Communication No. 2021-14- Flaherty Testimony

Home

Communication Number 2021-14 Subject: FW: Documentation for the KCDP AC Attachments: Third Circuit Court 3-14-21 ruling - Kelly v 1250 Oceanside Partners.pdf From: Chuck Flaherty Sent:Wednesday, November 10, 20213:55 PM To: Mercado, Keiko<Keiko.Mercado @hawaiicounty.gov> Subject: Documentation for the KCDP AC Aloha members of the Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee, The definition of review in Black's Law Dictionary is "A reconsideration; second view or examination; revision ; consideration for purposes of correction and "revise" is "To review, re-examine for correction; to go over a thing for the purpose of amending, correcting, rearranging, or otherwise improving it; as, to revise statutes, or a judgment." The 2005 General Plan was a revision of the 1989 General Plan which was a revision of the original 1971 General Plan. When you compare these three plans which cover a span of years, you can see the same format and organization. Because the same format was used in each subsequent plan, Ramseyer formatting made it easy for anyone to see the amendment that were being proposed. The draft 2040 General Plan is not a review or revision of the 2005 General Plan. It is a complete "gut- and-replace" of the existing General Plan with one that makes it impossible to determine the practical and legal implications to planning in our county. Can anyone in the county administration what legal precedents are being undermined or enhanced? Can anyone in the county administration explain what will be the impact on rules, policies, and procedures in each department and dvision within the county government? Can the county administration tell the Kona CDP Action Committee what impacts the proposed draft 2040 General Plan will have on the implementation of the Kona CDP? I question the legality of the current proposed draft 2040 General Plan because it is not a review, revision, or amending of the 2005 General Plan. It effective tosses the existing General Plan in the garbage and is as if we have travelled back in time to 1971 with all experience, history, knowledge, and wisdom contained within the 2005 General Plan never occurred. The Planning Department should withdraw the draft 2040 General Plan and work on truly revising and amending the 2005 General Plan in order to be in compliance with the comprehensive review requirement. It should also consider revising all CDPs to conform to the General Plan format similar to what occurred with Kona Community Development Plan, especially since the Planning Department is attempting to bring all CDP Action Committee members together to enhance the implementation of all CDPs. Because the format the 2005 General Plan was not considered in subsequent CDPs, these joing AC meetings find themselves comparing apples and oranges. With regard to the General Plan LUPAG map, I'm attaching a March 14, 2006 ruling by the state Third Circuit Court. The ruling by found that: i