Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-04 TCAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 4, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of MARTA V. CAMPBELL (SPP 08-000057) was called to order at 1:30 p.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. PRESENT: Rell Woodward ABSENT & EXCUSED: Rodney Watanabe C. Kimo Alameda Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Frederic Housel Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner L`hi`Bnsskd+Rs`eeOk`mmdq And approximately 16 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. WOODWARD: Next order of business is a contested case. Applicant is Marta Campbell requesting a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a tutoring center on one acre of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I‘ll just give a brief summary as to what happened th since the last meeting on July 10 and also give a general description of the area for some of the Commissioners who weren’t there. The subject property is within the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision. It is at this particular location. This particular roadway is Makuu Drive going towards the ocean, and this would be towards Highway 130. The subject property is located on th the mauka side of 6 Avenue at this particular location. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the establishment of a tutoring center within an existing dwelling; and it will be to accommodate approximately 16 children from K to Grade 6. And the operations would be from Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EXHIBIT B 1 This particular slide shows the site plan of the property. On the property there is an existing single family dwelling which would be utilized for the tutoring center. On the first floor of the building the tutoring center would be located in this area; and the office for the tutoring operation would be located also on the first floor. th As the Commissioners will remember on July 10 there was a petition for standing for contested case filed by George Kaiser and that particular standing was granted by the Planning Commission at that meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission also requested that we send the application over to the Department of Education as well as the Hawaiian Paradise Park th Owners Association. We did receive the DOE’s comments, a letter of July 24 that basically stated that they had no comments on the particular request. As I was reading the minutes two days ago I recall that Commissioner Iwashita had said that we should send the application over to the District Area Superintendent, that was Mary Correa. Unfortunately we sent it to the main office at the Department of Education in Honolulu and that’s the normal protocol or procedure that we use. I did call Mary Correa’s office yesterday and they indicated to me that she was not available for the next two days, yesterday and today. Regarding the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association’s letter that was received on th August 26 they basically stated that they had no objections but the tutoring center does not conform to the HPP’s Master Plan. Again this is the aerial photo of the subject property. Okay, th the property is located here, and this is 6 Avenue. Mr. Kaiser’s property is located one lot away, which is approximately 130 feet away from the subject property. And the abutting property on the mauka side is owned by Philip Matlage who also sent a correspondence over to the Planning Commission. th Since that July 10 meeting we received certain correspondence besides the Department of Education’s and the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association’s letters. First we received a letter from Heidi Hanza who supported the petition. We also received from Mr. Kaiser an update th to his written testimony. We also received a letter dated August 11 from Marta Campbell th refuting information presented by Mr. Kaiser at the hearing. We also received on July 11 a th letter from Linda Peters, a letter of support of this petition. And on July 26 we received another letter from Raymond Owens who supported the petition. And, lastly we received a letter, correspondence from Mr. Kaiser today regarding the minutes of the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association dated July16, ’08. As far as, at the last meeting I believe Mr. Domingo had asked how far was the Kaiser’s property to the subject petitioned area. And in measuring the distance it’s one lot away and it’s about 130 feet from the property. Just for your information there is the, according to the Hawaiian Paradise Park Master Plan there is a school site located here in this dark shaded area; and that is approximately 2,300 feet from the subject property. The Planning Director is recommending approval of this petition. And he had submitted a proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order for your consideration. Are there any questions at this time? WOODWARD: No questions for staff. Since this is a contested case this is going to be handled a little bit differently than our usual protocol; and I’d like our legal counsel Mr. Torigoe to go over the process by which this hearing will be run. EXHIBIT B 2 TORIGOE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically the hearing had started at the last meeting; and as I recall the parties had agreed to a certain level of informality where basically there were no witnesses besides the applicant and the intervenor I think at the last hearing. Of course, if there are other witnesses that need to be called then I think, you know, the Commission can entertain that. Exhibits were also admitted and so, you know, the Commission should have those in the record.And, again, the parties may want to introduce other exhibits or argument at this hearing as the Commission may allow. Basically at this point you’re just continuing on with the contested case hearing as it ended last time. You have, I believe, a transcript, a draft transcript of that hearing. Some time before you go ahead today you ought to have any corrections made to that and approve it. And, also, make sure that those two Commissioners who were not here, and that would be Mr. Housel and Ms. Bowman, make sure that they’ve reviewed the transcript and the exhibits and are familiar with record. The first thing you need to do though is under your Planning Commission 4-21 it says “The Presiding Officer shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to present testimony on the matter prior to the commencement of the hearing and prior to proceedings on any subsequent day to which the proceeding is continued.” So that’s what you should do first. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Torigoe; and we may have more questions for you as we go along. We do have four members of the public who have signed up to testify; and this is a little different than our usually situation, public testimony comes first in this case. So I’ll call up Suzanne Mayhew, George Kaiser, Philip Matlage, and Jean Auth, something, they couldn’t read your writing, Jean. So if you would come up to the table, have a seat, we’ll swear you in and then you may begin your testimony. Okay, we’re missing one. Mr. Kaiser. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, Mr. Kaiser is a -. WOODWARD: Intervenor, okay, okay. All right. Will you all raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the County of Hawaii Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. Yes. WOODWARD: Very good. I like that. Let’s begin with you. If you will speak into the microphone this will become part of the record. And before you begin your testimony state your name and address, please. AUTH: Hi. I’m Jean Auth; and my address PO Box 492585, and that’s in Keaau, th 96749. I live on 6 Street just down the road from Ms. Campbell and I work for the Department of Education at a school that is in restructuring because my students can’t pass the test. So I support Ms. Campbell if she’s going to open her house to students so that they can learn more, so that our future can be a little brighter. And that’s it. Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank out. Brevity is a source of wit. Do we have any questions for Ms. Auth? Seeing none, we’ll move on. Name and address please, and then give us what you’ve got. EXHIBIT B 3 MAYHEW: I’m Suzanne Mayhew. I am at HC 3, Box 11000 in Keaau 96749. I’m here to represent the Hawaiian Paradise Park. We sent a letter, I’m not sure if you all got it. I know Norman didn’t get his until maybe a few hours ago. And what it has is the motion that was passed by the Board of Directors. And it’s kind of unclear, so I’m here to clarify anything you want on that. It goes on and on, and it’s still kind of vague. So, and I couldn’t change it because it was the motion. But I do want to, you know, answer any questions that have come up from that. I don’t know if you all have a copy of it. WOODWARD: We have. MAYHEW: Okay. Basically what they’re saying is, yeah, our kids do need help. They need tutoring centers, they need more schools, they need everything.But between the Master Plan that they’ve been working so hard on and their new traffic and safety committee doing traffic counts and the like, they didn’t want to, what’s the word, not approve -. WOODWARD: Endorse? MAYHEW: Thank you, this particular tutoring center because of those reasons. So if you have any questions about this very vague motion I’m here to answer those. WOODWARD: All right. Commissioners, any questions? IWASHITA: I do, Mr. Chair. WOODWARD: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming, Ms. Mayhew. I guess my th reading of this is that, this is referring to the August 26 report of the Board’s action, it is that this proposed tutoring center does not conform with the Master Plan. And so I take that as an objection basically to approval of the special permit. MAYHEW: That is the Board’s standing on this. IWASHITA: Okay. We have, and I guess to clarify on the record first. Is this August 26, 2008 letter signed by Suzanne Mayhew from Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association part of the record in this case? Is it yes? WOODWARD: I believe it is, I have so many letters here. IWASHITA: No, I have one. I just want to make sure that all the parties agree that it is part of the record, or it’s clear that it is part of the record. TORIGOE: It’s not an exhibit per se. In a contested case hearing if someone wants to make it so, you know, that can be moved on. It is part of the correspondence that was received by the Commission for that, you know, for the purposes of this hearing. IWASHITA: Okay, so I think it should be made part of the record. So how is that accomplished? EXHIBIT B 4 TORIGOE: Again, if there’s no, well, when the parties come up I guess we can just ask if there’s no objections, you know, that this would be considered as part of the record. IWASHITA: Thank you. Again, same question to the, there appears to be an email from Mr. Kaiser which references what happened at the July 16,2008 meeting, Board of Director’s meeting. Is that also going to be part of the record? WOODWARD: If I might, Mr. Kaiser is the intervenor and he will have a chance to address us here after -. IWASHITA: Okay. Well, is it appropriate for me to ask questions of Ms. Mayhew based on this email? WOODWARD: I will address that to Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: Well, again, where is that, was that basically an email that came from, let’s see -. IWASHITA: This one is dated September 2, 2008, 10:05 p.m. TORIGOE: Okay. According to this email it is, the email is, he says it’s what I plan to introduce as evidence. So I suppose, I mean, if you wanted to just ask the parties at this point if they’ve got any objections to this coming in as evidence and being part of the record and being used for your questioning, Mr. Chairman, you could do that. WOODWARD: Do any of, well, we haven’t sworn them in. Are there any objections from any parties about discussing this matter with Ms. Mayhew? All right, yes? CAMPBELL I would like to know the validity of it. NOMURA: Microphone. WOODWARD: All right, if there are any questions -? Let’s put this off until we get Mr. Kaiser. And then if we need to call Ms. Mayhew back up for her comments, I have no problem with doing that, but I don’t want to muddy the water at this point. IWASHITA: Is that okay with Ms. Mayhew? Will you be available later? MAYHEW: Yes. IWASHITA: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WOODWARD: Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Mayhew for sharing the Board’s opinion regarding this application. And you can say no, if you don’t want to, but I was wondering what is your opinion? EXHIBIT B 5 MAYHEW: My personal opinion, we need more schools, we need tutoring centers, we need these things. If I were a neighbor I might have an issue but I live 12 blocks away or so. You know, I’m really on a fence. I have a seven year old. I drive her all the way down into Hilo to go to school every day because the situation is what it is. So on a personal level, not speaking for the Board, I’d like to see more schools around. But I’m here today to represent the Board so I, you know -. WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Mayhew, as you represent the Board my question is is there a disparity between the Hawaiian Paradise Park Master Plan in comparison with the Community Development Plan that has been considered by the Council at this time? MAYHEW: It’s very similar. There are some differences. In fact the Tavares case that was earlier today was one of those. But as far as these 20-acre parcels for schools and parks, that is in our Master Plan and it is in the Community Development Plan, the ones that were on the map. DOMINGO: So this specific property is included within the parcels, within -? MAYHEW: No, the original developer as well as our Master Plan, as well as the Community Development Plan, designated these 20-acre parcels. They were two side by sides on the map that they, as school sites or park sites. So Marta’s tutoring center is actually down the street from the parcel. DOMINGO: How far is it? MAYHEW: A little over 2000 feet maybe. DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. MAYHEW: You’re welcome. WOODWARD: All right, Director Yuen. YUEN: Yeah, I have a few questions about the Master Plan, and really they center at what level of detail the Master Plan was trying to plan everything within Paradise Park, you know, because I certainly looked through the Master Plan. Besides the fact that there are 20-acre sites set aside for schools, is there something else in the Master Plan that this application would contradict? MAYHEW: Wow, I wish I’d done my homework. You know, I really don’t think so. I think basically this isn’t a school but it’s as close to one, it’s closer than a shopping center or whatever else. So I think the only way I could bring it into the Master Plan is on that concept. It’s education space and we have those set side. So -. EXHIBIT B 6 YUEN: You see, my question, you know, the Board made this motion and you’re representing it. And I’ve looked through the Master Plan and I really don’t see anything in the Master Plan that really speaks to somebody establishing a community facility like, on the scale of this being out of their home like a 16-child tutoring center. And my sense of the Master Plan was that it really didn’t go into that level of detail. In other words, it doesn’t say all community facilities need to go into these 20 acres. Right? MAYHEW: You’re right. I don’t think it does specifically say that. It kind of assumes that, but I don’t think it does say word for word that. You’re correct. YUEN: Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So maybe I can get these questions answered. One, my sense of the concern for the Board in making this decision is that, one, there’s a conflict with the Master Plan which is part of the HPP policy. Is that correct? MAYHEW: Correct. IWASHITA: Two, that there is a concern about extra traffic being generated by this activity. Is that correct? MAYHEW: That is correct. IWASHITA: And, three, that allowing this tutoring center would set a precedent which the Board did not want to set -? MAYHEW: Correct. IWASHITA: Essentially allowing cottage kind of businesses to be set up at various places within -. In other words, other people would come in and say, well, you allowed this, now you should allow us do this, and so forth? MAYHEW: That’s right. And if I could go a little further on that? IWASHITA: Yes. MAYHEW: I think it’s going to come up later, that’s the email that was presented by our committee, that’s the committee report to the Board. They didn’t want to set a precedent for this. I think that might be the strongest pull, I didn’t want to set a precedent for allowing this and that and then not allowing that and this. You know, how would they draw the line. I think they were thinking of themselves and future Boards, and looking at our past and how we’ve tripped over a lot of special use permits. They’re trying to streamline it a little bit as much as they can. IWASHITA: So in my experience on this Board, that will be a concern along the lines of essentially now like in Paradise Park if somebody came in and asked for a bed and breakfast EXHIBIT B 7 since there have been several already approved there is really no basis to start objecting to it. That’s a kind of a precedent setting concern that they would have? MAYHEW: You’re exactly right. In fact, the last bed and breakfast application we had they didn’t even address it. Like I brought it to their attention and they said, oh, well -. So, yeah, that’s the precedent. You know, bed and breakfast, okay, I guess we’re accepting those. But where do we draw the line?They’re trying to draw a line. WOODWARD: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: If, and this is hypothetical since we’re talking precedent setting and I understand. If say the school, that 20-acre parcel was developed and there was a school there, what to do think the objection would be from the Association to have a tutoring center near there? MAYHEW: Down the street? BOWMAN: Yeah. MAYHEW: That’s a very good question. I don’t know. It’s a relatively new board. I know I could speak for myself but I don’t know if I can speak for them. It seems logical to me a school, after center tutoring, you know, go down go down the street, get your tutoring and, you know -. But I guess if I’d have to give you an answer now I’d say they’ll probably stick to their guns and say this 20 acres is where this needs to be. