As requested, Bill No. 163, Draft 2 is transmitted for your consideration. The purpose of this report is (1) to explain the process and rationale utilized to amend Bill No. 163, and (2) to explain significant changes. Both process and rationale were thoughtful, deliberate and meticulous. Transmitted with this report are the following:

1. Chart entitled "Proposed General Plan Revisions--Draft 1 to Draft 2-Proposed Modifications & Initiations(Additions)"

"List of LUPAG and Facilities Maps Revisions (Modifications & Initiations (Additions))"

Bill No. 163, Draft 2 with Land Use Pattern Allocation (LUPAG) Map(s), Facilities and Other Maps

Bill No. 163, Draft 2 (Unofficial Ramseyer Version)

• In response to requests from the public and Council Members, the General Plan has been reduced to a document that is succinct and understandable. Draft 2 is remarkable and meaningful in that the vision statements, objectives and policies of the General Plan emerge and help to sharpen policy focus.
• Vision statements for the island and the different geographical districts have been added at the suggestion of the public and Council Members. The vision statements have a 20-year horizon.
• Draft 2 is consistent with the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes and the Hawai‘i County Charter. It emphasizes the General Plan’s purpose as the Council’s policy guidance document. This purpose is asserted in a new purpose section in Draft 2.
• Draft 2 contains a statement of principles required by the Charter. These principles are value-based.
• Draft 2 includes the statement of Principles, Vision Statements, a brief description of the County of Hawai‘i, the General Plan Program, Seven Elements, and the LUPAG and Facilities Maps.
• Each of the seven elements include a brief introduction, Goals (Objectives), Policies, and Standards, if applicable
• The remaining descriptive text will be edited and placed in a document called the County Profile, which should be updated by the Planning Department, and may be used to formulate the basis of development plans.
• Draft 2 retains the Intensive and Extensive Agriculture Designations and deletes the Important Agricultural Lands Designation pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Hawaii that mandates the State Legislature to identify important agricultural lands in the State of Hawaii and to establish standards and criteria to accomplish this identification. The identification and protection of important agricultural lands by the State remains a land use objective with a related comprehensive important agricultural lands policy.
• Draft 2 changes the Rural Designation to Rural-Agriculture Designation and expands its definition to include future areas that meet criteria and may provide transition between agricultural and urban forms.
• General Plan amendment procedures have been moved to a new bill amending Chapter 16 (Planning), Hawai‘i County Code.
• Noteworthy LUPAG and Facilities Maps revisions (modifications and initiations) are listed at the end of this report.

BACKGROUND

By letter dated January 22, 2002, Planning Director Chris Yuen transmitted Bill No. 163 relating to the comprehensive General Plan review as required by the General Plan Ordinance No. 89-142, as amended.

The Planning Committee began its review under Planning Committee Chair Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd on February 20, 2002, at a regular meeting in Hilo followed by two workshops, a site visit, eight public hearings throughout the island, two more workshops, two regular meetings, and three workshops. With the resignation of Council Member Leithead-Todd, Council Member Leningrad Elarionoff became the new Planning Chair in October 2003. Another workshop was held on December 18, 2003 to concentrate and renew efforts on the comprehensive review.

As a result of the 19 meetings held on Bill 163, Planning Committee members asked that the Legislative Auditor’s Office review and revise Bill No. 163 with the goal of making the General Plan succinct and understandable. Public testimony and Council Members requested a vision statement be added to the General Plan. We have since worked with Planning Committee Chair Elarionoff and interested Council Members to prepare a document that incorporates these and other suggestions into Bill No. 163, Draft 2. Meetings were facilitated between Planning Director Yuen and Council Members to discuss specific changes related to their respective districts. Public communications and Planning Committee meeting minutes were evaluated.

A chart entitled ‘Proposed General Plan Revisions--Draft 1 to Draft 2--Modifications & Initiations (Additions)’ is attached to assist you in understanding the actions taken on Bill No. 163. The chart explains the action taken on Draft 1 (using Green Ramseyer version) to amend it to Draft 2 by page, paragraph, or bullet. The chart shows whether existing paragraphs, goals, policies and standards in Draft 1 were kept, moved, edited, deleted or added. New element and/or sections are specifically addressed in a chart entitled ‘Additions." Words of caution: Even if the chart shows that an amendment was added, it may actually be a restatement of existing language that was moved from another part of the General Plan. Similarly, the addition of a new element (Infrastructure) is merely a reorganization of the General Plan by combining existing elements or subelements.

