|
the CDP, they intentionally wanted to elevate the importance of agriculture. So, I think that’s an
<br />example of what we’ve heard where perhaps other ordinances or rules should be amended to
<br />reflect the spirit of the CDP versus vice versa, because we hear a lot of talk from federal, state,
<br />local governments about supporting agriculture, but yet the policies directly contradict that
<br />position. So I, just things like that to maintain the spirit of the document would be a concern to
<br />me.
<br />
<br />CHURCH: Okay, let me give you a comment here in a broad-brush way. So, painfully as I was I
<br />read most of this document this morning, and it shows not only what document is but also what
<br />you propose it to be, so what does that mean to me? The Missler case only kind of shows the
<br />extent to which this document has become irrelevant, and I’m sure it was only one of many, many
<br />instances where the County was making approvals that were inconsistent with what this document
<br />said should be done or will be done or whatever specifics. And so, I think that’s the problem with
<br />such a document, and I like to see things that are very hard and fast so that you know what to
<br />expect, if you make applications or you ask for things. The world is changing, as been said, ten
<br />years ago it was a very different situation. And a document that is so rigid becomes increasingly
<br />irrelevant. I think this document provides a lot more discretion in a way decisions are made, be it
<br />the Planning Director, the Planning Department, the administrators and so forth. I think that to the
<br />extent that from my standpoint I like to see things are more rigid. I think that the document lives
<br />and breathes far better in its amended form than it does in its current form. And so I’m very
<br />supportive of the generality of what you did. And I think it’s tremendous; how the Planning
<br />Department people can deal with the State, the Land Use, and the General Plan and the various
<br />development plans, and find a way through this morass of detail to solutions on actions, which
<br />come before them. It’s really astonishing. It’s a phenomenal amount of material they try to
<br />absorb, understand how to get through. So I applaud this effort and I think we should go forward
<br />with it, and I’ll certainly recommend approval, if such a motion comes up.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Any other comments from the Commission? Mahalo – oh, go ahead.
<br />
<br />PLUNKETT: If it’s okay, I would like to respond to some earlier comments.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Yes, please do.
<br />
<br />PLUNKETT: And just in general. So, I just thank all the community and their concerns about
<br />the, especially, cultural natural resources. It’s something that is close to my heart. That’s my
<br />background. And I just want to show how we’ve tried to put that out front. And it hasn’t been
<br />pointed out in some of the comments that we were given. So, if the Commission wouldn’t mind
<br />looking at Page 1 and looking at Bullet No. 6, so I’m just going to read, “Policies that” – and I’m
<br />going to read how it was written and then what we put in – “Policies that prescribe how each
<br />objective will be achieved. The policies that use the word ‘shall’ are mandatory directives legally
<br />binding on County agencies.” So what we added – and why I need to point this out is because the
<br />land use maps later on in this section, they call themselves “official” and also “mandatory,” there
<br />were road corridors proposed that are mandatory and there wasn’t this language in it – so let me
<br />read, “The policies that use the word ‘shall’ are mandatory directives,” and we change it to say,
<br />“to County agencies provided that in the case of any conflict with \[existing\],” law, so, “United
<br />States or Hawai‘i State and/or County \[laws\], rules, or regulations particularly \[any\] such laws,
<br />21
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|