Laserfiche WebLink
GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Strauss. Mr. Grimmer, you were signed up for public testimony. <br />Did you want to testify at all? <br /> <br />GRIMMER: No. No, I just wanted to let the staff know -. But I did want to address the issue, <br />I’d like to respond very briefly. <br /> <br />NOMURA: Microphone. <br /> <br />GRIMMER: No, I’m not going to do any public testimony. I’m simply here as the attorney for <br />Hu Honua, the Applicant; and I withdraw that. I just wanted the staff to note I was here. <br /> <br />The word narrow is not Hu Honua’s word. That’s the Judge’s word. That’s what is in his Order. <br />He used the word “narrow” for a particular purpose, that’s the purpose I outlined earlier. You’re <br />not supposed to read between the lines of his Order. He hasn’t made a decision yet even. He has <br />only made an Order remanding for this narrow question. <br /> <br />So for Mr. Strauss to sit here and try to raise all the things that he tried to raise with the Judge, <br />which the Judge rejected -. And let me just call your attention to Exhibit 7 of your packet where <br />the Judge said, yeah, your opening brief can be used in this Court but I will not address, and he <br />listed the things he will not address, the arguments raised only in the Statement of Case, including <br />its Statement of Points of Error and Exhibits A and B attached to and filed in conjunction with <br />Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and (b) the points or issues raised in the last full paragraph on page <br />8. So the Judge has already issued one Order saying we’re not going to consider all these other <br />things that Mr. Strauss is now asking you to consider, and followed that Order up with the word <br />“narrow” of remanding on the very issue that I addressed in my opening remarks. <br /> <br />The procedure, the law or the Administrative rules do not give the Appellants and those that <br />object to this project unlimited bites at the apple. They had a bite with the Hearings Officer, they <br />had a bite with this Planning Commission; and they have their bite continuing with the Court. <br />And you are tasked only with the very narrow participation in that remaining bite that they’re <br />taking. <br /> <br />As for the SHPD process, they had every opportunity if that’s what they wanted to do, to file <br />written objections with SHPD concerning the report that SHPD finally adopted, or even the prior <br />reports that SHPD was considering. They didn’t do that. There’s no evidence they did that. And <br />for you folks to reopen this at this point without some due process notice which the Appellants <br />failed to follow, they’re not getting any -. You know, if they have a complaint about what’s <br />going on at the project where millions of dollars are being invested in the ground out there, they <br />should file a complaint with the Planning Department and see if there’s anything going on out <br />there that doesn’t comply with the permit that is in place and is valid and that we are able to <br />proceed under. So they had an opportunity to participate in the SHPD process, there’s no <br />evidence that they did. You can’t reopen anything today, sua esponte. They need to file their <br />complaints with the Planning Department if that’s what they think should be done. <br /> <br />So thank you again for your attention and we look forward to a ruling. <br /> 9 EXHIBIT B <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />