one, not every community has a CDP action committee. So it would only work with action committees. It wouldn’t work for other areas. Like Hilo does not have a CDP action committee. But what the concerns of the speaker were, were to the community meetings, which in my bill is before an application is submitted. And so, but I’m like I don’t know what to do. We put, we have signs on the property notifying people that there’s an application; and the reason we went to that was that that was more visible. Cause unless you know something is going on, most people are not regularly going to check the County Council website or the Planning Department website. I mean, let’s be honest, most people are not political junkies that are going to show up at every meeting. They’re busy, they’re working. So the sign on the yard, on the property, was the Council’s attempt to get notice directly into the community where there’s an application. So whether it’s a subdivision, but I don’t know what -. The response, too, is that, well, the sign is not big enough, that you can’t read it, or I didn’t stop to look at it. Because if you weren’t going to look at the sign, I don’t think people would have gone to the website, because you didn’t know there was anything to go look for. So I don’t know what you do. You could look at expanding the 500 feet to 1,000 feet, you know, or you could require perhaps that a sign announcing the community meeting go up on the property, because people theoretically you drive by you see it. And it needs to be in a certain type perhaps so that it’s more visible. But that’s all front end. What you’re addressing more is kind of back end after the application actually comes in. And the process we have right now is the action committees get notice where the application is. They can determine whether it’s something they want to have on their agenda. The last two that went was 10 EXHIBIT B because, one I directed because I knew it was big enough that they’d be interested, and the other one they requested. And then on smaller stuff, small subdivisions and stuff, they’ve basically said, you know, two-lot subdivisions they’re not interested in having that automatically go to them for a hearing. But perhaps the issue is signage, size of the sign and the size of the type in announcing to the community that something is going on. Because I just don’t think that putting it on the website is going to tell people that there’s something that they need to go and find. Cause the average citizen, if they’re not reading the paper and they’re not reading the sign on the property, I don’t know what’s going to hook them, cause they’re probably not reading the agendas either. This is, what you see here is people word of mouth more than anything else notifying their neighbors, or through a community association. Perhaps it’s having an accessible directory of community organizations and presidents of those community organizations so that they’re on a list that regularly gets contacted. Like I’m the former president of my community association; and even though the community association isn’t doing much I still get Land Use Commission agendas mailed to me on a regular basis so I know if there’s anything going on then I can go notify my neighbors. So maybe that’s a process that the Council or Department can initiate and incorporate. WILLE: And let me just say I don’t have a problem with this signage on the location. I think as long as they’re visible enough that someone can see them that if they want to stop they can stop. But I really feel strongly about having it be available on the internet. You can for certain things that come up get on a list that you’re regularly get sent that, such as I think a lot of us do for something coming up, like if it’s, there’s an EIS. Anyway other departments do it. You can just get on a list, and then you’re on that contact list and hit one, hit. But I also think that if you do have it on the internet then people can, community members, pick out somebody that’s going to regularly check it, and it’s there and available. So, again, I do feel strongly. That’s how people communicate. And if it’s available -. I also feel with the CDPs, I like having it go, just to say that, in advance. And before the roads get put in, you know, around the center, the community member would say why won’t you put them around the far end and have, the outside end, and get a little more interaction between the developer and the community. I also, in terms of the 500 feet, my one concern there is that -. Say the Waikii PUD, my understanding is you did that and did legal notice, was within 500 feet of the land being developed. But the people using that new land to be developed would be sharing the same roads so that you’re burdening roads that are common to all in that subdivision. And I actually think that where you have a common area that impacts, that it should really go out. But that’s another issue, but I just want to -. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, I was just going to briefly mention that. It’s one thing, in Waikii every property owner actually did get notice because the proposer paid for the community association to mail notice out. But if you’re talking some place like Hawaiian Paradise Park where the roads are used by all the owners and they’re all individually owned, that’s 8,800 plus notices that would have to go out for something like what we have in the special use permit. 