Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Right. Um, then I understood. The Catherine Passer is here. I believe you are representing the city. Is that right?

Yes. Um, I am Catherine Passer, the CET attorney at SALT. Um, I am Daniel Echaria, the zoning administrator. I'm sorry. I can never pronounce his name correctly. This is very rude. Um, we will make a staff report for the city, but I am here to answer specific legal questions. Okay.

Then I see a screen labeled Stephanie Barber. Um, is this Ms. Barbara Renderie and Mr. Renderie? Yes, he kicked us out and we're trying to get there quickly. So Barbara was busy typing in my area. Yes. Okay, great. Um, thanks for being here. Then I understood. Um, Ben Hamilton. Um. Are you representing Harvard Park H.O.? Yes, I am. Thanks. Perfect. The others in our admin team are saying thanks for being here. They're saying it clearly. I'm Erin McKnight. I am an Administrative Appeal Hearing Officer. I will be in charge of this hearing and run it here. Um, I believe this is a common practice. Have you started recording this? Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Um. As I wish to move forward with the hearing, I will take a short break to present your cases, and the next 30 minutes will be up to the H.O. And after that, this will be a public hearing where public opinion is accepted. I don't know if anyone from the public can see me, but that's not the case. That's not the case. Okay. And at that time, I will give the city a chance to see you. If you have the responsibility to be clear in this case, I will be there again. So, you will get the last word. Finally, I will give you some time to give any comment. But... I got all the briefs and presentations in the staff report in the city. And I examined everything. I examined all the briefs. I examined all the presentations. Um, I don't really understand it. So, if there is anything that you think is really important, please pay attention to why it is important. Um, um, but, um, if there are no objections, I will accept all those manifestations clearly here. Um. Um. Today's hearing is to discuss whether landlords are responsible for landscaping in their own park strip of 2100 acres. A major part of the argument is whether or not the development permit 31319B in 1986 created a significant obstacle in the area of Harvard Park, Hawaii. Anyway, there are arguments about the CCNR. Only to show my hand, those who enter again will be able to accept this. You agree that there is no secret about him, so CCNRs. I don't know if he's doing anything other than showing the intention of the development permit. If you think he's in some other way, please let me know. But I don't know if the problem of privacy is that you don't allow them to stay away from you. That's not it. Do you think it's a problem that people have in mind?

Therefore, when I speak, I think that the parties agree on this. I don't think there is any doubt. And if there is, please let us know. But this is about the terrible work of the parcels that are near the parking lot and the parking lot of the tenants. The tenants are responsible for the parcels at their parking lot and the next parking lot.

Umm Umm Ningal When you file a case, can you show me a small mark on your staff report? If you clearly know what the park strip is and what part of their property it is, that would be very good. Umm You understood. Then I think of one more thing. Have I ever mentioned everyone's name? Oh, if I miss any names, please let me know. I am happy. I am ready for the review. Then, um, I said, I will give you time for 30 minutes, um, please come back as an appealant. Oh, again, this is an appeal denovo of the decision about whether you are responsible for the landscaping in that park strip and the property in your property. Thank you very much. Good night everyone. My name is Stephanie Barbara Rangiaria. This is my husband, Tupac Rangiaria.

