2017-04-10 Joint Meeting Exh A (Amend Commission Rules)

Home

etcetera, even for a Special Permit. It’s my understanding. The public should be involved and be advised a continuation. I’ve been to this office several times; sometimes the meetings have been held and sometimes they’ve been cancelled. I don’t mind coming each time there’s a possibility, and I appreciate the input from the Planning Commission. I just hope that you will just leave things as they are. Do not change Rule 4, contested cases. And thank you for the opportunity this day. Thank you. UNGER: Thank you. Janice Palma-Glennie, Sharon Willeford. PALMA-GLENNIE: Aloha, Members of the Commission, and mahalo for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation’s Kona Kai Ea Chapter. My name is Janice Palma-Glennie, and I reside in Kailua-Kona. Democracy’s benefits don’t come easily nor without cost. In these days of threatened and realized loss of liberties created by a Federal government thumbing its nose at environmental, cultural, and other health and quality of life related protections, Hawai‘i has taken the auspicious role of human rights champion. In light of that, the plan to thwart government transparency and public inclusion in our local land use planning process is troubling, inconsistent, untimely, and unwarranted. Posting meetings and allowing public comments and participation seems a small price to pay towards achieving democracy’s end goal of creating open, informed public-centric land use decisions. Public servants are charged with making decisions that can positively or severely and adversely affect the person, the public’s quality of life, and/or integrity of public trust resources. Wouldn’t they want as complete and bulletproof information as possible to make the best decisions on their community’s behalf? Decisions that will have long term consequences. Contested case hearings offer opportunity for a more in-depth hearing process, as others have said, and allow impacts of proposed development to be fully addressed and mitigated during, that aren’t fully addressed and mitigated during the normal public hearing process. Participation in that process already puts financial stress on some individuals and community groups who want to participate in protecting their neighborhoods, lands, and culture, not just because legal counsel is usually necessary and expensive, but even application costs are high. This Commission is meant to serve the public’s best interests. The proposal to eliminate the provisions by public notice and public participation contained in Rule 4-5 and Rule 4-20 is contrary to open government, the practice of good citizenship, and responsible participation, and can even mean that decision-makers miss important information by the public as stated before me. Those provisions should be eliminated from the Planning Commission’s rules despite the minor hardships or costs they may require. We ask, again, that you please throw out any proposed provisions of contested case rules that limit the public’s ability to take part in issues that affect their lives now and far into the future, and we also support the P.U.D. rule addition, the changes for the P.U.D. for the same reasons that public participation openness is the most important thing democracy can provide. 23 EXHIBIT A