|
swear you in. And if you could highlight your testimony. We'd like to limit it to five minutes. I
<br />think we have a lot on the agenda and we'd like to get to that. First, first testifier, Mike
<br />Matsukawa. Do you swear to tell the truth before the Planning Commission?
<br />MATSUKAWA: I do.
<br />UNGER: Please state your name and your area of residence.
<br />MATSUKAWA: My name is Mike Matsukawa. I live in Captain Cook, South Kona. I only got
<br />my written testimony in this morning. But essentially, I'm speaking to Section 9-9, which is
<br />proposed to be amended by delegating a substantial amount of your authority to the Planning
<br />Director. My concern is, and I think Randy Vitousek addressed this same issue, is that the
<br />Legislature gave the Commissions the authority to regulate and administer the SMA. When you
<br />delegate authority to a director or another agency official — it's necessary because there is so
<br />much work, processing applications, generating correspondence, typing out agendas, preparing
<br />for hearings like this one — but when you do so, you need to make sure, and this is a requirement
<br />of general administrative law, that you have some measurable standard by which you know what
<br />you are allowing someone else to do for you and what that person cannot do, and then some kind
<br />of reporting process so that you know the person is doing it correctly, and then some kind of
<br />review process that will be the report. What is happening now is when you delegate under Rule
<br />9-9, there is no standard. If you read what it did allow, the last part of the sentence, "to
<br />administer, interpret, and enforce terms, scope and conditions set forth in Special Management
<br />Area Use Permits" — these are existing permits — "issued by the Commission." So let's say
<br />something was issued in 2014, and issue comes up about what does the term or condition
<br />required. Well, if it's the Planning Commission's permit, then logically the Commission ought
<br />to be the one to make the final decision as to what it means, how it should be applied, etc. As
<br />written, 9-9 is a wholesale delegation to the Planning Director. You will never know what he or
<br />she does. There is no review process. There is no reporting process. And I'm thinking, just
<br />from a legal standpoint I think it's deficient. From a political standpoint, it's also deficient,
<br />because you are giving away your authority and never hearing back on how it's used. A good
<br />example is on Maui. The Maui Planning Commission Rule understands that. These day-to-day
<br />things come up; what does this permit condition Number 12 mean? The Planning Commission
<br />rule on Maui says the Planning Director takes the information, makes an analysis, makes a
<br />recommendation, but ultimately reports to the Planning Commission. I don't know if it's on a
<br />quarterly basis or monthly basis. It comes to the Commission, goes on their agenda, they look at
<br />the interpretation of condition [inaudible]. If it's okay, it's a routine approval; if it's not okay,
<br />they hold, they hold off action on it. And I think that's what's missing in this proposal. The idea
<br />is to alleviate the Commission from many of the daily tasks that anyone runs into of what does
<br />Condition 8 mean, how many parking stalls did we intend to require, where is the beach access
<br />supposed to be, those kinds of conditions. Is a convenience store the same thing as a gas station?
<br />Those things come up on a daily basis. But then sometimes some very important issues also
<br />come up on a routine basis, something that was never foreseen. So should you delegate the
<br />responsibility to someone to decide when it was your permit? Thank you.
<br />UNGER: Thank you. If you hold on one minute, I will ask, if you come back up, I'm going to
<br />ask the Commissioners if they have any questions for you. We'll start on the, right here in Kona.
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />3
<br />
|