|
functionality, as well as providing access, emergency access. And so I think the idea of providing
<br />letters to people within the region was reasonable and practical.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Sure.
<br />
<br />GONZALEZ: But I think when you come to the issue of standing, you have your rules that lay out
<br />the criteria to be granted standing, and that’s the framework that you work within. I mean, yeah, we
<br />may have notified people of what was going on because it’s of great interest. Whether they have
<br />the legal right to be given an enhanced status is for you to decide. You know, we had people from
<br />the public come in and offered their input, they’ve been involved from the beginning with the
<br />La‘aloa group, and they continue to come, and they continue to meet with the Department to
<br />express their concerns and make sure that we don’t forget some of the intent and some of the wishes
<br />of the community. So there is that aspect.
<br />
<br />And when you look at the application, you’ll, well, if you determine the standing issue, and then
<br />ultimately you are going to have to make a determination on the application according to 205A and
<br />the criteria there, all right, I mean it’s all set forth for you. And from the Public Works’ perspective,
<br />I said it earlier, we have traction now to get moving on this. We just completed Ane Keohokālole,
<br />we are trying to improve the circulation on this entire side. You know, the timing right now for
<br />other major road projects in the region, we are not going to be conflicting too much because that
<br />always causes concern among the residents to, “Why are you scheduling five, six road projects in
<br />the same area?” And we are just trying to get it done. And with that, you know, public safety,
<br />public health, the public interest in this, in providing this connector, and giving the public an option
<br />actually on how to go mauka-makai, right, they are going to be given more options, rather than just
<br />going 3.5 miles north, 3.5 miles south; if you’re stuck in between, what are you going to do? Right?
<br />And that’s, that’s attractive and makes sense not only to the County but I think for people in
<br />general. But I’ll turn it over to the attorney now for his legal stuff. Thank you.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: You’re welcome. I thought I would also just interject here before we hear from you,
<br />Ryan, that I get this sense that we are all wanting to work together, that I don’t think that this
<br />position should be looked upon as being adversarial. And I understand from what Randy said that
<br />you people were just given notice by him for his client yesterday. So time may be another issue that
<br />should be brought up. Hearing that, Ryan, let’s hear your comments, please.
<br />
<br />KANAKA‘OLE: Thank you. The concerns that Commissioner Beaudet raised were, is right; right
<br />before you right now is the issue of standing. And so our position is that we are going to object to a
<br />finding of standing on multiple grounds. But before I go into that, I’m going to put forth some
<br />standards of analysis with regard to standing. So because Mr. Clapp is petitioning for standing, he
<br />has the burden of demonstrating why he has standing in this contested case, or for a contested case.
<br />And a second standard is enumerated in the Planning Commission Rules, 4-6, these are factors for
<br />standing, and these factors are also found in the petition forms themselves. And I’m going to be
<br />citing to the petition form submitted by Mr. Clapp. So to eliminate some of these, I guess,
<br />consideration of, for analysis for standing, Parts B and D of this petition – oh, do you all have a
<br />copy?
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Yes.
<br />
<br />KANAKA‘OLE: Yes, okay. So Parts B and D of the petition does not apply to the intervenor here.
<br />Just looking at the petition, Part B is about the government agency and Part D is regarding native
<br />17
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|