Laserfiche WebLink
<br />GONZALES: Correct. <br /> <br />HONG: Okay. Thank you. So I can proceed with my oral argument this morning after the <br />administrative issues. <br /> <br />The authority, why we’re here today, is governed by the County Code, the General Plan, Hawai‘i <br />Administrative Rules, and the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. There are organizations, agencies, <br />individuals, trained professionals, and planning land use management development that have <br />gone through this project and vetted it and approved it. Grounds for the Special Permit, we’ve <br />discussed this previously, under Chapter 205, the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, and the Office of <br />State Planning has agreed after looking at this project, that our project meets the goals and <br />requirements under the law. It articulated in the record what it believes that this is an unusual <br />and reasonable use. These are trained professionals in the area of land use, have looked at a lot <br />of projects. That’s their job. In terms of the Planning Department, again, trained professionals, <br />charged with responsibility of not only interpreting but enforcing the Zoning Code, the General <br />Plan, and you have two separate Planning Directors agreeing with this project--that we fulfilled <br />all the requirements of the Planning Commission Rules and General Plan. <br /> <br />Which brings us to basically the primary objections that this project has faced. The first one is <br />water, and you’ve heard about it a lot at these hearings. And some representations were made <br />about the lack of water with respect to this project by the hearings officer. So, you would expect <br />in terms of the hearings officer’s decision that the Water Department would have some <br />objection. And this is what the record says—that the Water Department has no objection to the <br />proposed application. <br /> <br />And in terms of the proposed or amended conditions 3 and 4, do you agree with those particular <br />conditions, and the Water Department did agree with them. That’s from Kurt Inaba in terms of <br />his testimony under oath for the first time with respect to some of these proceedings. So, in <br />terms of the water or the lack of water, the question is given this record, how does anybody reach <br />the conclusion that there wasn’t, there was insufficient water. <br /> <br />Let’s talk about the next issue that always seems to plague this project which is traffic. And you <br />see the testimony of not our expert witness because you could, anybody could say that our expert <br />witness is biased because we were paying for the expert witness, which is Mr. Rowell, but this is <br />Ron Thiel, from the County of Hawai‘i, who looked at this project. This is what his testimony <br />was under oath. Were there any deficiencies or shortcomings? No, he didn’t see any. In your <br />opinion, based on your experience in terms of Mr. Rowell’s TIAR, did it meet all the <br />professional standards and guidelines? Yes, it did. <br /> <br />And, I’d like to address the third point. And currently, the school only has one point for entrance <br />and exit. In your professional opinion, should they have a second point for exit, say a single <br />entrance point and a different exit point, Mr. Thiel’s answer is pretty clear. You have again an <br />engineer, traffic engineer, very experienced, you look at the record. He talks about the projects <br />he’s worked on and his qualifications, and that’s his conclusion. Unchallenged. There were no <br />14 <br />EXHIBIT F <br /> <br /> <br />