|
Council level. I don’t feel that’s our responsibility. And I don’t feel it’s right, to be honest with
<br />you.
<br />WATANABE: Any further comments? Ms. Siracusa.
<br />SIRACUSA: Actually, in a rezoning, all we are doing is making a recommendation to
<br />the County Council; and that is our responsibility, to make a recommendation, up or down, and
<br />it’s the County Council’s responsibility to make their own determination.
<br />I still feel that, you know, we are being pulled into a semantic whirlpool here. The consistent use
<br />of the phrase, “involuntary downzoning,” I don’t see it, first of all, as involuntary because it was
<br />the developer, the applicant and his predecessor, who dropped the ball on final plan approval
<br />(sic) and getting an extension in a timely manner. And so therefore, by default, you know, is
<br />how that happened. And to say “involuntary” makes it sound like eminent domain, which it’s
<br />not. That’s one point. The downzoning part is it’s not like we are taking a property that was
<br />zoned to a higher density for a long time, and then arbitrarily decided to downzone; this is a
<br />reversion to its original zoning, which was allowed for in the original permit, which stated that if
<br />the applicant did not do what they were supposed to, then that could happen. And the applicant
<br />had agreed to that, to those terms and conditions at the time, as they all do. So by that token, it’s
<br />not involuntary, either. I would like to -, on the -, you know, Mr. Lim uses the phrase,
<br />th
<br />“downzoning,” in his second paragraph of that April 7 letter; he used it seven times. And it
<br />reminds me of the, you know, motto that if you say something often enough, people would
<br />believe it, whether it’s true or not. And I see that happening here, the consistent use of the
<br />phrase, “downzoning,” which you will note in the actual application that term is not there; it is
<br />extension of time to secure final subdivision approval.
<br />Mr. Lim’s contention in “A. Nothing Has Changed,” I would beg to differ with that in several
<br />respects. First of all, Mr. Rho pointed out in our last meeting that the previous Planning
<br />Commission that approved this zoning in the first place did not have the full archaeological
<br />survey when they made that approval. Some of the sites had been marked on their maps, but not
<br />all of them. And so they did not have the complete picture. Also at that time the North Kohala
<br />Community Development Plan had not been worked up. And as Mr. Yuen has pointed out in the
<br />th
<br />March 5 letter to Angel Pilago, there have been changes to the General Plan that definitely
<br />affect this area in terms of viewplanes and scenic beauty. So, yes, there have been changes. So I
<br />dispute that contention that Mr. Lim made there.
<br />I would also like to point out the opinion that he got from Professor Callies. No. 1, it’s still an
<br />opinion and is valid as anyone else’s opinion, including Mr. Yuen’s or mine or Mr. Woodward’s.
<br />It seems to me, in looking through the packet, that if this is everything that Mr. Lim presented to
<br />Professor Callies, he did not give Professor Callies everything. The quotations, or the part of the
<br />General Plan that was changed about the scenic view that Mr. Yuen mentioned, that’s missing.
<br />The information regarding the Community Development Plan for North Kohala is missing. The
<br />topographical map that we saw last time, showing the gullies, how unbuildable a lot of the area is
<br />on that acreage and the location of all the archaeological sites that are known, that was not given
<br />to Professor Callies, either. And therefore, I would tend to dismiss Professor Callies’ comments
<br />and interpretation based on the fact that he did not have the full amount of data on which to base
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />15
<br />
<br />
|