Laserfiche WebLink
cancelled because of the HCPO Conference. So the first meeting we could put it on wasOctober <br />th <br />27; and because of the desire that we normally want to have these issues with an island-wide <br />th <br />impact heard on meetings at bothsides of the island, we scheduled it for both October 27 and <br />st <br />November 1, understanding that that put us beyond the 60-day timeframe and also <br />understanding specifically that that was not a legalrequirement or a mandatory direction by the <br />Council. So, first point, we€ve already done that. <br />The second point on the, the resolution also asked that the Director look at the amendment <br />procedure as a whole, apart from the Council-initiated amendments, because there are some <br />ambiguities in the existing amendment procedure. So, and in looking at the amendment <br />procedure as a whole, that€s the result of, so then we redrafted some of the other sections. <br />Procedurally, the way this would work is that this would, the Council gets their own bill back <br />and the Council can always act on the bill that they drafted and pass that exactly as is if they <br />want, or within limits they can make changes at the Council. When I say within limits they can€t <br />change the intent of the bill, they can€t change the substance, they can€t make major changes of <br />substance of the bill unless, that would create a new amendment. Procedurally, what our <br />proposal is that the Council would substitute this bill that we have as the Planning Director€s <br />draft as, for the Council€s bill as a Draft 2. That€s the Director€s recommendation to the Council <br />andourproposedrecommendationtotheCommission. <br />So,andI€vediscussedthiswithMr.Torigoeastoisthiswithinthescopeofchangesthatyou <br />can make to a bill at this stage or at the stage of the Council; and he says, yes, it is within the <br />scope of changes. Correct, Ivan? <br />TORIGOE:Yes, I€d agree. <br />GRAHAM:Commissioner Iwashita? <br />IWASHITA:So the language, I€m looking at the resolution and on page 2 after the last <br />WHEREAS,‚ the first NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED‚ talks specifically about the <br />Ordinance No. 050-25, which is the, I€m sorry that€s the procedural ordinance. It refers to <br />Exhibit A which is the proposed ordinance affecting 16.2 alone. And the following paragraph <br />says BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the council requests the planning director to study <br />ambiguous provisions, conflicting and contradictory language, and reasonable aspects of <br />timing.‚ I don€t, you know, to me that relates back to the two paragraphs before where it talks <br />about the County Council wishing to rectify the ambiguity or there claims to be ambiguities and <br />wishes to have more efficient process in these interim amendment procedures by initiating <br />amendment to 16.2 of the Hawaii County General Plan. So I don€t see that as being able to, <br />unless there€s some other language, I don€t see any of what I€ve read here to allow amending <br />anything other than 16.2. <br />GRAHAM:Taking procedurally again, Commissioner Iwashita, you had a two-part a <br />few minutes ago, a 2-part concern, one as the timing for our action and the other now is also just <br />what is the scope of the substance of what€s going to be our end product here today. It would <br />seem to me that we could kind of split those. And if we can kind of come to an agreement that <br />we want to go forward, then we can go forward. And then once we deal with the content of what <br />we€re going forward with, we can deal with whether we want to drop that 16.1 out or not. Does <br />that sound proper to you? <br />9EXHIBIT B <br /> <br />