2006-08-04 TKitagawa - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HAYASHI:Based on your rules, the Request for Petition for Standing would have to th be filed seven days prior to the hearing. And seven days was on July 28; and this was received st on August 1. MCCALL:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:The other thing that comes to my mind is made before I was on the Planning Commission and attending a couple of hearings that turned out to be Contested Case Hearings. I remember some decisions were such that if a properly-filed party was granted a Contested Case status, another party maybe who was somewhat defective as this one could be at the discretion allowed to enter into it also. Whereas, if they were not a valid party, probably wouldn’t be allowed. So that just makes me a little bit think about the order in which we’re doing this, that’s all. ALAMEDA:I see. Okay. Mr. Torigoe, any response to Commissioner Graham’s comment? TORIGOE:Generally speaking, you know, your rules basically set forth the timeframes in which these applications should be filed. And in the absence of their being some good cause shown on the record, generally speaking, we would not recommend that you deviate from these rules. There may be cases where somebody, and there was one in Kona a couple of meetings ago where there was some indication that people who should have gotten notice didn’t get it. And, of course, in a case like that, you know, you want to give people an opportunity to make their filing. But in the absence of some kind of good cause shown like that, we generally would say you should stick to your rules, which is not to rule out, you know, the possibility that if somebody shows up, if there is a Contested Case going on and somebody else shows up and says, “Hey, I should have been allowed to file or should have been allowed to intervene,” that’s something you can consider. But, generally speaking, again, in the absence of good cause, we wouldn’t recommend you go there. WATANABE:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Yes, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I guess we’re in discussion right now, right or -? ALAMEDA:Right. WATANABE:Yeah, so, you know, I noted on this particular I.C. Henry filing that their main objection was additional congestion on KalanianaoleAvenue that was under “A;” and, you know, we already have had testimony on record that indicates that there is no ingress or egress access to Ocean View Drive from the subject property. And, I mean, if you allow this, then it’s almost like saying, “Well, if I had something a mile down the road it would add to the congestion of Kanoelehua Avenue.” So, you know, would they then have standing in that, also? Do you see what I’m driving at? They don’t pass by this property directly, I don’t believe. EXHIBIT A 9