Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-10 TCAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 10, 2008 MARTA V. CAMPBELL A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (SPP 08-000057) was called to order at 10:44 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Lani Bowman C. Kimo Alameda Alvin Rho Takashi Domingo Rene’ Siracusa Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 14 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: MARTA V. CAMPBELL (SPP 08-000057) Special Permit to allow the establishment of a tutoring center on one acre of land situated within th the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the makai side of 6 th Avenue, approximately 2,300 feet south of the Makuu Drive and 6 Avenue, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-5-27:43. WATANABE: We are now on Agenda Item No. 4. The applicant is Marta V. Campbell. This would be SPP 08-00051; and it’s a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a tutoring center on one acre of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. With that I’ll turn it over to Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For our first presentation this morning on our fourth application, this is an application submitted by Marta V. Campbell. She is requesting a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a tutoring center on one acre of land. This is located within the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision. More specifically it would be located down th Makuu Drive and right on 6 Avenue. It’s identified on the map with a little black outline. This th is near the end of 6 Avenue on the mauka side or the right side. There are some larger agricultural parcels that are not connected to the subdivision that you can see just to the right of the applicant’s property. The different shades of green represent zoning again. The darker green represents Agricultural 1-acre zoning. The lighter green represents Agricultural 5 acres. And the very dark green are EXHIBIT B 1 Open zoning. And those are the nodes that are referred to both in the General Plan as well as in the Hawaiian Paradise Park Community Master Plan. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a tutoring center. This will be located within an existing dwelling. There is a dwelling on the property three stories. This activity would be confined to the first dwelling. This is for up to 16 children from grades kindergarten to grade 6, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The applicant’s site th plan has been submitted and this shows 6 Avenue on the bottom portion of the slide. We have an existing driveway to the residence; and this is basically showing the lower portion of the dwelling, just a footprint. This is the floor plan again. This is the first floor. There will be an office area and a tutoring center area. The tutoring center area is approximately 18 feet by 16 feet. This is a little dark to see, unfortunately. This is an aerial photo by Google. Nothing I could do to help that, but it does show the property actually right in this location. We do have some surrounding property owners. We do have a request for a petition for standing in a contested case hearing. The applicant, the intervenor would be identified in this residence. The applicant is identified in this area. The applicant does own two properties side by side. One is vacant. The one to the right is vacant, one to the left would have the existing dwelling on it. Again, as mentioned earlier we do have a petition for standing in a contested case. The applicant and the intervenor both have submitted their lists, exhibit list as well as witness list; and the Planning Department has submitted their proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Do we have any questions for Mr. Darrow from the Commissioners? Okay, procedurally, I believe we would have to call up Mr. George Kaiser. Mr. George Kaiser, yes, would you come up please, sir. Mr. Kaiser is the intervenor who is requesting standing in this contested case hearing. May I swear you in, Mr. Kaiser. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? KAISER: I do. WATANABE: Would you state your name and address, please. th KAISER: I’m George Frank Kaiser, 15-2051 7 Avenue, PO Box 596, Keaau. WATANABE: Okay. And for us to grant you standing you have to show us why you have a different interest as opposed to the general public. So -. KAISER: I own the property directly adjacent to the proposed -. WATANABE: Could you speak into the mike, Mr. Kaiser. KAISER: I own the property directly adjacent to the proposed tutoring center. I believe that the establishment of a commercial development adjacent to our property will have adverse effects to our rural lifestyle as well as our property values. There are other locations in Paradise Park more suited to this use, such as you saw on the map the Open zoning area that is set for commercial development within Paradise Park. EXHIBIT B 2 WATANABE: Okay. And so your property is within 500 feet of the subject property? KAISER: Yeah. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Kaiser from the Commissioners? I’ve been instructed that I should ask the Planning Director as well as the applicant if any of you have any objections to Mr. Kaiser being granted standing. YUEN: For the Department, no. WATANABE: Okay. Ms. Campbell, do you have any, oh, I need to swear you in also. CAMPBELL: Okay. Hi. WATANABE: Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? CAMPBELL: Yes. WATANABE: And then name and address. CAMPBELL: Marta Campbell. Residential address or mailing address? WATANABE: Residential address. th CAMPBELL: Residential, 15-2666 6 Avenue in Paradise Park. That’s Keaau, 96749. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. And you indicated you had some objections? CAMPBELL: Just to the comment that his property is adjacent to the proposed site. It is not. His property is adjacent to my vacant lot that is not part of the application. WATANABE: But, okay, but he’s -. CAMPBELL: He is within 500 feet. WATANABE: He’s within 500 feet. CAMPBELL: He is, yes. WATANABE: And that’s how he obtained notice? CAMPBELL: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. CAMPBELL: All right. EXHIBIT B 3 IWASHITA: Can she clarify, the intervention is what she objects to? WATANABE: She only objected to the description of being adjacent. But it’s not technically adjacent to the subject property, although it is adjacent to one of the properties she does own. But it’s still within 500 feet. IWASHITA: Right. So all I’m asking is if the applicant can be asked to clarify whether she actually, other than that noting the difference, whether, if she really objects to his intervention. WATANABE: Well, for the record then, would you, Ms. Campbell. CAMPBELL: Would I object? WATANABE: Yes. CAMPBELL: Yes, I would object. I don’t find that the submitted information in contesting my application is a reasonable contesting to not allow my operation. WATANABE: Okay. You’re answering a separate question though. CAMPBELL: Okay. WATANABE: Cause really what we’re looking for is whether you are objecting to granting him standing, Mr. Kaiser’s standing. CAMPBELL: No, I do not. Actually it’s the neighborly thing to talk about this issue, and I appreciate meeting my neighbors who haven’t approached me until this proceeding. WATANABE: Very well. Thank you. Okay, so the record is clear -. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Just on the whole objection thing. I mean, she can object but there are basic protocols, yeah, for someone to grant standing. So maybe the audience could benefit from it. Because she can object but, I mean, if he has the right, well, it doesn’t matter if she objects or not object. If the contester has a right to standing based on the criteria that nobody knows right now because we didn’t help them understand that -. So could you state the criteria for standing so that everybody knows, oh, you did already, just 500 feet? WATANABE: No, 500 feet is for notice. But basically standing is granted for people that have a special interest over and above the general public. And beyond that, it’s, I believe, fairly flexible. EXHIBIT B 4 ALAMEDA: Right. So then if Ms. Campbell would object or if she did or she wouldn’t, how would it matter? Say she would object, what would matter? WATANABE: I believe Mr. Torigoe indicated that for the record we should indicate whether she objected. ALAMEDA: For the record only? WATANABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: Okay. WATANABE: Not whether that objection would necessarily influence the decision this body would make as to whether we would grant standing or not. ALAMEDA: Okay, got you. WATANABE: Okay? So we’re pretty clear. Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Perhaps the staff or the applicant can let me know, there are a number of lots here, are they all vacant lots surrounding the subject property? Are there -? HAYASHI There are some properties that do have single family dwellings on. For instance, across of Ms. Campbell’s property on the makai side there are some single family dwellings on those lots. To the rear there is an adjacent property right in the back, I think that’s one of the persons that will be testifying. Then we also have Mr. Kaiser’s property two lots away from that particular property; and I believe they will, if memory serves me correctly there are some single family dwellings at this particular end of the property. DOMINGO: What’s the distance from Mr. Kaiser’s property to where the proposed day care center would be? HAYASHI: The exact distance I don’t know but it would be two lots away from that property. DOMINGO: And those are one-acre lots, right? HAYASHI: Correct. DOMINGO: Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, are you satisfied, Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: One more question. You know the proposed commercial area, that reflects that which is in the Puna Development Plan, is that right? HAYASHI: That’s in the Hawaiian Paradise Park Master Plan. I’m not to sure as to whether it was designated in the Puna CDP or not. EXHIBIT B 5 DOMINGO: I see. And how far is that area? HAYASHI: Off-hand I don’t have that information. DOMINGO: You don’t have that information? HAYASHI: Yeah. WATANABE: Maybe we can focus in on whether we would grant standing or not because if we do grant standing this would then turn into a contested case hearing, then we’ll have to decide whether we would want not hear this on our own or not. And at that time then, you know, many of these questions would be addressed, I think. That might be more appropriate. HAYASHI: One other thing, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Yes. HAYASHI: I believe I did hear Ms. Campbell say that she did not object to the petition for standing that was filed by Mr. Kaiser. WATANABE: That is correct, that is correct. Yes. So we have no potential party who objects at this point; however, the decision still lies with the Planning Commission. And so I would open this for either -. KAISER: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. KAISER: May I speak for a moment? WATANABE: Yes. KAISER: In the evidence that you’re looking at that I submitted, my proximity is demonstrated in the photograph there. You may be looking at, just before that -. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. So the Chair would entertain either discussion or a motion to either grant or disapprove standing in this contested case, oh, potential contested case hearing. Does anyone have -? IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I move to grant Mr. Kaiser standing to contest SPP 08-000051. EXHIBIT B 6 WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Iwashita. Do we have a second on that? No second? ALAMEDA: How about discussion? Can we do discussion first? WATANABE: Oh, okay, then let’s -. WOODWARD: We have to have a second first. ALAMEDA: I’ll second. Discussion? WATANABE: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Should we ask the contestant to sit down or no? WATANABE: Maybe you should be seated then. KAISER: Thank you. ALAMEDA: So just to get real clear on whether or not we’re going to grant standing, in our minds we’ve got to figure out if Mr. Kaiser is worthy of standing. So, first, if the home is within 500 feet of the application, yes. Now the whole thing about if this particular project is going to adversely affect his property or his lifestyle, is that the next question? WATANABE: I believe that would be not something that addresses standing but something that addresses whether we would approve or disapprove the application, as opposed to whether we would grant him standing. In other words, you could grant someone standing but still go ahead and take the opposite position of the intervenor. ALAMEDA: Right, right, right. WATANABE: So, you know, and granting standing does not create a decision on the Special Permit in itself. All it says is that, yes, you are, let us -- and I’m not wanting to put words in your mouth -- but you are within close enough proximity of the subject property that you have a special interest over and beyond the public. That’s all we’re trying to determine at this point. And as a reminder to our Fellow Commissioners, in the past we have been fairly liberal with granting standing for any intervenors so that their concerns might be addressed. That is not to say that we would necessarily agree with their interpretation or, you know, what they’re asking for. But, again, we’re just making a decision on whether to grant standing or not. DOMINGO: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, could Corp. Counsel describe the specific criteria on what we would be looking at from the standpoint of legality. WATANABE: Well, thank you for taking me off the hook. EXHIBIT B 7 YUEN: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Yuen. YUEN: For the record the Chair very well stated the general criteria. TORIGOE: Yeah. I would agree with that. Basically your Rule 4-7(b) says, “Upon receipt of a written request to intervene, the Commission, at the first meeting on the matter, shall hold a hearing on the written request,” which is what you’re doing now. “If the movant can demonstrate that: 1) His or her interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public,” that’s the number one criterion. And then there’s a couple of other criterion that don’t apply. No. 4 also says, “That even though they do not have an interest different than the public generally, that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury in fact.” So if they can show “that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury in fact,” then they shall be admitted as parties. “The Commission will grant or deny such written request prior to any further action on the matter.” WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: I’m speaking in support of my motion. To me the fact that Mr. Kaiser lives in close proximity, not adjacent to but in very close proximity, to this proposed development establishes in my mind pretty clearly that he does have an interest in terms of if there’s going to be any adverse effects, which he’s arguing there are going to be. If there are going to be any adverse effects to this community as a result of this proposed development then he will be exposed to that greater than the general public. So based upon that it’s pretty clear to me that we should grant standing. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions, comments, discussion on this? Mr. Domingo, was Mr. Torigoe’s explanation of how and why standing is granted sufficient? DOMINGO: Yes, it is. I just want to make a comment with regards to the impact of Mr. Kaiser and perhaps the impact of all the surrounding areas with the change, with the change of the complexity of the whole community when you consider a commercial area next to them. The natural evolution of the development will cause all of these impacts to come up. Then, you know, at what point do we draw a line and say yes or no? WATANABE: Maybe I agree, I shouldn’t have said that. I understand your point but maybe we can confine our discussions right now as to whether we’re going to grant standing or not, as opposed to the merits of the project itself. Yes, Rell, I’m sorry, Woodward, Woodward. