|
<br />SELF: Okay. And in that notice, were they given a deadline for when they had to submit the
<br />application by?
<br />
<br />ARAI: Pursuant to Rule 4, seven days prior to today’s meeting.
<br />
<br />SELF: Okay. Then the Planning Director will not take a position on what’s before you at this
<br />point.
<br />
<br />AU: Okay. Any questions for the Planning Director and Ms. Self? Okay, thank you, guys. We
<br />have 18 testifiers. And just for the record I’m going to say their names and they’re going to give
<br />it all to Sidney. So Allen Novak, Layne Novak, David Camacho, Jan Yokota, June Sakamoto,
<br />Les Sakamoto, Glenn Tada, Ming Peng, Aileen Fuke, Jeff Gomes, Sidney Fuke, Jeff Gomes,
<br />Lorrin Araujo, Margaret Araujo, Fay Sakata, Wayne Kanemoto, Jan Yokoyama, Norine
<br />Okuhara, and Bishop. And so, Mr. Sidney Fuke, please come forward. And I need to swear you
<br />in before you get started. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of the Windward
<br />Planning Commission today?
<br />
<br />FUKE: I do.
<br />
<br />AU: Okay, thank you. Please state your name and where you reside, and get started.
<br />
<br />FUKE: Morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sidney Fuke, and I’m here kind of like reflecting
<br />a lot of the community’s feelings at this point in time. I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s unanimous,
<br />but it seems to be like a consensus of their position at this point in time.
<br />
<br />What we’d like to share through a power point is not so much talking about the legalese aspect,
<br />you know, of what you’ve just heard over the last 10 or 15 minutes, you know, regarding
<br />contested case hearing, so on and so forth, but more just to give, share with the Commission
<br />from a lay’s perspective or from the community’s perspective where we are today and where we
<br />would hope that the Commission could take this application.
<br />
<br />Essentially what the community is saying is that “We’ve had enough.” We’ve had like, and what
<br />our specific request is, is we’re really asking for the Commission to vote on the pending motion
<br />to deny, which is what you have before you now, instead of going through a contested case
<br />hearing. If you understand like, you know, very, in a very elementary way, what is the purpose
<br />of the contested case hearing? It’s basically to provide the decision-makers, in this case here the
<br />Commissioners, you know, with the most complete and relevant information needed so that you
<br />can make a decision. And it’s also designed to give the parties, the applicant and the others, the
<br />opportunity to provide you with that relevant information. The Commission’s rules itself
<br />
<br />provide an ability for the parties to waive or modifythe contested case hearing process. And the
<br />question is like why? You know, it’s like basically saying you can modify it, you can waive it,
<br />as long as, you know, you basically keep -. The essence or the spirit of the contested case can
<br />still be achieved through a less intimidating process.
<br />
<br />Now the process is like first you’ve got to have the prehearing where the parties are all
<br />identified, which is what you’re trying to, what is being requested today, and the scope of the
<br />10
<br />
<br />
<br />
|