2014-09-04 Hearing Transcript-HACA SPP 845

Home

KAWAUCHI: Okay, so I bring your attention then to a second matter which is a—I believe that I have, that you have a defective agenda with respect to this item. Commissioner, Chairman Miyasato, you have stated that the first item on your agenda today is the matter of standing for Ms. Tita’s Petition for Intervention, and according to the Sunshine Law, that ought to be noticed to the public. Item 8 does not reflect the Petition for Standing as an Intervenor in this case, and I believe that your agenda with respect to this item fails the Sunshine Law provisions concerning notice to the public. At that point, you can decide whether or not you’re going to proceed or postpone until the item is corrected. I should also note to the Commission that this is a matter I’ve already discussed with the Office of Information Practices. I’ve received an informal opinion from them, and it’s their belief that this type of item should be notified. You should notice the public as to the intervention--Petition for Intervention. You have counsel so I’m sure you’ll consult with your counsel. MIYASATO: We’ll proceed. KAWAUCHI: Just also knowing that if you proceed and there is a Sunshine Law violation found, that any matters that are discussed will have no effect, so your decision is still to continue to proceed. MIYASATO: Yes. Okay, yes, we would like to have your explain why you should be granted standing according to criteria in Rule 4-6. KAWAUCHI: Thank you. I’d like to discuss that matter with you, and my client will also like an opportunity to also discuss that matter. On January 9, 2014, there was a meeting of the Hawai‛i County Planning Commission and a Memorandum in Support of the Petition for Standing in Contested Case Hearing along with Exhibits A thru R were presented to the Commission. Ms. Tita submitted a Memorandum in Support to further give information to the Commission on her Petition. As you know, by way of procedural background, this Special Permit, Permit No. 845 was issued to the Hawaiian Acres Community Association in July or on July 22, 1998, a copy of which was attached to the Memorandum that we provided to you, and also I should say copies of which were also provided to you again today. The—by virtue of the, by virtue of the permit that was issued to them in 1998, this permit has already lapsed. Your Planning Commission rules, its Rule 6-9 with respect to any amendments to Special Permits require that the request for amendment to the permit be made not less than ninety days prior to expiration date of time, and that was not done in this case. So, you’re actually taking up a matter which is already lapsed, and if you follow your Planning Commission rules, that in of itself would basically tell you that you shouldn’t even be considering this matter. It shouldn’t even be on your agenda. I think that Ms. Tita has a significant interest and right and should be admitted as a party. Her interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public. She’s a lot owner, resident, and paid member of the Hawaiian Acres Community Association. She has an interest in the land involved in this Petition because she’s again a lot owner, resident, and paid member of the Association. The requested amendment has a direct impact on her ability to access her residence and property and will cause or threaten injury. The expansion of meetings and events held at the community center and the operation of the farmers market will block Roads 8 and C by motor 3 EXHIBIT H