In the next 25 minutes, we are going to show you four things. First, in September 2025, the city will give you the correct answer to the question in front of you. Is it necessary for the Harvard Park Development Permit to manage this strip as part of the development permit issued in 1986? Second, a permanent water control system that has been in service for nearly 40 years since the establishment of the developers, shows that the scientific evidence on the earth is correct in September 2025. Third, it is not possible to prove that the true statement of the C.C.N.R. permits is based on Rega, and that such a written statement is not based on Rega. Fourthly, you do not have any real reason to deny the city's staff report or Hoya's response or the things that the city found within a year. Today, we need you to keep in mind a question in all the things we are saying. What changed particularly when you said to Hoya that you are responsible for the permanent permit arrangements and said that the city is ours today on September 25, 2020? You will not hear the answer to that question. There is no reason. In this case, we can start from the most important rule. The city's own planning director, Nick Norris, sent a letter to the whole on September 24, 2025. In this case, it was the presentation of our actual filing. In that letter, the planning director approved the actual development permit of 1986, the Board of Adjustment case 319B, and found that the permit was valid for six permanent facilities. At first, it was the approval of the committee of the last landscaping plan, and at the end, it was a substitution of the method approved as the last to be filed in the case. The planning director found that a landscaping plan, which was associated with the development of the Harward Park plan, was required. By submitting plans that comply with those approval systems and accepting developer approval systems, the Director of Planning presented that the plan is closely related to the plan development and that all aspects of the plan development are in line with it. It is not an explicit presentation. After the permit file was checked directly, it is said that the major environmental worker in the city is the one responsible for this, and that the development is going on permanently. The staff is now trying to explain this. It is said that it was written in writing before it was found in the archives of Purnarega, where the current subdivisions are located. In other words, the city needs you to believe that the planning director himself has not ensured that there is enough information in front of him when writing the proposal. Nevertheless, that proposal is against the own rules of the city. On September 5, 2025, 19 days before the hole was made, Mr. Norris sent us an e-mail. I am referring to it directly. We got the file from the archives last week. We are in the process of revealing your remains. We will talk to the CET attorney office on our behalf and will send you an email as soon as possible. This email is on our side and it will be sent to you and will be sent to you. Please note that it is one of the main reasons why we have announced that the hearing should be open to the public after this hearing. Therefore, he had an archive file in the words of the planning director himself. He revealed it. Today, according to the same code of the staff report sites, he revealed it. He discussed it with the attorney's office in the city. The board's committee continued to say that the landscaping and water management that was approved by the board was related to the development of the facility. This is not a letter written in the dark. This is the result of the failure of the staff report, which is now never authorized. It happened. This point is very important, because it is not a case that we need you to avoid reading the same lines of the city instead of reading the old lines. This is a case conducted by the local self-employed volunteer worker himself. In addition, he reached the conclusion that he was working closely with the development of the work-related system and that all the facilities in Bavi were accepting it. But the city, which has now turned into a new thing, has changed its mind in a capricious way. That's not the case. In September 2025, Mr. Norris' unrequited request was not presented in the staff report. He only said that he had seen more requests without telling you how he was affected by the pre-election of the city. We do not need you to accept our words about what the request shows. Within a year, we need you to clarify what the resident of the city himself said to us and to us through the request. The planning director's 2025 plan is not the only one to remind us of the requirements for the Harward Park permits. On October 20, 1986, the City of Eel County and the Board's 1986 Actual Permit Regulations were signed. Ten days later, on October 30, 1986, the current land of developer Udama was transferred to us by our predecessor, David Piasek. According to the Utah Recording Act, the process of events is very important. Permitting agencies have taken over the rest of the jobs as it is a matter of public interest. He was not in a position of responsibility that no one could know. Before he took over on his own, he was in a position of responsibility in the county offices. He accepted the position of responsibility as a matter of the interest of the permitting agencies that gave him the right to work for us. This is not a position that has been proven anywhere after decades. It was regular from the beginning. According to the Jalasejan constitution, which was in force for 40 years, according to the statement of the Jalasejan constitution, which was in force for 40 years, according to the statement of the Jalasejan constitution, according to the statement of the Jalasejan constitution, according to the statement of the Jalasejan constitution, according to the statement of the Jalasejan constitution, When landscaping is established, it is not a single installation, but a stable springing system to ensure adequate drainage, and a stable system with a special design to ensure adequate drainage, that statement was needed. Double Quota It feels like a permanent drainage system. At that time, the Harvard Park water management system that was submitted clearly shows it. In the land of David Pak, now in our land, there is a sprinkler system on the side of the trailer and the side of the parking strip. It is connected to the water supply system of Hawaii. When the system was established, our predecessor, David Pak, was the owner of that land. Therefore, we ask you the same question we asked the city. The city has never given an answer. If the system does not have the responsibility to take care of the grass and trees, after a few months of sale, why is the developer operating a co-operative sprinkler system on an uninhabited land? There is no distinction between the fact that it was a great responsibility and that it was done by Huawei. The first question asked about the installation of sprinklers is only the first, because the next step is to go to the actual use. How will the city and the Hoa respond to the use of water resources to water the grass and trees that are placed in our property? It has been almost 40 years. We admit that the change in 40 years is not visible. By ensuring that the land in the landscape plan is enough to cover the land, the permit is required to do the Hoa for exactly 40 years. There is a lot of time to explain here. In 1987, after carrying out a board process for more activities related to the Development Permit, about 10 months after the land was sold to the PACT, a landscape plan was submitted to the developer city. In that updated plan, our land sold to the PACT was included in the last year's plan in October. In the updated plan, the entire land and trees in the layer drive were specifically needed. There was no reason for the developer to continue implementing the plan, which was updated after about a year, in order to ensure that the market will be managed as per the code required for any growth related to this land. In addition, the new plan was accepted without any opposition from the city. It is accepted that the city will continue to design the Harvard Park in 1987. The land on the site is part of the development responsibilities. Now let's turn to CCNR. In the last landscaping plan approved by the board, as described in the CET Board of Adjustment Case 319B, CCNR states that the landscape within the Park Strip area between the property line 2 layer drive and the back of the curb will be managed by the Hoar. I will say it again. As described in the last landscaping plan, the whole landscaping area will be maintained as approved by the Board of 319B. Hoa wrote not only a general statement about their land management, but also a separate statement about their land management. This particular case was clearly and specifically linked to the 319B and the approved landscape plan. The permit provisions in this case are the same. According to the Utah law, a courtier, a hearing officer, or a judge should make sense of each sentence. From that sentence, you cannot read the reference to case 319B and pretend that it is not there. If the permit has nothing to do with Hoa's responsibility, why is Hoa's own land named after the permit? In particular, this is important, because it answers directly to the two central protests of Hoa. The first protest is that we are not comfortable, but the CCNR is not trying to make us walk on the grounds that we are Hoa. It is not the Hoa who is at fault for the landscape areas, but we are the responsible ones, and we are protesting in response to the city's demands. We are the descendants of the abusing property that was included in the landscape plan written to protect permitting facilities. In 1987, the first part of the Board of Adjustment Order clearly stated one thing. The developer is the abusing property of this land. Our predecessor, David Pack, has decided to sell it. The reason for that sale is the lack of responsibility. Pack, now we are not exposed to that situation. The reason for that is us. As stated in the Board's answer in 1987, there have been changes in the permit. For example, if this is a part of a sustainable