Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc draft 12-3-13 wrkshp minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP December 3,2013 The workshop of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by Chair Katayama at 1:00 p.m.,at the L1hu`e Civic Center,Mo`ikeha Building,in meeting room 2A-2B. The following Commissioners were present: Mr.Wayne Katayama Mr.Jan Kimura Mr.Hartwell Blake Ms.Amy Mendonca Mr. John Isobe Ms.Angela Anderson Mr.Herman Texeira The following staff members were present: Planning Department—Michael Dahilig, Marie Williams,Leslie Takasaki; Office of Boards and Commissions—Cherisse Zaima;Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung Discussion of the workshop;in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Katayama called the workshop to order at 1:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung noted that there were seven Commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Herman Texeira to approve the agenda, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Briefing and discussion on Six-Year Capital Improvement Program(for discussion only) Long Range Staff Planner Marie Williams read the Director's Report into the record. (On file) Mr. Kimura asked who prioritized the list of projects to which Ms. Williams explained she, along with the Department's Long Range division,has been working with CEP Manager JAN 14 2014 Keith Suga as part of the County's six-year CIP team. They have been reaching out to the department heads and working on prioritizing;however,there is not a system currently in place which explains why one project comes before another. Ms. Williams stated she feels the appropriate place to develop such a system should happen during the upcoming General Plan update. Mr.Kimura asked why the bus stops have not been made a priority to which Ms. Williams replied that it is a project that has already been funded; designs are being worked on, meetings with community groups were held, and they are currently trying to prioritize which shelters to construct first. In response to Mr.Kimura's question on whether there is funding for the whole project,Ms. Williams replied no,but the Transportation Agency is proposing continual funding requesting that every year they are given a certain amount to ensure they can have all bus shelters fully constructed in six years. Mr. Kimura expressed concern on the length of time it will take to complete the project. Ms. Williams explained that it does take some time as each bus shelter is considered a separate structure that must adhere to certain standards. Mr. Kimura asked why the bus shelters can't be all the same to which Ms. Williams stated that would be a question better answered by Keith Suga,noting that it is a priority project. Mr.Texeira requested clarification on the prioritization process, and asked if the upcoming General Plan update will look into this matter and recommend the process of prioritization. Ms. Williams replied that it will provide them with a more direct policy related to the six-year CIP,noting that the existing General Plan does emphasize the importance of the six- year CIP,and implementing the General Plan,but does not give a direct connection needed to develop a prioritization system. Mr. Texeira asked if input on developing a prioritization system could be obtained elsewhere outside of the General Plan update considering the importance of the process. Ms. Williams replied that they would want it to be linked to their highest level comprehensive plan. Though it could be created outside of the General Plan,they would like it to go hand in hand as they move forward in implementing the General Plan, as well as assessing how that implementation occurs;the prioritization process will be an important part of that. Mr. Texeira asked if there are any other counties that have developed this process that they could look into and utilize. Ms.Williams replied that she has researched other six-year CIP systems and found there is a wide range of implementation methods, and they will need to figure out what works best for the County of Kauai. She commented that with Keith Suga on board working with the Mayor's office and the department heads,the process has greatly improved. Mr.Kimura asked who signs off on the CIP plan to which Ms. Williams replied the staff and Director sign off on the report,which then gets routed to the Mayor to submit to Council as part of the annual budget. Mr.Kimura asked if the Planning Department has any say in how the money is spent. Ms. Williams replied that the purview of the Planning Commission and Planning Department is to determine if this is in line with the Long Range Planning Program and the Community Plans,noting that the priorities in those plans are already laid out by the community at large; it is their job to ensure County projects adhere to the vision set forth by the community. Page 12 Referencing the flow chart,Mr. Isobe noted that there is nothing that speaks to the economics of what they are doing,noting his on-going concern about how the County develops its CIP without any systematic vision about the future economic growth of the island. The only revenue stream the County