Laserfiche WebLink
rules or regulations related to the protection, conservation, maintenance, restoration, and/or <br />preservation of cultural and/or natural resources ….” So, one of the biggest concerns with the <br />“shall”s in regard to protecting our cultural, natural resources was this clause that, because what it <br />would happen is the County would have been bounded to enforce developers to build those <br />alignments without – so let’s say when the mitigation studies come about and then you find stuff, <br />now you have this conflict between this mandatory map and resources that are on the ground. We <br />thought carefully about this. What if there is an endangered loulu palm and that road alignment is <br />going through? And now the County is in a jam. We put in this language – and I just want to say <br />this to the community that it wasn’t, these amendments are definitely not meant to take away <br />protections; we put it out front and we embedded it in the language. <br /> <br />I want to reiterate this on Page 12. So this talks to the Official Concurrency Map. Concurrency – <br />so, previously, the Policy was stating out these road alignments again, and then the language we <br />put in, “Concurrency requirements shall be determined by Code \[HCC §25-2-46\] and be generally <br />consistent with the,” so, again, “the Official Concurrency Map,” – we put in this language <br />“generally consistent” – “and be informed by the Traffic \[a TIAR when applicable\].” But, here we <br />go, “Note: while the Concurrency Map is ‘Official,’ the proposed road alignments that have not <br />yet been built, are only conceptual as the topography, or possible environmental and cultural <br />resource mitigation measures may require these alignments to be adjusted.” I just want the <br />community to know that we are not trying to blanket this thing over. We care. <br /> <br />Yeah, I’ll stop there. <br /> <br />CHURCH: I’m sorry, beside comment I did have one question. I found Mr. Matsukawa’s <br />comment about the County Charter and the Kona Community Development Plan that if it had, if <br />the consistency between these two documents had not been examined, then it should be – I want <br />just to have your comment on that. <br /> <br />PLUNKETT: So, between the Charter and the? <br /> <br />CHURCH: County Charter and the Kona Community Development Plan. <br /> <br />PLUNKETT: Yeah, again, ten years ago – and it’s true I wasn’t part of that – but, so I don’t know <br />if there was that type of check. And I believe that that part of the Charter is— <br /> <br />KIM: So, actually, I would say the provision of the Charter is really in line with these <br />amendments because the public trust is these types of natural and cultural resources that we are <br />trying to say deserve protection even if the CDP would potentially override or conflict with those <br />types of protections. <br /> <br />CHURCH: Okay, I appreciate that. I just wonder why it came out in the first place then. Thanks. <br /> <br />KANUHA: Mr. Chairman? And I think I might add that that Charter provision, the initiative for <br />that was largely lost because of the Missler decision, right, because the component of the Missler <br />decision spoke towards the public trust. And so that language for the public trust, which came in <br />as an amendment to the County Code after, you know, the Missler decision, kind of reinforces <br />22 <br />EXHIBIT B <br /> <br />