Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMM. 032 ,„IWY gig PLANNING DEPARTMENT 25 AUPUNI STREET • HILO. HAWAII 96720 HERBERT T.MATAYOSHI Mayor , COUNTY CJ SIDNEY M.FUKE HAWAII • Director DUANE KANUHA . Deputy Director March 6 , 1979 Mr. Kimiaki Sakata, Chairman Charter Review Commission County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Sakata: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to provide you with my thoughts on the County Charter. . Before proceeding, I would like to emphasize that my comments are not based upon personalities--past or present; rather, they reflect my objective assessment of the basic structure of government. • The Planning Director, like any other cabinet officer, provides technical and professional advices and implements policies.. As such, it generally should not matter whether the position is subject to Council confirmation. Part of the practical difficulty, however, comes in articulating a position--such as to the State Legislature--which does . not have a consensus between the Mayor and Council. Who does the Plan- ning Director -represent? Additionally, the executive branch under the present Charter is largely responsible for implementing policies. To achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness in policy implementation, coordination of all departments and implementation direction must be set by only one branch--the executive. Conceptually, Council confirmation of various cabinet officers suggests a marriage of public policy-making with implementing functions. Such a blend may dilute the effectiveness of policy implementation. As such, for administrative purposes as well as to assure an en- vironment for implementing policies efficiently, I would respectfully submit that the Council confirmation requirement be deleted. This position is predicated upon the present Charter' s basic thrust of sepa- ration of powers. Where there is an integration of the two branches-- COMM. NO..---3 ...:::::::..�. • Mr. Kimiaki Sakata Page 2 March 6, 1979 such as under the former Board of Supervisors/Chairman approach or the British Parliamentary form of government--confirmation would be appro- priate. The concept of separation of powers implies• that each branch would • have the ability to provide "reasonable checks" on each other. Ac- cordingly, to make this concept meaningful, the legislative branch should have its own staff support. Care, however, should be exercised to avert a direct duplication of functions relegated to the executive branch. The Planning Department presently consists of its Director, Plan- ning Commission, and Board of Appeals. Each entity has its specific function within the structural framework of the department and thus pro- vide the necessary level of checks and balances which are so vital to the planning process. As -such, I do not foresee any great need for any significant changes in the department' s structural organization save for those mentioned herein. In the past, I have noted that the Planning Commission has heard and acted upon a multitude of variance requests from the -Subdivision and • Zoning Codes. Under the existing language, only the Planning Commission is empowered to perform this function, although many requests have in- volved rather minor deviations from the aforementioned codes and could conceivably be processed administratively. In that regard, I would like to suggest that appropriate language be inserted to allow the Planning Commission to delegate some of its variance functions to the Planning Director. As the bulk of the Commission' s activity right now focuses on such requests, the amount of time to concentrate on broad planning policy matters is quite small. In the matter of. the Board of Appeals, there should be greater clarity in the phrase "sustain the appeal. " For example, if a person' s variance request were deniedby the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals "sustains the appeal, " does this mean that (1). the variance is granted or (2) the variance is remanded to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. If the variance is granted by the Board, then there should be such language in the Charter. Presently, only the Planning Commission can grant variances. I would like to further suggest that the reference to item (e) of the Planning Commission's functions relating to State Land. Use Commission boundary changes be deleted. By State Statute, the Planning Commission does not automatically provide recommendations. Perhaps, and to best IIP Kimiaki Sakata t' ge 3 March, 6, 1979 accommodate any possible change to the State Land Use Law, it may be more appropriate to broadly reference the Planning Commission' s role as may be required by that law. Subsection (a) of the Planning Director' s function should be amended to reflect the Director being the techhical advisor to the Planning Commission, too. Additionally, subsection (b) should be amended to make the Director responsible in preparing not only the basic General Plan, but any revisions thereof. Subsection (g) should also reflect the Director' s ability to assume some of the functions delegated by the Planning Commission, too. I would also like to sug- gest that a new section to clearly indicate the Director' s role in formulating other plans--such as the County development plans--or critical planning-related functional plans--like Tourism--as well as in assisting other agencies develop their functional plans such as sewer or water to ensure compliance with the General Plan. Finally, there should be a general provision which would make the Director the principal enforcer of the General Plan. This would be similar in concept to the State's Coastal Zone Management Act and State Plan where an agency (DPED) has been assigned the responsibility of en- suring compliance with those laws. As you may aware, I am presently studying the entire General Plan process, particularly as it relates to the amendment process. While there will be a need to amend the ordinance itself, some changes to the Charter may also be needed to strengthen and preserve the integ- rity of the planning process. This study should be completed within the next two months, and I will so give you my recommendations on that por- tion. Thank you again for giving .me this opportunity to provide you with my thoughts. Sincerely, ney Fuke Director •SF:mh cc Mayor