A ‘List of LUPAG and Facilities Maps—Modifications and Initiations (Additions)’ indicate the proposed modifications or initiations from Draft 1 to Draft 2.

Bill 163, Draft 2 attaches both LUPAG and Facilities Maps and other informational maps and tables. Lacking the capability of creating and producing amended, colored LUPAG and Facilities Maps for the workshops, we will be asking the Planning Department to finalize official colored sets. Hopefully, this can be completed in time for the next Planning Committee meeting on the General Plan.

A Ramseyer version of Bill No. 163, Draft 2 (unofficial) accompanies this report to show the changes from the 1989 General Plan, as amended, to Draft 2. The Ramseyer version is prepared because of a 1996 Third Circuit Court ruling on the Zoning Code. It should be pointed out that the Ramseyer rules according to the Hawaii State Legislative Drafting Manual and Office of Corporation Counsel Drafting Guidelines do not require showing changes when repealing and adopting new section, parts or chapters of law. The Ramseyer changes from the 1989 General Plan to Draft 2 are not instructive because numerous elements and sub-elements were moved and combined in the development of Draft 1.

FOUNDATION FOR AMENDMENTS

While the thrust of the changes came from a desire by Council Members to make the General Plan succinct and understandable, following the requirements of the state statute and the Hawaii County Charter remained paramount. Chapter 46-4, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and Section 3-15, Hawaii County Charter, are restated as the legal foundation for the General Plan (see GP Chapter I).

6. Is the separation of goals (now objectives), policies, and standards from the rest of the text a departure from the existing General Plan?

No. The 1989 General Plan basically separated the Goals, Policies and Standards by Elements from the rest of the text.

7. What other formatting changes were made to the Goals (Objectives), Policies and Standards in Draft 2?

When reformatting the document, the following criterion were used:

1. Eliminated duplicate objectives and policies.
2. Combined similar objectives or policies.
3. Grouped related objectives or policies together.
4. Moved objectives or policies to a more applicable element.
5. Moved courses of action or standards to the appropriate objective or policy category.
6. Deleted objectives or policies that referred to council or legislative resolutions. Referring to resolutions in the General Plan ordinance would give resolutions the force and effect of law. If concepts are important policies, they would be established in law or executed in a development plan.
7. Eliminated specific objectives or policies that have been attained (e.g., CPR on agricultural land).
8. Eliminated standards that were or should be another agency’s standard, rule or regulation.
9. Deferred to state, federal or other governmental agencies’ jurisdiction when referring to objectives or policies under their authority. This criteria eliminates potential duplicative and/or conflicting jurisdictional and enforcement issues.
10. Deleted words or phrases that may confuse the focus of the objective or policy. For example, the act of preserving and enhancing historic sites may be a contradiction of terms.
11. Revised policies to have programmatic direction where appropriate.

Economic Element

Energy Element

• Environmental Quality Element

• Flood Control and Drainage Element

Historic Sites Element

Natural Beauty Element

Natural Resources and Shoreline Element

Housing Element

Public Facilities Element

Education

Protective Services

Government Operations

Health and Sanitation

Hospitals

Solid Waste

Cemeteries

Public Utilities Element

Water

Telecommunications

Electricity

Gas

Sewer

Recreation Element

Transportation Element

PART 1. Economic Element

PART 2. Historic Sites Element

PART 3. Housing Element

PART 4. Infrastructure Element

Public Facilities:

Education

Government Operations

Health and Sanitation

• Hospitals

Public Cemeteries

Solid Waste Management

• Wastewater

Parks and Recreation

Protective Services

Transportation

Utilities & Energy:

Electricity

Gas

Telecommunications

Water

PART 5. Land Use Element

• PART 6. Natural Beauty, Natural Resources and Environmental Quality

13. DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Both drafts emphasize the importance of (community) development plans to direct physical development and public improvements within a specific area. Both drafts, directly or indirectly, acknowledge the limited success in adopting development plans whether by ordinance or resolution. Both drafts commit the County’s resources towards serious implementation—that is, preparing development plans, prioritizing capital projects, funding those priority projects, and adopting short-term regulatory measures like an impact fee ordinance or new zoning categories.

We wholeheartedly agree that the need for a development plan should be assessed considering various factors and that development plans should not be mandated for every region. The contents of a development plan are laid out in both drafts, albeit with greater specificity in Draft 1.

