2019-05-14 KCDP Minutes Final - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

sensitive natural and cultural resources. Planner Plunket responded that her point is valid but that it might be an item for a future comprehensive review. Land Use 4.2.2 Overall Strategy (1.) (d) and (e) (page 19) – Committee Member Palma-Glennie questioned changing the “will” to “may” and “shall” to “should” respectively in these narrative bullet points. Planner Plunkett responded that these mandating policies could create liability for the County if the resources do not exist. Deputy Corporation Counsel Ron Kim added that loosening the language also creates flexibility in the case that funding opportunities come from other sources, using the State Revolving Fund as an example. Policy LU-2.5 – Committee Member Palma-Glennie asked why the word “conceptual” was added before the words “master plan” in this and other policies. Nancy Pisicchio responded that the language was added to give consistency with the Project District application requirements stated in the County Code. Environmental Resources 4.3.2 Overall Strategy (4.) – Committee Member Palma-Glennie suggested changing the “should” back to a “shall”. Planner Plunkett responded that the reason “shall” was changed to “should” was that it created liability for the County. Ron Kim added that this change is in line with the unpredictability of budgeting in the case that there is not enough money to support the maintenance and that it does not clearly create parameters on what would be considered “adequate funding.” Vice-Chair David also expressed her objection to changing the “shall” to “should” in this narrative. She reasoned that there could be public safety concerns if the public infrastructure is not properly maintained. Committee Member Weber agreed that the liability issues for the County need to be considered and suggested that the sentence needs to be better spelled out to avoid those issues. He expressed concern that if the CDP dictates the budget then it is competing with County Council’s duties outlined in the County Charter. Vice-Chair David stated that if they do not agree on every amendment, at least the County Council would have the final word. She stood by her stance of keeping the “shall” in this instance and offered that the Council should opt to change it back if necessary. Staff Plunkett asked if this amendment could be considered for the future comprehensive review, then suggested flagging it as such. Policy ENV-1.2 – Committee Member Palma-Glennie asked why the words “it is recommended that” was added to the policy. Staff Plunkett responded that the Kona Mauka Watershed Partnership Action Plan has yet to be created. Committee Member Rivera noted that the CDP will likely go through further amendments as it goes through the process and he felt comfortable that they would be sought for input in the event that any substantial changes are considered. He stated he was in favor of moving forward with the amendments. Chair Young expressed that he was comfortable with the process and that he felt the AC has thoroughly vetted the CDP through the various stages of the amendment process thus far. Councilmember Eoff stated that the Action Committee’s voice would hold a lot of weight while the amendments move forward. Committee Member Palma-Glennie said she would like to hear more of Michael Matsukawa’s points and that the discussion he brought up should continue. She expressed looking forward to continuing www.hiplanningdept.com kona@hawaiicounty.gov Page 4