11-03-2021 Applicant Opposition to Intervenor's Exceptions to Proposed FOF, COL, DO

Home

statement is stating that their submission is an"exception"when in reality, it is a motion for reconsideration of the Commission's decisions on the scope of the remanded hearing made on August 5, 2021 and then on the merits of the Special Permit hearing on October 7, 2021. Their motion is emblematic of their lack of credibility in this case. They think it's entertaining to watch the Commission thrash about after raising these improper arguments. If the Commission's rules are to be applied equally to all parties, the Commission should not reward them for their underhanded tactics. C. STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION. Generally, the standard to consider a Motion for Reconsideration includes: [T]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated motion. Reconsideration is not a device to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or evidence that could and should have been brought during the earlier proceeding. (Citations omitted) Tagupa v. Tagupa, 108 Haw. 459, 465, 121 P.3d 924, 930 (Ct. App. 2005). The "exceptions" submitted by Intervenor Gomes and Mr. Matsukawa are clearly argument about the scope of the Remand proceeding, that could have been presented at the August 5, 2021, by written submission before the hearing or at the hearing through argument. Mr. Matsukawa attached two excerpts of briefs that were submitted to the Intermediate Court of Appeals in the underlying appeal. He then goes on to list what he believes should have been narrowed in terms of the scope of the remanded hearing which was argued and decided on August 5, 2021. Intervenor Gomes and Mr. Matsukawa reargues the merits of the Commission's hearing and decision at its October 7, 2021 hearing, which granted the Special Permit Application. They are simply relitigating the same matters and raising arguments that they could 4