2016-04-27 KCDP Minutes Final - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

40 Action Committee discussed the Matsukawa letters. Kari Kimura (Kari) felt the Matsukawa was a bit 41 much as it asked the Action Committee (AC) to stand down. 42 43 Greg Ogin (Greg) felt the letter was too legal for the AC to respond, so we should ask the Director for 44 some insight on the letter before the AC could comment. 45 46 Barbara DeFranco (Barbara) stated that we need clarification on the Matsukawa letters and this should not 47 be the point of the meeting. 48 49 Charles Young (Charles) wants to send the minutes to the Director as soon as the minutes are prepared 50 and not to wait for the approved minutes. 51 52 Hiram stated that receipt of the Matsukawa letters have good timing as the AC cannot move forward and 53 comply to the CDP if the CDP is not the law. If the CDP does not work, it does not function. So, how 54 does the AC move forward and make it effective? The AC need simplicity and clarity so we can apply 55 the principles and objectives of the CDP to move forward. 56 57 Director indicated that the AC asked him to clarify whether the Ordinance for the CDP also amended the 58 existing County Codes. The AC did not ask if the Ordinance adopting the CDP was legal. Matsukawa 59 seems to be questioning whether or not this interpretation addresses whether the CDP is legal. The 60 Director’s letter does not address the legality of the CDP. The letter recognizes that the CDP was adopted 61 by ordinance and that certain provisions of the CDP changed certain existing codes within the County 62 Codes. 63 Those changes were never accomplished to modify some specific sections of the existing codes. The 64 CDP says that these changes were automatically made with the adoption of the CDP. Changes to the 65 County Code must be specifically done and cannot be accomplished by stating in the CDP that these 66 changes were made by the adoption of the CDP. 67 The legality of the CDP is not really changed, it is still adopted by Ordinance, however, a statement exists 68 in the CDP in the Policy Level says that where the term SHALL is used, it is legally binding on County 69 Agencies. This cannot be implemented without many changes to the County Codes. 70 All of the proposed changes in the CDP did not change the County Codes. These sections in the CDP are 71 there for consideration when reviewing a proposal. On table 5-3, a listing of all changes, made by plan, 72 are listed, with indications of how it was enacted by plan. Sometimes it addresses the change, but does 73 not list the code it amended. These changes to the Code would apply to the entire Island of Hawaii and 74 not just Kailua-Kona. Sometimes only a portion of a code is mentioned to be changed. It also states that 2