2022-07-21 Leeward Exh G (Items 2 Bolton REMAND SPP 16-000188)

Home

MATSUKAWA: If I might, I know you have a lot of public testimony and background information, but in summary, you know, it's been almost six years since we were here last. And it's been six hours since I came this morning. I just made this little visual aid to show you where we started in blue, in 2010, and this project has morphed over the years and now we're off the board. I know we're not here to speak to the merits, but I thought it'd help if you got a visual picture of the frustration that my client has had because we've been going through this and now we're off the board. The Hawaii Supreme Court really simply told you what you need to do, I think. First, they said, in their opinion, they believe that my client has standing. So, you can disagree, and we'll be back in the appellant procedure again. Or you could agree with the Supreme Court that my client has standing and vote accordingly. The other issue that the Supreme Court noted that you should pay attention to is that petitioner has an interest in arguing that Bolton's construction activity exceeded the conditions of its grading and stock-piling permits and therefore required an additional special permit. That's what we were saying all along. So, we're just asking for the opportunity to bring this to a forum and if the commission decides to give us standing, we'll have to just move to the next procedural step and decide then what do we do. I will have to work that out. I know the applicant is not interested in pursuing the matter, but that would be a separate discussion. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Having read the Supreme Court opinion, yes, I understand, but would you mind stating for the commissioners why your applicant has standing in this contested case. MATSUKAWA: Oh, basically there are a collection of homeowner associations surrounding the Bolton property where the construction is going on. The associations represent homeowners like Pualani Estates, Kona Orchard, Heights of Hualalai, and they all surround, and like Mr. McInnis said, they were concerned about noise, dust, traffic, generally piece of mind. And the Supreme Court outlined in their opinion a summary of what the petitioner's collective constituents had brought up. VITOUSEK: Okay. To commissioners, at this point we can take a motion on the standing or if HALL: [Inaudible comment to Chair Vitousek.] VITOUSEK: Okay, and it's--Deputy Director Darrow, does the Department agree with the standing in this request for a contested case? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This one's a tough one. You know you're, the petitioners who created this organization of a number of associations surround Mr. Bolton's property and obviously they are impacted by this particular endeavor. So, a lot of times what happens is in a special permit the applicant is required to send out notice to surrounding property owners within 500 feet. I don't think anybody, I could be wrong, Mike might be able to correct me, I don't think anybody in the adjoining associations received a copy of that notification. That's my thought. I could be wrong. But that's just one aspect of it. The other aspect that would, that 8 EXHIBIT G