|
problem, right now. But we're not mandating that change anyway. All we're doing is
<br />making it possible so that if a future Administration wanted to make that change, they
<br />wouldn't have to amend the Charter to do it. Marni.
<br />HERKES: But, as you pointed out several times, it is not difficult to amend the
<br />Charter, and in this particular instance, there is no plan in place. There is no will by a
<br />current Administration. We're, kind of, taking pie -in -the -sky stuff and putting it in here
<br />that doesn't really have any grounds to it. If we were going to omit something, this is
<br />probably something I would think that really isn't necessary to 'keep in there.
<br />RAY: So, in other words, if future Council Administration wants to take
<br />this up, they also have the ability to vote on a Charter Amendment to make it happen,
<br />and so I'm just throwing that out there. Any other comments? We'll discuss this further
<br />on the 29tH
<br />In regard to the Planning Commission powers, Chris wrote a lengthy legal opinion.
<br />There again, both of these, especially we heard a lot at the Kona public hearing,
<br />seemed to be very difficult for the public to understand and be put in a real negative
<br />light that somehow we're giving extra powers, additional powers. That's the way it's
<br />being portrayed. So, I think we should consider, anyway, whether it makes sense to
<br />include these two as well.
<br />IRVINE: I got the same feeling you did, but I thought either just skip it, or
<br />give the Planning Commission some real power and have them elected. Well, they do
<br />their thing and be elected. At least these people wouldn't, at least, keep saying well,
<br />the Planning Commission does this and that.
<br />RAY: Well, I think, in that case, you'd make the Planning Commission
<br />advisory only, and the County Council is elected and they'd make these decisions.
<br />Anyway, Chris explains that process, I think, real well. I know we just got it so we need
<br />to all digest that a little bit, but I'd like to throw out that we consider whether these really
<br />make sense to go forward with. Gary.
<br />YOSHIYAMA: I have a question. If we don't need it and then we go through a
<br />second round - I'll count this a second round, Chris, right? And it gets defeated, or
<br />voted down, are we in a more difficult position than we were in the first place? Unless
<br />we say, in the intent of this thing, or on the record, that it's for clarity purposes only.
<br />YUEN: That's a good question and I thought of the same thing. I think it
<br />actually doesn't change it if they vote it down. My ultimate conclusion on the Rules and
<br />Regulations was that they had the power to do it, and if you try to put it back and then
<br />the voters voted it down, then they would still have the power to do it, but it's a little
<br />hard to explain, then, to the voters why you asked them their opinion if it didn't matter
<br />either way; The same thing holds true, and perhaps even more so, for the special
<br />permits, Special Management Area Authority. I didn't write this up in the letter but the
<br />Planning Commission requested that it be put specifically in the Charter. If we don't do
<br />26
<br />
|