Laserfiche WebLink
Office of Housing had no comments. Department of Water Supply and Department of Public <br />Works had some comments. From the State we had DOT commenting and also Office of <br />Planning. So we had a little time before this meeting, and we reviewed all of those, all of those <br />statements, but we really felt the ones that had something that we could work with to put <br />amendments to and propose that it be accepted as part of the amendment package, are especially <br />coming from Department of Public Works and Department of Water Supply. So the letter with the <br />scan number, our intake number, listed there also has the policies and suggested amendments per <br />the comments. So just to let you folks know we are asking that the comments, the amendments <br />made in this transaction as approved by the Director, we are also asking that you guys count this <br />as the amendment package, should it move from here en route to the Council, that we would <br />include those amendments. <br /> <br />UNGER: Commissioners, do you have this, you see the letter he’s talking about? Okay. <br /> <br />PLUNKETT: So, timeline, again, we had Mayor’s Office, Action Committee edits, Planning <br />Department review, which wrapped up in August, we got advice from Corp. Counsel on the entire <br />th <br />draft, Action Committee approving it on May 14, and we are here today. <br /> <br />With that, again, I’d just like to thank the Action Committee, everybody that was involved in the <br />process, all the input that was given, and even testimony from the community that sometimes is a <br />dissenting voice from the amendment package. I just want to also say one last thing is that this <br />process, again, was meant for consistency and helping the Plan to be implemented. And, for <br />every, the planning process in general usually allows – and I’m not saying for the County, I’m <br />saying in general – you create something, you try to implement it, and then you learn what is <br />implementable and what is not, and the real planner takes that input and refines the process. And <br />if you read the ordinance that created this Plan, it says it allows for future amendments. And I just <br />want to say that because this process is not personal; this is just something that needed to happen. <br />With that \[handing the microphone to Mr. Kim\]. <br /> <br />KIM: I have very little to add just to clarify based on some of the comments that I’ve seen. You <br />know, not every “shall” in the CDP did get changed to a “should.” We did go through it multiple <br />times, we tried to be very careful, and keep the “shall”s in where there were already legal <br />requirements. So if there was an environmental law requirement or a cultural resource <br />requirement, we tried to leave that as a “shall,” or a road dedication because that’s already <br />required by law, so we didn’t need to change that to a “should.” That was the only clarifying <br />comment I wanted to make. Thank you. <br /> <br />UNGER: Thank you. I even saw one “shall” crossed out and a “shall” added after it, so. Thank <br />you for the presentation, very articulate, and I think we have a really good understanding of how <br />well this has been vetted before it even came here. So, mahalo to you all and to the Action <br />Committee and members of the public who have participated. I’d like to open it up to questions <br />now for the Commissioners. Commissioner Carr Smith. <br /> <br />th <br />CARR SMITH: Hi. I see that the letters from Department of Public Works are dated June 12 <br />thth <br />and DOT is June 18 and Office of Planning is June 18. So, did these go back to the CDP <br />Action Committee? <br />5 <br />EXHIBIT B <br /> <br />