Laserfiche WebLink
YUEN: Mr. Chairman? <br />WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Yuen. <br />YUEN: For the record the Chair very well stated the general criteria. <br />TORIGOE: Yeah. I would agree with that. Basically your Rule 4-7(b) says, “Upon <br />receipt of a written request to intervene, the Commission, at the first meeting on the matter, shall <br />hold a hearing on the written request,” which is what you’re doing now. “If the movant can <br />demonstrate that: 1) His or her interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general <br />public,” that’s the number one criterion. And then there’s a couple of other criterion that don’t <br />apply. No. 4 also says, “That even though they do not have an interest different than the public <br />generally, that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury in fact.” So if they <br />can show “that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury in fact,” then they <br />shall be admitted as parties. “The Commission will grant or deny such written request prior to <br />any further action on the matter.” <br />WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita? <br />IWASHITA: I’m speaking in support of my motion. To me the fact that Mr. Kaiser <br />lives in close proximity, not adjacent to but in very close proximity, to this proposed <br />development establishes in my mind pretty clearly that he does have an interest in terms of if <br />there’s going to be any adverse effects, which he’s arguing there are going to be. If there are <br />going to be any adverse effects to this community as a result of this proposed development then <br />he will be exposed to that greater than the general public. So based upon that it’s pretty clear to <br />me that we should grant standing. <br />WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions, comments, discussion on this? <br />Mr. Domingo, was Mr. Torigoe’s explanation of how and why standing is granted sufficient? <br />DOMINGO: Yes, it is. I just want to make a comment with regards to the impact of <br />Mr. Kaiser and perhaps the impact of all the surrounding areas with the change, with the change <br />of the complexity of the whole community when you consider a commercial area next to them. <br />The natural evolution of the development will cause all of these impacts to come up. Then, you <br />know, at what point do we draw a line and say yes or no? <br />WATANABE: Maybe I agree, I shouldn’t have said that. I understand your point but <br />maybe we can confine our discussions right now as to whether we’re going to grant standing or <br />not, as opposed to the merits of the project itself. Yes, Rell, I’m sorry, Woodward, Woodward. <br />WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I agree. I think we need to, we don’t <br />need to discuss the merits of the case. We need to vote on standing. And discussing the merits <br />of the case is going to have to occur after we just make that decision about standing. <br />WATANABE: I’m hoping that we can do that. Are there any other Commissioners that <br />feel they need further clarification on the standing issue? Cause, okay, it seems like one -. So I <br />suppose we don’t need to go into executive session for that. Is there any further discussion on <br />this? Okay, we have a motion to grant standing. It has been moved and seconded. Mr. Darrow? <br /> EXHIBIT B <br />8 <br /> <br />