|
VITOUSEK: Sure—
<br />
<br />UNGER: —maybe we can all benefit from that?
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: Sure, that’ll be great.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Yeah, if you would please come back up.
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: Sure, I guess my, my first question is trying to understand the intended life of the
<br />Community Development Plan. Was it, you know, is there, intended to cover a certain number of
<br />years out? Was there a time, when it was conceived, it would be obsolete and need to be revised?
<br />Is that something that was thought of at its creation?
<br />
<br />PLUNKETT: Yes, Commissioner, I believe ten years is the recommended comprehensive review
<br />of every community development plan.
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: So that would have happened last year, right? If, but it hasn’t happened yet? So,
<br />are we at the point now where we are capable of doing a more comprehensive review of the CDP
<br />instead of kind of an ad hoc look at “should” and “shall?”
<br />
<br />PLUNKETT: Yes, so, with all the things going on in the Planning Department, I’ll just give you
<br />preview that the General Plan, which is the umbrella plan of all the CDPs, is currently in its
<br />amendment and comprehensive review process right now, with an estimation to wrap up in May
<br />of 2020. The Department, along with the Director, has made a determination that the CDPs will
<br />be moved upon, once the General Plan is done with its comprehensive review. And, if I can just
<br />continue on this line of questioning, all the comments that didn’t make it in to – and when I say
<br />“all,” I’m talking about comments we had at the Action Committee meetings and also from the
<br />other departments – based on the scope of work, not all of them made it in, but they are all
<br />recorded for consideration in the General Plan, I mean in the, when the comprehensive review
<br />comes up; in other words, we’ve got a lot of material gathered through this process to kick off the
<br />comprehensive review of the Kona CDP.
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: So, what happens if, we are doing these amendments where we are changing “shall”
<br />to “should” and vice versa, and then you come back for a comprehensive review and it says, hey,
<br />they need to go back in? Is that something that’s a possibility?
<br />
<br />PLUNKETT: It is a possibility, and we are going to have to talk about, we haven’t talked yet as
<br />staff in terms of what the comprehensive review will do in terms of, do we start from scratch, do
<br />we just get comments and change, take temperature of the community and then just change what’s
<br />in there now? That part hasn’t been worked out yet. So it’s hard for me to say where the starting
<br />point is going to be. But, like I said, we have actually got a lot of information that already informs
<br />us how to approach. And, part of the, part of the lesson from this is that we do have to go back out
<br />into the community. Ten years ago when the, when the real estate, it was, it was a different time,
<br />and that’s amazing to think that from now to only one decade ago it was different. So, I can’t give
<br />you an exact answer, but I think one of the lessons is that we have to go back into the community
<br />to even ask about how they want it to be updated.
<br />18
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|