Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-06HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-PD INITIATED CHAPTER 16 GENERAL PLAN WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 6, 2014 Planning Director Initiated, Amendment to A regularly advertised hearing on the Chapter 16.1 “Comprehensive Review,” Part (1) of the County of Hawai‘i General Plan (2005 Edition, as amended) was called to order at 10:40 a.m. in the Hilo State Office Building, Conference Rooms A, B, & C, 75 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Ronald Gonzales presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ronald Gonzales, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr., Stephen Ono, and Raylene Moses. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Myles Miyasato. ALSO PRESENT: Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Ron Whitmore (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Secretary). And approximately 17 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Amendment to Chapter 16 “Amendment Procedures”, Section 16.1 “Comprehensive Review,” part (1) of the County of Hawai‘i General Plan (2005 Edition, as amended) in order to allow for the comprehensive review of the General Plan to be initiated 10 years after adoption of the previous comprehensive amendments, rather than the submittal of the comprehensive amendments to the County Council within that same time frame. GONZALES: Moving along, Item No. 4 on the agenda. It’s initiated by the Planning Director. This is Mr. Ron Whitmore. WHITMORE: Yeah, good morning Commissioners, Corporation Counsel, staff, members of the public. Thank you. Yes, my name is Ron Whitmore. I’m a long range planner with the County Planning Department. With me here today also is Bethany Morrison, another long range planner. We’ve been working on this together. I’d like to take a few minutes to give you an overview of the proposed General Plan amendment, and I’m available to answer any questions. I’d like to cover briefly is the bottom line followed by an overview of the last comprehensive update for the General Plan. An overview of what we anticipate will be the timeline for the upcoming comprehensive update followed by a brief explanation of why the proposed amendment is necessary. A review, again, of the proposed amendments and then a brief overview of the process for this proposed interim amendment to the General Plan. 1 EXHIBIT D So, in simplest terms, all the Director is proposing here is a change in the timeframe for the comprehensive review and update of the General Plan. As it currently stands, the update is to be completed up to the point where recommended updates to the Plan are presented to the Council within ten years of the date of adoption of the last General Plan, which would be February 2015, less than a year from now. What the Director is proposing is that the language be returned to how it was originally in 2005 which is to initiate the process by then. Here it is in Ramseyer format so you see the simple language change that is being proposed. Just so you understand how long the process took last time this was done, here’s a brief overview of that process. It started in 1998 and after some initial studies and analysis including economic development, land use, infrastructure, and many other issues that are addressed in the General Plan, amendments, proposed amendments were drafted. Those went before the Planning Commission, and then by mid-2002, approximately four years from initiation, it got to Council. So, we did also is take a look at as currently articulated in the Charter, the General Plan, Chapter 16, and the Planning Department and Planning Commission rules, we’re summarizing here, the process that we will have to follow for this next comprehensive update. And, again, we anticipate it’ll take about 3.5, 3-1/2 years or so from initiation to get to the point where we can present it to Council. Let me just walk you briefly through each of those key steps. The first is the formal initiation by the Planning Director of the comprehensive update, and that involves notice to you, to Council, to the members, to the public, and then following that is 45 days for the public to provide any input or comments on the, any, what the members of the public may consider necessary on changes to the GP. We’ll also invite the action committees of the community development plans to provide comment and input. And Council itself has a 120 days minimum to comment and provide suggestions for amendments to the General Plan, so that process we estimate would take up to six months or so. The next step would then be for Planning Department staff and consultants to review the input received during that initial 6-month phase, and then conduct appropriate analysis and based on past precedent, this often involves studies related to community development plans that have been adopted since the last GP update, related plans and strategies from other agencies—County, State, Federal—that may relate to