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I agree. I think we need to, we don’t need to discuss the merits of the case. We need to vote on standing. And discussing the merits of the case is going to have to occur after we just make that decision about standing. WATANABE: I’m hoping that we can do that. Are there any other Commissioners that feel they need further clarification on the standing issue? Cause, okay, it seems like one -. So I suppose we don’t need to go into executive session for that. Is there any further discussion on this? Okay, we have a motion to grant standing. It has been moved and seconded. Mr. Darrow? EXHIBIT B 8 DARROW: With that, I’ll take the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes to grant standing six to zero. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. So, Mr. Kaiser, I believe you had previously been informed that if you were granted standing potentially we would enter into a contested case hearing immediately if the Commission again decided that they would handle this on their own. And so for right now -- again, we’re not into the merits of the project itself -- we need to make a decision as to whether we will farm this out or whether we will address this on our own. And for your information the Planning Department is recommending that we address this on our own seeing that, at least they believe that it’s something we can handle, it’s simple enough for us to handle, even though we’re not trained attorneys except for one Commissioner. DOMINGO: Mr. Chair, procedural question. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: If this were farmed out to a private party then that individual or that firm would be compensated for the time that they put in? WATANABE: That’s correct. DOMINGO: Do we as the Planning Commission get compensated? EXHIBIT B 9 WATANABE: Well, yes, yes. You requested Thai lunch and, you know, God willing we’ll have some Thai lunch. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair, I have a question along those lines. WATANABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: Who pays? Is it the County or the -? WATANABE: The County pays, they do budget for that. I believe there is money in the budget. But I think, it’s my interpretation the Planning Department is recommending that we address this on our own because they feel that it’s something that is relatively simple. And with that let me turn the floor over to Mr. Yuen. YUEN: Yes. We are recommending, first, that this be done by the Planning Commission and not by a hearings officer. Second that the Planning Commission, and this part doesn’t, you can agree to the one without the second part. But the second part, that we go into the contested case hearing and hold it today. And we’ve informed the parties that this is a possibility. And we’ve talked about this, I don’t know if with all the Commissioners here, but we’ve talked about this in the past, that a contested case hearing does not have to be a big mysterious legalistic endeavor. And the basic differences between what we normally do and a contested case hearing is, the parties still can present exhibits, all the witnesses can testify. What is different is that they have the opportunity for cross-examination of the Department, of the other person’s witnesses; and they have a right to a more formal written decision, which is in the form of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. The Department has presented one. Our experience, so there are contested case hearings that involve a lot of disputes on factual issues, like will nutrient levels in the ocean increase because of wastewater, that may involve some kinds of technical issues. But many of the issues that come in front of you involve situations where, like this one, the special permit is being requested, there is an issue of whether it may cause some disturbance in the neighborhood due to traffic or noise and the like; and at the end of the day it’s up to the Commission to make a judgment under the standards of the special permit whether they consider this a reasonable or unusual use of the property or not. Our experience in, when these have gone to hearings officers, hearings were held, parties then comeback and the Commission has to take a vote, and very often the issues have largely been argued in front of the Commission again. The same things that the people have said, if the Commission had had a contested case hearing, are reargued in front of the Commission. So that being the case we believe the parties can present what they have to say to the Commission either today or at some other time rather than the hearings officer procedure which generally does, the Department has to hire a hearings officer, we have to pay a hearings officer, it generally takes several months to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission. WATANABE: Okay, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we handle this contested case hearing at the Planning Commission; and if it’s acceptable to the applicant and the contestant that we do it today. WATANABE: Thank you. There’s a motion on the table. Do we have a second on that? EXHIBIT B 10 DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Domingo. So would we like to have -? Yes, Commissioner Iwashita, discussion? IWASHITA: Yes. Originally I was inclined to have us do it. Then as I’m thinking about this, I guess my concern in going through this application is that there is one contention that, you know, I guess, because the hours are not normal tutoring hours, you know, it’s 8 o’clock in the morning to 4:30 in the afternoon, that for most of that time any child who is in school cannot show up until after three, right? WATANABE: Right. That was pointed out by Mr. Kaiser. IWASHITA: Right, right. And so there is not a document in here from Mary Correa, the Complex Area Superintendent for the schools, that would be affected by basically having if in fact this is another school in the district in that complex area, you know, how that’s going to be dealt with, or some kind of input from the Department of Education. And I would think that it would be within her jurisdiction, that’s her geographical area, that I would want to have a hearings officer have a hearing, and then attempt to get some input from the Department of Education about, you know, about that issue. WATANABE: Okay. Let me ask you this before we move on. Would you be inclined to hear this on our own at a later date if we could direct the parties to get some feedback from the Department of Ed that would satisfy that? IWASHITA: I guess, if the Department would forward a copy of the application and the objections to Mary Correa’s office and ask if there are any comments that they wanted to make, something like that. Is that what you’re suggesting? WATANABE: Yeah, that’s what I’m suggesting. IWASHITA: Yeah, that would be fine. WATANABE: And then we would hear it on our own at a later date. IWASHITA: Yeah. WATANABE: I’m not trained in the law so let me check with counsel here. That would be fine and we are within our rights to ask for certain information? TORIGOE: Sure, you can do that. WATANABE: Okay. But should I then, okay -. So that means if this passes that means that I’d have to call them up to make sure that on the record we’re stating, we’d have to have them agree to it, yeah? EXHIBIT B 11 TORIGOE: Well, in any contested case proceeding you would want to consult the parties on the procedures that you’re going to use. At this point bear in mind though that you’ve got a motion on the floor that basically is to hear it as the Commission and to do it today. WATANABE: Okay. In light of what Mr. Iwashita has brought up, Mr. Woodward, would you care to amend that motion to -? WOODWARD: Yeah, I would be happy to amend the motion that we handle this at the Planning Commission level and we reschedule this, continue this hearing until we get input from the Department of Education regarding the proposed hours of operation of this facility. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Domingo, I believe you -. DOMINGO: I would concur. WATANABE: You would concur. I think you’re all aware of what we’ve been discussing about getting some feedback from the Department of Education. Would you come up please, Ms. Campbell. I believe it would be you that would be addressing that. Would you have any objections to that? CAMPBELL: Yes, I would. And may I state why? WATANABE: Yes. CAMPBELL: In our community there are a lot of home schooled children and the families choosing the option to educate their children sign their children out from the DOE on Form 4140 and take responsibility for the education of their children. And then they proceed either to do this within their home or hire tutors to oversee and support the work that the children are assigned to do. And every year they go and take the test; and statistically we know that the DOE is struggling yet home schooled children do excel extremely well on testing. So I have an objection to postponing this. I am asking for your consideration that, I’m trying to meet a need in the community and to not put those families off from using my services. WATANABE: Okay. Would you be able to address Mr. Iwashita’s concern that somehow your enrollment, albeit only 16 children, would not negatively impact the public school’s system in that, you know, essentially you’re not breaking any laws by true home schooling? And maybe if you can address that to his satisfaction then that objection might be withdrawn. CAMPBELL: Okay, all right. So, Mr. Iwashita, my work in the last 3 ½ years has been with students who have been home schooled, or signed out as home schooled students by their parents; and I was visiting them in their homes. Then with the increase in the population the demand for this or the choice that the parents have made had also increased in choosing to home school their children. And so I have been in the community for 17 years. It has been known what my success level is; and I have 40-some odd families who said, Marty, if this passes please keep us on your wait list. So it’s not even families that I have informed of what I am doing but it’s families who have made the decision already to take their children out of the DOE system that have reached out to me. It’s a small community, word gets around. So that is why I’m EXHIBIT B 12 asking for your consideration to please hear this today. I am not under the umbrella of the DOE. I could be a high school person assisting families with their children’s tutoring because it is the parent’s prerogative to do. I’m just asking that I be allowed to work with up to 16 children. I know legally I’m allowed to have up to 5 children with an additional tutor in my home. So I could be working with these students 2-hour sessions a day, five children at a time, which would generate the same amount of traffic, the same amount of noise, very little, you know. WATANABE: Okay, I appreciate your testimony. But let’s try and confine it to whether we are affecting the public school. I don’t want to - . CAMPBELL: Okay. So, yeah, I don’t find myself as a competition to the public school system because these families have already made decisions to do it on their own to assist support. WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I appreciate your representations. You know, my concern is that I’m not totally familiar with all the DOE’s ins and outs and all of those kinds of things, and I appreciate you making your record. I just feel that we ought to have some kind of input from the Department. WATANABE: Yeah, I’m not familiar with any of it so I can’t help. IWASHITA: Cause I don’t know. You know, it seems to me that given the breath of the proposal that we ought to have some kind of input from the DOE. CAMPBELL: May I ask if anyone knows if the DOE controls tutoring center hours somehow? Because I have never heard -. IWASHITA: I’m not -. Tutoring, you know, your tutoring you can do it within, you obviously know more the ins and outs of what you can do and so forth. I’m not, if we call it a school, right, and 16 children in one room is a small class size in a public school, right? CAMPBELL: Yes. IWASITA: And it can be a one-room school. If you call it a school then to me that’s the kind of, then to me it raises some red flags, right -? CAMPBELL: Yeah, I understand. IWASHITA: And so that’s why I want the input from the Department. And the Department may very well say we don’t care. That’s fine, right? CAMPBELL: Yeah. IWASHITA: But I need to have the input from the Department because I don’t know and I want to know. EXHIBIT B 13 CAMPBELL: Okay. I understand. If I may elaborate how it’s not a classroom, that these children are at various grade levels, and have very different needs, be it remedial or advanced. IWASHITA: Ma’am, there’s differentiation. And as far as I’m concerned a one-room school is probably the best venue to have a child be educated in, you know, where there is th kindergarten through 12 in one class. It’s probably the best circumstance, you know, for pedological advancement for all the children in such an environment. But my concern is that if this is in fact a school, whether you call it a tutoring center or not, whether or not the Department would have some concerns. That’s all I want to know. And so I think we all need to know that and that we don’t, you know, go establishing one-room schools, you know, throughout the community without some sort of plan about going about it. WATANABE: Okay. Yes, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: If I could just so I understand Mr. Iwashita’s issue here. Are you questioning whether this enterprise needs some kind of license that they don’t have? WATANABE: No, not necessarily. I’m ignorant. Okay? And so I think that there’s nothing in the record here that discusses, you know, any of the types of concerns that I’ve raised. So, you know, I think we need a qualified person to make a record of that. YUEN: Well, the reason why I’m asking is are we asking the DOE whether they like this or not or whether they have an opinion about schools, I mean, whether they have an opinion about this kind of facility? Or are you asking whether a facility like this needs some kind of license from the State other than a land use, other than the kind of land use approvals that we have? WATANABE: What’s the difference between this and Waters of Life? If this in fact is a school, right, what is the difference? And I don’t know, and I think we need to make a proper record. That’s all I’m saying, we need to make a proper record. YUEN: I can, they’re raising their hands but the difference between this and Waters of Life is that Waters of Life is a public charter school -. WATANABE: I know that. YUEN: Supported with public taxpayer funds. WATANABE: I know that, I know that. YUEN: So that’s why it’s under a charter school regulation. Actually from a land use point of view there are still land use issues with Waters of Life. I’m just, that’s why I’m asking you if this is a licensing issue which normally we would say obtain whatever licenses that you need to operate. For example, when somebody comes in with a certified kitchen we know that in fact that they need a Department of Health license to operate the certified kitchen. So we have a condition that says, you know, we have a standard condition that says comply with all other rules, regulations and the like; and we would do that in this case. I don’t know what else, I EXHIBIT B 14 mean, the difference between this and the Charter School is, I think, quite clear. And so that’s the question, you know, is this a licensing issue, is there some kind of license -? IWASHITA: I don’t know that. I don’t know enough. But the concern is raised in the record and I think we need to get the proper Department to at least say we don’t care. If they don’t that’s fine. WATANABE: Well, let’s put it this way then. I mean, it would satisfy you that we got some input from the Department of Ed as to whether they care of not and that’s it? IWASHITA: No, I’m not using the Director’s words. This is what I’m asking, I’m asking that the application and the objections be sent to the Department of Education. In my opinion that should be Mary Correa who is complex area superintendent -- within the area that this development is being proposed, okay, -- and ask for comment, the same way we send an application like this to the Public Works and Department of Health and all the other agencies, right, and ask for comment. And that’s all I’m asking. And if the response is no comment, fine. Right? And if the response is these are concerns, then we can address them. But, you know, I would for the record again say I’m ignorant about whether or not there really is anything out there. I just need to have a proper record. WATANABE: Okay. Give me a second, Mr. Woodward. Mr. Yuen, it seems like you wanted to -. YUEN: As far as the Department, you know, you asked what is the Department’s position. As far as the Department is concerned we would have a standard condition that would apply; and if they need some kind of a license we would require them to get that kind of license. We’re not aware of any license that you would need for operating a facility like this. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Just a brief comment. I understand Mr. Iwashita’s concerns. But I have a problem with asking the Department of Education how to run things, given the fine job that they’ve done to this point. IWASHITA: I’m going, can I? WATANABE: Sure, Mr. Iwashita. Rebuttal? IWASHITA: No, it’s not rebuttal. I think it’s making a proper record. Yes, I’m a product of the Hawaii Public School System. Right? And, yes, my personal experience tells me that many, many years ago there were problems; and, yes, I know from my living here over these years that, you know, that there continue to be challenges for the Department in various ways. That’s not to say that we don’t have students graduating from our schools getting full scholarships for the MIT, Stanford and all the best universities in the world. Right? Our Department is deficient in many ways in dealing with children who have not excelled in the same way. But I really object strenuously to a general demeaning of the Department because there are many, many, many teachers, there are many, many super administrators that do a great job for us EXHIBIT B 15 and, you know, including my son who is a meteorology major at the University of Hi-Manoa. And, you know, it’s a simple request I’m making. WATANABE: Okay. IWASHITA: I really don’t see what the big deal is. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Sure. ALAMEDA: I just have couple of thoughts. One is I hear the request, I don’t think we need to follow-up on that. I mean, I don’t think we need the Department of Education’s input in the same way. And why I say that is cause if you’re to say, like for example, my daughters play volleyball. And every Tuesday they go to the volleyball coach’s house to do book work on volleyball strategies; and this is like, you know, 16 girls; and this is during the daytime cause it’s summertime, yeah. So, you know, kind of like along those lines; and along like the lines, like this is Hawaiian crafts or something and, you know, home-school parents wanted to send their kids some place to learn Hawaiian crafts, you know, one instructor and maybe a helper. You know, to me it’s kind of like along the lines like that. So I don’t feel it’s necessary to ask the Department of Education for input. I like the original motion. It seems like Mr. Iwashita went the extreme opposite in that. So I say we stick with the original and we move forward in that way. WATANABE: Okay, why don’t we do this. Since we do have a motion, it was amended, the amendment states that the motion is that the Commission will hear this case on its own and not farm it out. So let’s take a vote on that so that we can narrow this down a little further. Okay? TORIGOE: Also to get information from -. WATANABE: Oh, I’m being corrected. The motion -. WOODWARD: Can I unamend the motion? I can withdraw the motion and make a new one. How about that? WATANABE: Yeah. Maybe it’s so messy at this point let’s do that. Let’s do the withdrawal cause you did, the motion was to continue. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. IWASHITA: For the record the original motion was objectionable because it’s compound and it asks for two different things to be done. So I would want to proceed, let’s deal with this one and then we can go on to any further -. EXHIBIT B 16 WATANABE: Yeah. So what I’m asking is the maker of the motion to withdraw the motion. We’d have another motion that is not compound. IWASHITA: Right now the motion isn’t compound. But my -. WATANABE: No, no, I’ve been corrected it is because it was to continue it to a further hearing. So it’s still compound. So what I’m saying is let’s make it simple. IWASHITA: That’s fine. WATANABE: We throw out the existing motion, yeah, make it singular. All right? So would you be willing to withdraw the motion and make a noncompound motion, meaning we’re just going to hear it first? WOODWARD: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Thank you very much. WOODWARD: Would you like me to state it? WATANABE: Would you, please. IWASHITA: First, I’m sorry, Mr. Chair. But we haven’t heard from Mr. Kaiser, and this is about -. WATANABE: Mr. Kaiser has been granted standing. IWASHITA: Right, so -. WATANABE: All we’re looking at is whether we want to hear it. That’s not up to Mr. Kaiser or up to the applicant. And, actually, even the Planning Department who may be a party to the contested case hearing can only advise or recommend, but not make the decision itself. So -. IWASHITA: But my point is that we have had Mr. Yuen and the applicant make comment. Mr. Kaiser was not afforded the same opportunity. Our previous vote gave him standing so he’s, in my mind, entitled to at least say I don’t want to say anything, whatever. It’s up to him but we should afford him the opportunity. WATANABE: Mr. Kaiser, you want to take a seat up here? KAISER: My only comment would be that I think it is a complicated issue and I think the Department of Education’s input would be valuable to your decision. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay, so we have all parties providing comment. Okay? And we’re back to Mr. Woodward. EXHIBIT B 17 WOODWARD: All right, I would move that in the application SPP 08-000051, that this contested case be handled by the Planning Commission. ALAMEDA: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s 57, right? I’m checking if the numbers are correct. WOODWARD: Five-one. CAMPBELL: I received 57. DARROW: The correct number is 57. WOODWARD: Okay. It’s says 51 on this, but okay. All right, 57, I stand corrected. DARROW: Just for clarification, the original motion has been withdrawn correct? WATANABE: Correct. The original motion has been withdrawn, so has the amended motion. Well, the amended motion has been withdrawn. The original motion was amended. But we don’t have a second. Would you care to second, Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: I sure do. I second. WATANABE: Thank you. I don’t suppose we need any further discussion on this. Let’s call for the vote. The new motion is that, it’s singular, yeah, just that the Planning Commission will handle this contested case hearing on its own. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair, point of order? WATANABE: Yes. IWASHITA: The fact that the notice is the wrong number is that a procedural problem, or blemish, and can we proceed irregardless of the -? TORIGOE: Mr. Chairman, I don’t see that as a substantive problem at this point. IWASHITA: Okay. WATANABE: Thank you. IWASHITA: Okay, I just want to keep the record clear. Thank you. WATANABE: Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is that the Planning Commission hear this contested case. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. EXHIBIT B 18 DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: ‘A‘ole. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes. Okay, now what we need to do is determine whether we will begin this contested case hearing today or at some later date. And so the Chair will entertain a motion to that order. ALAMEDA: Couple of things. If we do it today, I’d like to do it after lunch. WATANABE: Well, don’t make it compound. We might have difficulty making a decision, yeah. So can I have a singular motion, noncompound, or do we need to discuss this any further? The question is do we want to hear this today or not, that does not preclude having it after lunch. DOMINGO: Mr. Chair, I would move that we hear this today after we go through the orders of the day and finish all other businesses. WATANABE: I’m not sure if we could do that. If we take it in order it will -. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair, I retrack my earlier comment about lunch. I mean I think we can hear this today and we can hear it now. DOMINGO: Okay. My suggestion was based by the influence of Mr. Andrade, by his comments. ALAMEDA: Alameda. DOMINGO: Oh, Alameda. Sorry. ALAMEDA: That’s all right. All Portuguese, we came on the same boat. WATANABE: Okay, okay. Well, it hasn’t been seconded so you have, as the maker of the motion you have the opportunity, I believe, to amend the motion. Would you amend it to just hearing it today? EXHIBIT B 19 DOMINGO: I will. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have a second on that? WOODWARD: Second. WATANABE: Okay. I realize for the record you object, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHTA: Yes, based on the comments I made earlier, I just wanted to make the record clearer that I still believe that the Department of Education’s input should be made in this case. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to hear this contested case today. With that I will take the roll. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Point of order. Sorry, Mr. Chair. We did not ask for any comments by the applicant or the intervening party granted standing on that. So I thought that maybe we should make a good record of that before you complete the vote, in other words whether or not -. I’m sure the applicant has already stated she wants to go forward. But Mr. Kaiser has not indicated whether he wants to go forwarded. WATANABE: It’s clear on the record that Mr. Kaiser was advised in writing and also earlier during this -. IWASHITA: I’m not pursuing notice issues. I’m just asking that Mr. Kaiser again be afforded the opportunity to make any comment about this particular motion since he is a party, and the Director also. WATANABE: We’re playing musical chairs, Mr. Kaiser. KAISER: We need a longer chord here. For the record, due to the extreme complexity of the issue that was discussed for the past hour, I still think we need a little more input from the DOE. EXHIBIT B 20 WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Director, I assume you would prefer to hear it today, but for the record -? YUEN: We’ve stated our position. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that I’ll continue the vote. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: ‘A‘ole. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to one. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay. We’re really approaching lunch, and this is proving not to be quite a simple as the Department or I anticipated. However, maybe this is a good time for me to kind of review how we might proceed with this. First of all, I think what we want to do is establish that everyone has all of their witnesses present, also establish that everyone is aware of all of the exhibits. This is more like the discovery process in all of this, and to make sure that there are no objections to any of the witnesses or any of the exhibits that might be presented for the record. Okay? Then what we’ll hopefully do is begin with the applicant and allow them, the applicant, to have her opening remarks, allow the intervenor to have his opening remarks and also allow the Planning Department to have their opening remarks. After that we’ll then return to the applicant who will present their testimony, their exhibits, also allow their witnesses to provide testimony; and then we’ll allow each party, by each party I mean the intervenor and the Planning Department, cross-examine if they wish each witness or testifier. Then the intervenor will be allowed the same opportunities to provide their own submittals as well as witnesses. And cross-examination will then, if desired, be allowed from the remaining parties, meaning the applicant and the Planning Department. We’ll proceed through that process once again with the Planning Department having an opportunity to provide witnesses and testimony. After all of that is completed, yeah, we’ll allow the applicant the opportunity to rebut any of the testimony. Okay? And then after that the Commission would deliberate and ask questions. Okay, is that agreeable to all parties? I’m sorry, may I ask you to come up, for the record. We can’t record a nod of the head. I know I’m been making you come up often. KAISER: Your question is what? WATANABE: Is that procedure that I roughly went over now agreeable to you? EXHIBIT B 21 KAISER: Can I ask you a question about it -? WATANABE: Sure. KAISER: With regard to witnesses for the applicant -? WATANABE: Yes. KAISER: Would I be able to review them prior to their testimony and judge them to be repetitious and/or not really relevant? CAMPBELL: I do not have any witnesses. It’s myself so -. WATANABE: Oh, well, then that would answer your question. I do have people from the public that are signed up to testify; but if she’s not bringing them up as witnesses then, yeah -. KAISER: Okay. I would respectfully request that you limit the public input to that being relevant. WATANABE: We generally do. KAISER: Good, that’s fine. WATANABE: Cause we’re not planning to stay here all day either -. KAISER: Exactly. WATANABE: Although sometimes we do. Okay, so there’s no objection from you, Mr. Kaiser. KAISER: Not from me. CAMPBELL: Did I understand it correctly from you that you wanted feedback on if we have any objections to any of the exhibits submitted before I -? WATANABE: Right, right, right. CAMPBELL: Okay, I do have an objection to an exhibit presented by the intervenor. His redrawing of the map that I have submitted with my application is incorrect. The existing driveway leading up to my dwelling is within the one-acre site for which the proposal was written. WATANABE: Okay, so the red lines that you’re saying actually are all within your property? CAMPBELL: Yes. EXHIBIT B 22 WATANABE: It does not extend beyond your boundary? CAMPBELL: That’s correct. I realize that maybe I did not give dimensions there that it may be a little closer to the corner where my two properties meet, but it is on the one-acre. WATANABE: Okay. Your objection is noted, but I don’t believe it’s material to whether this is a school tutoring or an allowable special permit. CAMPBELL: Okay. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Yuen, do you have any objections or -? YUEN: No. WATANABE: Okay. So it seems like this is satisfactory then? TORIGOE: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. TORIGOE: Just for the record, the drawing that was referred to is labeled as Drawing No. 2. WATANABE: That was submitted by the intervenor. So we’ve established the process. But as I indicated earlier we do have a number of people who have signed up to testify. And according to our rules and procedures we should accept testimony prior to beginning the contested case hearing. And so with that I would once again, I’m sorry, ask you both to sit down so that I can entertain public testimony. And also immediately following the public testimony we may as well break for lunch. Yeah? I think that would be reasonable since we’ll probably run into 12 noon. So with that may I call up Barbara (Kahn-) Langer, Philip Matlage. And, well, Mr. Kaiser, you signed up for testimony, but I assume that you’ll forego that since we’ve already granted you standing. KAISER: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, so that will be sufficient? KAISER: Yes. WATANABE: Thank you. May swear you in. Would you both raise your right hand please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes, I do. WATANABE: Okay, Ms. Langer, would you like to begin with your name and address and then provide your testimony. EXHIBIT B 23 LANGER: Thank