|
<br />PLUNKETT: Aloha and good morning, Commission. My name is Kamuela Plunkett, and sitting
<br />to my left is Ron Kim who is corp. counsel for Planning. To begin, I’d also like to thank our
<br />Action Committee, the Action Committee of the Kona Community Development Plan, and they
<br />are here at a number meeting quorum. And, so, we have agendized this as a meeting for them to
<br />be here, to be in compliance with Sunshine Law. And I’d just like to read their names, if that’s all
<br />right.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Great, thank you. And, pardon me, I know you wanted me to mention that, so, good,
<br />continue.
<br />
<br />PLUNKETT: So in attendance from the Kona CDP Action Committee is Shirley David, Shane
<br />Akoni Palacat-Nelsen, Hiram Rivera, David Huerta, Franz Weber and Janice Palma-Glennie. And
<br />for—
<br />
<br />UNGER: Great, welcome.
<br />
<br />PLUNKETT: Yes, and for the record it has been agendized and they have had proper notice, as
<br />well as the public, so.
<br />
<br />With that being said, I’m going to run through the presentation, which gives you folks a brief
<br />overview of the whole process and the reason for this amendment package.
<br />
<br />So, “Background and Process for Amending the Kona Community Development Plan.” Just to
<br />give you an overview, this presentation will contain a quick background, how the amendments
<br />were initiated, our plan of scope that the Planning Department developed after the first initial
<br />amendments happen, some of the challenges and the processes that we went through to create this
<br />package. We’ll give you a quick example of some of the amendments, and we’ll review some of
<br />the steps to get Action Committee and other approvals along the way. And we will end with a
<br />timeline, estimated timeline, for en route to the adoption. So, with that, let’s begin.
<br />
<br />So, as you heard in the introduction, these amendments were, are needed per issues that arose in
<br />the Missler case and the determination from the Intermediate Court of Appeals that upheld that the
<br />Director needed to enforce this document as, as a rule of law. In doing so some of the policies,
<br />being that they were inconsistent with County Code or Administrative Rules, create legal
<br />liabilities for the County. And then, also, some of the concurrency issues dealing with concurrent
<br />infrastructure put a high financial demand on developers, which in essence has stalled the
<br />implementation of the Plan in certain areas. So that’s just a quick background of the major
<br />reasons why these amendments were initiated.
<br />
<br />Post Missler case, the first round of amendments came in from the Mayor’s Office, and as you can
<br />see, that was a communication in 2017. Most of these amendments dealt with the “shall”s and the
<br />“should”s, so, talking about the language that was read in the introduction. One way to alleviate
<br />the legality in this first round of editing was to address the “shall”s and determine if some of them
<br />should be changed to “should.” So, after the Mayor’s, representative from the Mayor’s Office
<br />produced the first draft amendment, the Action Committee picked that up and reviewed it, and
<br />2
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|