11 EXHIBIT B WILLE: Okay. And I think there is a balancing there. I know. But I think that where you are sharing the roads, I know I talked to Bill Moore and Bob Acree in terms of Waikii and Sharon said actually all of the members were informed. But I do think it’s a concern. Thank you very much for your time. AU: Okay, okay. Thank you. Any questions? Any more questions for the testifier? Okay. Ready to entertain a motion to either send a favorable or an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. GONZALES: I’d like to propose that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council on the Director’s bill. AU: With the amended changes? There was an amendment, changing of that one word -. GONZALES: With the amended changes. AU: Okay, is there a second? MOSES: Can I say something without seconding? AU: We need to get a second before you get into discussion. MOSES: Okay, second. AU: Okay, discussion. Go ahead, Commissioner Moses. MOSES: So could we add to this that we should look at the process of notification in the community, whether it is to expand the 500 feet current rule or looking into other options as to how we’re going to notify the community in this day and age? AU: Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: If you wanted to, in Section 25-6-7, want to add additional requirements -. Cause basically it has in Section 25, this is page 5 of the proposed bill, in Section 25-6-7(b), it says that it basically complies with whatever is required under Section 25-2-4, which are the notices that are required pursuant to the Code. And those were set in a prior bill. But because this bill is before you, you could add additional requirements here. You could add a requirement that a notice of the community meeting be posted on the subject property if you wanted to. Cause I think that that’s probably the most effective, cause anybody driving past the property would see it. You could add something that says if you had, but we have community, homeowners and business associations or organization in the area. They’re already required in here to be notified. So if you’ve got a kumiai, you know, and that’s more than just, you know, 500 feet. If there’s a kumiai in the area or community association they’re required to notice them here under Item B. So, but this is where you would add stuff if you wanted to add, you know. AU: I think that, you know, what we’re required to in Section 25-6-7 (b) (1-7), you know, that’s the minimum; and I think that’s sufficient. Personally, I would like to see more, you know, in and of 12 EXHIBIT B itself, updating on the internet, especially for our county. I was on the Parks and Rec’s website and there are things from 2011 on there. I got some results for some Parks and Recs things and, you know, it’s 2013 already. So, yeah, I’d like to see the County try and update more often, but that’s within each department. So, but, you know, regarding land use and regarding this application, you know, everything is done as far as the minimum, things that we need to do. And I think people that get involved in community meetings, in Commission meetings like this, I think it’s a personal preference. Not everybody, they may hear about it but they don’t want to get as involved; and it’s a lot of, the time is after the fact. So, you know, we do reach out to the community in some way or form. And, yeah, it can get better, you know. I agree with what Ms. Wille was saying. But, you know, the County is currently doing all the minimums, and this is the current minimum if we were to send a favorable recommendation. COTTLE: Mr. Chair? AU: Yes. COTTLE: If I could also just point out what the current notification requirements are. Section 25-2-4 requires that when the land, the property, is in the Urban district, notice has to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property. And then for land that’s Agriculture, it’s 500 feet; and that’s because agricultural lots are usually larger. So those are the current notice requirements that are proposed in this bill, in addition to any community, homeowner or business associations known to be active in the surrounding community, which goes beyond the current requirements. AU: Thank you, Maija. Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, I just wanted to say that one of the reasons, when we do notice requirements, that we typically refer to the section of the Code that sets up notice requirements is if you start setting up different requirements at different sections of the Code it becomes very difficult to figure out. And also if the Council later amends the provision on notice requirements, then it automatically amends all the notice requirements in every section. If you separate it in sections and every time you want to amend it, you’re going to have to amend every section of the Code, which is why we typically put all the notice requirements in just one section. And, obviously, you know, this discussion had come up earlier, because I think there had been some discussion with the Council of 1,000 feet on some types of rezoning, I think it was. And so obviously that could be amended. But, you know, another thing here is if you wanted to put in additional meetings, if you wanted to have, you know, it wouldn’t necessarily be in that section. But a requirement that the Department post the application on its website, you could put something in here to that. MOSES: So do we have to make a recommendation or can we just say that we’d like for this to be reviewed, and then bring recommendations as to how -? 13 EXHIBIT B LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, you could make a recommendation and not amend this bill, but do a recommendation along with the bill that you think the Council and the Department should review the distance for notices and expand the distance so that more neighbors are notified than are currently. MOSES: And even the process of notification could be looked at, reviewed. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, you can make that recommendation without amending the bill. MOSES: That’s exactly what I’d like to recommend. AU: Okay. Well, I have another question for Madam Director or staff. What is the process for the community development plan? Let’s say it is on the agenda for a community development plan, what is the timeframe of that and, yeah, what’s the timeframe on that, and what is their notification process to the community? LEITHEAD TODD: We post an agenda, we mail it out. What we’re doing now is when an application comes in, and it’s not just PUDs, it’s any application that typically requires notice to neighbors, we then, at the same time that we notify other agencies - cause you notice we always notify Fire Department, DPW, Department of Health, please comment on this application - we now send that same letter to the action committee so that they get this notice at the same time that every other agency gets notice saying, hey, this is in our office. We give them a brief description of what the application is, and then they can ask us for the full application. Cause what we want them to know is how many acres, how many lots, what is it doing, is it a rezone, is it a PUD? And then they can put it on their agenda and ask the applicant to come and do a presentation. We’ve done that with, since we changed to this process we’ve done two PUDs that way where it has gone to the South Kohala action committee so that they could see what was happening in that, which is then, that’s separate and apart of the community meeting that’s in this bill. That’s another process. And the action committees are free to determine what they want. And they can go beyond PUDs. They can ask for subdivisions, they can ask for variances and stuff to come before them too, if they want. So that’s the current process. We, you know, changed this maybe six months ago, and since then we’ve had two that went through that’s open to the public. I think they had larger attendance at the community meetings though than they did at the action committee, but I’m not 100 percent sure on that. With, and with everything, I think there’s always the issue of notice. We’ve had people say that putting in the papers is not enough. We’ve had people saying on the website is not enough cause they don’t have a computer. So there’s, there isn’t a perfect way. So we tried doing, you know, multiple ways. And then anyone who wants to be on our email list we regularly email all our subdivision applications. And whatever applications are in the department go out on a semi monthly basis to people. AU: Thank you, Madam Director. It answered my question. Any more discussion amongst Commissioners, asking any more questions? Staff? If not, we’re ready to -. Did you want to amend, are you making an amendment to your motion? MOSES: Well -. 14 EXHIBIT B AU: Okay, so what, what is our amendment? To add, we’re going to add in 25-6-7 (b), I guess we’re adding No. 8. And what is going to be the exact language? Can staff help us with that? COTTLE: I thought Commissioner Moses said she just wanted to make a recommendation -. LEITHEAD TODD: It’s 25-2-4. COTTLE: But that the Department and the Council look at improving the process, the notification process. I didn’t hear that she wanted to actually amend the bill. MOSES: No. COTTLE: Was that correct? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. And I think she’s concerned about the notification in 15-2-4, which is not part of this bill which has the 300 and 500 feet, that she wants both the Department and the Council to look at expanding that and, as well as the process of notification. MOSES: Correct, that’s exactly it. AU: So we’re not amending. It’s just a recommendation to -. MOSES: Yes, correct. COTTLE: And since Commissioner Gonzales was the maker of the motion, are you okay with that? GONZALES: I guess, I’m fine with it. COTTLE: Okay. I know Commissioner Moses is. GONZALES: She’s -. AU: Okay, so any more discussion with Fellow Commissioners, if not we’re ready to take a vote. Corporation Counsel Ivan? TORIGOE: Let’s see, this particular recommendation, well, Section 25-2-4 is mentioned as part of the proposed amendments here. So I would say that it is just within the scope of, we can discuss it in terms of a recommendation. AU: Okay. So, correction, so it can be in the motion. TORIGOE: Actually let’s have it restated exactly what the motion is. MOSES: Can I have Maija restate it for me? 15 EXHIBIT B COTTLE: I can try. MOSES: Please. COTTLE: Okay. So, and then maybe Ivan you can correct me if it’s wrong. So the motion is to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council on the Director’s proposed bill with the additional amendments that she suggested, as well as a recommendation to have the Planning Department and County Council review the notification requirements in Section 25-2-4, to try to expand the notice area or improve the notice process. MOSES: Correct, yes. COTTLE: Okay. AU: Okay. Is the Commissioner that made the motion okay with that? GONZALES: I’m fine with that. AU: Okay. And Commissioner Moses is fine with that, too. MOSES: Yes. AU: Okay, so ready to take a vote. TORIGOE: Just for the record, once the motion has been made and seconded it really is the property of the entire Board, so you should make sure that there’s no objection from anybody else. AU: Okay. Any other, Fellow Commissioners, do you object to our changes in the motion? ISHIBASHI: Second that motion. TORIGOE: I think you should take that as a no objection from the Commissioners. And if there are no other objections then you can go ahead. AU: Okay, there’s no other objections. Go ahead and take the vote. Okay, Maija. COTTLE: Okay. Commissioner Gonzales. GONZALES: Aye COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. 16 EXHIBIT B COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBAHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? AU: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes five to zero. AU: Okay, everybody -. You’ll be notified in writing. The discussion ended at 10:58 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 17 EXHIBIT B