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. MAYHEW: You’re welcome. WOODWARD: I seem to sense a deep ambivalence here. MAYHEW: Oh, it’s tough for me, it really is. It is, it really is. But, again, you know, I feel for the Board, too. I mean there they are volunteers trying to, you know, plan the future of the neighborhood where there are only serving one to three years and they’re a little tentative -. WOODWARD: We know all about that. MAYHEW: You know about that, yeah. WOODWARD: All right. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Matlage, if you would give us your name and address and then start with your testimony, please. MATLAGE: Thank you. My name is Philip Matlage, M-a-t-l-a-g-e. I live at 15-2063 TH 7 Street, directly behind Ms. Campbell’s property. My mailing address is PO Box 492446, Keaau, 96749. I’d like to thank the Commission for their time and allowing me to express my objection to granting the special use permit for the tutoring center and school, if you would, proposed for Ms. Campbell’s home which sits directly behind mine in Paradise Park. Additionally, I would like to note that on Page 6 my testimony was noted as being in support, my EXHIBIT B 8 written statement was noted as being in support of Ms. Campbell’s tutoring center or school; and I most definitely and adamantly opposed. I would like to make sure that that’s noted. The current HPP Owners Association Board of Directors has, by virtue of a vote in the August 16, 2008 meeting, recognized the recommendation for granting authorization of a special use permit would violate the HPP Master Plan which designates commercial development within specified village centered commercial areas within HPP and that the recommended granting of the special use permit would create additional traffic and constitute a cottage industry which violates the HPP Master Plan. The concept of a school or tutoring center is a good idea; however, it is in the wrong place, which was the statement that was made by the Board of Directors prior to having the motion. I agree that more schools would be wonderful but I am a strong supporter of public schools. And we need to support the public schools; and if they aren’t doing a good job we need to hold them accountable and make every effort to assist them. The full meeting minutes of the 8/16 HPP Board of Director’s meeting will not be publicly available until approved at the next scheduled meeting. However, you have the recommendation that was forwarded by the HPP Owners Association Board. The Puna Development Plan currently on the Mayor’s desk for approval partners the HPP Master Plan in controlling commercial developments by establishing the village center concept to prevent the unplanned development of commercial enterprises in agricultural and residential areas in Puna. The village center concept according to the Herald Tribune newspaper was articulated on behalf of County Council Member Emily Naeole of the Puna, like Chris Yuen who sits with you today. I’d like to read an excerpt from a letter written by the Hawaii County Planning Director Chris Yuen to the Puna CDP Steering Committee on November 13, 2006. In part it says “In the 1990 special permits were granted to allow a small commercial area on Orchidland Drive to serve subdivisions between Keaau and Pahoa. The 2005 General Plan formally designated this area as Medium Density Urban to encourage commercial development. In addition the 2005 General Plan adopted portions of the 1998 Hawaiian Paradise Park Master Plan by designating two 20- acre sites in Paradise Park as Medium Density and two other 20-acre sites as Industrial.” If the County as a matter of course, now this is me, if the County as a matter of course is recommending the approval of commercial enterprises, and this tutoring center is a commercial enterprise or a business, then by authorizing the special use permit applications the County must assume responsibility for the infrastructure improvements necessary to conduct the operation as a business, including but not limited to roads, sewer, water, parks and school facilities. I would welcome a County funded-paved road and County water with all of the infrastructure improvements. If the County has the intention of overriding the HPP Master Plan the County may pay for the privilege. This I believe will be operated as a school. The children will be dropped off at 8 o’clock in the morning and they’ll be picked up later in the afternoon, some as late as 4 or 4:30. A school has a place, and it’s in a commercial development area; and those are available on the island. And, also, in the same meeting which the do not approve was recommended by the HPP Board, a do not approve was recommended for a day-care center on the same basis within HPP. And the Board recommended that they not approve Ms. Campbell’s tutoring center as it is a cottage industry, creates increased traffic, and violates the Master Plan, it would set a bad precedent, etc. I believe that establishing this sort of a business in a residential area or residential and agricultural is inappropriate, as does the Board of Directors of HPP. It’s a great idea, it’s a wrong site to do it. That’s the end of my testimony. EXHIBIT B 9 WOODWARD: Thank you very much. Questions? Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought earlier the Board actually came to consensus but you mentioned earlier in your testimony about a vote, the Board voted or they had come to consensus? If they voted I wanted to know do you know if it was a majority or was split? MATLAGE: It was a majority vote, one abstention, two four, five against. ALAMEDA: Okay. Thank you, sir. WOODWARD: Any other questions? All right, thank you. You may be seated. Thank th you for your testimony. I just want to be sure, most of us were here for the July 10 meeting and I think just Commissioners Housel and Bowman were not. Have you both had time to review the information from that meeting, and the Director’s recommendation and background information? HOUSEL: Yes. BOWMAN: Yes. WOODWARD: Very good. All right, now I believe the next step -. I’ll leave this to Mr. Torigoe. What’s next? TORIGOE: Well, we do have a draft transcript of the hearing. You’d probably want to make sure if you’ve got corrections to that and accept it if it’s appropriate. WOODWARD: I’ve read it and I’m sure everybody else has. Does anybody have any corrections to that draft? NOMURA: Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Sharon. NOMURA: It’s on page 4, the second paragraph, it was Chairman Watanabe who spoke, so if you’d make that correction. Thank you. It’s on the Marta Campbell’s transcript. WOODWARD: All rightly. We need a motion for that? TORIGOE: Yes. WOODWARD: All right. I move we make the correction that Ms. Nomura has -. TORIGOE: You should have somebody else make it. WOODWARD: Oh, have somebody else make it, okay. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? EXHIBIT B 10 WOODWARD: Yes, sir. IWASHITA: I move that the transcript of the prior proceedings in this matter circulated to all of the Commission Members be made part of the record with the correction noted by Ms. Nomura. WOODWARD: Second? ALAMEDA: I second. I just wanted to add, are you going to add the other documents that you wanted to add earlier? One time, might as well? IWASHITA: My understanding is that we’re going to wait on that until the parties appear. ALAMEDA: Okay. All rightly, I’ll second that motion. WOODWARD: All right, let’s just take a voice vote. All in favor say aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. WOODWARD: Any opposed? All right, it has been approved unanimously. TORIGOE: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I think at this point you could call the parties up and we can proceed to deal with the questions of any, if there are any other witnesses that they want to call and any other exhibits they’d like to see admitted. WOODWARD: All right. And I understand that they have the right to cross-examine witnesses and call witnesses -. TORIGOE: Right. WOODWARD: And so forth. Okay, so we’ll call Marta Campbell who is the applicant, and Mr. Kaiser who is the intervenor; and if I could swear you both in. If you’ll raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the County of Hawaii Planning Commission? CAMPBELL: I do. KAISER I do. WOODWARD: Very