development and if the land is not being sold, The second violation of the law is a law on vows. We have never signed anything, so a decree through a decree does not violate the law. But the law on vows does not require a person to sign a decree. It requires a person to sign a decree on a decree. The Harvard Park CCN has signed a decree on vows. It is written that the law on vows is required. The law says that there is no such decree in your hands. So far, we have shown you what the city itself has achieved, what the scientific evidence on the ground determines, and what is said in the black and white form according to Hoy's own statement. Now, we would like to carefully examine the five major objections made in the staff report and in Hoy's response. First, the plot. Since the subdivision plot recorded in the draft plot does not contain the legal details of our parcel, The city and the city hall are not in a state of emergency. But a sub-district, a plot, a permit system and a different purpose are different activities. The limits of a plot and the possibilities to submit are established. Permit systems established by the Procedure Board do not make this silent, nor can they make it silent. We have clearly given a truth in this regard. CET planning director David, sorry, in 1987, Alan Johnson, the director of planning, said in his professional experience, for example, the completion of the subdivision plan and the recording of any food permit system will not be impossible. Both need to be adjusted. The other cannot be replaced. That evidence is not enough. The record here is following him. The CCNRs, which are responsible for Permit Maintenance, have not used a county recorder like a normal self-referral. They used plots of more than one city council members to divert them. City residents agreed with them and accepted them as the official office of the Mayor's Office before they were referred. The city wants the CCNRs to be recognized as an unknown to them. The whole city wrote a self-referral without any participation. That's not what the city's rules show. The rules that the city government passes through and the mayor's own agreement is not a rule that the city can believe in today. The second is the case of Keith v. Mountain Resorts. According to the staff report, this case is being filed by the staff that when a group of people who are self-developing themselves is disbanded, the rights of development will be lost. But here it is different. Since this is a part of a collective development, the adjustment board's own answer is not to sell a part of the earth. This is a statement found by Keith as invisible. Moreover, Keith is not talking about cities in reality, but our situation. The third is due process. In 1987, our predecessor David P.A.C. stated in a staff report that it would be necessary for him to provide facilities in a non-partisan program. But the view process does not protect people from being exposed to their burdens. This does not prevent us from believing in an opportunity created for them. We do not object to the fact that we have been exposed to a burden that has not been exposed to us. We say that we have the right to believe in an opportunity that is responsible for someone else's misdeeds. The city of Hoi is accepting for 40 years. Fourth is the FUJA vs Woodland Hills case. The city is saying that the decision to not implement the permit system cannot be appealed. But this case is direct. The city directly issued answers to this. It is definitely a reasonable decision that can be appealed. When the city said that you have the right to hear this appeal for the first time, it will not be obtained through both ways, the city said so. Fifth, the city's environmental concerns. The staff report raises various environmental questions. What will happen if the hall is torn down? What will happen after ten years? Is it a matter of other assets? A constant lack of responsibility suggests that the situation is not favorable. But please note that the city should never interfere. These environmental issues have not happened in reality for 40 years. These three projects have been in place for almost 40 years and have been in progress. The whole of this land was managed using the Springler system built by Mungami. In addition, they have complete control over the purpose without any incidents of almost four decades. The city needs you to make the successful operation of the four decades successful because of the problems that exist only in the structure of the city. Not in this region. The last thing to consider in this case is that a decision like this should not be decided at one time by a court and not by a court-martial, but by the court-martial and the court-martial. The Utah courts have said that if a decision is taken, all evidence should be approved and approved by the regia. The staff report is carried out directly. It is asked whether our parcel is only shown in the plot or whether there is a legal explanation for our parcel only for the CCNR, and each of them finds a widow and moves forward. But when we take into account the actual permitting systems, the board's 1987 response, the approved landscape, water management methods, the actual water management system established by the developers, the Hohen systems, and the actual annual CCNRs, and when we take into account the full range of changes that have been made in the last 40 years, This region is very concerned about our situation. This hearing has not found anything new about our situation. Within a year, the city's own archives were used and the city's own planning director arrived and our situation was confirmed as a reality. The identity of the person in the decision-making city has never been disclosed in a region. We would like to say very clearly that we are in trouble. When this land is returned to you, this land will not be of any use to us. This is taking place outside our freeway. The public who are waiting in the bus or the people who are walking their dogs on the right side of the city's right-way due to the situation, cannot use it properly. We have come here not because we want something that we don't have the right to. We are here because the city now needs to accept a constant violation of the constitution. In other words, the new sprinkler lines under our sidewalks are made to match the old sprinkler lines against what Hoa and the city have said. In addition to the money spent on the construction of trees on the ground, which has been counted as the responsibility of another person for the next 40 years, 13,000 to 17,000 will be the actual cost. This is not a small question. Do not sit on a record so early. It is against the own pre-discovered facts of the city that were published a year ago. Therefore, we need you to do three things. 1. Find out that the answers given against us are not consistent with the actual evidence. 2. Find out that case 319B, the approval plans, its CCNRs, and the actual CCNRs are responsible for this area by the Harvard Park Homeowners Association. 3. Not only do we have to do all the work, but also the whole city should look into it. As the city agreed, we will not be affected by the possibility of implementing the code in accordance with the law here, because it will be approved by the responsibility of Landscape Attakuttapani. At the end, I would like to make an announcement that we have made through REGA. We request the staff report to file a report through REGA, and we request the hearing officer to file a report through REGA. There are two reasons why this is necessary. First, without knowing anything about the state of the city, within a week, we received staff reports of 19 pages of new arguments and evidences. When we asked the city for new information on the new statement that the city is responsible for violating the Hoya Act and that it is due to us, we asked the city for new information. The city returned to us with a completely revised email without giving any details of whether we are responsible for the park strip and the valley strip. Secondly, as mentioned earlier in this action plan, we have more evidence to support the opposition in the city staff report. In particular, a director has sent us an email planning on September 5, which describes the situation of Avalokanam, which he had planned to conduct before he took back the records of case 319B from the city archives, on September 24, 2025. Since it was the first presentation of the letter sent to us on September 25, we should make an appointment to return the staff report through Rega. Our ability to respond is the nature of the process. This is confirmed by the actions taken during this hearing. Section 1C of the Actions and Actions of the Directors says that we have the right to listen in a meaningful way and to make any decision based on the decision made. If there is only one chance to return to a 19-page logbook, those rights cannot be protected. The rules and procedures allow you to properly open the door to this need. Moreover, Nagaram and Hoya have not opposed our proposal. Not only that, there is no fault in doing so. Thank you. Thank you. I think I have a question for you as I thought about this. Is it clear that there is a crime going on somewhere in Reg. 319 of the U.S. Permit? If you re-investigate the code that has been issued to the city, it is a stable system that ensures sufficient construction work. Then, if the system of water management is linked to their system in your water management method, I think it is the proof of the continued responsibility. That is, after the pack made it its own, they implemented that system. So I think that's the proof. There is a strong evidence there. I think this is a continuous act of crime. But what I am asking is, is there anything that clearly states that this is a continuous act of crime? In other words, if you have activities in August 1987, the board agreed to sell again, but said that nothing can be sold on this earth, it should continue as an independent development and its answers should be compared with their own investments, and if not done, I feel that that relationship is taking you back to your investments again. It takes you back to the case where you talk about the consequences of the crimes committed against you.

