2014-05-01HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-CONNECTIONSCBESSSPP12-138

Home

your left. And, again, this is a little further up showing that fronting the subject parcel on your right side, you have quite a wide, shoulder, paved shoulder. And again, this is Edita looking towards Kaūmana on the left side which is also a portion of the subject property. You can see that there is a guardrail. This is looking at the lower parcel that there is a gate and fence around the lower parcel. This is on Edita Street looking directly makai. And this again is on Edita Street. We’re looking towards Mele Manu Street. The subject property is on your left and right, and on your right side, you can see that there is a guardrail as well as a drainageway. The timeline. The Planning Commission hearings. We’ve had a number of them. This began in November of 2012, was our first hearing, then it was continued to December 12, 2012. January 10, 2013—at this hearing, a motion was made to deny the application. It was not voted upon. It was just the motion was made. It was continued to allow Findings of Fact, proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order to be prepared. When we came to the th March 7 hearing, 2013, a contested case was requested by the applicant as well as an intervenor was approved for standing, and that is intervenor, Jeff Gomes. We began contested stnd case hearings. This was October 21 and 22 of 2013. We had another hearing on th November 12 of 2013, which included a site inspection of the campus or the property. And nd lastly, we had two more hearings in January—January 8th and January 22 of 2014. During the contested case hearing or up to this point, just briefly touch upon some of the submittals that have come to the Planning Commission. Oh, I don’t know what happened there. Sorry about that. We’ve had the Planning Director’s Background Report, Revised Recommendation and Revised Conditions. We had the applicant’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision & Order that was submitted, the Intervenor’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision & Order. After the contested case hearing, we had the Hearings Officer’s Report. We had the Applicants’ Exceptions to the Hearings Officer’s Report. We had the Planning Department’s Exceptions to the Hearings Officer’s Report. And, we had the Intervenor’s Support Statement of the Hearings Officer’s Report. Lastly, we have the Applicant and Intervenor’s requests for oral argument which would be taken up today. That concludes our presentation. Thank you. GONZALES: Thank you. Any questions for staff limited to clarifying anything he just said? Commissioners? Thank you, Jeff. For the record, too, I need to, I just need to confirm with my fellow Commissioners that we’ve all—some of us haven’t been here for all the hearings—we’ve all got ourselves up to speed on everything. We’ve all reviewed everything. Very good. I think we’d like to proceed with public testimony at this time. So, if I could bring you up four at a time. I’m going to ask for Elizabeth Truesdell, Pauline Ke‘ala Lee Loy, Henry Lee Loy, and Ivan Mochida. Could I have you all raise your right hands, please? Do you swear to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission today? TESTIFIERS: Yes. GONZALES: All right. You have three minutes. Please use the microphones. State your name, where you live, and go ahead. 5 EXHIBIT F