has is through real property taxes,which are predicated on assessed value of property. He stated he has never seen a General Plan that shows how much money will be generated from projects which will help finance additional projects, or that show how certain projects will grow the economy. Ms.Williams replied,that information is not included in the six-year CIP plan,but agrees there should be a stronger connection; the starting point would be through the community and general plans. Mr.Isobe asked whether the Long-Range Planning division has looked at the SEDS (Social&Economic Development Strategies)that are already in place,and whether they have incorporated some or all of them as part of both the community and general plan update. Ms. Williams stated they are working toward strengthening the connection between Planning and OED. Mr.Dahilig stated there are on-going land use build out and infrastructure studies that will give them the tools to do the kind of analysis Mr. Isobe is talking about. An impact fee study is currently in progress from which the Department will present a draft update to the Commission upon completion of the study. Data regarding this additional revenue stream will be included in future iterations of the CIP plan. There was extensive discussion between Mr. Isobe and Mr.Dahilig on the economic aspects of the six-year CIF Plan. Mr. Isobe expressed his concern that the Commission's involvement has been on the back end, and they have never been consulted prior to the six-year CIP plan or the general plan update. Presently,the consultant presents recommendations to the Commission who is then expected to approve or amend,as opposed to coming before the Commission ahead of time to ask what critical areas the Commission would like to see addressed as part of the General Plan update. Mr.Dahilig noted they have not reached that juncture yet,but those concerns can be addressed. The Department has completed a socioeconomic indicator study that can be distributed, which will provide a statistical framework for the Commission to offer input on. Mr. Dahilig suggested another workshop could be held for briefing and discussion on the study. There was discussion between Mr. Blake and Mr. Dahilig on private development,and where the responsibility lies in developing and maintaining its infrastructure. Mr.Katayama reminded the Commission to focus on the long range planning, and the six-year CIP. He commented that the Department has a lot of things that need to be strengthened to ensure a better connection between water,transportation,and solid waste infrastructure aspects. Another challenge he noted is that the planning cycle is way too long to accommodate the quickly evolving community needs. Mr.Katayama reiterated Mr.Isobe's concerns, stating that the economic element to fund these projects needs to be comprehended in the long-range plans to avoid potentially driving the County bankrupt. Mr. Texeira expressed concerns that the Commission providing recommendations on the plans will create more work for the Planning staff, and asked if the Department has adequate Page 13 resources to implement the economic aspects discussed. Mr, Dahilig stated that the Long-Range division is in need of more man power,but he will consult with Ms. Williams to determine whether what is being asked of them is beyond what their division is capable of, especially relative to the financial issues. Mr. Isobe commented that he believes the County should consider the merging of the Office of Economic Development and Planning to create an Office of Planning and Economic Development,which will allow for staff on both sides. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4),the purpose of this executive session is to receive a briefing and discuss with the County's legal counsel on questions, issues, status and procedural matters. This briefing and discussion involves the consideration of the powers,duties privileges,immunities and/or liabilities of the Planning Commission and the County as they relate to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act(RLUIPA),Pub.L. 106-274, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000 (Executive Session)(for discussion only) On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Angela Anderson to go into executive session,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. (The workshop moved into executive session at 1:55 p.m.) (The workshop resumed in open session at 2:54 p.m.) Briefing and discussion on Hawaii Revised Statutes Chanter 92 Mr.Dahilig noted that OIP (Office of Information Practices)has a training session on the Sunshine Law available online. An overview of HRS Chapter 92 via Power Point presentation was provided. (On file) During the presentation,the following discussion ensued: Ms.Anderson asked if decisions can be made during executive sessions to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes,adding that the executive session actions will be ratified during open session, and recorded in the open minutes. In reference to item(d)under§ 92-7 Notice,Mr. Katayama asked to clarify that both of the following criteria must be met in order to amend:No board shall change the agenda, once