2021-08-05 Exh B (SPP 12-138) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REPLOGLE: Thank you. Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: I'd like to just speak briefly in favor of my motion. I just noted at least in two places Page 42 of the opinion where the Appellate Court notes that; without additional findings by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact 59 and 62 finding that the development would be contrary to the General Plan or arbitrary and capricious. So, this seems to imply consideration including additional findings now there may be a legal term, legal meaning for findings there that I'm missing but I would think it would include evidence. And then on Page 43, the Appellate Court talks about why they may remand, and they refer to the Lanai Company Inc. versus Land Use Commission case. Where a case was remanded to the LUC for additional findings and conclusions and further hearings if necessary. So, it seems to me that I would call a rather vague conclusion. Where is it. Where they say where the court said this case is remanded to the Planning Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. That they're obviously opening the door to new evidence and a reconsideration and testimony about old evidence and that if they wanted us to restrict ourselves strictly to the record, they could have easily said so and didn't and in fact made at least two references to additional findings and possible hearings. That's why I think certain things especially the lack of evidence in the record for the water use criteria that was discussed in the previous Commissions' decision. I don't see how that can be resolved without additional evidence from an additional testimony. There're numerous things like that. What is the importance of notifying all the people within 500 feet of the project? Whereas the appellate court talked a lot about the meaning of community and whether there should be differential consideration of different parts of the overall community, and so I think that there are a lot of issues that need to be covered before the Commission to make a non- arbitrary and capricious decision. Thank you. REPLOGLE: Thank you Mr. Clarkson. Mr. Au, any thoughts? AU: Yeah, I'll just respond to Commissioner Clarkson's response. I think that's fair, that's your opinion and you like to hear that and I respect that. So, after those comments I'm on the fence now but I would still like to hear from the other Commissioners. GALIMBA: Could I speak Chair? REPLOGLE: Yes, Ms. Galimba. GALIMBA: So, I guess I'd like to ask a clarification on that because I agree with Commissioner Clarkson that we need to be able to very clearly articulate our reasons for either supporting or rejecting the proposal. And there were those points that Commissioner Clarkson mentioned in the order that requires our fairly detailed attention. So, I guess the question that I would like to ask is would we need to open it to more evidence and more testimony to do that properly like specifically the General Plan question that Commissioner Clarkson brought up. So, I guess I'm asking Counsel that question. In your opinion, is there enough evidence in the already existing documentation to do our job properly as far as articulating our decision? 5 EXHIBIT B