General Plan topics, population analysis, land use analysis, natural cultural resource management analysis, infrastructure, a whole range of topics. As you know, there’s many. It’s very comprehensive, the General Plan, so with that during this phase, the Planning Department and consultants will look at all relevant issues that may need attention and maybe consideration during the comprehensive review. At the end of that process, which we’re just guesstimating based on the past, the last process, could take up to two years. At the end of that, the Planning Director will propose amendments to the General Plan. That then is followed again by public notice of those proposed amendments, a series of public workshops, and then the public has an opportunity to then comment at that stage in the process. And that step then is followed by formal review by the Planning Commissions and associated hearings. And as, again, currently, as currently written in the General Plan in Chapter 16, that the Planning Commissions will have to have reviewed that, held their hearings and made their recommendations and formal submittal to Council, currently all by February of 2015. But, 2 EXHIBIT D again, we anticipate that process taking three, three and a half to four years from the point of initiation. The final step in the process then is Council review and action, and that could take any amount of time. Last time, it took several years actually, so-. So, why is the proposed amendment necessary? It really comes down to four basic, a few basic challenges. As I’ve mentioned already, under the current reading of Chapter 16 of the GP, we will, we would have had to initiate the process back in 2011 to have really gotten to the point where we’re ready to submit proposed amendments via the Planning Commissions to the County Council. The community development plans, our own in-house capacity, and then budget challenges have made that impossible. The first challenge has been the CDP’s. In February, the February 2015 deadline was established before the County started the community development planning process, and at that time we really didn’t have an idea how long those would take. The bottom line is they take a considerable amount of time to do well. We have four, three that are adopted—Kona, Puna, North and South Kohala—but two are still underway. We do anticipate that those two will be completed this year. It’s important that those community driven planning processes be completed before the GP comprehensive update. The second major challenge is department capacity. Also related to the CDP’s, didn’t have a good idea when those were included in the last GP update, how much time and effort they would take, and it’s extensive it turns out. And we’ve had some increased capacity in staffing in the Long Range Planning Department. It has-hasn’t been sufficient, and only in very recent months have we been fully staffed. And so, it’s been a struggle just to complete the first round of CDP’s and manage the new action committees that have come along with the adopted community development plans. So we haven’t simply had the in-house capacity to take on in addition to all of that the comprehensive update of the General Plan. Then, finally, as everybody knows, we’ve been facing nationally, and certainly at the State and County levels, significant fiscal challenges, and not only have we not have been offered any budget increases in the last four, five years, they’ve been consistent budget reductions, and so though we’ve, the Planning Department, has proposed funding for GP update and other items, the consistent response is “no can.” There’s no money for anything extra, and so there’s simply not the fiscal possibility of an initiating a process like this. So, again, just to review, it’s a very simple amendment that’s being proposed, and this is Chapter 16 of the General Plan which is the section of the plan after all the substantive sections. It simply covers amendment procedures. It covers both interim amendments, like the one proposed today, and the comprehensive update, and so, so this is, it’s a little confusing, but this is an interim amendment being proposed by the Planning Director to amend the chapter, the section of Chapter 16, that addresses the comprehensive update. And, again, it’s simply saying rather than get through with 3-1/2 plus years of the update process by next February, we actually initiate it by then, which is how it was originally written in the 2005 General Plan, as adopted. 