My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004-04-23 TNAKAKURA
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2004
>
2004-04-23 TNAKAKURA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 2:10:30 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 2:10:28 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
SPRINGER:All right, thank you. <br />O’TOOLE:Although I would agreed with Mr. Darrow, if you feel there’s <br />enough information in the application to act on it -. <br />GALDONES:Further discussions, Commissioners? Commissioner Graham. <br />GRAHAM:My understanding of where we’re at is this other party, Mr. Wong, <br />wants to intervene, which would move it to a contested case hearing. At the same time, <br />he’s asking for a continuance. <br />It seems like, in one sense, if we don’t deal with the motion to intervene until the next <br />meeting, the continuance is just drawing out the process seemingly for no good reason, if <br />we were to grant the intervening -. On the other hand, sometimes a continuance gives <br />you a chance to work out issues so that there doesn’t need to be a contested case hearing. <br />So I just thought I might ask the applicants here if you folks have any sense of whether <br />you’re in favor of continuance at this point or just going forward and acting on the <br />contested case motion for intervenor status? <br />GALDONES:Mr. Lee or Mr. Nakakura. <br />NAKAKURA:I’m not sure I really understand. I would like to proceed as quickly <br />as possible on this matter, if that is an answer to your question. We have, I contacted <br />Mr. Wong, I left a message on his answering machine, and he hasn’t called back. In our <br />letters out to the public, we have explained what we tried to do and have left contact <br />numbers to be personally contacted; and we were never contacted. <br />MCCALL:Mr. Chairman? <br />GRAHAM:Thank you. <br />MCCALL:Yeah, my comments are approximately the same. I was mostly <br />wondering whether Mr. Wong had contacted you on whether the idea of getting a <br />continuance, I mean, whether getting a continuance would allow him to contact you and <br />perhaps get, you know, perhaps we could avoid going through a contested case. I don’t, <br />but because we haven’t talked to him we don’t know that. My hope would be, I would be <br />in favor of doing a continuance. The risk is that it will make this take longer for you, but <br />potentially not if you can get a hold of Mr. Wong and allay his, whatever concerns he <br />has. If that works out, it could work out for the best. But if this goes to contested case <br />it’s, you know, I mean, we’re talking several months anyway. So, I guess, that’s the <br />primary comment. I really don’t have a question per se. <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? <br />GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. <br />7 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.