Um, in the case of Udumbadis, they haven't interfered with your property like the CCNRs, right?

No, but there is a description that shows landscape plans that you can see on your own. Yes, right. Um, good. Thank you. I appreciate your attention.

Um, I'll be back in a little while. Um, let's look at Mr. Hamilton in the name of Hawaii. Thank you. I will be much smaller than that. I am going to share a screen so that we can follow each other. Can you see it? Yes. Okay.

So, what I'm about to show you is not true, and it's time for the appealants to talk about something that isn't true. In the context of the language of this region, they claim that it was introduced in August 31, 1987. They have taken the language of the city that Mr. Hai, Mr. Hai, worked for that day from this region. In addition, Mr. Hai said that he wanted to sell his property to his daughter, who was a self-employed person in the north of Abekshagan. The developer wants to sell Mr. Park, their predecessor, so they translate that language. But if you look at this line, this is on page 21 of the professional memo of the city they submitted.

And this is the area. This area is covered in yellow and red. The right side of the screen is the north and the left side is the left side of the screen. You know where the earth-like things are. Therefore, when we discussed that the northern part of the developer property in Trigonagrithi wanted to sell this property to Udami, it had already done so. If it had not been done, we would have known the timeline of when the city was sold to the people, and it would have happened this way. Therefore, what was discussed is in the exhibit seal of the Appealance Memoir. It is on the 13th page of all their exhibits. Since it is not easy to find it, you need to find an easy way to find it.

The developer's intention was to sell the part in Trigonography to the self-employed and not to the Layrard. Then the appealants claimed that what they were saying was true. But it was not the decision of the Lair. It was their own decision. It was the decision of the PS who were their predecessors. Therefore, the whole of their speech and town who voted for this region found that this was wrong. The city's memorandum was very clear and clear, and even though it created a lot of good legal arguments, this is all we have to complain about. But this is a material problem. We believe that the city is a little wrong in that. They said, we will use it. Or, they agree that the developer, PS, wanted to sell this language on their own. First, it happened like this. Second, if that's the case, this language does not make sense to criminals. Moreover, this is not a triangle area. This area is now in the hands of the appealants. This area is a triangle area. The only way I can show you in my demonstrations is that they want to sell this area. Okay, you will take it to the appropriate court. If this is sold, what will happen? If we had left it, or if our ancestors had left it, it would not change our responsibility as well as the responsibility of the renters or the appealants. Moreover, we will be free from the responsibility of this property and the parking strip next to it. Therefore, that argument is not a beginning. There is another problem that is a legal problem, and that is that you have an authority as a hearing officer. That's why I'm going to take Hoya's response. I've taken it and shown it. This is on page 8 of our response. Um, the problems of Estoppel are similar to those of Render. Okay, the problem of Estoppel is similar to that of Render. This is a violation of the law. It is not a violation of the law. It is not a violation of the law. It is not a violation of the law. It is not a violation of the law. It is not a violation of the law. It is not a violation of the law. It is not a violation of the law. It is not a violation of the law. It is not a violation of the law. It is not a violation of the law. and they do not have a proper right to act against us. This is not something that works on the earth. What I mean is, this is operating on our land. But this is a city, a city, a city, a city, a city, a city, a city, a city, a city, a city, a city. If we have a city permit, if we have a permit that can be extended to the permit extender, if it has been extended, if it has been extended, the owner of the park strip of the person who enters us again in the state of Harvard Park Hoi has no responsibility to take care of it. Therefore, there is no easy way to apply for rent-area property. There is no such thing as a perfect work in Harvard Park. There is no such thing as a perfect work in Harvard Park. There is no such thing as a perfect work in Harvard Park. There is no such thing as a perfect work in Harvard Park. There is no such thing as a perfect work in Harvard Park. On the other hand, I will keep aside the city's memorandum and their arguments. I think that they only did a dangerous job by exposing it in front of you. So, when I go back to that, I will tell you that there are no complaints or exemptions or anything like that. Isn't that right? In the case where the city intended to impose a permanent curfew on the permit, it was illegal, wasn't it? That said, the permit is still a law that violates the law. And if the permit is considered to be a serious violation of the law, then yes. What I mean is, I think it is possible to make the city independent. But if that responsibility is on you, if that responsibility is on you, it is my job to decide whether to do it or not. Is the decision of the city about that responsibility correct? Yes, this is a denouement of the argument. So, do you have the ability and authority to examine all the things and decide whether the construction of the city or how they are going to interpret the permit at this time? You see the responsibility of the owners and the park strip that belongs to them for the rest of their lives. But when you deal with the problems of such real property, it should be taken seriously, so that we don't have problems like this. That's not how it was. That is, as the city has indicated, the property of the rent area, its adjacent park strip, and the permanent protection of Harvard Park H.O.A. have nothing to do with the permanent protection of the H.O.A. That is not in the plan. Therefore, I do not see anything that says so clearly.

I am aware of your opinions on the water season, right? Jalasejanam needs a Jalasejanam method. The Jalasejanam method of HOA shows that Jalasejanam is done. Then, what do I think? Even if Jalasejanam is carried out, I would like to hear your argument as to why there is no fixed responsibility. In that regard, our position was to create a system, responsibility. Instead of continuing to use that system, it was to create a new system. The existing systems and the systems that will benefit from them. How much will it cost to tap the existing sprinkler wells and sprinkler lines into the anyway and water it? If things are not managed properly, I will leave the business. It is not a very complex process to draw a line from a regular sprinkler system to a regular line. I have not seen their system. They have not demonstrated it. They have presented an opportunity without questioning what it would be. But again, why is the method that was implemented to answer your question? Are you creating an eternal responsibility to continue watering the land and its park strip in Harvard Park, Hawaii? Or are you creating that method? Okay, I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think the reason was that I was responsible for getting the permit. Even when that happened, the developer did this through a developer, through a house or through an opportunity from the land. Low-Ets was the land of the land, and Proud was the developer. On September 15, when he was allowed to go ahead of Lloyd and grow, he agreed to a release with Harvard Park Corporation, so I am a little curious about the hope that this will continue. We are Harvard Park H.O.I. but with Harvard Park Corporation. It was now necessary to remove the rent area property in the next park strip in order to ensure the ownership of the property in our property in the future. Therefore, the Harvard Park in the property in the rent area or the property in the park strip in the future was never in the property or there was no interest. Thus, I am not sure what happened to any of the planning or adjustment boards at that time. It will now be the Planning Commission for the development of SWATH. For both parties, this happened almost a month after SWATH was approved. I don't know what was done to avoid the earthquake in Hawaii. We know that it didn't happen on August 31, 1987. This is what you see. This is Harvard Park. Let me allow myself to do this from the professional memo. So when you look at it, it will be on your side. I will refer you to the 74th page of the city's memo. This is the description of Deedum or Talaket. Let me see if I can do this better. So you can see that it can be seen as poles here. Mum, this is the triangle part. On September 2nd, this was submitted, that is, on August 31, 1987, after two days of talking about the desire to sell the Trigona part. Okay, this is what we are talking about. Trigona part. Looking at the details of the item here, I am going to build it in a way that you can see it. Um. On the other hand, I became very tall. This is the description of the object. Then, it is on the right side of Regia. You will notice that there is a description of 1.181 acres inside. When you look at the details of ASWA at the beginning of September 2nd, that is, two days after the meeting with the municipality, and when you translate it as a description of the land of CCNR, it will be on page 108 of the city's memorandum. I am sorry for the delay in my computer. That is a precise description.