good. All right, Ms. Campbell, we’ll start with you. Name and address first please and then begin with your testimony. th CAMPBELL: Okay. Marta Campbell, I live at 15-2066 6 Avenue in Hawaiian Paradise Park. Mailing address is PO Box 357, Kurtistown, 96760. WOODWARD: Very good. Go. EXHIBIT B 11 CAMPBELL: Just a question to Ms. Mayhew, really. Has the Board met since this motion was made to clarify for you exactly what they meant by it? TORIGOE: Okay, Mr. Chair, it sounds like the applicant wants to call Ms. Mayhew as a witness. MAYHEW: Yes, sir. WOODWARD: Very well. You’ve already been sworn on. MAYHEW: Thank you. The Board has not met officially. I did make some phone calls when I got the minutes, just to confirm that that’s what they wanted, the wording in the motion. I called the recording secretary and got that; and it was all confirmed that way. CAMPBELL: The reason why I had to ask that question is because as I recall the president summed up the decisions saying, well, I guess we are pretty neutral, not objecting but also stating that it does not conform to the Master Plan. MAYHEW: That is how it was in the meeting. That’s why it felt so vague. You kind of sat there on the Board like I sat here saying yeah/no, yeah/no. But yeah/no I did confirm after, yeah. CAMPBELL: I have concerns about delivering messages without there having been a meeting and a vote because I recall there being strong voice for supporting it from two members of the Board, and I wondered what they had to say about the matter when you called them. MAYHEW: Actually I confirmed with the recording secretary what the exact words were and then I called Frank, the President or Vice-President who made the motion, to just double-check that that is what he wanted to say; and he said, yeah. CAMPBELL: Well, the Commission has the exact motion in front of them and I would prefer that that’s what we keep. There’s no heresy interpretation. But the motion states no objection, though it does not confirm. WOODWARD: Very good. Do you have any other statements to make? CAMPBELL: Well, I guess I wanted to know if there was a chance to make other statements made by other Board Members. Mr. Matlage had quoted somebody. Is this a time to quote other Board Members from Paradise Park or is any of it admissible? TORIGOE: Well, Mr. Chairman, basically your proceedings here are not governed by strict rules of evidence but, you know, you need to be a little careful about heresy and take into account at least the weight of that. If you start admitting a lot of heresy then, you know, people will want to come and rebut that, either in person or with other heresy. So, you know, ideally what you’d want to do is call the other people as witnesses and ask them direct questions and -. CAMPBELL: No, I’ll honor that and will not bring it up if that’s what’s honored by the Commission. EXHIBIT B 12 TORIGOE: Well, I mean, I’m not trying to prevent you from offering your evidence. But I’m just, you know, suggesting that there are some prudent guidelines and boundaries to try and follow. But, you know, if you want to try and introduce other evidence that’s your prerogative, and then the Commission will have to decide whether it comes in and what weight to give to it if it comes in. And right now you have one witness here, and basically you should finish asking whatever questions you want of this one witness; and then we’ll have to allow the intervenor a chance to cross-examine the witness. CAMPBELL: Okay. No, I do not have any further questions to her. WOODWARD: Okay. Mr. Kaiser, you’re on. KAISER: For Ms. Mayhew, please confirm it was a majority vote against that did not conform? MAYHEW: It was a majority, the vote for the motion that you have in front of you was a majority vote. KAISER: And that reads that they have no objection to tutoring centers but they have objection to the location of the tutoring center? MAYHEW: Correct. KAISER: Due to the Master Plan? MAYHEW: Right. KAISER: That’s it. IWASHITA: I didn’t hear an oral response to that last question. MAYHEW: Yes, I confirmed what he said. WOODWARD: Oh, you might give us your, did you give us your name and address? KAISER: Oh, I’m sorry. I’m George Frank Kaiser, Paradise Park, 15-2051. WOODWARD: Very good. I just need that for the record. Okay. Is there any redirect from the applicant? No? Mr. Director. YUEN: I just want a little point of clarification. Suzanne, were you at the meeting? MAYHEW: Yes, I was. Yes, I was. YUEN: Okay. And Mr. Kaiser, were you at the meeting? EXHIBIT B 13 KAISER: Yes. YUEN: And Ms. Campbell, were you at the meeting? CAMPBELL: So was I, yes. YUEN: All right, thank you. WOODWARD: All right, Commissioners, Fellow Commissioners, any questions? ALAMEDA: Is this for the witness, questions for the witness? WOODWARD: For anybody. TORIGOE: For the witness basically. ALAMEDA: For the witness, huh? TORIGOE: Yes. WOODWARD: Okay. All right. Do we have any questions? ALAMEDA: Quick clarification. I just wanted to ask, you know, on the letter th Ms. Mayhew, they said they were, it says here it was discuss at the August 20 Board of Director’s meeting. MAYHEW: Correct. ALAMEDA: And that’s the meeting that you all attended? MAYHEW: Correct. ALAMEDA: Okay. WOODWARD: All right. We’re going to open it up for the Commissioners to ask questions to the applicant/intervenor. YUEN: No, are they going to present testimony? WOODWARD: I think they’re done, unless you have testimony to present. CAMPBELL: I’d like to present that. My understanding of the Master Plan is that it was written in 1994 and it became a resolution in 1997. The community has drastically changed since it was written and since it became a resolution. And I know that the community’s needs are also new. And so until Hawaiian Paradise Park has these village centers where a tutoring center could be set up where do we meet the needs of the community? I’d be happy to rent a place at a village center if it existed. But until then I’d like the families to have this opportunity to meet their children’s needs. Thank you. EXHIBIT B 14 WOODWARD: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Yes, I had a question. Are there any current tutoring centers in that area? CAMPBELL: No. The closest tutoring centers are in Hilo. HOUSEL: Are there schools in that area? CAMPBELL: There’s a private school. There are actually two private schools, Malamalama Waldorf School, there is also Kamehameha Preschool which is in very similar neighborhood that I’m proposing to run the tutoring center in. And there’s no objection for that that I know of, and the neighborhood has not suffered. HOUSEL: Right. For the Association, do they have plans to build a school there? MAYHEW: No. It’s my understanding of our Charter of Incorporation and everything else that we actually don’t have that. We will lease the land but it will have to be improved by the lessee. HOUSEL: Okay. So at the current plan there is no intention to build a school there? MAYHEW: No, no, we won’t be developing anything. It’s just open to leasing. HOUSEL: Okay. If you, this is hypothetical but if you were to open this, you know, tutoring center where do you think our students would come from? CAMPBELL: They’re coming from mainly Paradise Park community. And these students are either home-schooled or they go to Pahoa or Keaau or the private schools. HOUSEL: Okay. Are they in the immediate area? CAMPBELL: Immediate area. Some of them can actually ride their bikes from two or three streets below or above me. HOUSEL: So within walking distance? CAMPBELL: Not walking, no, no. It would be a mile or mile and half for some of them. HOUSEL: Okay, okay. Thank you very much. WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Campbell, have you now or may be having some kind of an agreement with the Department of Education with regards to tutoring students? CAMPBELL: No. I don’t have any agreement with the Department of Education. EXHIBIT B 15 DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: Where is the Kamehameha preschool located? thth CAMPBELL: Is it 20, 20 Street, between Makuu and Paradise. BOWMAN: And that’s Residential? CAMPBELL: Well, Agricultural. It’s all Agricultural. BOWMAN: So it’s Agricultural. It’s not a Commercial? CAMPBELL: No. BOWMAN: And they have approximately how -? CAMPBELL: Twenty something students? BOWMAN: Twenty something students? CAMPBELL: Uh huh. BOWMAN: And they have a building or a house? CAMPBELL: A house. BOWMAN: It’s a house. CAMPBELL: Uh huh. BOWMAN: And did they need a special permit? Maybe I can ask the Planning Director. WOODWARD: I think the Director wanted to speak anyway so you’re on. YUEN: Gee, honestly, I don’t know. How long have they been open? CAMPBELL: Several years. It used to be operating as something, no, it was Lynn Wood’s preschool program; and I know she had a permit through the County for it. And then basically she sold her business and Kamehameha had taken over. YUEN: I don’t know this. Does anybody from staff know? Nobody knows whether or not they have a special permit to operate there? EXHIBIT B 16 HAYASHI: I am sorry, I don’t have the information; but I can surely check in a few minutes if I know the tax map key of the property. CAMPBELL: I don’t know. MAYHEW: I can get it for you. YUEN: All right, we can check. If it was operating it would be transferable if there was a special permit, but I don’t know. I don’t remember they having come in while I was Director, which is almost eight years now. