2019-07-23 KCDP Minutes.v02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

had not put more effort into it in the time since the plan's adoption. Mr. Matsukawa explained that the Missler case made the plan legally relevant again and expressed that removing the Ishalls" in the plan will make it become a static document. 9. Janice Palma-Glennie, representing herself, testified on the proposed amendments. Ms. Palma- Glennie explained that the creation of the plan was in response to unplanned growth in Kona and involved thousands of participants. The goal was to create a legally binding, regionally driven, smart growth plan with judicious protection of natural resources. She stated that she had been involved with the CDP since its inception and was the only Action Committee member to vote kanalua on the amendments due to reservations she has about some of the proposed language. She expressed concern for removing the mandating language from policies ENV -1.5, TRAN-3.3, TRAN-3.5, section 4.3.2(4), and action PUB -8.2(c). She expressed her opinion that noise pollution should be better addressed in the document. She closed her statement by expressing that the proposed amendments to narrative section Land Use 4.2.2 will weaken plan elements such as alternative transportation, concurrency, and Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) structure. 10. Nancy Pisicchio, representing herself, testified on the proposed amendments. Ms. Pisicchio introduced herself as a previous County Council member who was elected for her interest in regional planning. She shared the CDPs are required to undergo a comprehensive review every 10 years and that therefore the Kona CDP comprehensive review is overdue. She shared that Hawai'i County Code Chapter 16 and the 2005 General Plan Chapter 15 has several requirements that the Kona CDP followed. Ms. Pisicchio stated that these mandates cannot be met without some legally binging language. She urged the Council to focus efforts on restructuring the program which mandates CDPs and to have a County -wide conversation about creating guidelines for when the use of the word "shall" is appropriate. 11. Ken Melrose, representing himself, testified in support of the proposed amendments. He introduced himself as the previous chair of the CDP Steering Committee as well as the first chair of the Action Committee. He explained some of the history behind the original drafting process of the CDP, that it involved intense input from the community and the Mayor's office, was drafted by a consultant, was run by the Research and Development office and not the Planning Department, and that they wrestled with connecting their collective aspirations with the realities of the Hawai'i County Code. He shared that there are numerous ways in which the plan benefited the community and that several infrastructure projects in the plan have been constructed within the urban area. He recounted that the amendment process thus far has included input from the Action Committee, the CDP Amendment Subcommittee, Planning Department staff, the Department of Public Works, Water Supply, Corporation Counsel, and the Leeward Planning Commission. He shared his opinion that sensitive environmental resources would still take a high priority in the amended plan and would be strengthened by the proposed language regarding roadway alignments. He believed the proposed concurrency section amendments would align better with the Code and lead to more accurate TIAR measurements. He expressed that parts of the plan are not easily implementable because of lack of resources. Some examples he provided included a lack of funding to maintain street trees, water www. hip Ian ningdept.com konana,hawaiicounty.zov Page 3