2021-11-04 Windward Exh E ConnectionsCBESS SPP12-138

Home

reviewed the original exhibits back in 2012 and 2014 and I think none of the Commissioners in this instance we're present then. Section 91-11 gives parties like the Intervenor the opportunity to direct the Commission members to points that they may have overlooked and to provide written exceptions to the Commission's proposed findings. And so that's why we prepared exceptions to the proposed findings. What I think we need to understand here is and I imagine your county attorney will give you advice. The record as we believe the board, excuse me, the Commission should be aware of was not altogether vacated by the Intermediate Court of Appeals. In this decision it didn't vacate certain findings has been unsupported by the evidence but did not vacate other findings which is what we point out in are exceptions. Those findings that were not specifically vacated by the Intermediate Court of Appeals dealt with three decision criteria. The first one was the effect on surrounding properties and Mr. John Turner believe that was his name this morning adequately and very clearly explained his understanding on this point. I refer you to the original 2014 findings that we're not vacated that's Number twenty-two (22) excuse me Number forty-seven (47) that has to do with adverse effect on surrounding properties. And Number 47 states measures proposed by Connections regarding the establishment of building setbacks and roadway improvements to Edita Street do not appear to be sufficient to mitigate the overwhelming concerns raised by surrounding property owners. That finding was never vacated and remains binding on everyone including the Commission. The second provision that was not vacated the 2014 decision is Number 22, which is the second sentence that reads in regard to potable water. However, Connections has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it has or can develop sufficient water for the development. Again, this finding was not vacated, and it remains binding on all parties and the Commission. The third finding that was not vacated is Number 57. The development of a school will change the essential character of the forested land and its undeveloped views. This again is binding on everyone, including the Commission. The proposed findings that are before you today don't really address these questions or these unvacated points that remain binding. They seem to overlook them and to meld them into some overall balancing of the interest by both argument which the ICA criticize the Commission for doing the first time. With that I can answer any questions I don't want to repeat what's been written. Thank you. REPLOGLE: Thank you Mr. Matsukawa. HONG: Mr. Chair, may I be heard of that? REPLOGLE: Heard of who? HONG: This is Ted Hong, on behalf of CBESS, can I respond to Mr. Matsukawa? REPLOGLE: Yes, you may. HONG: Alright, thank you. 4 EXHIBIT E