Laserfiche WebLink
GIFFIN: Free. So they may, I may come, and if I deal with Charles and ask him if I can sit there <br />and meditate for -. <br /> <br />SCHWEITZER: Or you can ask me or Michele or, sure. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: All right. Thank you. Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay, then, hang on just a <br />minute, we did go on record earlier about the two other letters that we received in support of this <br />application: one by Linda Elliott, the president and center director for the Hawai‘i Wildlife Center, <br />and Norman Piianaia who did also write a letter in support. Okay. Hearing no other comments, <br />Daryn, have I forgotten anything? How about you, Ivan? Did I forget anything? None? It’s just so <br />that I guess the motion maker must be very clear about what the motion is, right, and the conditions, <br />especially Condition No. 2. <br /> <br />ARAI: Condition No. 2 and the revision made to the background report to make an adjustment to <br />the acreage of the property. I think part of the confusion is that when, maybe it’s not confusion but, <br />when the application was first presented to the Planning Commission in 2000, it was prior to the <br />consolidation and resubdivision that occurred over the Surety lands. So the parent parcel was <br />originally about 692 acres, I think it was. But subsequent to the approval of the special permit in <br />2000, not only was there the court litigation but there was also this ongoing consolidation and <br />resubdivision action, which basically parceled out an 82-acre, 81.9-acre project site, which is now <br />defined as the new Parcel – I can’t remember the parcel No. – the new Parcel No. 43. So maybe <br />that’s why, where you could discuss the entire larger 692-acre parcel as part of the original request, <br />now it’s actually a separate entity, so that’s why I asked the background report reflect that. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Yeah. Okay, so, Commissioners, I think what Daryn is referring to is Page No. 3 of the <br />background report right under the Description of Property and Surrounding Area, No. 6. Subject <br />Property, to be changed from 692 to 81.9, correct, Daryn? <br /> <br />ARAI: Correct. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Okay. <br /> <br />BEAUDET: Question. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Brandi. <br /> <br />BEAUDET: Does the change to the background report need to be identified in the motion, though? <br /> <br />GIFFIN: I think it would be better. <br /> <br />BEAUDET: It’s administrative, though, right? <br /> <br />ARAI: No, it should be made part of -. <br /> <br />BEAUDET: Because the conditions remain the same regardless of the size of the subject property. <br /> <br />ARAI: True, right, true. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: But it’s a mistake in the background report. <br />11 <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />