2007-08-31 TSTANFORDCARR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Lim. So I think the Commissioners should maybe look closely at what we have received from Mr. Gilroy on our first intervenor’s request, and then one of the Commissioners could make a motion one way or the other. Since Mr. Gilroy is not here, and yet Mr. Gilroy asserts he is a resident within the Mauna Lani Resort and all, I believe Mr. Torigoe suggests that maybe we move onto a different intervenor, and have a little more background therefrom for evaluating Mr. Gilroy’s application. Could I start with the Mauna Lani Resort Association? And I think Mr. Vitousek is representing them. Mr. Vitousek, would you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawaii County Planning Commission today? VITOUSEK: Yes. GRAHAM: Thank you. Could you give your name and address, and then carry on? VITOUSEK: Yeah, sure. Randy Vitousek. My business address is 75-170 Hualalai Road, Suite 303B. Okay, so, we have filed the petition to intervene or to request a contested case hearing on behalf of the Mauna Lani Resort Association.The Mauna Lani Resort Association is the duly constituted master association for the Mauna Lani Resort. It’s the formal association that’s created to own and manage many of the common areas within the resort; the roads, the trails, the beach access – they are even, are currently or will soon be responsible for owning and maintaining some of the historic areas of Mauna Lani. And the Resort Association owns land adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the project in terms of the roadway. The Resort Association has a direct interest in the quality and accessibility and use of the coastal areas of the Mauna Lani Resort because they manage the public access and the resident access. The members themselves utilize the coastal areas for recreational purposes. And the Resort Association itself owns and, like I said, actually owns and is responsible for the roadways, many of the beach areas. And so it has an interest as an adjoining land owner. It also has a representative interest as the duly constituted association for all of the residents of the Mauna Lani Resort. So I think that based on that and based on the criteria for standing as articulated in Chapter 91 and in the Planning Commission Rules, the Resort clearly qualifies as having an interest that is clearly distinguishable from the general public. This is the only resort association; it’s specific to this resort. This project will be a member of the Resort Association. And you know, you should also be aware, Members of the Commission, that it is a Resort Association, and its role is not to prevent development within the resort; the role is to try to ensure that the development occurs in a way and is subject to conditions, which may be imposed by the Commission to mitigate potential adverse impacts on the coastal zone, which are also in the interest of the Resort. So we would request that standing be approved, and we would request that the Commission, pursuant to Rule 4-7(d), continue the hearing to more appropriate time or place. I’m submitting a written request for the continuance because that’s what the Rule requires. GRAHAM: Excuse me, Mr. Vitousek. You are submitting a request as to -. VITOUSEK: Yeah, Chairman Graham, Rule 4-7 says that if the Commission decides to grant a contested case hearing, it has the option of going forward with the hearing or continuing the hearing to a later date, if there is a written request to continue it. And so what I have done is submit a written request to continue the contested case hearing to a later date. EXHIBIT H 4