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, I was just advised by Maija that she’s currently working on another application for that particular area and there is a special permit for both Malamalama School and the Kamehameha Preschool. WOODWARD: All right. Do we have any other questions or comments? BOWMAN: I have a question; and, pardon me, I didn’t look through everything. Your students would be there every day? What makes it different than a school? CAMPBELL: Some of them would be there every day and others would be coming for part of the day or just for individual sessions. So I have, my time is set aside between 8 and 2 for group sessions. So I may have anywhere up to 16, some days 8, some days 10, some days all 16. And after 2 o’clock it would be individual sessions. So those children whose parents have chosen to take them out of the DOE system asked for my assistance in guiding the children through the -. Actually there’s a limited number of students who are home-schooled in Paradise Park but some of those parents of home-schooled children have asked me to assist the children with their work. And so I set that time aside in the morning when I know other children are in school and couldn’t take advantage of my hours then. BOWMAN: So these would basically be the same students everyday from 8 to 2. And then after school students -? CAMPBELL: It would be different children. And then some of the children would graduate from the program whenever the parents decide to stop home-schooling or whenever they have reached a certain level. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: Yes, sir, Mr. Director. YUEN: Yes. I just wanted to really reinforce the Department’s recommendation of approval. And just in case, so parties understand they do have the right to cross-examine the Director and any members of the Planning Department that speak on this. And I wanted to talk a little bit about the extent of master planning and how far you can really go in establishing locations in a plan. And this goes for the General Plan, the Community Development Plans, and really the Hawaiian Paradise Park Master Plan as far as I can read it. Let’s start with the Paradise Park Master Plan, it does have locations for commercial areas and it does have locations EXHIBIT B 17 for school. I’ve never read the Plan as trying to plan where everything would happen in the community, like a 16-child tutoring center after school program.There are all kinds of things that people do in real communities that are of not really, that are not like a 7-Eleven as far as a commercial business, or a gas station, or an office building, or your typical idea of a school. Now if the Department of Education was thinking of putting a school in Paradise Park we would urge them to follow the Paradise Park Master Plan and to put it into one of the 20-acre sites. But you can’t preplan everything; and that’s why in the agricultural area you have the opportunity for special permits. We’ve been, and this is where the scale and the impact of a particular use is really very important. I think that the Department, we’ve been very consistent in trying to get commercial uses of a certain scale into commercial areas. We’ve also supported very small scale kinds of businesses that can and are often operated out of homes. Like we’ve done, we did a special permit for somebody to do a barber shop. You know, they run it out of their home. And this is where the situation in Puna and the Ag areas is really unfortunate because in a residential area, residential zone we have a thing called home occupations. People can do things that are very similar to what is being proposed here in a residential area without going to a board like this and getting a special permit. People have, they can teach, they have hula classes. A home occupation is simply a business that’s run out of someone’s home with a maximum of one employee. There are limits. You can’t have signs, it has to be run within the home; and there are certain kinds of businesses that you can’t do as a home occupation. But one of the things you can do in a home occupation is group instruction. Unfortunately in the whole area of Puna which is, you know, the size of Oahu and now has over 40,000 people there are practically, you know, all the truly residential areas like Paradise Park are in the State Land Use Agricultural District; and our Zoning Code says a home occupation needs a special permit. Okay, be that as it may there they’re properly here for a special permit. But it’s the kind of thing that happens in communities, it happens in neighborhoods. This and having, she’s talking about running a 16- child tutoring center out of her home that she lives in. This is the kind of thing you have to have in a community. This is community building. If you say, well, some day somebody is going to build something on this 20-acre site, first of all, there’s no economic incentive to do something like that for tutoring centers and the like; and you’re really dooming the community to not having these kinds of functions. And the last thing I’d like to say is that, you know, in any special permit we have to look at the impact on surrounding property owners and look at that very carefully. In this case we have two neighbors objecting who don’t live on the street that the traffic, that the cars would come on to thth do the drop-off. The proposed center is on 6, the two neighbors who objected are on 7. We th have in the files at least five residents on 6 who are in favor. There are a couple who I can’t tell th from the letters whether they live on 6 or not. And what I’d like to leave you with is that this is very much the kind of thing we have to have in our communities if we’re going to build real communities. KAISER: Can I read something from the Master Plan to the Commission? WOODWARD: Certainly, go ahead. KAISER: The purpose of the plan is to provide -. IWASHITA: Excuse me, can you be specific about what Master Plan and -? EXHIBIT B 18 KAISER: Section 2-1, Objectives of the Land Use Plan -. IWASHITA: Which plan are you -? KAISER: The Master Plan for Paradise Park. IWASHITA: Okay, thank you. KAISER: “The overall purpose of the Land Use Plan is to provide a framework for the future growth of development of HPP. The Land Use Plan is a document tool and a guide for the granting of permits and variances for both the county and the community. Each lot is owned by individuals who purchased their properties with the intent to building residences and/or using their land for agricultural pursuit. There should be no deviation from this plan.” Is that vague? WOODWARD: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: I’m sorry, what was the -? KAISER: I’m just asking the Commission if that’s a vague statement, “There should be no deviation from this plan?” IWASHITA: Are you asking that of the Director? KAISER: Okay, let’s do it that way. You said you didn’t really understand that the Plan was that specific. I think that’s rather specific. YUEN: No, I don’t see something in the plan that says that you should not have a small scale business operated out of a home, that we should not have something, for example, like this Kamehameha School Preschool which I presume is also not located in the 20-acre site, nor any other preschool tutoring center and the like. I don’t think the Plan was written to block those kinds of community initiatives. I hope it wasn’t. And I certainly don’t see anything in the plan that says that. KAISER: Cottage industries that would not create extra traffic or nuisance to neighbors. YUEN: Well, I also don’t see this as creating a nuisance to your neighbors. KAISER: We’re the neighbors. YUEN: I don’t see, in any area there are things that you live with. People can play baseball in their backyard, they can have kids over, run around. Those are the kinds of things that happen in a neighborhood. It doesn’t create a traffic on your street. And finally I wouldn’t really consider this a cottage, it’s not what we’d typically called a cottage industry. Cottage industry for most people would be something like someone sews clothes in there. It’s very much like a situation where somebody, they sew clothes or they have people come to their home and they do taxes or something like that. This is, I look at it as different. It’s more of a community- type facility. EXHIBIT B 19 KAISER: This is a planning decision, it’s not an educational referendum here. This is what the Board of Directors of HPP make their decision on. So you’re basically going to vote against the Board of