Draft 2 clarifies or expands the definition of development plans to include functional or public facility plans. The County has prepared numerous functional or public facility plans, a few of which are recommended in the General Plan policies for updating. They include the Sewerage Study for All Urban and Urbanizing Areas of the County of Hawaii, the Water Quality Management Plan, County Bikeway Plan, the County Recreation Plan, and the Drainage Master Plan for the County of Hawaii. Examples of in-progress regional facility plans include the Kealakehe sewerage system study, the Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Study, and the Puna Alternate Route Plan. It is incumbent upon the Council, administration, and the public to be aware that functional and public facility plans must also be developed in the framework of the General Plan. Thus, development plans will be initiated by the Council, the Planning Director or the responsible County department/agency, with the consent of the Council, by resolution.

Draft 2 does not require every development plan to have a steering committee appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council. Steering committees may currently be formed without a requirement in the General Plan. Additionally, the planning director should be given flexibility over how to gather information and advice depending upon the nature of a development plan. If a steering committee is necessary and defensible, the initiating resolution could establish the process for a steering committee for a particular development plan.

The precise procedures for adopting a development plan should be set forth in Chapter 16, Hawaii County Code, and have been deleted.

14. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM

We are pleased to see attention given to the coordination of the capital improvements program in the General Plan. However, the conditions by which a CIP is developed and prioritized should be adopted as a separate section of the County Code rather than the General Plan. Establishing conditions for the preparation of the CIP is a mid- to short-range tool and includes the director of finance. As policy-makers, the Council should be given more time to scrutinize the proposed CIP process on its own merits. A separate bill should be drafted for the Council’s review.

Draft 2 eliminates the procedures for adopting and developing the capital improvements budget and program (CIP) listed in Draft 1.

15. ANNUAL REPORT

Draft 1 requires an annual report to monitor progress towards achieving the 400+ goals and policies. Draft 2 now contains 300+ objectives and policies. We are not clear how it would be implemented without a lot of time and effort that could be preferably spent on implementation rather than monitoring. The annual report is or should be part of the Council’s annual program and budget review of the Planning Department’s program review since the General Plan is part of the Department’s program. The capital budget presentation by the Mayor and the Planning Department serves as the reporting mechanism to reconcile and prioritize competing community needs.

Draft 2 eliminates the annual reporting requirement.

16. AMENDMENT PROCEDURES

Draft 2 deletes the amendment procedures and refers to its adoption in Chapter 16. Amendment procedures may need to change from time to time. During the recent interim period, various amendment procedure revisions were transmitted for consideration. One procedural amendment was adopted. Technically and legally, EIS requirements in Chapter 343, HRS, are triggered when a General Plan amendment is initiated (except for comprehensive reviews). We are not aware of any environmental assessment made for the prior amendment procedure bills--nor should a change to the procedure produce such a trigger. To avoid this potential question for future Councils, the General Plan amendment procedures are drafted and transmitted in a different bill.

For convenience, the General Plan may be reprinted with the amendment procedures.

17. The significance of changes in each element is subjective. Therefore, the Chart entitled ‘General Plan Draft 1 to Draft 2-Proposed Modifications & (Amendments)’ should be referenced to understand what text was kept, edited, deleted, or added. It also provides the reason for the action. We have attempted to align Draft 2 with the core of Draft 1, except in those areas discussed above.

Developing new landfill sites on the island has not been the policy in recent years. Therefore, this Solid Waste’ policy was deleted and replaced with a new policy: "Explore and evaluate waste reduction techniques, processes and facilities to lengthen the life of the landfill(s) with energy conversion being a desirable component.

• When identified by the State, protect and encourage the utilization of the County’s important agricultural lands.

Establish and implement a comprehensive important agricultural lands program to address, at the minimum, agricultural water development, rezoning criteria, infrastructure standards, labor housing, government incentives, new approaches to preservation, enforcement and minimizing potential adjacent land use conflicts.

The existing Intensive and Extensive Agricultural Designations on the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map reflect past and present activities of agriculture using soils, climate, and topography, productivity ratings as a basis. While these designations serve to describe the soil potential for certain agricultural activity, they do not fully describe the serious, hard-working agriculturalist, who does not need a designation to be successful. The complexities of agriculture as an industry, desirable densities or lot sizes are not reflected in the existing or proposed Agricultural LUPAG designations. The desirable densities of Agricultural lots may be established in future development plans and/or after the State’s identification of Important Agricultural Lands.

