Laserfiche WebLink
Patti Pinto, Chair, Puna CDP Action Committee <br />July 8, 2013 email <br />SUBJECT: Special Permit No. 1122 <br />Page 2 <br />Secondly, your draft letter dated July 9, 2013 exceeds your mandate as a CDP action <br />committee as it sheds the applicant in a negative light and does not strictly provide counsel to the <br />Planning Director or windward Planning Commission regarding the special permit amendment <br />application's compliance within the guidelines set forth by the Puna CDP. As you know, the <br />Hawaii County Council, through Ordinance 08 -98 (2008), established Community Development <br />Plan ( "CDP ") action committees. Section 16 -6 of the Hawaii County Code lists the duties and <br />responsibilities of a CDP action committee, among which are the following: <br />(1) Provide ongoing guidance and advocacy to advance implementation of the CDP <br />goals, objectives, policies, and actions; <br />. . ■ <br />(5) Receive briefings, as requested, from the planning department on pending and <br />approved permit applications involving property located within the planning area, and on <br />other issues related to the CDP; <br />Section 16 -6(1) and (5) Hawaii County Code (2005, as amended). Your July 9, 2013 draft letter <br />fails to strictly provide guidance to the Planning Director on how this application would or <br />would not further the goals, objectives, policies and actions of the Puna CDP. Instead of sticking <br />to the merits of the application itself in light of the Puna CDP, the letter resorts to subjective <br />conclusions about the applicant. The most egregious of examples in the July 9, 2013 draft letter <br />states that the Action Committee has "reason to doubt the Applicant's willingness to abide by <br />whatever conditions of approval might be imposed, the scope of uses an[d] activities permitted, <br />or agreements made with their neighbors . . . ." See, page 3 of the proposed July 9, 2013 letter. <br />If my client was given notice and allowed to appear before the Action Committee at the last <br />meeting, you would have been informed at how closely this office and my client are working <br />with the Planning Department and the community to address any and all concerns brought up by <br />the application. Not having the opportunity to do so, the Action Committee was left with a poor <br />impression of the applicant, which is reflected in the tone of this draft letter. <br />Finally, I would like to express my concern that Action Committee is acting prematurely <br />without all of the most current information available to it. As mentioned above, the Action <br />Committee apparently took testimony and comments from the public about the special permit <br />amendment application; however, some of the comments made were based on old or outdated <br />information. Since that initial submittal, my client has since conducted a community <br />informational meeting where it gathered input on local concerns, coordinated a traffic impact <br />analysis report, and is considering many alternatives to noise, traffic, and on -site activities. I <br />believe that the Action Committee's apparent decision to make a negative recommendation on <br />the amendment to Special Permit No. 1122 is premature and not based upon the latest and most <br />accurate information. This office and my client are still working with the Planning Department <br />during the special permit approval process. This item on your agenda should be postponed until <br />all of the information is fully formed and available to the Action Committee to review and <br />scrutinize. <br />