Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-05 Exh B (SPP 12-138) WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 5, 2021 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CONNECTIONS NEW CENTURY PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL/ COMMUNITY BASED EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES (CBESS) (SPP 12-000138) was called to order at 9:22 a.m. via live-stream online meeting, with Chairman John Replogle presiding. COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Au, Gilbert Aguinaldo, Joseph Clarkson, Michelle Galimba, Dennis Lin, and John Replogle RECUSED: Thomas Raffipiy ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Hall, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jeffrey Darrow, (Deputy Planning Director), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Director) Maija Jackson (Program Manager), and Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador (Windward Planning Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: CONNECTIONS NEW CENTURY PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL/ COMMUNITY BASED EDUCATION SUPPORT SERVICES (CBESS) (SPP 12-000138) Discussion and action limited to the procedural question on whether the Windward Planning Commission will make a decision on the record as presented or open the record to hear new evidence regarding Special Permit SPP No. 12-000138, which was remanded back to the Windward Planning Commission by Intermediate Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with its January 31, 2020 Memorandum Opinion vacating the County of Hawaii Windward Planning Commission's May 12, 2014 Decision and Order,which denied Special Permit SPP No. 12-000138. The subject Special Permit sought to develop a K to 12 charter school campus with dorm facilities and related uses on approximately 70 acres of land situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located on both the southwest and northeast sides of Edita Street near its intersection with Kaumana Drive and adjoining the Pacific Plantation Subdivision in Kaumana, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-5-006:141 Secretary's Note: "—" indicates that there were technical and/or internet difficulties, which made the conversation inaudible. REPLOGLE: So, we're going to move onto unfinished business. The applicant is Connections New Century Public Charter School/Community Based Education Support Services (CBESS), SPP 12-000138. Discussion and action limited to the procedural question on whether the Windward Planning Commission will make a decision on the record as presented or open the record to hear new evidence regarding Special Permit No. 12-000138, which was remanded back to the Planning Commission by Intermediate Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with its January 31, 2020 Memorandum Opinion vacating the County of Hawaii Windward Planning Commission's May 12, 2014 Decision and Order, which denied Special Permit SPP 1 EXHIBIT B No. 12-000138. The subject Special Permit sought to develop a K to 12 charter school campus with dorm facilities and related uses on approximately 70 acres of land situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located on both the southwest and northeast sides of Edita Street near its intersection with Kaumana Drive and adjoining the Pacific Plantation Subdivision in Kaumana, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-5-006:141. There will be no presentation at this meeting, as it is only to decide if the Commission will make a decision on the record or reopen the record. A presentation may be given at the next meeting. The following parties are present. Please state your name and who you represent. AU: Mr. Chair,point of order please. I have a question. REPLOGLE: Yes, please go ahead. AU: Could I go ahead and make a motion to go into executive session, I have a bunch of questions before we hear the applicant, I have questions for our Counsel. So, I move to go into executive session. REPLOGLE: Can I have a second? AGUINALDO: Second by raising his hand. REPLOGLE; Okay, we have a second. Oh, I'm sorry. What am I doing now? Okay all those in favor of a brief executive session say aye. COMMISISONERS: A voice vote was taken of all Commissioners present, and the motion carried with six aye votes and no noes. REPLOGLE: Okay, we will go into an executive session. The live-stream meeting was placed on hold and at 9:28 a.m. the Commission went into executive session. The live-stream meeting was reconvened at 9:39 a.m. REPLOGLE: We're back in session, and thank you Applicants, Intervenor and Planning Department for your patience. I'm going to swear you all in together,please raise your right hand. Yes, okay. Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth in this matter before the Windward Planning Commission? HONG: Yes. REPLOGLE: Okay we good? THATCHER: Yes. REPLOGLE: Please say, yes sir. Okay. 2 EXHIBIT B SIU: Yes. MATSUKAWA: Yes. REPLOGLE: Thank you, so will be begin with the applicants Connections and CBESS will both be presenting. Please begin. HONG: Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Ted Hong, I represent CBESS, the Community Based Education Support Services, that is, the non- profit current entity of Connections School the governing board. You have my letter that we submitted pursuant to the Boards July 6, 2021, letter. With me this morning on behalf of CBESS is John Thatcher, the retired principal of Connections he's there with green wall background. You have before you my letter of July 28, 2021, we certainly would be more than happy to answer any questions that the Chairman or the Commissioners may have regarding our position on this matter, and I believe Mr. Carter Siu would like to say something. Thank you. REPLOGLE: Thank you. Mr. Siu? SN: Good morning, this is Carter Siu on behalf of Connections Charter School. I just joined in Mr. Hong's brief and that's it. I think I submitted something as well, but yes, I concur with Mr. Hong. HONG: Mr. Chairman, if I may note also present is Romeo Garcia, the present Principal of Connections Charter School and he has several students watching as well. REPLOGLE: Thank you. Okay, and your position is to stay with the program. HONG: I think Mr. Matsukawa wanted to say something. REPLOGLE: Okay, the Intervenor Mr. Matsukawa. You have the floor. MATSUKAWA: Yes, I just wanted to let the Commissioners know that we stand on our brief that we had filed earlier and have nothing in addition to add. Other than to help the Commission understand the effect of a remand the court cases hold that when there is a remand the court from time to time makes a statement of the law or a particular point and that's called the law of the case. And that statement, which is the law of the case becomes exactly what it is, is the governing law against which we all have to function on the remand. Thank you. REPLOGLE: Okay. The Planning Department do you have anything to say? DARROW: We also submitted our position and at this time we take no position on the matter. REPLOGLE: Okay, thank you. And applicants, do you have any points you would like to address before I open questions from the Commission? 3 EXHIBIT B HONG: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission again, this is Ted Hong on behalf of CBESS. The only point that we want to make this morning is again that we feel that reopening or redoing the hearing, the contested case hearing would unnecessarily delay the project because that would be essentially in violation of the Hu Honua Hawaii State Supreme Court's decision on what an administrative agency should do on a remand. And I think at this point there's been a lot of information provided from the parties and I would suspect that the Commissioners may have some questions and I think Mr. Siu and I would be more than happy to respond to any questions of the Commissioners, or the Chair may have. Thank you. REPLOGLE: Thank you Mr. Hong. Is there anything else? Okay, I'm going to move to a motion for action. Well, actually we are going to open it, yes, Mr. Clarkson. CLARKSON: I was prepared to make a motion for action but, if I'm premature let me know. REPLOGLE: No, no, no. CLARKSON: Okay, I move that the Commission open the record to hear new evidence limited to the following, those items in the appellate court's opinion where they suggest additional findings and additional hearings might be necessary not being several. REPLOGLE: Okay, do we have a second? GALIMBA: I'll second that. REPLOGLE: Okay. All those in favor of this motion, please signal. HALL: Chair, point of order. REPLOGLE: This should be a vote, yes, go ahead. HALL: There should be discussion, Chair and then a roll call vote after discussion is finished. REPLOGLE: Okay, thank you. Mr. Au? AU: Thank you Mr. Chair. I just have a question for Commissioner Clarkson and Commissioner Galimba regarding the motion. The way the motion stands right now I don't support it. I think we have enough evidence to make a decision. Obviously, we going to hear from both sides, and both attorneys but I think we have enough evidence. But I would still like to hear other Commissioners and even Commissioner Galimba and Commissioner Clarkson on why you're making that motion and the way I stand as of now is that I don't support the motion, but I do want to hear from all the Commissioners regarding this motion. Thank you. LIN: I would tend to agree with Mr. Au, I think we have sufficient information within the courts document as well as on the record. And I believe that it would cost a lot more money and time for everybody else to go through this whole process again. 4 EXHIBIT B REPLOGLE: Thank you. Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: I'd like to just speak briefly in favor of my motion. I just noted at least in two places Page 42 of the opinion where the Appellate Court notes that; without additional findings by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact 59 and 62 finding that the development would be contrary to the General Plan or arbitrary and capricious. So, this seems to imply consideration including additional findings now there may be a legal term, legal meaning for findings there that I'm missing but I would think it would include evidence. And then on Page 43, the Appellate Court talks about why they may remand, and they refer to the Lanai Company Inc. versus Land Use Commission case. Where a case was remanded to the LUC for additional findings and conclusions and further hearings if necessary. So, it seems to me that I would call a rather vague conclusion. Where is it. Where they say where the court said this case is remanded to the Planning Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. That they're obviously opening the door to new evidence and a reconsideration and testimony about old