2013-03-07 Windward Transcript Connections

Home

was in the notices that we set to the community and surrounding property owners. We said it on the record a number of times. Everybody had assumed that. Now it turns out that that notice that was sent to the community, that notice that was sent to the surrounding property owners, that representation that was made at the Planning Commission meetings was wrong. And, you know, we’re not trying to point fingers or say it’s anybody’s fault. It’s just that this is kind of a relatively unusual process, and we’re still kind of finding our way. But we now know what the right way is; and the problem is everybody who is here up to this point was given the wrong information. So what’s the remedy? The remedy is to withdraw the motion, and second, to deny the special permit application, approve Ms. Fukushima’s and the applicant’s request for a contested case, appoint an independent third party hearings officer, and allow us to proceed with the contested case according to the Planning Commission’s procedures. Then when the hearings officer completes the contested case proceedings, puts together his findings or her findings of fact, conclusions of law, they’ll submit it to the Planning Commission. Similar to what happened in the Hu Honua case, the Pepe‘ekeō Point case, they’ll submit it to the Planning Commission. You guys could take a look at it and either adopt it, reject it or, you know, do what you want to do. But my point is given the procedural errors, given the notice requirements under the law, there is a mistake. And that’s the way I see how to correct the mistake. If you choose to proceed along the lines where we’re going today and vote on the motion to deny the permit application, I think any reasonable attorney would come in and say that you just made our day, because that’s going to be an easy appeal. And what the Third Circuit Court is going to say, the remedy on the appeal is you go back to the Planning Commission. They have to appoint a hearings officer and then, you know, the whole thing again. So instead of wasting everybody’s time, I would hope that the Planning Commission takes that into consideration. And I just want to place on the record that in the event that we are required to go to a Third Circuit appeal to request a contested case or say that this was a procedural error that was made and the Planning Commission should have withdrawn the denial motion and appointed an independent hearings officer, in the event that that does occur, you know, we will be asking for our attorney’s fees and cost, because we think that’s unnecessarily delaying the process. If the Chairman, or the Planning Commissioners, has any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. AU: Any questions for Mr. Hong? Anybody else would like to say something? Ms. Lee Loy? S. LEE LOY: Chairman, Commissioners, I was tasked with doing one other thing. You’ve heard enough legal posturing and positioning about what’s before you folks. What I was tasked to do was provide you folks with a quick status report of other items related to this property. What I wanted to do is give you folks a very comprehensive look at other moving pieces related to this piece of property. So what I submitted to the Commission is just a quick update. First and foremost, the general lease with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources st has now been fully executed. Connections now has the general lease as of February 1. As part of that lease, it includes 37 different agreements and covenants that the lessee, Connections, will have to comply with. There are two particular conditions that I want to point out before the 7