Laserfiche WebLink
Communication 662 <br /> <br /> Bill 175 <br /> <br /> Page 5 of 6 <br /> Council Chair Hoffmann stated that in supporting this effort, we're asking people to make a <br /> determination and not that the council is establishing the two planning commissions. It's <br /> <br /> whether or not we give people the right to decide as a charter amendment whether there should <br /> <br /> be two commissions and he always favors having the people decide these issues and that's the <br /> purpose of this effort. Mr. Hoffmann also stated he believed two commissions would provide <br /> better local analysis of land use issues and is one step forward in a series of steps that should be <br /> taken to try to adjust the way we consider land use decisions in this County. <br /> Mr. Jacobson noted that one of the most important issue is the enormous workload that we put <br /> upon the volunteers and that's probably one of the biggest reasons to support this proposal so <br /> that those volunteers are not overworked and we also end up with a better quality of work. <br /> Council Member Ford stated her support based upon the current workload of the planning <br /> commission, her support of home rule where decisions are made closer to home and ultimately, <br /> supports that the people have the right to choose. She also supports the fact that the proposed <br /> charter amendment is drawn on judicial boundaries and not council district boundaries that can <br /> change every ten years. <br /> Council Member Yoshimoto stated he would not make a motion to postpone but felt it would be <br /> beneficial in order to explore what can be done since he still believes one planning commission <br /> would result in consistent decisions. He stated if it's the will of the council to move this forward <br /> today, he could not be in support of this. <br /> Council Member Higa was concerned whether this measure should move forward and work on <br /> details later and after considering the comments of other council members, whether the bill as <br /> written is flawed. Corporation Counsel Brilhante stated that historically their position has been <br /> that they would like to see a good bill move forward and not a flawed bill move forward and then <br /> corrections made later. Mr. Brilhante stated that with respect to the proposed bill, as it is <br /> presently written, legally he did not believe the bill is flawed. However, the issues raised <br /> regarding matters that affect the whole island is a legitimate issue and he believed clear <br /> guidelines should be included. Mr. Higa stated in theory he support this and wants to see these <br /> issues worked out. <br /> Council Member Ford expressed the importance of differentiating between what is intended <br /> language for the charter and what is administrative rule language and noted the need to be very <br /> clear not to mix administrative language into the charter language. <br /> Mr. Yuen noted that basic functions should be clear from the text of the charter amendment and <br /> that the way it's currently written, it's reasonably clear the commissions act by a majority of the <br /> full membership which would mean 8 votes out of the 14 total votes. <br /> Council Member Pilago expressed his desire not to postpone and to move this matter forward as <br /> a work in progress. The benchmark that we need to lay and the foundation that has been laid is <br /> that the corporation counsel finds this is proposal is legal and that the Director reminds us that <br /> there is a procedural process within the proposal that can be relied upon which is if you have a <br /> PC Report No. 47 <br /> <br />