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

Home

CARR SMITH: Okay, just checking. UNGER: Any other comments from Planning or Commissioners? Very good. You may be seated. Let’s go ahead and open up the hearing to public testimony: Mike Matsukawa, Shirley David, Clare Loprinzi, Shannon Rudolph representing herself, as well as Chuck Flaherty, and Janice Palma-Glennie. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do \[and inaudible affirmation\]. UNGER: Please state your, please state your name and area of residence. MATSUKAWA: My name is Michael Matsukawa. I live in Ka‘awaloa, South Kona. I think I live near Commissioner Vitousek. And in answer to his question, I was their attorney involved in the Missler case, so I can meet with you privately, if you want to talk about it further. I presented some written testimony earlier to the Action Committee and then this morning to this Commission. I won’t repeat myself. But I think it’s really important that this be made a matter of public record. If you read the CDP – and it’s like the Mueller report, yeah, how many have actually read it, you know? Eight hundred participants from Kona met over a period of almost two and a half years, there were 350 who participated in workshops, there were eleven working groups on various subjects – I was on the Government section – there were two charrettes; a substantial amount of time and money was invested to generate what is before you this morning. I wish at the time the Planning Department staff that testified to you today had been participants at these workshops and meeting. They were not found at these meetings – I think Mr. Shimaoka realizes that. The Deputy Director, the Planning Director was present, but none of the real nitty-gritty stuff, you know, about “shall,” “should,” “section 3-8 \[inaudible\].” So the ordinance itself anticipated that there would have to be efforts to fine-tune the inconsistencies where the code didn’t quite bump up against the County Charter. All of that was put into a matrix. In 2008 the Commission voted unanimously to go through with this idea and to include the matrix that we would work over a period of time because it was an experimental ordinance, and it had to be fine- tuned with them. Two major provisions were the financing plan and the network connectivity plan. That had to be addressed and brought up to the County Council for further improvements, further enactments to make it all work. Well, nothing happened. I hate to say this but county officials were heard to say, “The ordinance is not legal, so we are not going to do anything about it.” When the Missler case started, County Planning Director, County attorney took the position that it’s not legal, we’re not going to do anything about it. So in this environment, you know, when the code was, when the Plan was enacted, the Great Recession was on, so we had a lot of time, because there was no development going on, to work out the details. That never happened. So I’m glad that at least the subject matter has been brought back to the Commission for this kind of review. But my comment is that you shouldn’t just pass it on; if you believe the work of the community was valuable and remains valuable, and if you have some reservations about passing an amendment that wholesale goes through an ordinance, I would reflect on it and say maybe we 9 EXHIBIT B