you, Mr. Watanabe. My name is Barbara Kahn-Langer. I live at th 15-2070 5 Street in Hawaiian Paradise Park. My mailing address is HC3 Box 14052, Keaau. th Okay? I live on the mauka side of 5 Street. From the second floor of my house I can look diagonally across the vacant lots to the Campbell residence. I am currently the chairperson of the School Committee in Hawaiian Paradise Park. I am a member of the Road Traffic Safety Policy Committee of Hawaiian Paradise Park. I was the chairperson of the 2005 Revised Master Plan for Hawaiian Paradise Park, and currently involved with the Puna Community Development Plan, and I was on the subtask force in Growth Management. I support the application for a special permit for the Campbell residence for a number of reasons. First off, the school property identified in the master plan of Hawaiian Paradise Park are for large institutional schools. In 2006 HPP Board of Directors established a School Committee to review applications for the use of those properties. They decided, that Committee asked the Department of Education if at any time they had plans to build schools under the DOE umbrella in any of the school properties within HPP. The response from DOE was, no, we built a new school in Keaau. Okay. So that takes care of some of those issues. All right, it is commonly understood by people in many communities throughout Hawaii island that home learning is taking place, that students go through a variety of home instruction in a variety of different ways and gather together in locations for tutoring assistance, not only here but in Kona as well. This application provides an opportunity for parents of children who wish to have a tutoring facility available to them for the education of their children in our neighborhood; and I’m speaking of neighborhood as this area of Hawaiian Paradise Park. When Mrs. Campbell put in her application, one of first things I did was call the Chairperson of our Roads Traffic Safety Policy Committee, that is Dennis Higgins, to come over, climb up the stairs in my house, look across all those vacant properties to the Campbell house and see would there be a problem with traffic, with road traffic, with vehicular turn around or anything like that. And he responded he didn’t think there would be a problem at all. If there are any further questions that any member of the Planning Commission has I’ll be pleased to answer them. Thank you. WATANABE: Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions? It doesn’t appear so. Thank you very much for your testimony. You may be seated. Philip, please, name and address and then your testimony. MATLAGE: My name is Philip Gregory Matlage, M-a-t-l-a-g-e. My residence address th if 15-2063 7 Street in Paradise Park, city is Keaau, mailing address is Post Office Box 492446, Keaau, Zip Code 96749; and my wife and I live in the residence directly adjacent to the property for which the special permit has been applied. I believe that the granting of the special permit will adversely affect the tranquil nature of my home as well as the neighborhood due to increased traffic as well as noise, -- 16 children cannot be quiet, it’s not possible -- as well as the fact that there are, the property in question is two separate lots which are currently fenced and landscaped to be used as a single unit, rather than the single acre for which the application has been made. Photographs of the property will bear that out. I also believe that the use of a residential property for this purpose is inappropriate because we have public schools, which if they are inadequate need our support and assistance to achieve a higher level of training for the children. We have at this point a residence which has four individuals in it. When you add 16 students that adds up to 20 people using a residential cesspool, which is a significant health concern. There are also matters relating to the ability of the children to be physically safe. A facility which is housing EXHIBIT B 24 children in a school room should have automatic sprinklers and additional safety devices available, it has to for public schools. If this learning center or tutoring center operates from 8 to 4 and has a full-time staff for students, then it’s a school and must be under the authority of the Board of Education or the State Board of Education. When you have 16 students who are ostensibly being home schooled, home schooling means that the parents are responsible for educating their children and that they will teach them a minimum of three hours a day. That’s on the Board of Education’s website. If you take your kids to a tutoring center, drop them off and allow them to be taught there, it’s a school. I believe that this is, in effect, a school rather than a tutoring center. I have no objections whatsoever Ms. Campbell tutoring students in her home, but the hours of her operation preclude public school students from being able to attend most of the time, and the public schools do not support private tutoring centers by sending students to them. It was my understanding as well that the Board voted to have this matter referred to the Planning Commission. Was that incorrect? WATANABE: This is the Planning Commission. MATLAGE: I mean, but the Use Committee, never mind. WATANABE: I’m not certain I understand. MATLAGE: Did the Board not earlier vote to refer this to someone other than the Board as a whole for review? WATANABE: No. MATLAGE: No, okay. WATANABE: No, we decided to work it on our own. MATLAGE: Okay, that’s the end of my testimony. WATANABE: Do we have any questions for Mr. Matlage? Yes. IWASHITA: Can you just clarify for me again where you live in proximity to this property? MATLAGE: I live in the property directly adjacent to the home, directly behind it. IWASHITA: Okay. So you’re Mr. Kaiser’s neighbor? MATLAGE: I’m Mr. Kaiser’s neighbor and Ms. Campbell’s neighbor, yes. IWASHITA: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further questions? Okay, thank you for your testimony. Okay, it’s approximately 12 o’clock. Why don’t we break for lunch and say we’ll be back at 1:30. PUBLIC: Was it 12:30? EXHIBIT B 25 WATANABE: No, 1:30. We’re not going to make it at 12:30. Okay, so we’ll reconvene at 1:30 to begin our formal contested case hearing. Just for the record, we don’t have anyone else, I assume, who wants to testify on this? Okay, fine, thank you. Let the record reflect no one else wanted to testify. RECESSED The meeting recessed at 11:59 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 1:43 p.m. WATANABE: Will the meeting now come back to order. Before we begin the process of this contested case hearing, we’ve just received a letter from the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association which brings into a question the process and the question of notice, proper notice. And so while I’d like to proceed, I think it might be advisable for us to convene in executive session so that we can talk this over with counsel and make sure that decisions we make are not based on something that is appealable, and get this all ironed out. So would someone make a motion to break into executive session for the purpose of discussing the notice issue and how far we can proceed with the contested case hearing in question. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, with regards to the special permit application of Marta V. Campbell, I move that we go into executive session to discuss issues of notice and other issues that may be there, and this would be on an attorney-client basis. WATANABE: Thank you. We have a motion. Do I have a second on that? ALAMEDA: Second. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Alameda. Okay, it has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. WATANABE: Any oppose? Okay, then we’ll recess, well, we’re in executive session. I’m sorry for this confusion. EXECUTIVE The Commissioners went into executive session at 1:44 p.m. SESSION and came out of executive session at 1:56 pm. by a motion made by Commissioner Alameda, seconded by Commissioner Domingo, and unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. WATANABE: Okay, will the Planning Commission come back to order. I think we’ve got this pretty much cleared up. It’s a little bit confusing and it’s, I think, unintentional, but apparently notice is really perfected when two notices have been sent, and it has become apparent now because we just received this letter from the Association that the early notice was not sent although the Association was indeed notified within 10 days of this past meeting. So second notice was satisfied but the initial notice was not satisfied.With that in mind and because the Association is or potentially could be a intervenor in this contested case hearing, we’re going EXHIBIT B 26 to take a vote on whether to continue or not. But before we take that vote, I think it’s more than likely that we will wind up continuing. Typically we don’t overlook imperfected notice. And from that standpoint, I’d like to make it clear as to what really is expected, especially with regard to all of the discussion that went on this morning. And this morning we were talking about the Board of Education, etc. And so since we now have the time since we’re likely to continue anyway I’d like to ask the applicant if you’d be agreeable to submitting the County’s, you know, background report and recommendations to the Department of Education and asking them to respond if they have any response to that, so that we’ll satisfy all these questions that we’ve been discussing earlier. Would you come up please. CAMPBELL: So there are two issues on the table: One, whether the Paradise Park Owners Association has any input, and then now there is another one that the DOE should have an input? WATANABE: Well, we don’t know; but we’re saying to be on the safe side -. If you will recall most of this morning was spent on whether it’s a school, a tutorial center, you know, the hours and all of that. So it would help us, yeah, if you would submit this to the Department of Education and then we could see if there was any concern on their behalf, if they had any comments, that’s it. Since you have the time anyway now. CAMPBELL: Okay. What timeframe are you talking about? WATANABE: I beg your pardon? CAMPBELL: What timeframe are we talking about? WATANABE: If indeed it is continued, yeah, the earliest Hilo meeting would be th September 4, I believe. CAMPBELL: There’s not a meeting in August? WATANABE: No, no. I’m afraid not. Before I complete, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: May I suggest that the Planning Department send a copy of the application to the Department of Education. WATANABE: Oh, okay. CAMPBELL: Thank you. YUEN: We normally, when sending it to a government agency we normally do that, and we have a cover letter that we can send; and then we can report. Then the response will come to us as the Planning Department, and then we can furnish that to the Commission and the parties. Any response, if any, we would furnish to the Commission and the parties. WATANABE: Okay. Then would you then also do the same -. I realize she hand- delivered, the applicant hand-delivered to the Association. But would you then do the same for the Association, the Hawaiian Paradise Park Association? EXHIBIT B 27 YUEN: This is the mailing that the applicant normally does, right? DARROW: Right. YUEN: But were we involved in giving the applicant the list, the initial list of people to mail to? CAMPBELL: I was requested to notify the Homeowners within 500 feet. HPP was one of the agencies that the County was going to notify and somehow they did not. YUEN: Yes, I understand. DARROW: There’s also the, if a road or a private roadway falls within the 500 feet that’s considered a parcel that needs to be notified within that area as well. th CAMPBELL: If the roadway? So like 6 Street you’re considering? DARROW: It’s actually identified as a separate parcel. CAMPBELL: Okay. DARROW: And the owner of that parcel would be the Association. CAMPBELL: That’s right. And they have been, was aware of the application via the th contestant’s wife who had written a letter on June 10 with objections about my proposal. YUEN: Mr. Chair, I believe that because this is a notice that is, I apologize if there’s a misunderstanding as to who was supposed to be notified. But because this notice is one that the applicant is supposed to send out, it should still be the applicant. My staff will discuss with her a little further what to do. And then she would send it, and then she would file the paperwork affirming that she sent the notice. WATANABE: Okay. That way we won’t have any questions. All I’m trying to do is th prevent having any other quagmires come September 4. CAMPBELL: Okay. WATANABE: Yeah, and I believe before we decide whether to continue or not I believe we have to address all the open issues, right? Does any of the other Commissioners have any other comments? That would suffice? And Mr. Kaiser does that satisfy you? KAISER: That what? WATANABE: I’m asking if that would satisfy you. The County is going to send the background report, etc. and request comments from the Department of Education. KAISER: To the DOE? EXHIBIT B 28 WATANABE: Yeah. And the applicant, Marta Campbell, is going to work with the Association to make sure that comments are provided so that she can substantiate that notice was, again, provided. KAISER: So does this mean that you’re going to vote on having the hearing today or we’re going to continue? WATANABE: I cannot decide that on my own. KAISER: Okay. WATANABE: But see, if we decide to continue then we’re not going to talk about this any more. I want to make sure we don’t have any gaps. KAISER: I would like to ask though that you include into the package to the DOE all written testimonies that so far have been received. Would that be acceptable, mine and Matlage basically? WATANABE: Written, oh, written testimony. KAISER: Yes. YUEN: If he would like to send something to the DOE he can. We wouldn’t normally do it. We simply send the application to the DOE. We send them the application and ask for their comments. KAISER: Okay, well, I’ll just send this up with reference to the tax key. Thanks. WATANABE: Okay. So that’s satisfactory. Is that satisfactory to you? CAMPBELL: Yeah. WATANABE: I’m sorry, I realize we were trying to address it today but -. Okay, with that then, since this is a contested case hearing I guess I don’t necessarily need a motion. Let me ask though would there be any objections from the Commissioners if we were to continue this to th the September 4 meeting with the understanding that we’ll be provided those two additional data items? DOMINGO: No objections. WATANABE: Mr. Alameda? ALAMEDA: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. As long as we know that all we’re providing is the opportunity for those two agencies to reply -. WATANABE: Exactly. EXHIBIT B 29 ALAMEDA: That we may not get anything back. So -. WATANABE: That’s right, yeah. We’re just protecting notice. WOODWARD: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: I would just echo Mr. Alameda’s comments. They will have the 60 days to reply. If they don’t then that is considered no response and we will address the issue at that time. WATANABE: Yeah, I believe that’s standard wording in the Department’s letter, notifying. Yeah? Okay, so then it’s agreed then that we will, Mr. Darrow, continue this agenda th item till September 4, which would be our next Hilo meeting. DARROW: Sixty days? WOODWARD: More or less. WATANABE: He mentioned 60 but notice does not require 60. He just, you know, because it’s two months, it’s 60. th WOODWARD: I would just say until September 4. If we have not received a reply by th September 4 that we’d consider that no response and we’d proceed. WATANABE: Okay. Yes? CAMPBELL: Question. Is there a chance for this to be heard at another meeting, whether in Kona or otherwise? WATANABE: Typically we don’t do that because it’s inconvenient. It could be conceived that, you know, we’re making it very difficult for people who would like to testify. CAMPBELL: Okay. WATANABE: You know, it would be nice for me, I live in Kona. Okay. So we’ll continue then with that one. The discussion ended at 11:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT B 30