December 1983 Home   Newsletters

January 1984

February 1984

Looking Forward... Busy Months Ahead
President's Message (Arlene Woo)
League Announces Support for Nuclear Weapons Freeze
Legislative Committee Gearing up for Action
General Membership Meeting - Looking Ahead with League (Anne Marie Duca)
League Testifies at City Planning Commission Hearing
Bettye Harris Appointed Refugee Coordinator
Preparing for National Security Consensus -- Phase II
Do You Have Two Hours for League? (Mildred Walston)
Let's Talk about Council
How Much Time Does it Take to Be Active in League?
Presidential Debates
Advocacy Agenda
Forum on the Electronic Revolution

League Testifies at City Planning Commission Hearing


"Development Plans," Rhoda Miller testified for League before the City Planning Commission on December 20, "have come to be considered not as policies to be seriously implemented but as temporary land used compromises to be changed next year, or the year after that, if proponents are just persistent enough."

At the hearing, one of eight called to discuss over 300 proposed changes to the DP's in the first annual review, League supported a number of changes to the provisions common to all eight DP's but raised three concerns:

  • We opposed elimination of the "social impact management system" (SIMS) provisions and their replacement by a mere "impact notification" requirement. Arguing that SIMS "should provide a vehicle for community-developer cooperation rather than acrimonious confrontation as we have had in the past," Rhoda called for retention of the present provisions, at least for the time being, and adoption of a SIMS ordinance as recently recommended by DLU's consultant "Decision Analysts."

  • We pointed out that the proposed amendments to the Koolaupoko DP were "perhaps the best example" of what can happen when the GP's population growth distribution policies are not followed. Three large areas are being recommended for development, adding in just one year 30% more land and 35% more population growth than the present DP plans to the year 2000.

  • Finally, League raised the question of the nature and intent of the DP amendment process itself. Rhoda pointed out that the Charter never intended the DP's to be as detailed as zoning maps, but rather "policy tools to accomplish the objectives of the City and guide decisions of the private sector." "Because this intent has not been followed," she said, "this specificity...has created...a planning process which each year, floods the DGP, this Commission, and the Council with requests for map changes to specific parcels before the ink on the last set of maps is dry."

In closing, Rhoda suggested several changes "which would go far to improve the present unwieldy planning process, avoid duplication of public hearings and other procedures, and benefit all concerned." Specifically, League argues, DP changes should be made only when the public interest clearly requires them because of changed conditions, unmet needs, or some unforeseen developments.

December 1983 Home   Newsletters February 1984