filed, by adding items thereto without a two-thirds recorded vote of all members to which the board is entitled,provided that no item shall be added to the agenda if it is of reasonably major importance and action thereon by the board will affect a significant number ofpersons. Page 14 Mr.Kimura asked for clarification on removing items from the agenda to which Mr. Dahilig explained items can be removed from the agenda,but the public must still be allowed to testify. In response to Mr. Kimura's question,Mr.Dahilig clarified that a two-thirds vote of all members meant of the total number of Commission members,not just the number of members present; even if two members are absent,the Commission would still need five votes for valid action. Mr.Blake asked if an item is removed from the agenda,yet members of the public are still allowed to testify,will that be sufficient enough testimony that they will not have to testify again when the item is placed back on the agenda. Mr.Dahilig replied that the public has the right to give additional testimony on the same item if they wish. Additional testimony will be part of the record and reflected in the minutes. In reference to executive session minutes,Mr. Isobe asked who determines when those minutes can be made available. Mr. Dahilig explained that if someone makes a written OT request,the attorney's office will then determine whether or not there is ongoing litigation that would be affected by the release of the minutes or not. Mr. Isobe asked how the Commission would determine that the executive session minutes are accurate to which Mr. Dahilig replied it is a question better asked of the County Attorney's office. Mr.Katayama commented being that it becomes part of permanent record,the Commission should approve the executive session minutes. In response to questions posed by Commission members,Mr. Katayama clarified that executive session minutes can be approved in open session,noting that the actual executive session minutes are not required to be released to the public. Mr. Dahilig explained how the Department of Water approves their executive session minutes,but stated that he still needs to consult with the attorney on the proper procedures. Mr. Blake asked if the attorney approves the release of executive session minutes, can a Commission member ask for his/her statements to be redacted,noting that,at times,things are said during executive session that they may not want to be made public. Mr.Dahilig replied it depends on what exemption they are going into executive session on. Mr.Katayama asked if executive session minutes are verbatim to which Mr. Dahilig replied no, further noting that verbatim minutes are only done for contested case hearings that require actual evidentiary testimony. Mr.Blake asked how long the tapes are kept to which Mr. Dahilig replied he would have to consult with the attorney on the retention policy. Briefine and discussion on Commission Rules,Practices,Procedures,Agenda Setting and Operations(for discussion only) Mr.Dahilig provided an overview on the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Kauai County Planning Commission. (On file) During the overview,the following discussion ensued: Page 15 In reference to section 1-2-24 Attendance,Mr. Texeira noted it states absences should be reported to the Chair; however, it may be difficult to contact the Chair. He asked if members could contact the Commission clerk instead,to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes,and any pertinent information coming through the Department will be routed to the Chair. In reference to Chapter 6 Agency Hearing Procedures,Ms.Anderson asked for clarification that if there are anticipated unresolved issues,the Department advises not to close agency hearing to which Mr.Dahilig replied yes,in certain situations. Ms. Anderson asked whether agency hearing is closed before the Commission makes a decision to which W.Dahilig replied yes;the closing of the agency hearing is a required formality that allows the Commission to act on an application. Mr. Katayama asked how the rights of the public who have not sought intervener status are protected once they have closed agency hearing. Mr. Dahilig explained the public has a right to provide input and testimony under Chapter 92,but the level of participation is not as significant as an intervener who is at the table providing evidence. Only the Commission can grant intervener status. Mr.Blake asked whether the Commission can exclude groups already granted intervener status should they find there are numerous groups that share the same view, yet cannot get along. Mr. Dahilig replied it may be possible,but the Commission must ensure they are following the rules. In reference to reconsideration, Mr.Isobe commented that he was told that at the County Council reconsiderations are not posted on the agenda,but the motion could be made on the floor which would prompt action by the Commission on that reconsideration;however,Planning Commission requires reconsiderations to be posted on the agenda. He asked who makes that determination,noting that it may not be a legal matter,but a policy matter. He further commented the process to move for reconsideration