All of this was part of the plan to make sure that all the packs on the day of the war were on the ground, wet, and required to do so in Harvard Park. When we never made it our own, none of the things that were required against us or against their own did not affect us. There is no limit to what we can do. There is no maintenance agreement. We can go to their property and take care of it. If we try to do that, it is possible for us to be overpowered. If they decide to be dissatisfied with us. There are insurance problems. When we take care of it, should we insure a policy in Hawaii from the responsibility for what happens on their land? When you start getting down to it, without clearly explaining what our responsibility is, it becomes a ridiculous suggestion that we don't have a responsibility and that we never have a responsibility. It doesn't mean that we have to do it legally because we did it. If you don't have any other questions, I'll leave it there. Oh, I don't have any other questions. I'm grateful for that input. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Um. Now I will move the time to the city. Oh, Ms. Passer and Mr. Achavari. Am I saying it right? Yes, it's very close. I can't say it myself. Don't worry about it. Um. If you want, I can fix it. But to start the announcement of yes, can you take that map out for me? Yes, then we can talk about it. I want to make sure that I understand. Do you know? In the briefs, the things that are specifically mentioned such as the park strip etc. Do I have to take it out? Those are properties. Yes, yes, if you can do that. Take a minute. Forgive me. Anyway, you can see it. Can you see that screen? Okay, okay. Perfect. So, let me ask. That part is in the yellow color. That's the right thing in the landlord's workshop. That's right. According to my guess, those things are behind their fence. That's not clear. Without a survey, we don't know exactly where the fence is in terms of property. We may not have enough information to say that. Okay, but what about the location of the city? It will be that. They are responsible for everything in that part and that red part. Is that right? That is the assumption. Okay, I think W can do property lines with or without pins. Okay, okay, yes, okay.

However, a very small amount of money was spent on property lines. So, according to the County Assessor, the Veli lines in the state are non-spent parcels. Okay. Justice.

The city declares that they want the landscaping in the lower part of Veli to be maintained.

No, we are not making a statement regarding the rent. Because we don't know where the rent is due to property violations. We are telling you to take care of everything. We are telling you that the residents are responsible for taking care of everything according to the local code. If you don't know, you know without a survey. Very ordinary people's interpretation is all. Daniel, if I have the wrong orientation to the north, it is until I reach the 21st floor.

Right, any of the Abing Park strip in the same place is right. But you don't pay attention to what I mean, we don't care. It's not about what's behind the veil, is it?

Again, we don't know where the veil is. I don't think the workers have done anything wrong. They think what will happen to their wages. But they don't want to do anything wrong. They haven't done anything wrong before their wages. But again, because we don't know where their salary is falling due to these property lines, we are not making any statement about the things after the salary and before the salary. We agreed that you know the reason. We can't sell them because we can't keep their salary for their own interests wherever they are. Okay. Yes. I expect that your question will be answered. Okay, then. I can give you some information about the place where the object is placed, and if you want to give me an explanation about it. Okay, I'm trying to understand.

That's why they were given an answer, or whatever they say, to pay attention to the landscape. That's it. It's part of their self that's close to their self. I understood that they were given two notices. One was that their self used to study here without walking. You can see that place without walking until the sun sets. Then there is another notice on the park strip that connects to the ground floor of the sidewalk. Therefore, the ground floor of the sidewalk is also studied.

It is their property. The ground floor of the sidewalk is a park strip park. And there is a pin about 18 inches away from their property. It shows the property line. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Um, right. Um, city, what do I need from you? Right. Um, wow. At that time, I think that the politicians have discussed these things in detail. Therefore, I will try to show the main points of the city in a short period of time, and will discuss some other things that have been continuously appealed. Therefore, in the main view of the city, there is nothing in the world that shows that the thing has created an extraordinary system. We have reviewed all the board and commission meetings, but have not been able to establish any agreement on those agreements. When reviewing the 86 plans, we also reviewed the review opinions given by the city. Again, we do not see a good arrangement in those opinions. Again, this is the map that leads to that site. I think we are forgetting that. Again, the Hoa property is blue and the interior property is yellow, and the park strip associated with abusing this can be seen in red. Then for the occasion, this is the landscape plan with the same property limits that has shown to help you move to the accepted landscape plan. The city's plan development director gave an appeal to the appellants. It required landscaping and water management in their property. They also pointed out to the landscape plan that shows the match-ups. Water management for the landscape, landscaping and layer drive here is shown. There is a special feature that is shown in the plan. But the main thing here is that the property and the whole property were part of the entire development site, and in reality, both the properties are described as a complete property legally. Also, when you say both the properties in the CET code of the time, a legal description that describes the entire property of Neela and Manja is included. Right? Yes. The application has included a legal description of the actual legal description, the findings included, the process, the blue and yellow, and the entire application as a property. C Can I oppose this declaration? The yellow color is our own, isn't it?

You can see that there is a limit to the layer drive. How do we distribute the layer dry-h to our parcel in the yellow color?

Three. I think this is important and necessary. I think what you three are showing is not this. Mr. Edovoria is like a legal record. What I meant was right. This is what I'm showing. These are the exact measurements of what is happening here. But you are revealing your argument. Is that right? That is right. Right. Then I will accept it.

