|
Hawaiian rights. And the petitioner in this situation is not claiming that he is a government agency,
<br />and he is not claiming that there is an impact on traditional and customary rights, nor is he offering
<br />any evidence that he descends from the native Hawaiians who practice those rights. So B and D
<br />should not be factored into the analysis at all.
<br />
<br />Looking at Part C, the petition checks “Yes,” so the intervenor here is claiming that there is a
<br />property interest in the land involved in, or subject to, this SMA permit application request. Now,
<br />this isn’t true; as shown by Mr. Arai, the intervenor doesn’t reside on the land in question. The
<br />property is on the makai side of Ali‘i Drive, and it’s a good distance away from the area involved in
<br />this SMA permit application area. I guess it’s separated by the entire length of La‘aloa, as well as
<br />the several subdivisions in between, yeah? So Part C shouldn’t apply as well to this analysis.
<br />
<br />So we go to Part A, which is Randy also raised, whether the interest of Mr. Clapp is clearly
<br />distinguishable from the general public; and we say that it’s not. And the scope of this
<br />Commission’s analysis for this should be within the scope of the SMA property application, or
<br />SMA permit application, before you right now. And on its face, looking at the actual petition, it’s
<br />rather unclear whether Mr. Clapp has a distinguishable interest, just reading the petition itself. All
<br />we can glean from this petition is that Mr. Clapp owns property makai of the intersection at La‘aloa
<br />and Ali‘i Drive; however, there is no articulation to any demonstrable reason as to why Mr. Clapp’s
<br />interests are different from the public. Now, going beyond the face of the petition form, and I guess
<br />these were raised by Mr. Vitousek when you asked him questions regarding distinguishing himself
<br />from the general public, case law supports, there is case law that supports the standing for adjacent
<br />property owners, because they have a property interest clearly distinguishable from the general
<br />public. And several cases off the top of my head that regard this is Town versus the Land Use
<br />Commission, Mahuiki versus the Kaua‘i Planning Commission, East Diamondhead Association
<br />versus the Zoning Board of Appeals that’s a Honolulu case, I mean Honolulu. But the difference in
<br />this actual petition for standing, though, from that case law is that the intervenors in this situation,
<br />his property is not adjacent to the area, yeah? The property is not even on La‘aloa itself; it’s
<br />oceanfront property across Ali‘i Drive, or across Ali‘i Drive from La‘aloa Street. Also, there is
<br />supporting case law regarding standing for landowners who are – now I’m quoting directly from
<br />this case Dalton versus City and County of Honolulu – individuals living within a very close
<br />proximity to the proposed development have standing as well. And we are going to, our position is
<br />that the intervenor’s property is not in very close proximity. Now in the Dalton case, Mr. Dalton,
<br />who challenged the City and County of Honolulu’s decision, was a landowner that lived across the
<br />street from the project, so it wasn’t adjoining but it was very close proximity; he lived directly
<br />across the street. That’s not the case here. As I explained previously, there is an entire length of
<br />road and multiple subdivisions separating the area for this SMA permit application and Mr. Clapp.
<br />
<br />Now, Mr. Vitousek also raised an issue of Ali‘i Drive as a coastal resource. That for the purposes
<br />of deciding standing, it’s not, it shouldn’t be considered because claiming that Ali‘i Drive is a
<br />coastal resource is not an interest clearly distinguishable from the general public. The general
<br />public has an interest in Ali‘i Drive as well, yeah? And Mr. Vitousek also raised an issue regarding
<br />a traffic impact on the intersection; and that too is not distinguishable from the public, as the general
<br />public has an interest in traffic mitigation as well. That’s it. Thank you.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of the representatives from the Public Works Department?
<br />Okay, hearing none, I know you want to come up because I can see it in your body language,
<br />Randy. However, what I would like to do is find out if the Planning Director, being a party, would
<br />like to add anything as well. And I’ll excuse Brandon and Ryan right now. Thank you for raising
<br />18
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|