2003-09-11 Planning Commission Minutes

Home

Parties to the proceedings in attendance were R. Ben Tsukazaki representing Doutor Coffee, Dennis Krueger representing Dean Yokoyama, Mikahala Roy representing Kulana Huli Honua and Chris Yuen representing the Planning Department. Mr. Hayashi gave a brief chronology of the application. Mr. Tsukazaki explained that the same day the Commission took action on their application on st August 1, they learned that one of the Commission Members who had a concern on safety misunderstood where passengers embarked and disembarked from the buses, and they felt there may have been other Commissioners who relied on that inaccurate information and voted against the main motion to allow a maximum of one large bus be allowed per day if necessary. He noted that the prohibition against any large bus poses a threat to the long-term feasibility of his clientÓs operation; and they would like to level the playing field as his client is the only one who is prohibited from using a large bus to bring visitors to a coffee farm, referring to the evidentiary record Exhibits 4-14. He said some of his clientÓs vendors have indicated that if they cannot occasionally use a large bus when itÓs economically necessary for them, they will take their business elsewhere where other coffee farms do not have this problem. He said he seeking a motion from a Commissioner regarding a reconsideration or rescission of the Planning CommissionÓs action. He noted that Planning Commission Rule 4-27 states the Commission shall not reconsider its action after final decision is issued, but final decision was not issued or served when their request was made and, in addition, Rule 25 of the RobertÓs Rules of Order allows for suspension of rules at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Mr. Tsukazaki requested a continuance of this meeting: (1) so that a representative from Taikobo Hawaii Inc. can explain the realities of when it is sometimes necessary to use a large bus and confirm the absolute prohibition of any large buses puts his client at a clear disadvantages against other coffee farms; (2) to allow Corporation Counsel, if need be, to address issues raised today, and (3) to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the DepartmentÓs concerns about any safety issues relating to the use of a large bus. He said they were trying to find an answer because the only other alternative is to even the playing field by filing complaints against other operators, which they are trying to avoid. As Mr. Tsukazaki attempted to clarify for Commissioner Kubota that there was no evidence on the record that the buses were loading and unloading people on the highway, the public interrupted and said they have witnessed it and it was being done all the time. The First Vice- Chairman asked for order in the meeting. Mr. Tsukazaki further clarified when there is deliberation of a motion, itÓs not for the parties to speak during that period, therefore none of the parties were offering any type of argument since argument was done. Mr. Tsukazaki pointed out his concern of the public being allowed to offer testimony under the Sunshine Law because it is a public meeting, yet at the same time the nature of that proceeding is a contested case and parties do not have the right to cross-examine that testifier. He felt it was procedural error for the Commission to be making a decision based upon information that is not in evidence. 4