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

Home

PLUNKETT: No. No, they didn’t make it the agenda. So these came in after our submission and the time frame was really too short. We tried to address it in a letter form, but, no. To answer your question, no. CARR SMITH: Okay. So, is it the Department’s position that everything that’s, all the recommended changes and these letters are all part of the amendment? You guys agree with everything here? PLUNKETT: No— CARR SMITH: Oh. PLUNKETT: —so if you read the letter that the, it was dated June 17, 2019, and this is coming from the Department, so if you look at the second page— CARR SMITH: Oh, I see. PLUNKETT: So what we saw in all of the agencies’ comments was that – and I just want to point to the bottom of this slide – so in that letter from us, which is the one I just pointed you to, saying that we have some additional amendments, and, so the comments adopted or deferred to the comprehensive review is based on the scope of work; so we, we received these kind of the last minute prior to this, but we vetted, or we evaluated which ones we saw that we could implement, implement in with the package we had already created and those that could be viewed and considered during the actual comprehensive review. So for all of the comments that came in after submission, the dividing line of whether we try to adjust them to incorporate now or to leave for the comprehensive review was if the concerns match the scope of work. And so what you have right here is things that we saw we could actually implement. Some of the comments from the other agencies were mostly concerns but no direct relation to actual policies, and so it’s not so much that we didn’t see it as important but we saw it as something that could be reviewed during the comprehensive review of the Plan. VITOUSEK: Sure, I have a question, and, you know, maybe for our counsel, I don’t know if we have to do executive session for it, but I was just wondering if we could have some background information on the Missler case that kind of brought this all forward, why, why we are here, you know. KIM: I can speak to it a bit. Deputy Corporation Counsel Ron Kim. I wasn’t directly involved in the Missler case, but I have read the opinion. And, basically, there became an issue as to whether or not the CDP would have force of law and requiring certain owners to have to take certain actions, whether that should have been included with their, I think it was a permit approval. And the County’s position was that, you know, the CDP was a great document, very instructive, but at that time we were not looking it as legally binding; however, the Intermediate Court of Appeals did rule that it was legally binding. So then after that case when we had to look at the CDP a different way as being mandatory and binding, you know, then we had to review it and see what 6 EXHIBIT B