Additionally, the Economic Element policies have been reorganized and edited making the agricultural policy the first policy.

26. ORCHARD DESIGNATION TO EXTENSIVE AGRICULTURE DESIGNATION

Draft 2 amends the Orchard Designation to Extensive Agriculture, except in areas proposed for Rural-Agriculture and in the Kona coffee belt, which generally runs above the 1,000-foot elevation level.

27. CONSERVATION DESIGNATION

Draft 2 retains the existing definition for the Conservation Designation by deleting a new category of "areas to be kept in a largely natural state, with minimal facilities consistent with open space uses." Expanding the Conservation Designation beyond the State Land Use District classification, water/forest reserves and natural/scientific preserves confuses and duplicates the purpose of the Open Designation.

28. OPEN DESIGNATION

Draft 2 expands the Open Designation to include scenic vistas, viewplanes and potential natural hazard areas.

Draft 2 deletes a proposed policy in Draft 1, which states "Amend the Zoning Code to create a category for lands that should be kept in a largely natural state, but that may not be in the Conservation District, such as certain important viewplanes, buffer areas, and very steep slopes." This regulatory tool should be adopted immediately and is not necessary.

29. LAND USE TABLE (GP 48)

Urban & Rural Centers Modifications/Initiations:

Add Hakalau

Retain Ninole

Add Kapehu

Add Haina

Add Halawa

Add Maliu Ridge

Add Makalei

Add Puuanahulu

Add Keekee-Kalukalu

Keopuka

Resort Areas Modifications/Initiations:

Retain Papai (Intermediate)

Add Puna Makai (Minor)

Add Hamakua (Retreat)

Add Puako (Minor)

Retain Honokohau (Minor)

Retain Volcano (Retreat)

LUPAG MAP AMENDMENTS

LUPAG Map assumes growth and is the graphic depiction of vision statements, objectives and policies. The strengthening of existing Urban areas, the concentration and infilling of urban uses in urban areas, the desire to generate economic opportunities and services for district residents are the basis for the amendments. Changing specific designations established by prior councils must receive serious consideration. Some proposed amendments show urban forms and settlement patterns rather than the actual zoned uses. An example of this is the Low Density Urban Designation for Hilo Heights and Sunrise Estates, which are zoned Agricultural-1 acre. In fact, these areas are part of the Urban form in Hilo.

Aside from those areas affected by the Land Use Element revisions (Important Agricultural Lands and Rural-Agricultural), the following specific, modifications and initiations (new amendments) are proposed in Draft 2:

30. PUNA DISTRICT NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATIONS

A-1 Modify: Retain Resort at Papai/Kings Landing Area

A-4 Modify: Retain Urban Expansion Area to the west of Keaau Village

A-7 Comment: Guidance policies would consider expansion of Medium Density Urban in the vicinity of Orchidland Drive.

A-7a Initiate: Medium Density Urban in the vicinity of Ainaloa Drive and Makuu Drive

A-7b Initiate: New Urban Expansion Area in the vicinity of Ainaloa Drive

** Comment: Guidance policies would consider expansion of Medium and Low Density Urban in and around Mt. View

31. SOUTH HILO NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATIONS

B-2 Initiate: Intensive and Extensive Agriculture to Urban Expansion Area instead of proposed Industrial at former Pepeekeo Mill Site

B-13 Modify: Retain Low Density Urban at Puueo mauka area

B-15 Initiate: Urban Expansion Area to Low Density Urban instead of proposed Rural at Hilo Heights and Akolea Plantation Subdivisions

B-18 Initiate: Urban Expansion Area to Low Density Urban instead of proposed Rural at Sunrise Estates and Pacific Plantation subdivisions

32. HAMAKUA NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATIONS

D-2 Initiate: Urban Expansion Area to Intensive Agriculture instead of proposed Important Agricultural Land west of Nienie Gulch and mauka of Honokaa Town

33. NORTH KOHALA NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATIONS

E-3a Initiate: Intensive Agriculture to Rural-Agriculture at Maliu Ridge (A-1a)

34. SOUTH KOHALA NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATIONS

F-6 Initiate: Urban Expansion Area to Intensive Agriculture instead of Important Agricultural Land off the south side of Kawaihae Road

F-14 Modify: Retain Resort at Puako Beach Apartment and Puako General Store area

** Comment on F-16: Guidance policies would allow flexibility in White Sands Golf Course layout in the Urban Expansion Area between Puako and Queen Kaahumanu Highway and northeast of Mauna Lani Resort.

