2019-06-20 Leeward Exh B (Amend Kona CDP)

Home

So, moving on, Page 29, the “Rezoning Outside of Urban and Rural TODs …,” so we’ve kept the “shall not” in there when I feel like if the intent is to allow for the document to be changed and interpreted, then we have to realize that we don’t understand the benefits of potential future projects to the community, and then categorically eliminating them doesn’t make sense to me, either. PLUNKETT: Sorry, what number? VITOUSEK: Page 28, “Rezoning Outside of Urban and Rural TODs ….” UNGER: Twenty-nine. VITOUSEK: Oh, 29, I’m sorry. So, again, to me, if we are, if we don’t, if we are trying to go through this document and we are trying to figure out if this can be fluid and we can adopt it, then I don’t understand why we would be categorically eliminating any rezonings that, projects we don’t even know whether it could be a valuable asset to the community, we don’t know what benefits we could have, and so I don’t think that categorically eliminating something based on that when in other instances we are replacing it with “should” and giving these guidelines so that it can be interpreted. Let’s see, on Page 31, so in the, so “Historic sites” midway through, “The State Historic Preservation Division is required to develop an inventory of historic properties (any structure or site over fifty years old) and burial sites,” so, I get that we can’t require the State Historic Preservation Division to do anything; what I would try to figure out is that if the County can maintain its own list of historic sites and burial sites that can be used for its own land use planning purposes. Page 44, the Policy CR-2.2 says, “The County should examine interrelated responsibilities identify weaknesses in the current programs, and make recommendations for improving programs relating \[regulating\] and protecting cultural resources and historic sites.” So, to me, this is purely a County responsibility; it’s not anyone else doing anything other than the County looking at its own system to figure out how the County can improve its treatment of historic resources. And to me, that’s something that should be left as a “shall” because it’s something the County can do. And that’s, that’s all of my concerns on this document and I’d love to hear from the rest of the Commission. UNGER: Thank you. CARR SMITH: I’m yielding to the people from Kona. KEALOHA: I guess I had a small concerning question relative to the letter from County Planning recognizing the various departments, specifically Page 4 on PUB-4.3a, the Water Department, and the change, “Develop policies and plans to provide water for agricultural use, subject to DWS approval.” When you read the DWS response upfront, they clearly identify a water use hierarchy of domestic and commercial consumption as being the highest and best use; and when you review 20 EXHIBIT B