However, the director or staff were not aware of any of the responsibilities related to the construction of the atta kuttapani. The local government's expectation was that a property owner would take care of their own Abing Park Strip. Again, even though park property, park strip and landscaping were required, there was no system that required the whole thing to be taken care of. The local government's ordinary atta kuttapani was not aware of the expectations. In 1987, the Board of Directors of the Trigonography, which was ordered to remove from the development of the 87th district, was introduced to the 87th district by the appealers. This generally represents what will be the part in the Trigonography. As Ben Hamilton discussed, this is a draft of a major plot from the city administration file that shows what will be the part in a Trigonography. At that time, we don't know what the board saw, or what Mr. Hey meant, but there is a part of the triangle that is shown to have been removed from it. So this can be this. This is just an example of helping you to do what the board is talking about. If that property is still a part of an independent development, we can see again that a special system that prohibits the self-management of the development has been added to the 87th board. This is what the appealants indicated that it was intended to stop. Self-development This makes it clear that the item was in a state of emergency or intended to be used. But again, no emergency system has been introduced in the state of the board, or the board has not even presented it. Some languages were presented in the appealants' findings, saying that it should not be used in private facilities. But that language was the only answer to all the questions that were asked at that time. And again, if the board was going to need any kind of special property, it had to include a special system. Another thing to note here is that it is unlikely that the change in the ownership of the property we discussed will create a possibility of misuse in 86-87 meetings. Therefore, when the actual board was decided, the property and OHS property were in the ownership of the actual development property owner. The whole application clearly describes the site. But all the subsequent meetings and events were after the question was asked by the owner. Therefore, it was not possible to establish a system that would prohibit the use of private property without the consent of the board. Therefore, we see two possibilities here that do not include legitimate property rights. One, when the property was sold, it was not part of the profit, and it was not subject to the approval or action of the board or the commission. Or if we allow that both the board and the property must be treated as landscaping, and the PUD should be treated as land, then the property owners will be responsible for the treatment of the PUD's own part. The owners of individual lots in the PUD community will be responsible for the treatment of the PUD's part, just like the landscaping in front of their house will be responsible for the treatment of the PUD's part. This is like a modern PUD operation. If there was any kind of permit for the land to be maintained, they could accept it. But if it is not in the jurisdiction of the government, the city itself will not go to Hawaii to ensure that. But let me make it clear again, in this situation, the Board, Commission or Director has not seen a real crime. It is important that the enforcement authorities who have the right to access the property are also taken into account here. When a possible crime needs to be committed, we will require that a property owner is allowed to take advantage of the fact that they do not have the right to access their property and that they do not have the right to access it. To be clear, there is no limit to the right to use the property of an appealant. Appealants may wish to maintain the property of an appealant, but a property owner in Bavi does not wish to have a home in their property. Even if it is for the purpose of that property owner, no one can force the city to allow access to the property. The next thing I would like to talk about is the CCNR art. It is about the CCNR. It is a reiki art that shows the state of the object in the reiki. However, we cannot find any evidence to prove that the CCNR art, which is related to the state of the object in the reiki, is really relevant to the city. The approval of the CCNRS CET Recorder has reached the approval stage of the appeal. Here you can see that stamp on the slide. In addition, they indicated that the approval was intended to submit some approvals to the CCNRS for the approval of the application. But in this case, the CCNR's Mayor's one block is special and is submitted in the heading of approval. This clearly indicates that the approval of the city was in its form and not in its specific application. On the other hand, the appeal has also said that it has already called for a similar stop in the city of Stopil from the need for an appeal to take care of itself. In this regard, we cannot find a system or priority or city in the city where we are mainly used because of the need for a system or priority or city where we are mainly used because of the need for a system or priority or city where we are mainly used because of the need for a system or priority or city where we are mainly used And as we talked about the fence line, we don't know if a survey can change the value or how much it can be reduced. In addition, if the expenses for the most important works are possible, the whole area of the city should not be full. There is a small need to put in more new things. Therefore, we cannot see the importance in the city. We do not see a clear injustice in requiring the property to be self-managed and requiring the property to be self-managed that cannot be used by them. Therefore, I think it will include our important things. Oh, to connect everything together, we cannot find a system that is acceptable to us. Oh, the only place where a crime is necessary is in that CCNR. Avail is not a part of the CCNR, Telugu is not a part of the CCNR. Oh, therefore, there is no real system for initially requiring a crime. Moreover, it should be responsible for its implementation through property. In 2025, I would like to say one more thing about the cut. But we agreed that the cut is not clear in some things in the staff report and is very large. But as the Reindermars pointed out, the cut pointed out that there is a lot of work going on with the plan development. Since rainforests are a property of the PUD, if a landscape is the only thing that is responsible for maintaining it, if such a system is in place, all the properties of the PUD will be covered. There will be rental areas. But we don't think there is a maintenance system. In addition, in order to make it clear, the actual material was lost in the actual file within the actual minutes that were not seen in the actual files found in the city archives, which were related to subdivision and CCNR. Therefore, it was clear that there was no proper installation system in those plans, which made the entire situation of the file difficult. There were many opportunities to make it clear that he had made a mistake again, but we didn't see it. Therefore, some of the things that Daniel wanted to say and some of the things that he wanted to hide from the opinions of Daniel. It is said that the tenants cannot use this place or that more people are waiting at the bus stop. I will say that most property owners think so about park strips. That's right. That's the benefit of a guilty property owner. We can't say what the reason for that situation is. This is a place that everyone can enjoy. In addition, the abusing property owners are particularly interested in making sure that the abusing park strip is functioning. Also, there is no reason for the tenants not to be able to use this place, and it is within their own personal parcel. They can build it. They can, as you know, use their forefathers and design ideas to build their landscaping. They, you know, you know, can build outdoor furniture. And they can, you know, you know, they can own that place as much as they can own any other property in the city. And when we take the whole record, we don't see a system that can make the city walk. CCNR's presentation As you know, it seems like a waste of time to stop that area. But we can't really see it as a city. We are not surprised that a developer who thinks he is not going to become a part of it has taken advantage of a hoax. The necessary facilities to build a development were quickly fulfilled. Passing through various cities, he can sell that development and move on to another development. There is one element that cannot be considered as outside the scope of possibility, but certainly it is only the imaginations from our part. We believe that it is not fair to say that their foresight, the developer, the city, Hoi and Tamil are not in a position to commit a serious crime. Because it is beneficial to them, people can afford it independently. You know, you know, there is no need to agree to those restrictions or there should not be any permission to agree, and it should be changed to any express maintenance system that is restricted to them. And we think that it is very disappointing. As we described in the staff report, the board thought that it would be part of their own development because it was part of the actual investment, but things changed. There is no direct information about what the board knew when they made their own changes. According to the staff report, we are not sure what the board talked about when discussing the three-dimensional part. In particular, we do not know what the board is discussing. As indicated by the HOA, the two parcels may be part of the HOA in the TEC section. If you look at it on a map, Daniel, if you try to show those edges again, it will happen. Okay, to the yellow part, but do you know? To the north of the most north of a triangle, is that the part of the triangle she is talking about? Just as Hoa suggests, that part too. Do you know that the rental area is a complete parcel? One thing we may not know. Double Quote. Um, do you know that the board can no longer sell any more items? I think Hoa is acting in a way that makes it obvious. Um, they allowed the sale of the item to the rental. They said they could not sell more of it. Do you know that this is what we want? Do not sell anymore. However, we cannot deny the possibility that the developer or the developer may not have come forward in terms of property due to the fact that the sale of the item given to the tenant has actually taken place. We do not know. Therefore, we have to clarify that in the record. We believe that the record is an important part of the credible discussion. Do you know what is required for any type of CET code, just like we can't explain maintenance because the board has to install it? They specifically talked about that situation and said how it would be. And then... The city council, which is obliged to take care of any property in Bavi, as is very common in the city laws, is aware of the things that the city is trying to do. Last year, the back of the sword in the city has been demonstrated many times. We believe that it is important to point out that that decision is not final. And like this process, we asked them to participate in an administrative discussion process that allows them to submit all the evidence that they want to submit without any bias. It was possible to submit those evidences. And the tenants decided not to do it. Because it was not the last time. Because there was more evidence to reveal. We revealed that they had actually lived in 2025 in the city. They have not shown any evidence. All the evidence of their residence is at the beginning of the 90s. At that time, we believe that if defeat is not supported, not only the support, but also their guilt in the city's sword, the swords written in 2025 will defeat all the similar Estopian arguments such as zoning. I think it is important to pay attention to the actual change in the development of the environment between the development of Harvard Park and the development of the Harvard Park in a year after the start of the BOLD project. We think that agriculture is not part of that development. We think that the context is very clear. Therefore, any facilities cannot be exported outside of the scope of that development. It would be very interesting to know how the regulatory landscape of Utah is operating. They may not have made a developer or a property owner their own, and they may not be able to benefit from it, but they may have the necessary facilities to take care of others or to do anything. Or when you got approval from the government, it was not even within the scope of development. And, as some of you may know, you know that development opportunities are beneficial for the next generation. You know that you have to build a bridge here to reduce noise. You have to move the bridge back because you have to give more light and space to your relatives. Because you are building a very close bridge. Or, We do not want to prevent you from making a lot of noise by installing more insulation on your ceiling. All those development systems will tell you what happened to the plant in the same way. I have never seen it. Moreover, I don't think it is necessary to need a plant that is not within the scope of development, not only according to the nature of the plant, but also as a physical asset to the property of another person. We don't know what they will know when board decisions are made or when regulations are issued, but we believe that this was done in 1986 and 1987. As you can see on the website of the County Assessor for SALT, you could not easily select your own disposition regs. I don't think there was a website available at that time, and I'm not sure, but it was a different time. Also, instead of showing the responsibility of a product that is not part of the development, it reflects the time between the time of initial approval and the final approval of Plaid and CCNRs. We are going to make Hoi our own, to take care of it, to make it our own landscape, to take care of it, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take care of it, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take care of it. We are going to make Hoi our own landscape, to take I had already told you what the planning director did in 2025. And, as I discussed this, there is no evidence that Vadakai acted as a criminal. And, I posted the staff report in a timely manner according to the own actions and actions of the city. And, the arguments have been elaborated in detail. In my experience, I have only seen post-hearing briefings when the appeal hearing officer has questions about specific issues. Certainly, we do not expect you to brief us on any of the issues you have, Mr. McKnight. Yes, but we expect the record to be re-opened for general rebates. Okay. Another thing is the city.