evidence and that if they wanted us to restrict ourselves strictly to the record, they could have easily said so and didn't and in fact made at least two references to additional findings and possible hearings. That's why I think certain things especially the lack of evidence in the record for the water use criteria that was discussed in the previous Commissions' decision. I don't see how that can be resolved without additional evidence from an additional testimony. There're numerous things like that. What is the importance of notifying all the people within 500 feet of the project? Whereas the appellate court talked a lot about the meaning of community and whether there should be differential consideration of different parts of the overall community, and so I think that there are a lot of issues that need to be covered before the Commission to make a non- arbitrary and capricious decision. Thank you. REPLOGLE: Thank you Mr. Clarkson. Mr. Au, any thoughts? AU: Yeah, I'll just respond to Commissioner Clarkson's response. I think that's fair, that's your opinion and you like to hear that and I respect that. So, after those comments I'm on the fence now but I would still like to hear from the other Commissioners. GALIMBA: Could I speak Chair? REPLOGLE: Yes, Ms. Galimba. GALIMBA: So, I guess I'd like to ask a clarification on that because I agree with Commissioner Clarkson that we need to be able to very clearly articulate our reasons for either supporting or rejecting the proposal. And there were those points that Commissioner Clarkson mentioned in the order that requires our fairly detailed attention. So, I guess the question that I would like to ask is would we need to open it to more evidence and more testimony to do that properly like specifically the General Plan question that Commissioner Clarkson brought up. So, I guess I'm asking Counsel that question. In your opinion, is there enough evidence in the already existing documentation to do our job properly as far as articulating our decision? 5 EXHIBIT B HALL: Let me frame it this way, I do not think that the remand from the ICA commands the Commission to open the record. I'll say that. I say that it leaves it open ended. If you guys need additional evidence, I really can't speak to that. I think that if you guys have read through the entire record and you're prepared to make a decision on that record then there's no need to open the record. And then the other one, if you feel like you're not prepared to make a decision after reviewing the whole record, then you may open for limited testimony. But I would advise on that motion is very broad and that it should probably be much more specific as to what specifically the Commission is looking for to supplement the record. REPLOGLE: And we should state that so that would be opening it only to those topics? HALL: Yes. REPLOGLE: Okay, thank you. CLARKSON: Well, if I may amend my motion then it should be reopened only for those items that the Appellate Court, only those items in the original Commission decision that the Appellate Court vacated. HALL: The entire Decision and Order was vacated Commissioner Clarkson. CLARKSON: Alright, well, what do you call those items that were specifically noted by the Appellate Court then? HALL: You would need the specific subject areas. The Court did highlight specific items of fact that they felt were not supported. CLARKSON: Right. HALL: But that doesn't necessarily mean that you couldn't support them with evidence that is already on the record, but that's up to the Commission if they feel like in an approval or denial can be supported by the existing record. CLARKSON: Well, its— REPLOGLE: Mr. Clarkson, yes. CLARKSON: Yes, it's clear that the record that support in fact the Court could find no evidence in the record to support a particular number of water use per student requirement. And so therefore there isn't clearly enough information in the record for us to reconsider that. I think we need to get evidence as to where that 60 gallons per student came from, or what a new or current value might be and I don't see how we can get that number simply by looking at a record where the Court declared that the information did not exist. REPLOGLE: Okay. 6 EXHIBIT B GALIMBA: So, Commissioner Clarkson do you want to limit your motion to that specific topic? Which I think it would be very valid as you point out, we haven't heard since then where that came from, but it isn't in the record of the original case I believe. CLARKSON: Well, I'm sorry I'm remiss, I'm not prepared to list the specific topics that we should be limited to. I didn't think it would be required that if we opened it up to any new evidence that that would be a fairly broad category covering numerous items that were discussed in the opinion memorandum. If the rest of the Commission would like much more specificity then I'll have to ask for their patience and letting me go through and find all the findings and other decisions that Commission made that were deemed unsatisfactory by the Court. AU: Mr. Chair, I have my hand raised. REPLOGLE: Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Au, please go ahead. AU: I would still like to hear from our Honorable Chair on his opinion and I still want to hear from Commissioner Aguinaldo. But before you do that, I would like to respond to Commissioner Galimba's question to Commissioner Clarkson. If we open up the record I don't know what the consequences are going to be if we just limit it to one or two or three things. It's either we open it or we don't. That's my feeling Malia, Ms. Hall maybe you can interject on that, but I still want to hear from my fellow Commissioner Gilbert Aguinaldo and our Honorable Chair Replogle. REPLOGLE: Mr. Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: I just think that based on what is being discussed, I just truly feel that we can proceed and in moving forward, but to an extent of again with our fellow Commissioners on that once you open the can, that's the thing right. If we have enough sufficient evidence to move forward let it be and if not, what is the limit count of the questions right, what are we going talk about. REPLOGLE: Thank you. Your Honorable Chairman thinks that we should stick with the record as it is. I think opening the record as been stated is opening it, it should either be opened or not opened. And the Court made its decision based on what was presented the first time and I don't know that we should be opening it back up again where it's been quite a few years and we're dealing with that time and space is the question. So, I don't believe we should open it back up to new testimony, I think we should go with what we have and make our decision. Mr. Lin? LIN: Chair, I'll like to call for question. REPLOGLE: Okay. LIN: So, I'd like to call for the vote on the motion that Mr. Clarkson presented. REPLOGLE: Alright. 7 EXHIBIT B AU: Mr. Chair. REPLOGLE: Yes. AU: Before we make the vote, I would like get Ms. Hall's procedural, what is going to happen if this motion get voted up or voted down. Can you just explain to us what may and may not happen? HALL: So, if the motion passes, then the record will be opened and then the next hearing there will be public testimony, the applicant and intervenor will present their arguments and then if the Commission still feels that they have enough information at the end of that testimony and that argument, then they can make a decision at that time. If you vote against it, then we need a new motion for whatever you so choose and from there we go from there and then I can advise you as to what the procedure will be on for that. REPLOGLE: Okay. LIN: Ms. Hall, can I make a motion, a separate motion to move that the Commission make a decision on the record as presented at our next meeting? HALL: We have to deal with the first motion first. REPLOGLE: Yes. HALL: Then we have to see if that, unless Commissioner Clarkson wants to withdraw his motion but,presently we have a motion on the floor that needs to be — REPLOGLE: We should decide on that. Okay. All those, wait a minute. It would be a roll call vote for this? JACKSON: Yes. REPLOGLE: Okay. So, Commissioner Clarkson correct me if I get this wrong but, Commissioner Clarkson would like to have the record reopened so we can address issues that the Court outlined as needing more information. CLARKSON: That's correct. JACKSON: Okay. REPLOGLE: So, staff. JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. 8 EXHIBIT B JACKSON: Commissioner Galimba? GALIMBA: Aye. JACKSON: Commission Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: No. JACKSON: Commissioner Au? AU: No. JACKSON: Commissioner Lin? LIN: No. JACKSON: Commissioner, I'm sorry, Chair Replogle? REPLOGLE: No. JACKSON: Okay, the motion fails four(4)to two (2). REPLOGLE: Okay, now Commissioner Lin. If you'd like to make your motion or whatever it was you would were considering. LIN: I move that the Commission make a decision on the record as presented at our next Commission hearing. AU: Second. REPLOGLE: Moved and seconded to hear the evidence as presented initially and make our decision based on that. Any discussion? AU: Mr. Chair? REPLOGLE: Yes, Mr. Au. AU: I would like to state that I support this motion that I seconded for the reason that I believe that we have sufficient evidence, and we can go into detail on each line item if the attorneys choose to do so. And with that based off that information, I believe that we can still make the best decision that we can. But I just wanted to clarify that for the record. REPLOGLE: Thank you. Anyone else, Mr. Clarkson. CLARKSON: Yeah, I just liked to speak against the motion by reiterating what our Counsel told us earlier that if we vote in favor of this the record as presented, I assume it would be the 9 EXHIBIT B complete record "—"will be the only basis on which to discuss any future action and that all testimony from the public presumably from the parties, from the Planning Department will be disregarded by the Commission because it's not already on the record. So, we will be I guess reviewing the record separately on our own time and then discussing the record in our next meeting in order to make a new decision, but without any ability to clarify any point within the record with additional information. AU: Mr. Chair, I got a question for Ms. Hall. REPLOGLE: Go ahead Mr. Au. AU: So, Ms. Hall,just to clarify or confirm or just to make sure for my piece of mind. Commissioner Clarkson is stating that we won't be able to hear the applicant, but I believe we will be able to talk to both applicants and the applicant's attorney, is that correct? HALL: Yes. AU: Okay, well I believe through that process things could get mitigated. The attorneys and the parties could work on their own to figure things out. This has been a long haul for