|
FUKE:Mr. Chairman, if I may like -.
<br />FUJIKAWA:Mr. Fuke.
<br />FUKE:As I, thank you very much. As I indicated earlier, I wanted to kind
<br />of defer making any comments relative to the discourse that occurred prior to the public
<br />testifier. But, if I may, IÓd like to, you know, use this opportunity -.
<br />FUJIKAWA:Go ahead.
<br />FUKE:I guess IÓd like to kind of preface the comment by noting t
<br />donÓt really relish having to take issue with the Planning Department; I think nobody
<br />wants to. Maybe thatÓs a reflection of the respect of the power of the office, but in many
<br />respects and, personally, thereÓs a lot of respect for the Director himself. But, however,
<br />in this particular instance, I must take issue because I think that the processing of this
<br />application has been highly unorthodox, have been very irregular.
<br />IÓd just kind of like to give you some background. When the Coa
<br />law was passed back in 1975, one of the provisions for the Coast
<br />under the Coastal Zone Management law, provided for like a concurrent processing of
<br />applications. The genesis behind that thought was that, the feeling was that, you know,
<br />the islands or the State was highly over-regulated but under-managed and, as a result,
<br />they came up with this concurrent processing.
<br />In my 25 years of dealing with this particular statute, there have been times when the
<br />SMA application and the zoning had not occurred concurrently; and that has always been
<br />at, as the Director has indicated, the ApplicantÓs choice. However, where the Applicant
<br />applies for both applications, as in this situation here, it has always been processed
<br />concurrently.
<br />The bifurcation of this process, like what, that is to say, like holding up this SMA and
<br />letting the zone change go through, has been recommended by the Department. From the
<br />ApplicantÓs standpoint, even like my evaluation, itÓs like this is the first time that it has
<br />happened. It has been done without any prior notice. ThereÓs no changes to the rules of
<br />the Planning Commission on this matter, which is to say that under what circumstances
<br />can an application where it had been filed for a dual application or multiple applications
<br />that the Commission or the Director can withhold one and not process another. I think
<br />that if there is going to be a system like that then the rule should clearly articulate that.
<br />Absent that, you know, you have rely on whatever has happened.
<br />Specifically, on this matter, too, like, you know, in addition, too, there has been no
<br />changes to the rules. Please understand that the department has had this application for
<br />well over six months and today is our third public hearing on this matter. If there was
<br />any indication that this item should be bifurcated, then the Applicant, out of due courtesy,
<br />should have been properly notified; and then maybe action can be taken accordingly. But
<br />to be saddled hearing after hearing with curve balls at the end to say like, weÓve got to
<br />13
<br />
<br />
|