Thank you. No. Okay. And, as I said, you have the responsibility to be clear. Even then, the last thing I say to you is, whether you have said it or not, I allow you to find out about anything else. At this time, I appeal to you. I will try to extend your opinions from 15 to 20 minutes. I hope you can complete it within that time. Then we can go from there. Then you can bring me here. What do you want? Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Oh, no. Am I silent? Oh, not me.

I can hear you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And I don't know if there is a picture of a property without a proper legal description in the city. Mr. McKnight, I request you to look for new landscaping plans or landscaping plans that do not have parcel numbers. I think again about where the valley was. I describe the parcels as a valley. I understood what the city is saying. You know, we don't have accurate legal explanations. In the past, we talked about a triangle property. If you look at those plans and see where those valley lines are, you can see that it is like a triangle property. That's why I strongly require you to look at the angle of the valley line that goes to the layer drive. It is actually a triangle property. I would like to give you some more details about what happened to the developer, Udame and Tamil at that time. You can read more about this in my exhibit. At that time, the planning director, Wern Jorgensen, was right opposite our street. So unfortunately, he died. We have a lot of details and details. There is no way to find out the truth about this, but what happened in this property and why it was important to take care of it, is the vast information that Vern Jorgensen gave us. So I think the city is understanding what happened in this case. Again, when I was 16 years old, my parents moved into this house. When we first moved in all the apartments in my life, I tried to clean up the top part of our property. Because when the city was built on the 21st floor, we had a lot of asphalt to clean up and to clean up. Also, the nature of that parcel and the reason why it has to be maintained permanently in Harward Park has received a lot of feedback from the people. David Park was a foreigner. This land was a duplex. There was a great interest in this area and this area. It will be permanently restored. I again feel that the city is looking at this case through the eyes of 1986 and not through the eyes of 2026. Things have not been remembered naturally as they were in the past. Mr. Norris said that you need a landscape plan by 2025. I think there are permitting facilities. You need to include a landscape plan in it. If you include landscaping, you have to do it. Each landscape plan submitted here shows that the landscape plan was part of the landscape plan of Hawaii. That's what they did. That's what's been happening for the last 40 years. When we first wrote in this, we thought, okay, we have to give this land to the city as soon as possible. We have to go back to Hawaii. That is, this is beyond what the city can say. Okay, we can set up greenhouses and do something useful. If you can put this in any kind of system, you can see how big the bus stop is. That's the right path of the city. That is, if you look at the record completely, there was a reason why the city wanted to restore this whole. There is a reason for the regular springing system to restore this land. Therefore, the three Devas are encouraging you to look at this case as a whole. Again, I can understand what you are saying about the CCNR game. But when they did the permit inspection and inspection in that case, that's what the judges meant at that time. Therefore, I am curious to know why there is opposition to a constitutional clause. There is no rule in this. We don't see any rules or laws in this. It's been 40 years, and now the stones have been cut off. So, if there is a time limit or a minimum time limit, I still want it, and we will definitely keep it. However, in this situation, it seems to be an opposition. If we have the permission to give it, there is no problem. However, if we want to appeal, and if this is to be stopped, we do not have the permission to give you more evidence at this time. That is, this happened in the middle of the city's regular marches. Again, if anything is posted a week ago. We don't understand why the city became old in September 2025. We don't have any information about it. We were told to submit urgent statements. We didn't get anything. We didn't get any of the more ruins found in the city. They don't have to be destroyed by ruins. We are more grateful to you tonight than our 30-minute speech. But we didn't get a chance to look at it. We got it for the first time on August 14th. So, if you don't allow us to complete this record as an appeal, we will be affected here. Okay. Um, even though you want to introduce me, Um, In a fair estoppel, we understand that it is a problem of the district council. Do you know that? So, we are announcing this as a reminder of Mr. Hamilton that there is no argument here. But we have to bring it to the appeal to protect it. Good.

