Laserfiche WebLink
probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record by adopting the following Findings of <br /> Fact: <br /> II. Proposed Development <br /> A. General Description <br /> 9. The Connections application proposes the development of a K to 12 <br /> charter school campus with dorm facilities, and an intergenerational program that <br /> would provide childcare and elder care at a single facility on the Development, <br /> together with related use on the 70-acre parcel of land. As the site is bisected by <br /> Edita Street, the lower portion of the Development would consist of the major <br /> school or campus facilities, while the upper portion of the Development would be <br /> use for outdoor type of educational programs, including a forestry preservation <br /> program. (Emphasis added) <br /> RA: part I, 67. <br /> 14. The Development does not propose to establish a charter on the <br /> Property to serve the needs of the immediate vicinity in the Kaumana area of <br /> Hilo, although some students from the area may attend this school. <br /> (Emphasis added) <br /> RA: part I, 68. <br /> Appellant objected to these alleged errors in its April 21,2014,Joint Exceptions to <br /> Hearings Officers [sic] Report Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation Dated <br /> April 7, 2014. RA: part III, 2957-2958. <br /> B. Public Utilities and Services <br /> Access/Traffic <br /> 18. Notwithstanding the findings of the TZAR and the <br /> recommendations of the Police Department and Department of Public <br /> Works,the area residents uniformly expressed concerns about the adverse <br /> traffic impacts of the Development along Edita Street and Kaumana Drive. <br /> Also residents objected that the TIAR was four years old and the traffic counts <br /> contained in the TZAR were taken when certain schools were not in session. <br /> 6 <br />