11-02-2021 Intervenor - Exceptions to WPC Proposed FOF, COL, DO

Home

Finding No. 22, also unvacated Finding No. 49). In its proposed findings and conclusions, the Planning Commission does not explain why Connections' request for a Special Permit should be approved even though Connections' Special Permit request is not consistent with these three important decision criteria. And as stated earlier, the unvacated and unappealed findings do not support the former planning director's revised recommendations on which the Planning Commission based its vote to approve Connections' Special Permit request. Moreover, the Planning Commission uses a "totality of the evidence" analysis, purporting to "weigh" all seven decision criteria, but without discussion or analysis, and arriving at an ultimate conclusion. On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals criticized the Planning Commission for using this "totality of the evidence" approach (Memorandum Opinion, Page 43), so why use it again? s 4. THE PROPOSED (DRAFT) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DO NOT ANALYZE THE PUBLIC NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST DOCTRINE. On a subject of great state constitutional importance, the Planning Commission confines its analysis of the public natural resources trust to a single paragraph (Pages 17 to 18, proposed Finding No. 66). In the Kauai Springs case, 5 "[T]he Planning Commission did not base its decision on any single criterion; rather, it was based on the totality of the evidence when applied to all seven criteria." The Intermediate Court of Appeals then held that if any one of those seven criteria is not satisfied, then in the absence of clear findings that explain how the Planning Commission weighed all of the evidence, the Planning Commission's decision had to be reversed. (Memorandum Opinion, Page 43) 12