Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0161.005 2020-2022 Pi Cownca I GOMH, I6I April 6, 2021 COUNTY CLERK Hawai'i County Council COUNTY OF HAWAI'I 25 Aupuni St RECEIVED ��,�( 0 V Hilo HI 96720 Time 11; 56, BY iz Re: Communications 161 and 162 Date APR 0 6 2021 Aloha Madame Chair and members of the County Council, I am testifying against Communication 161 and 162. Both of these nominees for the Planning Commission are respected in our community and have made great contributions to it. There is no doubt these individuals wish to serve the citizens of this county. However, in order to be effective in our volunteer service, we must have the knowledge and experience to perform the work, no matter how menial or complex. The more responsibility, power, and influence a volunteer has, the more essential it is to have the prerequisite knowledge and experience in order to be a contributor rather than a burden to the organization, committee, commission, board, or other action group governed by Robert's Rules of Order. The nominees for the Leeward Planning Commission have not yet disclosed or provided examples of the prerequisite knowledge and experience necessary for the LPC to meet the standard that laws, rules, and regulations intend. This information is essential in order provide this county council and the general public with reasonable assurance the LPC will informed, effective,fair, and accurate. Because these nominees have not been vetted in a manner that would have provided this assurance, I am asking the county council to defer Communication 161 and 162 until the nominees have provided answers to the questions below and the county council has received an explanation from the mayor's office explaining why more qualified and experience candidates were not nominated. These are the questions that every nominee to the LPC should answer in order to determine the appropriateness of their nomination to the LPC, rather than another commission, committee, or Board: 1. What is your knowledge of and experience with the Leeward Planning Commission and its rules? 2. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 3, Declaratory Rulings? 3. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No.4, Contested Case Hearings? 4. What is your knowledge of and experience with the county General Plan? 5. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 5, General Plan amendments? 6. What is your knowledge of LPC.Rule No. 6, Special Permits? 7. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 7, Use Permits? 8. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 8,Shoreline Setbacks, and Hawai'i Revised Statutes Chapter 343? 9. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 9,Special Management Area, and HRS Chapter 205A? 10. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 10, Zoning Amendments, and county Chapter 25, "the Zoning Code"? 11. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 11, Geothermal Resource Permits? 12. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 12, Geothermal Asset Fund? � Comm. No.' lip I• Ref. To: PIDIAn(l Ref. Date APS _ 7 2021 13. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 13,State Land Use District Boundary Amendments and state Land Use Districts? 14. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 14,Agricultural Project Districts? 15. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 15, Project Districts? 16. What is your knowledge of LPC Rule No. 16, Planned Unit Development? 17. What is your knowledge of and experience with the North Kohala,South Kohala, Kona,and Ka'u Community Development Plans and their respective Action Committees? Ideally,these questions would be asked of a candidate prior to their nomination to the LPC being place on the agenda for the Planning Committee. If they are not,then it is the county council Planning Committee's kuleana to ask these questions in order to protect the integrity and purpose of the Leeward Planning Commission, one of the most important and influential volunteer groups in our county government. Any of the members of this county council who have watched LPC meetings over the past few months can see the members of the LPC struggled with understanding the complexity of laws, rules, and regulations involved with several of the agenda items. LPC members have complained for some time that they do not feel they are getting the support and answers to questions they need from the Planning Department and corporation counsel. Rather they feel they are being"herded" into supporting the position taken by the Planning Department, be it negative or favorable. For instance, an application for an amendment of a Special Management Area permit to receive an extension of time for construction was placed on the LPC agenda and discussed despite the fact the applicant was not a legally recognized entity. The Planning Department and corporation counsel simply ignored the concern. In another meeting, a Use Permit was approved by the LPC,despite the fact there would be increased outflow from a cesspool located just 50' (fifty feet)from the shoreline. Neither the Planning Department nor corporation counsel informed the LPC that the state Supreme Court had found the County of Hawai'i and all its subdivisions, including the LPC, have an "affirmative duty"to protect nearshore marine waters. As the LPC searched for a solution to this problem in their discussion, neither the Planning Department or corporation informed the LPC that applicant would receive a $10,000 state tax credit for replacing the cesspool with a septic system nor did they inform the LPC that the additional parking being constructed may have constituted additional development and triggered the requirement for a new SMA permit and shoreline recertification that would have precluded approval of the B&B Use Permit. With regard to the conduct of LPC meetings, corporation counsel has given the LPC incorrect information as to the proper protocol for handling agenda items, main motions, and amendments under Robert's Rules of Order. This is in-and-of-itself causing problems. Both an expert, informed commissioners as well as an inexpert, uninformed one are going to become frustrated in this operating environment. In order to begin resolving the issues that have developed, I would recommend the following: 1) The mayor's office refer potential LPC candidates to Counsel for the LPC,who should then use the aforementioned question to determine whether the candidate is sufficiently knowledgable and experienced. 2) The Counsel for the LPC should provide period training on relevant Robert's Rules of Order to the LPC. 3) The Planning Department should provide all relevant legal references for agenda items in their recommendations to the LPC to allow the LPC to independently determine the appropriateness of recommendations. 4) The Planning Department should provide LPC members information about agenda items more than just a few days before LPC meetings. Commissioners have consistently complained they are not given sufficient time to review information about agenda items prior to meetings. 5) If matters of law are raised by public testifiers or commissioners,the Planning Department and corporation counsel should make a determination during the meeting or recommend deferral until such time an informed opinion can be given. 6) When the Planning Committee considers a nominee for the LPC,they question the Planning Department, corporation counsel, and the nominee in order to provide the county council and the general public the nominee is qualified and will be a productive addition to the LPC. In summary, I would hope the county council will defer approval of the current LPC nominees until they have been properly vetted and their knowledge and expertise has been sufficiently determined in order to provide reasonable assurance they will have the ability to understand the material and information that will be provided to them, ask critical questions, and make informed and appropriate decisions. Sincerely, Chuck Flaherty