|
changed from the time of our meeting. I would object to this Commission continuing action on the
<br />petition to intervene. My clients are neighboring property owners; they have a clear interest in this
<br />subject matter that is distinguishable from the general public. And I would just like that taken care
<br />of. I am hopeful we can work this out. But, you know, we need to at least move this thing along.
<br />
<br />FUKE: Mr. Chairman, again, it was just kind of brought to our attention, like, yesterday in
<br />discussions with your staff, Mr. Arai, that should the Commission accept the intervention request
<br />today, then it would be, time-wise it would be very difficult, or maybe almost impossible, to have
<br />this matter considered by the Planning Commission at this next meeting; alternatively, if everything
<br />was kind of pushed back, you know, for the action-wise, that there is a chance that if this matter was
<br />agendized for the next Commission meeting and things get resolved, then we can just kind of
<br />proceed from there. If things donÓt get resolved, weÓll essentially be in the same position as we are
<br />today. And that was the reason why we are kind of like today making the request that the whole
<br />item be contingent until the next meeting, be postponed essentially until the next meeting. Bearing
<br />in mind that this would, you know, we already conceded that we believe that the Hirayamas
<br />contested case intervention request has been timely filed, but the Commission decision, we would
<br />request that it would be delayed until the next meeting.
<br />
<br />SONG: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think itÓs improper that Mr. Fuke had ex-parte communications
<br />with Mr. Arai on the matter like this when we had agreed to a certain procedure Î thatÓs No. 1.
<br />No. 2, I cannot see why this Commission, this Commission has great discretion, and there is really
<br />no reason why this particular matter cannot be acted on. If the Commission wants to reschedule this
<br />for the next hearing for just a continuance after the petition to intervention is granted, it is free to do
<br />so; if the Commission wants to schedule this at a later date, thatÓs also in this CommissionÓs
<br />discretion. But again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, IÓm asking that this matter
<br />of intervention be resolved today.
<br />
<br />HOUSEL: I guess one question I have is, Daryn, is there a problem, if this were continued to the
<br />next scheduled meeting?
<br />
<br />ARAI: There would be a problem, if the issue of standing was decided today, because once
<br />standing is granted, then the proceedings for the contested case then proceeds forward, which means
<br />all of the deadline for submittal of the exhibits, witness list,
<br />things have to occur before the Commission can duly consider the contested case request at its
<br />December 15 hearing, and thatÓs just a matter of, what, three weeks from now. So, and there is also
<br />the fact that we have to be aware of publication requirements that needs to be done prior to
<br />conducting our hearing, and the deadline would actually be Monday at 12:00 with the newspapers.
<br />So you can see how itÓs going to be very difficult to try to schedule things within the short time
<br />frame that we have.
<br />
<br />SONG: Mr. Chairman, as far as deadlines, the Planning Commission rules provide that by
<br />stipulation the parties can agree to amend deadlines; so there is nothing in the Planning Commission
<br />rules to prohibit the parties by agreement to stipulate to extend any deadlines. And that has been
<br />done in the past.
<br />
<br />HOUSEL: IÓd like our corporation counsel to express his concerns, you know, so everybody hears
<br />it regarding the difficulties, if we proceed right now, just so we understand clearly what we are
<br />talking about.
<br />
<br />3
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|