2014-09-04 Hearing Transcript-HACA SPP 845

Home

MIYASATO: I’d like to have your comments on standing. BRILHANTE: Well, you know, the request before us is a motion to intervene on a permit, and the Planning Commission has specific rules as to what the requirements are as it relates to granting a party a written request to intervene, and over here it says Petition for Standing in a Contested Case hearing. And, the requirements are that the applicants his or her interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public, and so far everything I’ve heard to this point from the applicant, her interests are not distinguishable from the general public as it relates to issues with parking and with safety. Those, those specific items are general to the entire public—all the neighbors, all the people who traverse on the road, and the like. Unless the individuals are parking on the applicant’s property, I don’t see there’s no real distinguishable, clearly distinguishable evidence that the applicant to intervene in this contested case is specifically being harmed or injured. The second area is that the safety concerns are, that the applicant raised, are being properly vetted in this process. Notification was given to the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the like, Public Works, and responses came back. Concerns regarding safety issues were provided to the Planning Department in those responses, and those items were specifically addressed. So, the applicant raising these issues is not distinguishable from any other, you know, person of the general public raising these issues. There’s another area to grant standing, another consideration is whether Ms. Tita’s alleged injuries are unique to her, and as I pointed out during the issue with parking and the issues with traffic, traffic and parking is not unique to any one individual. It’s gonna be generalized by the community in and of itself. The requested application is to run a farmers market during a set period of time on Saturdays, and I think during that period of time on Saturdays, there’s numerous roads in Hawaiian Acres Subdivision. There’s numerous routes that the applicant could take if she needed to get in and out of the Subdivision. There’s been representations made by both Police and Fire that adequate personnel be provided for, to assist with parking. I’m sure if an emergency situation arose during the time of the farmers market, that parking personnel would be able to assist if there’s a situation, which I haven’t seen any evidence yet, where the roads are completely blocked or an emergency vehicle cannot get, cannot pass through. I’m sure those issues would be addressed and have been addressed by, were properly vetted during the Planning research and investigation in the application. And, again, that’s not specific to Ms. Tita unless you know again they were parking, specifically parking and blocking Ms. Tita from leaving her property, and that’s not the case here. The issue with, the issues that were raised outside of just the parking and traffic are more specifically related to the application in its generalities, the timeliness of the permit, the issue with the completion of the Fire Station and the like. Those issues and those allegations again aren’t specific to the applicant here. They’re general questions, general issues that can be raised properly by the Commission. If the applicant wants to provide additional information as it relates to those issues, she has the opportunity through the public comments segment of the proceedings, and the public comment session if issues are raised, the past practice has been that the Commissioners are allowed to ask each witness additional questions as it relates to their concerns with a particular issue. So, again, it takes us back to the fact that whether or not Ms., 10 EXHIBIT H