2005-05-20 EXHIBIT C HUGGETT PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Mooers you have already given us your name and address if your representative, your legal representative could do the same. SCHULTZ:Aloha. My name is Keoni Schultz. My address is 1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1200, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. SPRINGER:Thank you Mr. Schultz. Do you have any comments to share with us at this time? SCHULTZ:Yeah, for starters I would like to address the assertion that a change in the owner of the project means that a new SMA application needs to be filed. Im going to sort of be re-highlighting the memo that my law firm submitted. Theres not a single Hawaii court case or agency rule that says that a new applicant that a new applicant means that a new application needs to made. The issue is that the Huggetts purchased the property in 2004 and promptly notifiedthePlanningDepartmentoftheirintenttocontinuethepermittingprocessinitiatedby Mr. Soto. If you look at Exhibit A to my firms submission, I think it was mislabeled as Exhibit th B. Anyway, by letter dated November 4 the Planning Department agreed that this was a continued SMAhearing. And its also on their law that land use permits run with the land. In fact if you look at Rule 911(a) of the Planning Commission Rules, theres absolutely no requirement for any information about the identity of the Applicant and the reason for that is the Planning Commission is supposed to issue the permit based on the project. Its not supposed to be about the Applicant, its supposed to be does the project meet the requirements of you know the SMA area? Furthermore I believe its the common practice of the Planning Department and this Commission to substitute applicants as properties change hands. And I believe that Commissioner Graham testified to that at the last hearing. Again, the change in the Applicant does not mean that a new application is needed as long as the project is the same. That is the casehere,thisisthesameprojectthatwasproposedbackin2003. IguessInowwouldliketoaddresstheassertionthatPlanningDirectorYuensletterofMarch 25, 2005 somehow created a new right to a contested case hearing. First off, Director Yuen has already stated that as described in the March 23, 2005 letter by the Planning Department that was an error. There was no contested case created by that letter. And one of the reasons for that is that its the Planning Commission that has control of the SMA area. Under HRS 205(a), 22 and 27, it is the Planning Commission that is the sole power to carry out the objectives, policies and procedures of Chapter 205(a). Basically its the Planning Commission thats supposed to decide who has standing under contested cases. And so you have to look at the Planning Commission Rules. So if you look at the Planning Commission rules as to when standing is allowed, Rule 4- 7a, the Planning Commission rules requires any person who seeks to intervene in a proceeding file a written notice of intent to intervene no later than 7 calendar days prior to the Commissions first meeting on the matter. Again in this matter, the Commissions first meeting was on August 1, 2003. Accordingly, any request to intervene at this stage is untimely by nearly 2 years. Furthermore, Mr. Kims clients had ample opportunity to get notice about, to intervene. In fact if you look at his pleadings they made a strategic decision to allow their AOAO to engage in a contested case hearing. They themselves did not. So they had notice that they themselves could do this 2 years ago and they chose not to. As to the new owners of the Sea Village project, again no new rights emerge as a result of there being new owners there. Anyone who is contemplating EXHIBIT C 5