2006-12-06 tsunstone - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ALAMEDA: Okay. Thank you, sir. I’ll be sensitive to that. All right. For the applicant, there are some exceptions filed and you have the documents from the county as well. Do you have any comment? LIM: That’s correct. There is so much paperwork flying around that, and we know what was happening at the hearing, so I can imagine what the Commission is feeling. But essentially I’ll try to characterize what happened in terms of the paperwork, is that, the hearings officer submitted the report, and we make the exceptions thereto; and so both the Planning Director and the applicant filed the exceptions. Ours primarily related to technical issues like acreages and certain of these other things that we can take into consideration. And the director, hopefully, he can paraphrase what he was doing, well, basically he was adding in the traffic related conditions that he had in his original revised recommendation that the Planning Commission has already seen. And so, I think what in terms of the long and the short of it is, you know, what conditions are you looking at. Our position would be that you should look at the conditions that were submitted by the Planning Director in his submittal to you in title Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director County of Hawai`i’s proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. The condition No. 44 in that, this is the 33 conditions that you had already seen in the original go around under his revised recommendation. So, we have reviewed those and we are in agreement with those proposed 33 conditions. We noticed that there were some typographical errors that, if you decide to go with these 33 conditions, I can go through those with the Commission and the Planning Commission staff, but mostly, like I said, they are all typographical type of issues. I think for purposes of compliance with Chapter 91, since the proceedings on this contested case hearing were presented before the hearings officer, Ms. Song, pursuant to the Planning Commission’s Rules, the Planning Commission has to, Planning Commission members who vote on this have to listen to final argument and read our exceptions to the proposed findings, and that would then qualify you to vote on the matter. And so for purposes of that go around, what I would like to do may be is to have, we are going to try to have Mr. Mooers do a short presentation to orient you to the project, cause we haven’t really had the chance for the last six months to talk you about the project. So, I was thinking maybe it might help for a short 10 minutes presentation by Mr. Mooers just to tell you what the project is about, what the issues are, so we can orient you to the map, and then I’ll go into a very short final argument followed by the parties, and then you will be qualified, I think, at that point to vote on the matter. ALAMEDA: All right. Let me try with -. Mr. Torigoe, does that process sound accurate? Cause my understanding, we’ve got the hearings officer’s report, we see that we’ve got the exceptions before us, we know what the project is about. Do we have to go into the presentation and the whole rigmarole, kinda sorta? TORIGOE: Your Rules basically allow you to take final direct oral argument on your own motion. I think there is case law that indicates that you are to allow the parties to address final argument to proposed findings that will make sure that you are, as Mr. Lim was saying, you are fully briefed and qualified to make a decision. ALAMEDA: Okay. Ms. Siracusa, do you have a question? EXHIBIT B 7