|
moved to the mainland, he grew up on the mainland, but he has been connected to Kona all along.
<br />And he has, you know, owned a condo in Onenalo, which is the bigger lot there, and then bought
<br />this property when it came up. He went and bought back some of Hōkūkano Ranch from the Pace
<br />family, which had purchased the Ranch from the Greenwells. Gene is an interesting guy; he, you
<br />know, he was a member of the 1972 U. S. Olympic team and crew, they won a silver medal in
<br />Munich. He is very connected to Hawai‘i, very connected to the ocean. He is not trying to be
<br />difficult; he is just trying to get clarity.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Good, good, and I’m glad that you explained the connection.
<br />
<br />BEAUDET: I have a question.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Brandi.
<br />
<br />BEAUDET: Thank you. I think my question is more for staff. But I do find Mr. Vitousek’s
<br />comments reasonable. And, but my question is that, you know, my understanding of this SMA
<br />permit defines the project area for the portion of the road that has not been completed yet. Yet,
<br />Mr. Clapp received notification of the application, or the permit application because he is within
<br />300 feet of the project area. I need clarity on that because basically what we are looking for here,
<br />although his argument is reasonable, what we are trying to determine here is standing.
<br />
<br />ARAI: Understood. Thank you. And maybe later when the representatives of Public Works are
<br />brought up, maybe they can further clarify. But my understanding is that the project site as I
<br />mentioned earlier is about, just under 4,000 feet away from where the improvements are being
<br />proposed that are covered by this SMA permit. That is clearly beyond the 300-foot boundaries
<br />affected by, required by the notification requirements for an SMA permit. When Public Works first
<br />came in and did their notification for the purpose of this hearing, they identified all those properties
<br />along the entire alignment of La‘aloa, not only the proposed but also the existing alignment. So
<br />they went far in excess of what was required by your rules. When the notification, second
<br />notification, was being put together, my understanding is the thought was you already provided the
<br />first notice that was in excess of the minimum requirements, might as well go ahead and do the
<br />second notice because, you know, you already did it, right, so go ahead and complete the second
<br />notice. So again, maybe Public Works can speak to this in further detail, but that’s my
<br />understanding of the events leading up to the notification requirements.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Thank you, Daryn. Randy?
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: Yeah, sure. I mean, you know, this is a special management area use permit
<br />application, and the issue is whether the party requesting a contested case hearing is directly and
<br />immediately affected in a manner that’s different from the general public by this application. The
<br />issue is not how close to the project he is. The question is whether he has a potential to be
<br />individually and personally impacted by the project. And when you have a landowner who, you
<br />know, is a resident of the area that is immediately makai of the project area and immediately makai
<br />where traffic generated by the, by this additional highway will come into the coastal area, he does
<br />have a direct and immediate impact, even if he doesn’t live within a certain, or even if his property
<br />is not within a certain number of feet of the project. And so, the proximity to the part that’s actually
<br />being improved is really not relevant to the analysis of whether he is directly and immediately
<br />impacted by the project. And I think the fact that the County has been providing him with notice all
<br />along and telling him about the contested case hearing procedures and what not demonstrates that
<br />13
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|