2015-04-02 Windward Planning Commission Minutes

Home

th Mr. Arai informed the Commission that their next meeting was on May 7, and asked them to confirm their attendance with him or Mrs. Hata-Finley. Mr. Arai briefly summarized a letter that was distributed to the Commission dated March 31, 2015 from the Mayor’s office [Exhibit D, attached hereto] regarding an update on the geothermal related projects that the Commission approved for claims from the Geothermal Asset Fund. Mr. Arai announced that the appointment of Donn Dela Cruz to the Commission was confirmed by the County Council. Mr. Dela Cruz will serve a five-year term on the Commission replacing former Commissioner Stephen Ono. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henkel, Mr. Arai updated the Commission on the geothermal asset fund claim by Puna Pono Alliance, et al. Mr. Arai said that forms and instructions were provided to Puna Pono Alliance to have Dr. [Michael] Edelstein placed on the County’s professional services list. The Planning Department will continue to work with Puna Pono Alliance in refining the claim to ensure compliance with the requirements of Planning Commission Rule No. 12. Chairman Miyasato reminded the Commission that if the Commission does not take action by making or seconding a motion, then the application could be “opened up” to go to court. He also reminded the Commission that if they go against the Planning Director’s recommendation, then it would be appropriate to specify the reason for not supporting the Director’s recommendation. Commissioner Ikeda asked if his motion that went against the Director’s recommendation [Item No. 1] was incorrect and added that he had stated his reasons for not agreeing with the Director’s recommendation. Mr. Arai explained that action on a motion needed to be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Using Item No. 1 as an example, it would have perhaps been more appropriate to make a motion to defer since the Commission wanted the Department to craft a favorable recommendation to be presented to the Commission. The Commission’s concerns could then be addressed, and the Commission could also state their findings which led to the specific motion. This approach would have better afforded the Department guidance on the direction that the Commission wanted to take. Mr. Kanuha affirmed that the main concern was to protect the Commission’s decision, and that was why the Department needed the Commission to provide justification for their decision. If the Commission was unable to do that, then the approach to defer as Mr. Arai had explained would present the Department an opportunity to work with the Commission. Inaction by the Commission was very problematic because there would be nothing going forward in the event that the Commission’s decision was appealed. Mr. Kanuha said that he was appreciative of Chairman Miyasato’s reminders pertaining to these issues. Commissioner Ikeda expressed that the Commission frequently received information late, and he personally liked to read things twice. He asked for clarification on how a motion to defer should be stated if he did not agree with the Director’s decision. Chairman Miyasato stated that the motion could request that further information be provided to the Commission, inclusive of a request for further information from the applicant. Mr. Kanuha said that the Commission, Page 3 of 4 Windward Planning Commission April 2, 2015 Minutes