SC Minutes 19December2016 DRAFT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

it and presented it to the Steering Committee. So, then it was raised again, both during public testimony and then during the Steering Committee meeting on September 10th, and at that point, in response to that testimony, 1 believe it was Craig Neff, we checked the records and it was Craig Neff, that in response to a suggestion from the public, suggested the Steering Committee consider changing the land use designation of Hakalau Point. At that point, at that September 10th meeting, the Steering Committee voted to make that change from — to make it Open. We then realized after the fact that the agenda as written probably didn't accurately reflect the fact that that vote, that type of decision would be considered. So, recognizing that we had made an error, that decision was re-agendized at a future meeting and reconsidered by the Steering Committee. And so, at a subsequent meeting, it was reconsidered — I forget the exact date — it would've been either late September or early October right where it was on the agenda again, the Steering Committee considered again, heard public testimony again. At that point, Brad Kurokawa expressed - shared that he had a conflict of interest — this is where the guidelines of the Steering Committee came into play. Brad pointed out that he had done some work related to Hakalau Point and therefore, this conflictof "nterest policy that the Steering Committee has been using this from the get-go came into play and from here forward on any issue related to Hakalau, he recused himself, including the discuAton that day and any subsequent votes. And we've discussed this internally and discussed it with Brad and tonight he will also be recusing himself if it coVet"trying a vote about the final recommendation for the CDP. We share this just to be clear that to be as open ancran parent and clear and fair as possible during this process eliminating (inaudible) conflicts of int rest. We're following Sunshine Law. We're doing our best to give everyone equal say and be perfectly upfront and clear about who does and doesn't have a t%eres in any particular issue considered in the CDP. So, that's the first point/ wanted to cover. IV The second one was related to the scope of the CDP. There's been a lot of confusion about this and we knovirthot land use gets very confusing very quickly but it — these are direct quotes straight out of the Chapter 15 of the General Plan where the scope of Community Development Plans is described. So, it's well within the scope of the CDP to designate development patterns to.provide regional policies for land use, direct physical development, manage growth and provide land use guide maps. And that's exactly what Policy 1 and the associated land use guide maps from the CDP do. They don't change zoning. They don't amend the General Plan. They simply express the communities' preferred future uses for land use in the Hdmdkua planning area. Ff So, the flipside of that just — you've seen these slides before so we're reiterating a lot of what we've told you before, but its relevant again because the issue came up again recently in the Press. So, the CDP does not affect zoning and we've all covered this before. Zoning is what determines permitted uses. The General Plan, in contrast, provides future guidance, it is not zoning and the CDP does not amend the General Plan. The CDP recommends amendments to the General Plan but upon adoption, the CDP does not change the General Plan, okay. And, it will be a subsequent step taken potentially through the current ongoing review of the General Plan or future action by Council. And also very importantly, when there is a direct conflict between a Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan is controlling. And so, what that means specifically for Hakalau Point is that the CDP, as all it does with Page 13