2008-07-18 TKONACDP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Committee not assuming a regulatory role that is what you fulfill, we talked really here about the Implementation Committee being the focus, and so that there are opportunities and a duty to provide input to the budget process and into the public process. We try to craft through the dialogue of the time a balance here, and most of the stuff that’s been raised, the questions that have been brought up, can be found a place that are addressed here in the Plan at this point as it is drafted. And we really appreciate your support and particularly that of Director Yuen on the timing issue. And I would just like to say that we’ve all been around long enough to see what happens when the General Plan makes a transition between the administrations and Councils, and that it can go for protracted length of time and be adopted in the latest hours of the next Council. And we appreciate the opportunity for Kona to have a plan that we can deal with now. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay. I believe we are done with the public testimony part. And we’ve heard from one Commissioner so far with regards to suggested revision or special scrutiny from the County Council. Do we have any other concerns from other Commissioners? Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: I have a couple of comments. And I do compliment the Steering Committee and the people that were involved; you know, they produced this 278-page document with 550-plus pages of supporting documents. But I think one of the speakers mentioned that a large group of people put in a lot of time; and I would have to say it was a small group of people that put in a whole large bunch of time to do this. And that’s one of the concerns I have because if you look at the document itself, the participation, given the 2000 census for North and South Kona, 37,000 residents, and yet 800 people at the first group of meetings and 350 at the second, and assuming that those were not the same people, that still put you at 3 percent of the population. Now, that being said, I think they’ve done a fine job. But I think what we need to do as the Planning Department – and I’ve mentioned this before – is to improve our system of doing these Community Development Plans. What I’ve suggested, since Kau is coming up shortly, you know, the people who are going to show up are going to be retirees, they are going to be political activists, they are going to be people with special interest and developers, largely. You know, mothers with kids and guys that are working three jobs to support their family are not going to show up. And what I’ve suggested when we do the Kau Community Development Plan is that we mail out a questionnaire with two simple questions: What do you see that needs to be improved in Kau, and No. 2, how do you suggest we do it? And then at the bottom of that single page, these are when the meetings are scheduled. And I looked at Section 15.1 of the General Plan, which dictates how Community Development Plans are activated and how they are conducted and up to the point where the steering committee appointed by the Mayor and approved by County Council, the data gathering process is not spelled out in any form of fashion; so there is no reason you can’t do that. So you know, we talk about inclusion and diversity, but when you have 97 percent of the population that are not participating, even though I think this is a fine document, you know, it’s a little hard to say that you have inclusion and diversity. And the second problem I have is with this Enhanced Shoreline Setback. And I will vote for this Plan, but I think we need to send it to County Council and recommend that they change the wording, so that “maintain a minimum of 1,000-foot open space no-build setback for EXHIBIT D 20