Laserfiche WebLink
EXHIBIT B <br /> <br />sensitive natural and cultural resources. Planner Plunket responded that her point is valid but <br />that it might be an item for a future comprehensive review. <br />L a n d U s e 4 . 2 . 2 O v e r a l l S t r a t e g y ( 1 . ) ( d ) a n d ( e ) ( p a g e 1 9 ) Committee Member Palma - Glennie <br />question <br />bullet points. Planner Plunkett responded that these mandating policies could create liability <br />for the County if the resources do not exist. Deputy Corporation Counsel Ron Kim added that <br />loosening the language also creates flexibility in the case that funding opportunities come from <br />other sources , using the State Revolving Fund as an example . <br />P o l i c y L U - 2 . 5 Committee Member Palma - was <br />that the language was added to give consistency with the Project District application <br />requirements stated in the County Code. <br />E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s o u r c e s 4 . 3 . 2 O v e r a l l S t r a t e g y ( 4 . ) Committee Member Palma - Glennie <br />. Planner Plunkett responded that the reason <br />that it created liability for the County. Ron Kim added that <br />this change is in line with the unpredictability of budgeting in the case that there is not enough <br />money to support the maintenance and that it does not clearly create parameters on what <br /> <br />Vice - Chair David also expressed her objectio <br />narrative. She reasoned that there could be public safety concerns if the public infrastructure is <br />not properly maintained. <br />Committee Member Weber agreed that the liability issues for the County need to be <br />cons idered and suggested that the sentence needs to be better spelled out to avoid those <br />issues. He expressed concern that if the CDP dictates the budget then it is competing with <br />County Council s duties outlined in the County Charter. <br />Vice - Chair David stated that if they do not agree on every amendment, at least the County <br /> in this <br />instance and offered that the Council should opt to change it back if necessary. <br />Staff Plunkett ask ed if this amendment could be considered for the future comprehensive <br />review, then suggested flagging it as such. <br />P o l i c y E N V - 1 . 2 Committee Member Palma - <br /> Staff Plunkett responded that the Kona Mauka Watershed <br />Partnership Action Plan has yet to be created. <br />Committee Member Rivera noted that the CDP will likely go through further amendments as it goes <br />through the process and he felt comfortable that they would be sought for input in the event that any <br />substantial changes are considered. He stated he was in favor of moving forward with the <br />amendments . <br />Chair Young expressed that he was comfortable with the process and that he fe lt the AC has <br />thoroughly vetted the CDP through the variou s stages of the amendment process thus far. <br />amendments move forward. <br />Committee Member Palma - <br />and that the discussion he brought up should continue. She expressed looking forward to continuing <br />www.hiplanningdept.com kona@hawaiicounty.gov Page 4 <br /> <br />