2023-04-06 Windward Exh B (Item#1 ASIAA PL-SPP-2022-000025)

Home

LIN: I'm sorry Mr. Pipan. You have to state your— PIPAN: Oh, yes. John Pipan, Land Planning Hawaii. Here representing ASIAA, Dr. Chen and his colleagues. LIN: Okay and before we get into the discussion of the agenda item. Have you received the background report and recommendation reports from the Planning Department, and do you agree with the recommendations including the proposed conditions and you can go forward from there. PIPAN: We have, thank you. So, we agree with the proposed conditions and very much appreciate the hard work by the Planning Department and this Commission on reviewing and helping us through this process. So, as I was saying based on the concerns brought to us by community members, we withdrew the previous application for another site within the Wood Valley community closer to neighbors and we broadened our search and looked for a site that didn't have nearby neighbors. Was more remote, was more isolated and we happened upon this site. So, here we are, and I have been advised and I do need to address a certain item mainly for the record. Just in case there's litigation surrounding this in the future due to the many delays we've encountered in this process. So, this current application requested to be heard at the January Planning Commission meeting. Now, due to circumstances outside of our control two commissioners being recused, there was no quorum and subsequently for several months since then there has been no quorum. There is Planning Commission rules that relates to time to perform certain duties of the Commission on applications. So, Planning Commission Rule 4 to 6, sorry, that was relating to the Contested Case Petitions. So, I'll skip that part. This is reflecting Hawaii Revised Statutes 91-13.5(c) and I don't want to read that in depth. But that requires the approving agency to make rules to establish deadlines. To make decisions on applications like these and the Planning Commission has made such rules. So, Planning Commission Rule 6-8 provides that within sixty days after the close of a hearing the Planning Commission has to approve or deny an application. So, the first hearing on this matter we would contend would be the January hearing and based on the minutes from the January hearing. Let me get to that part. Sorry, one second. Yes, so it's clear the Commission took up the item, the January meeting minutes state the Commission took up this item at 9:05 a.m. with five public members in attendance, Chair Lin stated two (2) commissioners of the five (5) commissioners in attendance had a conflict of interest on the agenda item and were recused, therefore, due to the lack of quorum to hear or act on the matter that application was deferred to the Commission's February 2, 2023 hearing. There is provision in Planning Commission 4-6(a)that says if the applicant requests that that meeting is deferred then the subsequent meeting would be considered. We made no such request in January. So, January was the first meeting. The time has elapsed to make a decision therefore, based on Planning Commission rules and based on this HRS 91-13.5 it would appear this application by technicality has been automatically approved. We don't want to sidestep the authority of the Commission, we think the public dialogue, we think your mana`o, your experience and wisdom is very important. And we think that the merits of this application will carry it to approval, so we don't have to rely on this technicality, this automatic approval. But,just in case of litigation or appeal or 8 EXHIBIT B