And two things I would like to announce to end this. One, I believe in your briefs. You are announcing a field trip to see the site. I don't think it's necessary in the photos and presentations I've given today. So I'm going to finish that speech. And I think I have some further questions about the speech. I would like to give you a chance to give a speech. I don't want to accept any evidence. And this is the clear speech. Oh! I understood your argument that you have seen what the city has declared. It's been seven days. It's been six days. Pay attention to that. And what kind of evidence do you think you want to declare? Okay, can I stop here?

But they did not take it seriously. If they had taken it seriously, they could have done anything they wanted. But they did not take it seriously. But they did not take it seriously. But they did not take it seriously. But they did not take it seriously. But they did not take it seriously. But they did not take it seriously. But they did not take it seriously. But they did not take it seriously.

It's my habit. But, Mr. McKnight... Um, Mr. McKen... I'm praising that input.

That's not the right thing to do. As far as the administrative appeal is concerned, let me make a record. On June 18, we sent an email to Mr. Chavedi. Because the letter from the planning director related to the park strip was never made public on September 25, 2020. So we sent him an email asking what the cost of seeking this administrative appeal was. But we never got back what was in it. I think it was hidden in the mail. It was the same day that we got the answer. So we got an opportunity. We did not accept it when it was not fulfilled. We want to continue. It was a decision. So I don't want to say that we lost that opportunity. We had asked questions about that process. We have given you the presentation of our questions there.

One letter from the renders is a complete failure for me, because they have sent letters saying that the city has asked us to file an appeal to everyone in the community on the basis of language. Since we are not interested in spending money, we decided not to do it. If you want, I can show you that letter. So, I don't know much about the process of an original translation. Maybe Mr. Chavarri or Ms. Pesaran can help me with this. But my opinion is that it is an original, initial decision. They can appeal. Is that right? That is right. All parties will have the opportunity to submit any evidence. The city will continue to make an independent decision and will continue to appeal. In any case, this is an appeal that we will reach here. I also believe that this is a denouement. If everything is going well, that is my opinion. This is a denouement appeal. Therefore, it is an opportunity to not be a problem to anyone who has a direct decision. This is de novo. Therefore, it is an opportunity for the parties to present their evidence. I want everyone to get the opportunity to present the evidence they feel is necessary. Today was the day to do so. But... What evidence do you think is necessary to prove that the 14th city was recognized by both of our appealants? I think the email from planning director Nick Norris on the most important issue of the archive record is the email.

We have an email from one of the people who reported it. That is why we will protest that it is not possible. Even if the planning director has done anything or not done any investigation, there is no evidence of any harm to the welfare of the residents of Kath who are in the city in 2025. There is no evidence of any harm to the welfare of the residents of Kath. So do you know any help? What is the truth about Kath? That right is not a victory. But I am not using that evidence for that purpose. In one of Nick Norris's letters, he says that this is his truth. Now the city says that it is related to the earth. Okay, you don't have to trust that letter. Don't take a stroke in the letters that come to that letter. Because we didn't have a full regime before us. But he said, I got your regal from the archives. So again, it's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of your planning director arriving at a conclusion after examining the archives. You are now saying, okay, there were a lot of things, but he felt that there was enough information in front of him at that time to give that letter. So,

I don't know if he made the right decision and then changed his mind or not. Because this is a denovo hearing. When I see my job here, I have to stand on the basis of the evidence that has been presented today and the decision of the city to make you responsible for landscaping was right, wasn't it? If they do a flip-flop like that, then I think this is either a pre-recorded decision or a pre-decision of them. Right. This is a re-decision of what the right decision is starting from here. Is she right or not? Does that make sense? That's why I don't get emails like that. Right. On that note, Mr. Magne, can you record an objection for us? The reason is that when we decided to go to the district council, we recorded it as an objection, and it was fulfilled. Pardon me.

Do you have a reason to say that you don't know what is clear? But do we have a reason to admit it? Are you saying that there is no need to submit an opinion or that there is no need at all? Yes, that's it. So, I would like to accept an opinion from you. Okay, if you want to agree to that.

Yes, I'm saying that I don't want to accept my arguments. I understand. Okay, thank you.

So, do you think that I and I will be happy with it? Yes, I will file that case now. I will open it as an argument. If you want, you can make a rule in the appeal. You can move forward and do it. As I say, I only plan what I have announced today. I think today is the day to announce the evidence. Oh, but... If you want to make a rule for that, it is good to make such a rule. And I will get an opinion from you. How many days have passed since you got it?

Yes, can you give me time until Monday? Yes, no problem. Let's see.

I'm looking at my calendar to see which day it is. Today is the 20th. If you want two more, I can give you one week. Okay, thank you.

We had previously given details to Mr. Sweedy about the donation process. Is it the same process that he donated to him? He will hand it over to me, and I will continue to inspect it.

And if I get it, I will instruct him and make a decision within ten days. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from the audience? Is everything clear about the procedure? Good. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you to everyone for your professional contribution. I thank everyone for their feedback. And it was helpful for me to concentrate on all the issues and to understand the arguments. Then, I wish you all a good night. Nani? Nani? Nani?