2005-05-20 EXHIBIT C HUGGETT PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

clearly the intent of the agreement, and it wasnt an order. The Applicant and I both agreed that we would submit them 10 days before and the reason for that is that we could have done further research on each others positions so that we could answer Mr. Iwashitas questions with regard to law and the like. When I receive something the day before the hearing I can prepare orally but I think its quite unfair, not only to myself and my parties but also to the Commission. So, Ill just leave that for you to consider it is a motion and I would like a ruling on it. Having said that, I am willing to address the substance as best I can of what is being argued here today. What is being argued here today is whether or not my clients should get a contested case hearing. As the nd record reveals at the last hearing on April 22 a letter was sent by the Planning Director to my clients saying that a contested case hearing was required. Following that Mr. Mooers had a conversation with Mr. Hayashi and was informed that he didnt have to do that. He didnt have to follow the letter of the Planning Commission. That a contested, Planning Director, that a Commission, that a contested case hearing could be sought. So all the people who got that notice letter didnt get notice that they had a right to a contested case hearing. Then, when we show up, where my clients had to hire counsel at the hearing were informed for the first time that Mr. Mooers was released of that obligation. Even though there was no letter saying my previous letter saying that there was a need for a contested case hearing is rescinded and in fact it wasnt till after that this was even brought up. When I reviewed the Applicants memorandum they appear to say 2 things. Number 1, that when you have a permit that right runs with the land but as Mr. Iwashita pointed out and I was going to argue it, theres no permit here, none. Theres no right here, all there is, is an application. And, I will tell you that when I got their memorandum I went on the internet, I used my Weslaw, I searched for cases to try to look at applications and Id already done so previous. There are none. So this is an area where there is no controlling authority in the State of Hawaii. This is a gray area for this body. The bottom line is, its a policy decision that you have to make. I will comment although I cannot cite specific examples that during the administration in which Mr. Yuen has been Director there have been no substitutions allowing contested case hearings. But I am informed that they have done in previous administrations. Now, the argument that I have developed is based upon that previous situation. You have an application, the applicant and their representative go out to the community and say hey, ladies and gentlemen here we are, this is who we are, this is what we want to build. I want to talk to you, check out my financial background, check out my ability to keep my word if you want to oppose it let me talk to you, let me make agreements with you, let me tell you if there are disagreements what Im going to do to try to solve this before we go to the Planning Commission. That was done in this case. And that was done by the Applicant, Mr. Eric Soto. The Applicant before you is not Mr. Soto. So whatever Mr. Soto said is with Mr. Soto. Now this application came before the Commission August 1, 2003. What happened between August 1, 2003 and May 20, 2005? What happened is that Mr. Soto abandoned his application. He abandoned his project. All of the representations he made are no longer valid because he is not the applicant. The new applicant can now come in and say, I didnt say that, I never agreed to that. What I get is what I get, tough. What we are saying is as a matter of public policy is that when you have not a permit, I will concede, right now, I will concede that if he had a permit it runs with the land thats the law we agree on that. But this is not a permit, this is an application. So lets look at it from a policy standpoint. Is the Planning Commission going to encourage as a matter of public policy intra-transfer of ownership as if nothing happened? Cause thats what you have here. Or, as I believe the Planning Director properly indicated whenever you have a change of the applicant, that is a substantial and material change of the application EXHIBIT C 9