2020-02-06 Exh B Piilani Partners Remand SMA 18-070

Home

RAFFIPIY: Thank you, Ms. Rohr. Any questions from the Commission? Thank you very much. You may take your seat. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. So, if you've been to some of these Commission meetings, you know, sometimes I feel like I use it as an education opportunity so the public, who is not used to these proceedings, understands what's going on. Unlike the earlier application, there is a permit being submitted. The board decides. This is different. I've—folks need to understand, there was an SMA Permit application. This Commission denied it. It then, typical, the Applicant went and appealed the decision, okay? So, now the Commission is in this place of having to respond to what the Judge wants. It's not back here because the Commission wants to reopen anything. It's back here because the Judge ordered something to be relooked at, okay? So, I want folks to be clear about the Commission is trying to respond to what the Judge ordered while trying to support why they came to that decision several months ago. Okay, I just want to be clear about that. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, all. I understand the Applicant wants to make a statement. Applicant or representative, please come forth. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? BUNN: I do. FUKE: Yes. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. You may proceed. BUNN: Thank you. Congratulations, Mr. Chair and Mr. Vice -Chair. Greetings to the other Commissioners, Planning Department staff, Planning Director, and Deputy Corporation Counsel. Thank you very much for your time. I understand that this is a little difficult. I think somebody predicted back when we were going through the original hearings that be careful because this could come back, and here we are. Since we're here to discuss the decision and order, I did want to point out some things about it that Ms. Hall, obviously I didn't expect her to read the entire thing. You probably have it in front of you. It is Exhibit 1 to the Background Report prepared by the Planning Department. So, the first page is just an introductory paragraph, kind of setting up who is appealing what, what was decided. Then it addresses the issues in the same order as the Commission's May 201h 2018 decision, and just so there is no confusion, I'm referring to that as the original decision. So, the original decision addressed the SMA criteria first, and as does the Court's decision. So, pages 2 through 5 is basically the Court's legal analysis of why the Commission could not rely on Piilani's use of plastics as a basis for denying the SMA permit. That section ends at page 6. With the Court's conclusion at the end of that section, that portion of the D&O which denies the application for the SMA Use Permit based on HRS Section 205A-26(2), and the Commission Rule 9-11(e) must be vacated under the standards of HRS 91-14. And, you can ask your attorney what those standards are if you don't know. EXHIBIT B 11