was never explained to him. Mr. Katayama stated that the Commission requests assistance from the clerk,but should never feel that items cannot be placed on the agenda. Once it is on the agenda it still needs to be discussed,and a determination made on whether it will be reconsidered; there is a test for that as well. Mr.Isobe asked where in the Rules is that explained to which Mr.Dahilig replied the fold-in of the test is based on general reference to Robert's Rules of Order. Mr. Isobe referenced the situation with the recent Long's project, noting that much of it stems from lack of understanding, and it behooves the Commission as well as the Department to ensure the public is clear on what the process and procedures are. Mr. Katayama commented that the public has a responsibility to understand the rules,and talk to the Department on how that application for reconsideration should work. Mr. Isobe referenced a past case,noting that based on what he was told,had he wanted to make a motion to reconsider,he could not do so because it was not on the agenda. Mr.Jung explained that there is an OIP opinion on this exact matter that states that a motion for reconsideration must be submitted to Planning to be posted on the agenda to allow six days notice that the issue will be revisited. The reason for this is to allow the applicant the opportunity to defend the garnering of the permit, as well as the public who may wish to testify on the issue;this ruling falls under HRS Chapter 92. If a Commission member wishes to move Page 16 for reconsideration, and it has not been posted,it is possible for the agenda to be amended with a two-thirds vote;however,the attorney would need to table the motion. The process would be to first amend the agenda to include the motion to reconsider during the Approval of the Agenda. Mr.Kimura asked for clarification on whether a member who was absent during the approval of a permit could make a motion for reconsideration to which Mr. Dahilig replied no; only a member who voted on the prevailing side can do so; however, an absent member could request that the reconsideration be put on the agenda.' Mr. Jung referenced Robert's Rules and how it interplays with the Planning Commission rules. Copies of Robert's Rules are available in the Office of Boards and Commissions library. Ms.Anderson asked if the petitions for reconsideration could be placed on the agenda to acknowledge that they have been received. Mr. Dahilig explained the reason the Department has been hesitant to recommend inclusion of reconsideration requests from a non-party on the agenda is because it directly impacts the rights of the applicant who has already received a decision from the Commission. There was additional discussion on requests for reconsideration. Mr. Dahilig explained there are a myriad of options for the Commission to consider regarding the process of reconsideration requests. Mr.Jung stated he would request a written opinion from OIP. There was discussion on Order to Show Cause and the Revocation of Permits by the Planning Commission. There was discussion on the requirements involved in constructing non-residential agricultural structures, and enforcement of farm dwellings. Mr. Jung suggested an item be placed on the agenda to discuss farm dwellings. Ms. Mendonca asked how the Commission would know whether the applicant is in compliance with the conditions that have been imposed upon approval of an application; a lot of thought is put into those conditions,yet they have not received any update on whether or not they are in compliance. Mr. Dahilig replied there are two types of conditions that are looked at for enforcement, one of which is the timeline for implementation,which is usually addressed when they come in for building permits. For on-going operational conditions,those are handled on a complaint basis. Ms.Mendonca stated waiting for complaints defeats the purpose of implementing conditions. Mr. Dahilig replied the Department does not have adequate manpower for proactive enforcement,especially considering the volume of complaints they currently deal with. She would appreciate follow-up reports so the Commission can stay updated on the progress of these projects they spend so much time implementing conditions on. Mr. Kimura noted that should be in the status reports,but asked how they will know whether the status report is accurate. Mr.Dahilig explained the process of gathering information for the status report. Page 17 In response to Ms.Mendonca's and Mr.Kimura's questions, Mr. Dahilig stated the Department will be having a discussion on goals and objectives, and the resources needed to implement them. Mr.Katayama asked if there is a statement filed by the applicant that they are submitting factual information at the risk of some kind of criminal action to which Mr. Dahilig replied he believes there is a proviso to that effect, but he will need to check. Discussion on additional future workshop topics It was determined that the items discussed today would be revisited at a future workshop. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk O Approved as circulated. ( ) Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting. Page 18