2007-09-21 TD-BAR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I’m sorry that my neighbors couldn’t be here. I know several neighbors would have liked to have been here. Perhaps if it had been in Kona that would have been a little bit easier for them. We talked about cultural impacts. And then I also wanted to talk about the sewer impact. From what my understanding is that this complex is going to put a huge strain on the already existing issues that we have with the sewer project. I also want to say that, for the Commission, I think it would really be beneficial if you were provided with a better map than what that has to do, because Alii Drive impacts all of Alii Drive. And there are many other projects that are coming on that are going to be directly over- using Alii Drive. Look at all of our condominiums that we have. Everybody is parking on the street, and there are no sidewalks.So I’m just asking that before you move forward with this you ask the developers if they could do something about providing more parking on their project and also some recreation facilities for the people who are going to be living in their project. I guess that’s all, but I just wanted to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and hope that you will refrain from approving this at this time. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions from the Commissioners? All right, thank you. STONE: Thank you. GRAHAM: I know, before I bring up the applicant, one of the other procedural steps we need to take today is to, we do have a ruling from the Court remanding this back to us. So we do have the option to ask Mr. Torigoe to appeal the Court’s ruling. So I think maybe that’s sort of around a little business that we can do before we bring the applicant forward. So if there’s anyone who wants to speak to that, or would you like to hear from Mr. Torigoe first, or how does the Commission want to handle that? Maybe I’ll start with Mr. Torigoe then. TORIGOE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, are you asking me to summarize the ruling at this point? GRAHAM: Well, I guess what I’m asking, yeah, perhaps you should do that. And also the Commission has got to decide if they want to appeal this ruling or not; and so if you have some comments on whether you think it’s appropriate for us to appeal, or likely to be successful, or whatever, we welcome them also. TORIGOE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The decision from the Third Circuit Court was filed August 24, 2007. A judgment also was recently filed. So jurisdiction has been returned to the Commission. Basically the Court did not reach the merits of the appeal. But on the procedural grounds the Court felt that the requirements of HRS Section 91-11 and your Rule 4-23 were not sufficiently followed. And basically the Court says that there should be, as said under Rule 4-23, whenever Commission Members who are going to be making the final decision have not heard and examined all the evidence, there ought to be a proposal for a decision, basically a proposed findings and conclusions and a decision, that is placed before the parties and the parties given an EXHIBIT B 4