all parties, for the community, for the applicant and we are giving them a shot to work it out and whether they do so it's up to them. But for our hearing, we're only going to hear what was already on the record so, I hope that addresses some of your concerns, Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: No, no. REPLOGLE: Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: It does not address my concerns because there's a contradiction between what I understand the record to be and the fact that additional discussion will be added to the record at the next meeting by the applicant and the intervenors and others. Are we going to add information to the record or are we going to strictly consider the written information that's in the record? That is what I'd like to know, I thought we should be able to add it, but the Commission obviously disagrees, so I just like to know what that means. Will the applicant be able to speak to interpret the record again in our additional hearings or will we only and I don't know if that's the case why that wouldn't be the same as opening the record for new information. AU: I think that is a fair question, Ms. Hall can you answer that for us? HALL: There's a distinguishing between allowing the applicant to speak to their original arguments and their original application and that of bringing in completely new facts that are not on the record. So, if the applicant so choses, they will be able to present on the original application as is with no new facts as will the intervenor be able present on the original facts with no new facts. REPLOGLE: Mr. Lin? 10 EXHIBIT B LIN: So, Ms. Hall, the clarification would be that the applicant as well as the intervenor could make clarifications based off what the record states? So, we could ask them questions about certain points that were made on the record pertaining to their portion. Is that correct? HALL: Without introduction of new facts, yes. REPLOGLE: Okay. So, an as example, they I'm sorry go ahead, Ms. Galimba. GALIMBA: No, sorry I think you're probably going; I was confused about this interchange right now so. REPLOGLE: Okay, so. If I understand this correctly. I'm just going to pick a topic water because it was mentioned. Both the applicant and the intervenor can talk to the water question, but they can't add anything new like, oh, we got another 100,000 gallons coming from Kawaihae. That wasn't in the original record so you can't add that, but they can address the water as they understand it to make it clearer. Is that correct? HALL: Yes, they can present the fact that the information on the record is sufficient to make a decision to whichever way they go. REPLOGLE: Okay. Alright, thank you. CLARKSON: Excuse me Chair. I just don't understand that, because the Appellate Court has already said that the information on the record is not sufficient to determine whether the Commission's action was arbitrary and capricious or not. So, if we restrict and we have restricted ourselves to the information in the record we are declaring that we must only make an arbitrary and capricious decision on this matter. I mean to me following the court's logic, we're stuck! HALL: "—" Commissioner Clarkson that's basically what the applicant and the intervenor will argue to is whether you are stuck or not, whether that you need that information to approve or deny the application. They will make their argument on the present record. So, I don't want to go anymore deeper, because I don't want to give you an idea either way or represent either argument, but, I would just say that. Their job will be to show you that there's sufficient evidence on the record to present to support their arguments for approval or denial. REPLOGLE: Thank you. So, I'm sorry here but, I'd entertain, are we, we have a motion on the floor. Okay and Mr. Lin would you restate it please. LIN: I move that the Commission make a decision on the record as presented at our next Commission hearing. REPLOGLE: Okay, thank you. roll call please. LIN: You need a second? 11 EXHIBIT B REPLOGLE: It was moved and seconded, I just wanted you to refresh everyone. LIN: Okay. JACKSON: Commissioner Lin? LIN: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: No. JACKSON: Commissioner Galimba? GALIMBA: No. JACKSON: And Chair Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries four(4)to two (2). HALL: Chair? REPLOGLE: Yes. HALL: I would just want to remind the Commissioners, you must review the entire record, all the transcripts, everything that was given to you, the Court record back from the very beginning of the hearings. REPLOGLE: Okay. LIN: Chair, I believe Mr. Hong has something to say. REPLOLGE: Mr. Hong? HONG: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. This is a, regardless of which side you're on of this issue, the record is very comprehensive, it's a lot of information. May I 12 EXHIBIT B respectfully suggest that instead of setting the next hearing on this issue for September that a little bit more time be given for the Commissioners to review the record because again it is quite comprehensive and lengthy. Several days of a contested case hearing, several days of actual Commission hearings, excuse me, so, may I suggest that if the Commission is going to set this for the hearing that maybe it be extended that hearing date and time be extended out a bit. REPLOGLE: Thank you Mr. Hong. Mr. Matsukawa? MATSUKAWA: Following what Mr. Hong had to say, I was wondering if your staff could work it out with the appellate court because the original record to my recollection was filed in a digital format that can be retrieved by everybody, but since the appellate court has closed the case we can't get access to it, unless we go eCourt Kokua and we have to pay I think five bucks to see it. But if somehow, they could make it available and then everybody can look at that as that was the record that was filed at the Intermediate Court of Appeals. I don't know how the procedure works but it would be helpful. REPLOGLE: Thank you. HALL: Yes, the record will be made available because it will be part of the Board packet and therefore, it will be posted wherever that gets posted Jeff or Maija. MATSUKAWA: The digital format, the one that went to the ICA would be great. JACKSON: Yes, we post that on our website under the Planning applications, and then we will send a drop box link to the parties as well as the Commissioners. REPLOGLE: Okay. Regarding Mr. Hong's suggestion that we maybe not take this up in September. Any, Mr. Au? AU: I understand all the Commissioners here are volunteering and I appreciate Mr. Hong's comments, but this is what we signed up for, so, I think we should plug through and do it in September that's my opinion. REPLOGLE: Yes, Mr. Clarkson. CLARKSON: How many pages of documents are in the record that we are talking about here? REPLOLGE: Mr. Hong, do you know how many pages roughly? HONG: Well, no, I won't say too many probably we killed a lot of trees, but it is quite extensive. I'd say there were probably, easily tens of thousands of pages of documents including transcripts. CLARKSON: Yes, I'd just like to respond to Commissioner Au's suggestion that I personally will go on the record now in saying that I will not be able to review tens of thousands of pages of 13 EXHIBIT B documents by September and that if asked to I'll have to recuse myself because my judgement will be ill advised. REPLOGLE: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have some thoughts on this? HALL: Or would someone like to make a motion to continue till a later date or the call of the Chair for October that way you can have a proper discussion. AU: Mr. Chair I'll make a motion. REPLOGLE: Mr. Au? AU: So, I move that we push it back till the October meeting, if Mr. Clarkson feels that's sufficient time to review the many pages, tens of thousands of pages of documents. REPLOGLE: Second? CLARKSON: I'll do my best. LIN: I second. REPLOGLE: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we move the next hearing on Connections to the October meeting which would be in the first week of October, Thursday. LIN: Staff, could you confirm that date for the record please. JACKSON: Yes, that would be October 7h. LIN: Thank you. REPLOGLE: And are the attorneys and other people able to do that? HONG: This is Ted Hong, I'll make myself available. REPLOGLE: Okay. SN: Hi, this is Carter Siu, I'm available. REPLOGLE: Okay, thank you. MATSUKAWA: On the seventh is fine with the Intervenor. REPLOGLE: Alright. All those in favor of, well the motion is moving our Connections hearing to the October 7h meeting instead of September 2nd, all those in favor, aye or raise your hand. COMMISSIONERS: Raised their hands. 14 EXHIBIT B REPLOGLE: Okay, opposed? Okay, so this topic will be taken up on October 7h in two months' time basically. Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: I just have one more question is to what format the documents will be in that we will review, and will they be in a format in which we can highlight and make notes, marginal notes without printing them out. REPLOGLE: I cannot answer that. JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson we usually send you a drop box link and that drop box link attaches to PDF format documents. So, if you have the ability to edit in Adobe and then you'll be able to make those margin notes. CLARKSON: I only have Acrobat Reader and can you clarify whether that's sufficient to make notes and to highlight items of text. JACKSON: I think Acrobat Reader does have that capability, but I will check on that and verify and then work with you to get the information to you in a format that you can make notes on. CLARKSON: Thank you so much. JACKSON: Yeah. REPLOGLE: Mr. Matsukawa, sorry. MATSUKAWA: I'd just wanted to ask a practical question. I understand that the Planning Department has the record on its site and will be made available to us. Is there someone going to check whether what went to the ICA is the same thing that's posted on the County website? HALL: Yes, we can verify that the Planning Department is the one that created the record to be sent to court in the beginning so, I'm trying to just think if it will have the ICA numbers or just the circuit court numbers but I can double check. It would be the same record but maybe different page numbers. MATSUKAWA: Right, that's what I was trying to, I remember there's some slight changes in the presentation but if the documents are the same then no problem. HALL: Yeah, they should be the exact same documents they just might be numbered differently but there will be an index. REPLOGLE: Okay, thank you, you'll be of our decision in writing. 15 EXHIBIT B The item ended at 10:26 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador Secretary Windward Planning Commission 16 EXHIBIT B