03-1-2010 SKCDP AC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2 Commission applications. The following discussion focused on the role of the AC with regard to reviewing such items, and to the role the AC wanted to develop for itself. During questioning by members, Allen Salavea clarified that some applications have a 30-day approval window, others can last years. The Planning Department has a hard copy system. Leonard Librizzi noted that applicants may be developers and not the landowners. AC’s Role: Mike Fischer and Fran Tabor questioned a statement by the Planning Director in the handout: “The Action Committee is not going to be able to review and comment formally on the applications for permits that the Planning Department processes.” Allen Salavea said the AC is advisory; if the Planning Director wants input on a particular subject, then a comment will be requested. The AC would focus on implementing the CDP. Reviewing applications would be very time consuming. Time is better spent looking at implementation opportunities, synergy between communities and advocacy work. There is already a public review of applications. Further Discussion: Allen said the AC can stimulate public participation. The community needs a better understanding of the system. For example, many do not understand the signs posted on properties for which an application has been made. Members reviewed the scope of the AC described in the CDP. Allen will clarify with the Corporation Counsel Office if the AC can submit an opinion on a project when not solicited. He gave several examples that were problematic. The Ooma developer had wanted the Kona AC to submit favorable testimony. In another instance, two individuals from the same AC, one opposed and one favoring a project, testified they represented their AC. Jeannie Palermo wanted not to micromanage but to be able to consider big issues. However, Allen said selection might prove a slippery slope. For example, a developer might say, why was my project singled out? Maybe criteria or a threshold can be set. Robin Inaba noted that plan approvals covered items such as parking, etc, and came very late in the process. For additional farm dwellings etc. there are established criteria. The AC was interested in subdivisions and Planning Commission items. Mike Fischer believed that for now confidence was well placed in the Planning Director’s role as initiator; but wondered whether the AC would have legal standing to take an action regarding the CDP at some later date. Fran Tabor did not want to selectively limit the AC’s scope to advocacy. Allen stated that he takes a very broad approach to advocacy and mentioned soliciting community input and contacting departments. Planning Commission: Members asked whether the AC could be put on the Planning Commission distribution list for agendas, and whether the AC could receive materials reviewed by Planning Commissioners. Allen indicated any individual resident can be put on the list for agendas. A point person for the AC could make requests. Allen noted complexities of jurisdiction, as with Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and the very extensive reading required of Planning Commission members. Regarding applications for