3 EXHIBIT D So what will be the implications? Really quite simple. The Planning Department, the Planning Director would have to initiate the comprehensive update by February 2015 which is the 10-year anniversary of when the last GP comprehensive update was adopted. HEAUKULANI: Question, please. WHITMORE: Did you want me to briefly outline the steps that this proposed— HEAUKULANI: No, I’d like to know, I understand, I thought I understood this before this, but I understand the timeframe for initiation. What I don’t understand is underneath this proposed amendment, what would be the timeframe for submittal? WHITMORE: There would not be a deadline established for submittal of the proposed amendments to the GP. It would establish a deadline for initiation. HEAUKULANI: So, it’s open ended as far as submittal? WHITMORE: That’s always been the case with the General Plan. HEAUKULANI: You know, maybe I misunderstood how the two work together, but didn’t the amendment to Ordinance No. 07-70 establish a deadline for submittal? WHITMORE: You’re referring yeah, so in 05, the GP amendment comprehensive update was adopted. Its original language was similar to what the Planning Director is now proposing it return to. In 07, the Director at the time initiated an amendment that would establish a deadline for submittal, excuse me, submittal to Council. And that was, that would be February of next year. So, this is returning it to how it was in 2005 and had been previous. HEAUKULANI: So, I’m a little uncomfortable with leaving the submittal deadline open ended, but that’s my personal opinion. WHITMORE: Would you like me to cover briefly the steps this proposed interim amendment needs to follow from here? ONO: Excuse me. GONZALES: Go ahead, Mr. Ono. ONO: I need for you to go back and walk me through this slowly-- WHITMORE: Sure— ONO: My understanding is that there’s a 10-year program but at the present set up, it’s not really a 10-year program because after about 4-1/2, 5-1/2 years, you’re gonna need to plan for the next, so the plan does not really, is not implemented for ten years basically. Because you need, you’re already suggesting changes before we really started the 10-year program. 4 EXHIBIT D WHITMORE: Yes, after about six years, you would have to begin initiating the next comprehensive update, yes. ONO: Ok, part of the proposal then you’re suggesting that we do a complete ten year and then we begin to initiate a, certain changes, as suggested changes, which would then move the time table for the first plan, actually to about 15 years because the original plan would stay in place while all of these proposals take place. WHITMORE: Correct. ONO: So it would not be a 10-year program, it would be a 15-year program, roughly in ending. WHITMORE: I think you’re correct in your assessment. It’s however you’re initiated, by initiating a process after ten years, what you’re basically saying is we’ve got ten years of experience of the current General Plan under our belt, and at that point, we’re gonna start a very thorough review of that plan and how well the policies, goals and action items in that have, have been implemented. So with that experience, we can do that process but, yes, it will be roughly be 15 years before any proposed changes to that reach Council. ONO: So your request really would be affecting a, I don’t know, a Constitutional change for a 15-year program? WHITMORE: There’s, nowhere in the State Constitution or County Charter does, is a time line established for the length of, the time between comprehensive reviews. ONO: Thank you. GONZALES: So, Mr. Whitmore, so basically you’re telling us we’re not gonna make it anyway, right? WHITMORE: That’s the bottom line. It’s been impossible to initiate the process so-- GONZALES: All right. Thank you. Do you have anything else? WHITMORE: The only slides I had remaining was to walk the Commission through the steps that this proposed amendment needs to follow from here. GONZALES: You guys want to hear that? Why not? WHITMORE: Really quickly. So we, the Planning Director initiated this amendment on rd December 23 of last year. That kicked off a 45-day public comment period. During that period, we held two workshops, one in Hilo, one in Kona. During that time, during that 45-day period, nobody attended either workshop, and no public comment was received. So then on th February 20, I believe, the Director submitted the proposed amendment to the Planning Commissions, both Windward and Leeward. You have 120 days to submit a recommendation to 5 EXHIBIT D Council, and so we’re at the first of the hearings associated with that process. And then your recommendations will go to Council, and they’ll make the final call on the proposed amendment. GONZALES: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Whitmore. I guess we’ll be looking for a motion, please. And I should state for the record, there is no one signed up to testify. Anybody? MASUNAGA: I think Raylene is. MOSES: I move to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the proposed amendment of Chapter 16 of the County of Hawai‘i General Plan as provided. GONZALES: Any second? HENKEL: Second. GONZALES: Discussion? You taking the roll, Maija? COTTLE: Yep. GONZALES: Go ahead. COTTLE: Commission Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? GONZALES: Aye. COTTLE: Ok, the motion to forward a favorable recommendation passes six, zero. 6 EXHIBIT D GONZALES: Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:11 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 7 EXHIBIT D