F-21a Initiate: Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban north of County land in Waikoloa Village (6/4/04 letter from James Leonard)

** Comment on F-23: Guidance policies would allow flexibility in golf course layout.

35. NORTH KONA NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATIONS

G-9 Modify: Reduce Open area as negotiated at Kohanaiki (6/17/03 Planning Director letter).

Comment: Revision not needed under guidance policies.

G-10a Initiate Low and Medium Density Urban and Open to Low Density Urban (6/17/03 Planning Director letter)

G-10b Initiate Low and Medium Density Urban and Open to Urban Expansion (6/17/03 Planning Director letter)

G-13a Initiate Extensive Agriculture to Rural-Agriculture at Makalei Estates (A-1a)

G-16a Initiate: Open to Resort south of Honokohau Harbor by combining existing Resort Areas G-16 and G-17 (6/16/03 DLNR letter)

G-17 Modify: Retain Resort Area, but combine with G-17 (6/16/03 DLNR letter)

G-17a Initiate: Open to Urban Expansion Area (6/16/03 DLNR letter)

Initiate: Open to Urban Expansion (6/16/03 DLNR letter)

** Comments on G-18, 19, and 29: Guidance policy would allow flexibility in golf course layout.

G-34 Initiate: Extensive Agriculture to Rural-Agriculture at Hokulia (A-1a)

G-35 Initiate: Extensive Agriculture and Orchards to Extensive Agriculture below (makai) the 1,000’ elevation level generally. Kona coffee belt above the 1,000’ elevation level is Intensive Agriculture.

36. SOUTH KONA NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATONS

H-1 Initiate: Extensive Agriculture to Conservation at Keopuka (8/21/02 Planning Director)

H-1a Modify: Retain Extensive Agriculture at Keopuka and Kaawaloa (8/21/02 Planning Director, and as further modified at Kaawaloa)

H-6 Initiate: Low Density Urban and Open to Extensive Agriculture instead of Important Agricultural Land mauka of Puuhonua Road and north of Keala O Keawe Road

H-7a Initiate: Extensive Agriculture to Rural-Agriculture at Captain Cook Ranch lands makai of Napoopoo Road (RA zoning/SLU Urban)

37. KA‘U NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATIONS

I-2a Initiate: Extensive Agriculture to Urban Expansion mauka of Ocean View across from I-2

I-3 Modify: Retain Resort in the vicinity of Pohue Bay

I-4 Modify: Retain Industrial midway between Hawaii Belt Road and coastline in Kahuku

I-5 Modify: Retain Low and Medium Density Urban makai of Hawaii Belt Road in Kahuku

I-8 Modify: Retain Extensive Agriculture between Honuapo and Punaluu

I-9 Modify: Retain Urban Expansion Area east of Naalehu

I-10 Initiate: Low Density to Medium Density Urban, which would allow industrial-commercial uses under Draft 2.

Facilities and other Maps have a similar role in Drafts 1 and 2.

Draft 2 clarifies the role of the Facilities and Other Maps by stating "The General Plan Facilities Maps show general locations of public and private facilities and utilities, and existing and proposed transportation networks. Other informational maps and tables include lava hazard zones, government-owned lands, historic sites, natural beauty, and military installations. The General Plan Facilities Maps and other maps and tables are to be used for informational purposes only, may be periodically updated, and are included by reference."

Draft 1 adopts the Facilities Maps, all of which note under the titles "This map was produced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the limitations of the data."

38. Replace Facilities Maps-Roadway Maps A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and Electricity Map transmitted in July 22, 2003 letter from Planning Director Chris Yuen to Council Members.

39. Retain the Puna coastal government road on the facility map. Showing the road on the Facilities Maps D and E-Transportation-Road.

40. Initiate a table called ‘Areas of Natural Beauty by Ahupua‘a or Region’ to be placed with the other maps. The table lists those areas of natural beauty described in Draft 1 and makes clear that it should be used for planning and program purposes. Treatment measures for mitigation, protection, preservation and/or enhancement are all program goals.

CONCLUSION

The General Plan is the Council’s planning policy guide. Draft 2 shifts the paradigm towards action, implementation and coordination of financing and infrastructure—a meaningful legacy.