|
FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. You may proceed.
<br />FUKE:Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. I guess,
<br />initially, in response to the request for the continuance, we can understand, I guess, the
<br />importance of getting as many agency comments as possible before the Commission can
<br />make a recommendation or make a decision as in the case for the SMA application. We
<br />understand and, at the same time, feel exactly like Commissioner Kubota, in a sense that
<br />we feel, as the Applicant, that weÓve been jerked around, too. Because the, theoretically,
<br />I guess the application could have been heard as early as June, excuse me, as early as
<br />July. It was scheduled for a hearing in August, then it was scheduled for today, on the
<br />basis that the Planning Department needed more time to come forth with its
<br />recommendation and, mostly, I guess, waiting for the response from the Department of
<br />Transportation.
<br />thth
<br />Your file will show that on June 12, in a letter dated June 12, the State Department of
<br />Transportation did, in fact, respond. Their comment, however, just limited itself just to
<br />the noise issue. And if I can just read to you one of the other comments and, again, this is
<br />th
<br />a letter dated June 12, it says, ÐOur Highway Division is in a process of finalizing its
<br />concerns on the Traffic Impact Assessment Report for the subject development. We will
<br />provide these comments under separate cover as soon as possible.Ñ And I would assume
<br />that Ðas soon as possibleÑ would be like, at the most, a month. That has been like almost
<br />two months. I think we believe that in many respects that the so-called proverbial train is
<br />kind of like left the station and at some point in time a decision has to be made. Because
<br />otherwise the Applicant feels like, weÓre kind of fighting a ghost. You know, we donÓ
<br />know whether the position of the Department or the Commission is
<br />favorable one or one against it; and so we donÓt know how to properly address it.
<br />Likewise, you know, with each month or months of delay, you know, we donÓt know
<br />what the market economy will be like. So it places like an unfa
<br />any applicant if an item is deferred for the lack of comment from a particular agency.
<br />In other situations where the Department of Transportation, or an agency has not
<br />provided any comments and which may have an impact on that particular agencyÓs
<br />infrastructure, be it highways, or water, or whatever have you, there have been conditions
<br />imposed. Should the Department or the Commission act favorable on a request, there
<br />have been conditions imposed wherein like the applicant or the developer will be
<br />responsible in complying with the appropriate agencyÓs requirements, be it the
<br />channelized intersection, the traffic lights, so on and so forth. Perhaps in the absence of
<br />any comments from the Department of Transportation, you know, such an alternative can
<br />be worked out. ItÓs not as though that the traffic issue was not addressed at all by the
<br />Applicant. The Applicant has addressed the traffic issue, it did prepare a Traffic Impact
<br />Analysis Report, and this was done by professional engineers.
<br />In deference to the Department, you know, we recognize that the Planning Director does
<br />not have any recommendation at this point in time; and this matter has had, has gone
<br />through a public hearing twice in this area in West Hawaii. We would like to respectfully
<br />request that if itÓs going to have to be continued that at least that this matter be continued
<br />5
<br />
<br />
|