2014-05-01HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-CONNECTIONSCBESSSPP12-138

Home

evidence. There’s a lack of consideration to any of the expert testimony. On the part of the hearings officer--the overwhelming amount of information and evidence was also omitted by the hearings officer. The Planning Director has highlighted or is asking the Planning Commission to review the important information before making this decision on the Special Permit and if you deny the application, to be very specific in terms of why you’re denying it. The other thing in terms of the hearing, the intervenor, Mr. Gomes, failed to submit any sworn expert witnesses, so when the hearings officer comes to the conclusion that somehow this permit application should be denied because it overburdens governmental agencies, that’s pretty, that’s a pretty important statement. I think everybody needs to take a look at that very carefully. So, if it’s going to overburden any government agency, it must be overburdening the Water Department, and there must be some kind of testimony— As part of the County of Hawai‘i’s emergency practice procedures, at 11:45 a.m., the Civil Defense sirens went off, and the meeting was briefly interrupted by a safety message over the room speakers by Brandon Gonzales, Deputy Director of the Department of Public Works. Okay, so I’ll get back to my point. One of the main considerations, main points the hearings officer makes is that our application is going to overburden governmental agencies. And the question is, where’s that going to come from? Is the Water Department being overburdened by any of the amended proposed conditions? No, there’s no evidence in the record of that. How about the Traffic Department of the Department of Public Works? Are they going to be overburdened by any of the amended terms or conditions concerning our proposed application? No, there’s actually nothing in the record about that either. So, what about the Planning Department? Maybe the Planning Department was concerned about being overburdened by some of the amended terms and conditions that we’ve been proposing, and—no, you don’t have that either. How about the Planning Director? No. How about DLNR? No. Board of, what about BLNR? No. There is no evidence. There is no testimony. There is no submission indicating that with respect to the proposed amended terms and conditions of proposals, in terms of our application, that it would negatively impact any County or State governmental agency. Yet, that’s one of the reasons why the hearings officer chose to give us an unfavorable recommendation. When, as lawyers, we make that kind of a broad statement, you would expect it to be supported in the record and it isn’t, which makes my job easier later on. Provisions in the Planning Commission’s rules and procedures, so what do you do after this? After today? What kinds of things or alternatives does the Planning Commission have? Obviously, you can accept or reject the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. You can reopen the docket and take further evidence, or may make such other disposition of the case that is necessary in the circumstances given the lack of support in terms of evidence and testimony at the hearing. I think the only reasonable—the only intelligent choice that you can make—is actually to reject the hearings officer’s report, and actually approve the application. Despite the fact that you may not like it; despite the fact that there are friends sitting out there in the audience who have time and time again opposed this project simply because they don’t want it in their neighborhood; despite the fact that they’ve testified that perhaps they don’t like kids running through their neighborhood. It may seem uncomfortable, but all of you took an oath to support the laws, and the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i, and the County of Hawai‘i. You sometimes have to follow the law even though personally you may not like what you’re doing. That’s what all of us 16 EXHIBIT F