Directors of HPP, it’s what you want? YUEN: In this case I would recommend that the Commission grant this special permit, yes. KAISER: Okay. WOODWARD: Ms. Campbell. CAMPBELL: I’m curious about the nuisance. Because as I see it, as it was stated before, this is really something that the community that you live in would like. They’re asking for it. Traffic will be really limited to two times a day really in terms of over 10 cars. You know, that would be early in the morning and once in the afternoon. Cottage industry you would have th ongoing, right? What is the nuisance to you on 7th Street that this operation on 6 Street would cause? KAISER: It’s a dirt road that will never be paved. It will kick up dust and noise and traffic. And people will be driving fast, of course, picking up that dusk when dropping off their kids. It’s just the community as such, HPP, has made the vote; and I think it should be adhered to. CAMPBELL: Is there any other nuisance besides the dust that you’re concerned about? KAISER: Well, the noise of 16 children. CAMPBELL: Okay. So we are in an agriculturally zoned area. I could be asking for a permit for a kennel or I could be having 15 roosters. I want to know what is so offensive about the laughter of children a couple of times a day when they come out to play? KAISER: Go get the dogs. You don’t need a permit for that. CAMPBELL: You didn’t answer my question. What is offensive about the laughter of children? KAISER: It’s a personal thing. I don’t really understand the point. CAMPBELL: So the Commission understand, it is an Agriculturally zoned area but it really is used a Residential area and -. KAISER: And not a business area. CAMPBELL: And it is perceived by newcomers from the mainland that it is a retirement community. IWASHITA: Point of order, Mr. Chair. EXHIBIT B 20 WOODWARD: Yeah, we don’t want to make this a debate. If you have information to present to the Commission, that’s fine; but we don’t have to have a fist fight here. IWASHITA: Point of order, Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Yes, sir, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: My understanding is the parties under the contested case hearing procedures have the right to cross-examine a witness; and in this case I take it the Director is testifying. So any questions at this point in my mind should be directed at the Director. WOODWARD: I think if there are questions that’s fine. But what we heard just now were not questions. IWASHITA: I understand but basically what we have is a discourse going between the parties. WOODWARD: Right. IWASHITA: Or two of the parties and -. WOODWARD: Exactly. And, again, we are not here to answer questions. We are here to hear testimony. And in any contested case the Planning Director is a participant. So if you have questions, they need to be directed to the Planning Director. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Yes, sir. IWASHITA: I do have questions for the Director. Thank you. Well, first, a procedural matter. I guess just as a matter of record could we have the Paradise Park Master Plan part of the record? Is that a document -? WOODWARD: Right. I was about ready to get to that. We have two things that you th asked to be admitted in testimony. One is the August 26 letter from the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association, the other is the email from Mr. Kaiser. IWASHITA: Yes. WOODWARD: Does anybody, including the intervenor, or the applicant, or any of the Commissioners, have any problem with admitting that? CAMPBELL: I object to the email because it’s excerpts from a meeting. So the entirety of the meeting should be introduced as an evidence instead of excerpts from the meeting. WOODWARD: Anybody have a response to that? Mr. Kaiser? EXHIBIT B 21 KAISER: Those are the relevant excerpts from the meeting. The entire minutes are available on line. We could get them right now. WOODWARD: All right. Well, would it be acceptable then if we put, and we can do that, put the entire meeting minutes as part of evidence as opposed to the email? Would that be acceptable to both of you? KAISER: Sure. WOODWARD: Not acceptable to you, Ms. Campbell? CAMPBELL: If that’s necessary to have that then it would be in its entirety. WOODWARD: All right. Director, do you -? IWASHITA: Logistically how are we accomplishing that? WOODWARD: Do you have any problems with that, Mr. Director? YUEN: I don’t think we have them. Do we? ALAMEDA: I have a problem with that, yeah. It’s just we’re going to have to go get them and read them, all the minutes now. CAMPBELL: May I add that the Hawaiian Paradise Park Board Association had the time and notification to submit any evidence that they wished to submit. WOODWARD: Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: Well, it’s the Chairperson’s, Presiding Officer’s prerogative to determine, you know, on the admission of evidence, you know, in this case. Basically if there is relevant evidence then the tendency is to submit it and also to allow other parties to provide any rebuttal. KAISER: May I address the Chairman? WOODWARD: Yes, sir. KAISER: We have the General Manager of HPP sitting. Can she verify those are the excerpts from the minutes. WOODWARD: If she has, do you have the minutes, the complete minutes, or just -? MAYHEW: I’ve read them. I don’t have them with me. IWSHITA: Please use the mike. WOODWARD: Okay. EXHIBIT B 22 MAYNEW: Oh, sorry. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Yes, sir. ALAMEDA: Just maybe a compromise. I’m wondering if we just can admit the letter and exclude the email. I mean the email is kind of an excerpt from the letter, too, so -. KAISER: The email is the minutes that led to the decision in the motion. ALAMEDA: I was just thinking, Mr. Chair, it’s easier to just accept this as evidence since it’s here than the minutes. WOODWARD: Well, evidently there was no discussion about admitting that, nobody had an objection. And -. IWASHITA: So for the record, the letter is in, the letter dated August 26, 2008 from Paradise -? WOODWARD: There was no objection so that will be admitted, yes. All right, IWASHITA: What is the ruling on the partial minutes? WOODWARD: Well, we have an objection and you either have to get the complete minutes and delay this decision -. CAMPBELL: Just go ahead and accept it, please. I’m not objecting. I withdraw. WOODWARD: All right. So you have no objection then to this except? CAMPBELL: No. WOODWARD: Okay, then they will both be admitted as evidence. All right, any other questions for -? IWASHTIA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I had brought up, there have been references to the Paradise Park Master Plan and I guess a portion of it was read in. So I guess my next question is whether or not the Master Plan should be part of the record in this case, well, in part because it has been referred to and it’s the basis for the Board’s decision that objects to the granting of this particular tutoring center. TORIGOE: Mr. Chairman, it’s within your prerogative. Your Rule 4-18 (j) says, “At the hearing, the presiding officer may require the production of further evidence upon any issue.” EXHIBIT B 23 WOODWARD: Well, I understand. I mean, we could continue bringing all sorts of things into this and put it off until who knows when. But that’s what it would essentially do. IWASHITA: Okay, I don’t know if it would. It’s just a matter of reference or, to me, procedural clarity that it is part of the record and the parties acknowledge that that was the basis and not necessarily, you know, relying. I don’t know if we all have to read the whole plan if it’s admitted into evidence. WOODWARD: Well, my understanding, Commissioner Iwashita, is that everybody agrees that this is not entirely in sync with the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association Plan. And I don’t think anybody has really disputed that fact. So I think it would just be a cumbersome exercise, to be quite honest with you. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. WOODWARD: So I would suggest that we delay that one. Are there any other discussion, questions for the -? IWASHITA: Mr. Chair, I had couple of questions for the Director. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I understand your position correctly basically it’s, well, maybe clarification. If I wanted to do a tutoring center in my house, which is RS-15 in Hilo, what would I need to do to get that done? YUEN: You have to file a home occupation declaration that says that you are operating this and it does involve, whenever you have a home occupation that involves frequent clients or customer visits. As would a tutoring center, you have to file a declaration; but you would be able to operate it.You don’t actually get a permit. You just file this declaration. IWASHITA: So I could have 16 children in my house, or 20, or 30, as long as I met the health standard or whatever, I didn’t violate the Fire Code or whatever? YUEN: Yes, all other applicable standards. You’d be limited to yourself, the occupants of the home and one employee. IWASHITA: And my neighbors would have nothing to say about it? YUEN: No. IWASHITA: Okay. So in an RS-15, RS-10, doesn’t matter? YUEN: Right. IWASHITA: Any residential -? YUEN: Yes, a tutoring center, not a school, a tutoring center. EXHIBIT B 24 IWASHITA: Well, okay. I guess that’s semantical because I really don’t see the difference between what she has -. Maybe I’ll say this, you know, what she has are home- schooled kids that she’s taking in essentially all day, you know, 8 to 2 kind of a school day format, that’s a regular school day, and running a one-room school for home-schooled kids. So I don’t, you know, my son did kumon, he did piano lessons, you know, where the piano teacher was in her house. The kumon center was in the church in a residential area. I see all those things. But, you know, he went for an hour, at the most an hour. And, you know, that’s my idea of a tutoring kind of situation. When you take a child in from 8 to 2, you’re running a school which is, you know, either allowing meals, providing this -. I mean it’s a different scenario as far as this. You know, I can’t distinguish it from a school, is one of the difficulties I’m having with this. YUEN: There may be a point that it becomes a gray area, but I’m comfortable with what was presented as being a tutoring center and not being a school as described in the Zoning Code. But, you know, your basic question was could you do a tutoring center and take in kids and there isn’t a set -? You know, you gave some common examples of instruction that’s done out of people’s homes as home occupations legally, and there isn’t any set time frame that says it has to be an hour, or an hour and a half, or two hours, or something like that. And there are certainly, I believe, you know, there are people that do hula lessons out of their home and take several hours to do the hula lessons. And the point, there’s no question that this being where it is needs a special permit; but there are certainly things that are very similar to this that you could do in a residential area without a special permit, I mean in a residential area and people would consider that to be a reasonable use of the property. IWASHITA: Yeah, okay, I just wanted to clarify, because, okay, thank you. Another -. WOODWARD: What I’d like to do now if we could just so that we move this along is to give the applicant, the intervenor and the Director the chance to make closing statements. If they have any other witnesses they want to call, to do that, and then we can direct our questions to them. So, Ms. Campbell, if you would make any final statements you want, if you have any other witnesses or any questions for your witness, please -. CAMPBELL: I have been in the community since 1991 really and working with children. So I am known by a lot of families word of mouth. This is the work I have been doing so I didn’t even initiate this project. It really came from the community, and I’d love to support them in what they are doing. You know the public schools are restructuring one after the other. If I can support some families whose children haven’t made it in that system I’d be really, really happy. I’m not making a million bucks at this, really less than a teacher’s salary, but it is something that suits my family’s lifestyle and it will allow me to serve the community as I have been in the last 17 years. So thank you for the opportunity to bring it to you. WOODWARD: Thank you very much. Do you have any other exhibits or any other witnesses you would like to call? CAMPBELL: No, I do not. WOODWARD: Okay, Mr. Kaiser. EXHIBIT B 25 KAISER: As I said it’s not a referendum on education. It’s a land use planning decision and the Board of Directors of HPP is against it. That’s it. WOODWARD: Well, that was brief. Thank you very much. Mr. Director, do you have anything further to add? YUEN: Nothing further except that I would urge the Planning Commission to grant this and to consider that we have an area of 9,000 acres and 9,000 lots that needs to have this kind of activity operated out of homes, and that they’ve done the things necessary to make sure that there is minimal disturbance to their neighborhood. WOODWARD: Okay, Mr. Torigoe, had something to say here briefly. TORIGOE: Are there questions of the parties? WOODWARD: Oh, okay. We’ll have questions. Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA: Sure, thanks. I wanted to ask, you know, the whole question about 8 to 2, how many, what is the percentage of students, do you think from 16 students and then just so happens there are 16 folks in front of me if you count, how many, what’s the percentage of that amount of students five days a week at this tutoring center? Like 100 percent is like all 16 five days a week 8 to 2. CAMPBELL: Well, it wouldn’t necessarily be the same 16, but 16 a day. ALAMEDA: And so it’s always 16 from 8 to 2? CAMPBELL: No, but up to 16, up to 16. ALAMEDA: Okay, up to 16. So it theoretically could be -. CAMPBELL: It could be 16 every day. ALAMEDA: So 16 a day every day. CAMPBELL: That’s what I am hoping to get the permit for because I do have a colleague who would come in and work with me. ALAMEDA: So if you’re looking at a student perspective it’s tutoring because students could come in, in and out, but they’re just being replaced with other students? No? CAMPBELL: No, no. I am definitely preventing, I’m definitely committed to just keeping 16 per day and not have an on-going -. I have 5 in the morning and then 2 leave and 2 come to replace them. And we will not have the turnaround during those hours. So, so -. ALAMEDA: Okay, so you’re not getting 16 a day, all 16 from 8 to 2? CAMPBELL: No. EXHIBIT B 26 ALAMEDA: Okay, okay. CAMPBELL: So 8 to 4:30 is my application. Between 8 to 2 is when I would have group sessions. So there may be days when all 16 will be part of my group session and I will not have individual sessions then in the afternoon. ALAMEDA: Okay. CAMPBELL: Yeah, I will commit to limiting it to the 16. ALAMEDA: Okay, okay, and then one more question, too. If you’re not, if you don’t follow the recommendation by the Director and you don’t get this permit, what would you do with yourself? CAMPBELL: No Plan B at this point. ALAMEDA: Okay. Okay, thank you. I’ve got one question for the Director, too. I remember reading on your recommendation. I think it was 12.D, it talks about a timeline of some sort. I don’t know if that refers to this application or, you know, in your recommendation. OGATA: It’s 13.D. ALAMEDA: Oh, 13.D? OGATA: Yes. ALAMEDA: Yes, 13.D. OGATA: You want the whole 13 then, the whole No. 13? ALAMEDA: Oh, the whole No. 13. YUEN: Oh. That’s just a standard to perform any time and the administrative time extension could be for a maximum originally granted for performance. I’d have to look and see the conditions, what the time frames were. It doesn’t change the hours of operation or the like. It’s just that typically there is a commence operation or obtain plan approval time frame. I don’t see any time frames though, you know, for which they would have to obtain plan approval, for example. WOODWARD: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: I have a question, and I just want you to reconfirm. If a suitable commercial area came up you would be willing to relocate later on down the road? CAMPBELL: Within Paradise Park. BOWMAN: Within Paradise Park. EXHIBIT B 27 CAMPBELL: Yes. BOWMAN: Thank you. And I think just maybe cause I am somewhat familiar with home-schooling, and I think this is where some Commissioners may have trouble with this, is that there are various home-school programs that are out. Are you taking the children with their programs and helping augment these programs? Are you developing your own program? CAMPBELL: Some will have their own programs and I’m asked by the parents to develop it for others. BOWMAN: Okay, so there will be a variety. I think this is something we need to understand, that they’re coming with, some of them with their own programs; and so in that sense it’s tutorial. CAMPBELL: Yeah. And then if a parent tells me my child needs fractions and two other parents also tell me my child really needs help with fractions then those will become a group. And so that’s what I am presented with right now. I have groups of children needing the same thing, so some will have their own programs, others I have to develop it for. BOWMAN: Okay. And I’d just like to make a comment I do work at a school that is going under restructuring and I also have children that have gone to private schools, and I wouldn’t home-school them, and I hear the comments that we need to support the public schools. But I do believe that there are children, some of mine included, that need maybe a year or maybe this tutoring out of school. So I think that’s something to consider, not that we’re not supporting the public schools but there are certain round pegs in square holes, so -. CAMPBELL: Exactly. BOWMAN: Thank you. WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So from what I’m hearing then you’re not planning to retain those students on a year-round basis? CAMPBELL: If the parents wish for me to work with them all year round, then I would retain them. But there are also parents who wish for me to raise the children’s level to where they could rejoin their classes in public schools and not feel left out or falling behind. DOMINGO: Because as I understand it, you know, there is a certain standard you have at that, for instance, public school or even private school. Then if you’re below that standard then that would require some tutoring. And that you would extend that tutoring service to those children, and as they come up to the standard that’s required of them from whatever school they come from then they can go into the mainstream? CAMPBELL: Exactly, exactly. EXHIBIT B 28 DMINGO: Is that what you plan to do? CAMPBELL: That’s what I plan on doing. Well, according to, like I said some parents will ask me to retain their children and guide them with their home-schooling programs and others will ask me to work with them and bring them to a level where the can rejoin their programs. And then the children who come me, the home-schooled children, they’ll be going to take the SAT test under the DOE that they belong to, in whatever district that may be. DOMNGO: You know, I’m glad you mentioned that because it wasn’t too long ago I think there was an article in the paper or somewhere that I read comparing all the schools in the school district on the Big Island and those schools which were not up to the par with the AYP standards and those schools were given a somewhat lower rating; and then if you have, you’re stuck with that rating for two years. Then you go further down, and the Federal government then comes in; and there’s some other, not penalties, but some other requirements that you will be mandated to do under the No Child Left Behind Program. So I think a tutoring of any nature, whether it be yours or some other tutoring school in the community, would be helpful in bringing those children’s standards up to the level that is needed in the public schools. CAMPBELL: So in essence we are supporting the public schools by giving these children a chance before they go back. DOMINGO: I understand that. And I think there is no requirement. Is there a requirement should this special permit be granted, is there a requirement that should there be a commercial property available that they will be required to make that transfer to an appropriate zoning that would accommodate their use, their function? There’s no requirement such as that? ALAMEDA: Who are you asking that to? DOMINGO: To the Planning Director. Might be he can -. YUEN: We weren’t recommending that for the reasons I gave earlier. We looked at this as a reasonable use of this piece of property and not something where we’d be looking to relocate it to another site. DOMINGO: That’s how I felt. And I think, you know, for the most part the Hawaiian Paradise Park Association having a Master Plan and designating the various parts in the development for certain issues, I think it’s noble of them. But if that was really their goal and they felt strongly about it, I think they should have pursued further land use actions in going for the General Plan and then rezonings so that certain properties would then be zoned for certain specific uses; and they’ll be restricted from other uses. But, you know, with regards to a special permit on agricultural property, anyone can come in for any use, but it will be limited only for that specific use; and they will be governed under special conditions based on the uses and whatever impacts that may cause. So, you know, what I’m saying is that if anyone with a special permit to conduct any kind of business or function can stay with it as long as you can, then I don’t think that there is a need for you to seek proper zoning to continue that kind of use. That’s all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. EXHIBIT B 29 WOODWARD: Thank you. Mr. Torigoe had a statement to make; and then I’ll go to, I know Commissioner Iwashita and Commissioner Bowman want to ask questions, but we’ll get Mr. Torigoe’s statement first. TORIGOE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted, couple of procedural things to clear up at the end of the hearing. This is one of those cases where not all of the decision makers were present at the first hearing. And when that happens under your Rule 4-23 there needs to be a proposal for a decision -- and there was a proposed Findings of Fact that was presented to the parties -- and also opportunity has to be afforded to each party adversely affected to file exceptions and present argument to the Commission Members before they render their decision. It seems that there has been ample opportunity for that. And so I just wanted to see if there was any procedural objection at this point by any of the parties to the Commission going ahead and making a decision on this record. KAISER: On the Findings of Fact there is an error in the property description. It describes it as a one-acre site surrounded by a fence; and it’s a 2-acre site surrounded by a fence. TORIGOE: Mr. Chairman, can we have the applicant respond to that and see if there is a way to resolve that? CAMPBELL: I’m seeking permit for one acre, it is surrounded by fencing on three sides. It is adjoining my second property which is continued with that same fencing. But I am not planning on using the second acreage. It’s full of pokey grass, you know, the sleeping grass. We as a family don’t use it other than mowing it to stay level instead of a take-over. WOODWARD: So your permit application is for the one acre? CAMPBELL: That’s right. WOODWARD: Okay. TORIGOE: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Yeah. He’s correct at a factual -. I would suggest that if there is a motion in favor of adopting the Director’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order that it be amended slightly. It should still say one acre because they applied for one acre but to say that it has a fence on three sides. TORIGOE: So, I just want to see if there are any other exceptions to be put on record or if there are any other procedural procedures -. I see both parties (Campbell and Kaiser) nodding no. WOODWARD: All right. Commissioner Iwashita, I think you wanted to ask a question; and then we’ll go to Commissioner Bowman. IWASHITA: I guess I had my comments -. The concerns I have about approving this application I referenced earlier. The comments I would like to add are: One, I’d like to reiterate that I really, the nuances that the Director gave about distinguishing what’s being proposed from EXHIBIT B 30 the definition of a school, I still can’t bring myself to accept, you know. And then what’s the discussion that has taken place since then in terms of home-schooling and the different needs of the different students, you know, in a school setting that’s called differentiation in a particular subject area. And in any class of 16 to 30 as you would find in a public school, you have children of different abilities; and the teacher with an aid addresses those by what’s called in pedagogical terms differentiation; and techniques are used to address, you know, the different children’s abilities or lack thereof. So it’s a school. As far as I’m concerned it’s still a school operating from 8 to 4:30. And, you know, how the students go in and out, in my mind it’s very hard to distinguish. I don’t get that nuance between calling it -. If it was asking to do this from 4:30 to 7 o’clock, you know, after school kind of a scenario, then I can buy into this tutoring center. But this is a school for home-schooled kids; and to me you call it spade, don’t try and cover it up. I am all for doing the most you can for all of our children to have them excel. You know, tutoring centers and all of that, I agree with the Director that that is a need, that that should be done. I think most of the Commission Members know that I’m, or I like to paint myself as a big proponent of community development planning and getting the community involved in the planning process. And in this case we have a Puna Community Development Plan that incorporates to a certain measure the Paradise Park Master Plan as part of what it wants to do and in my mind gives an added weight, if you will, to the Hawaiian Paradise Park Board of Director’s actions. You know, if we are to engage or do what we can to engage the community in making their communities better, cause this is not my community, I live in Hilo -. Right? This is Puna, this is Paradise Park. And if, you know, and I applaud the applicant, you know, for having the support that she has and the people that you have, you know, asking you to help their children, that’s great. My suggestion and my preference is that you continue to work with the Board at Paradise Park so that whatever concerns there are about precedence and all these other kinds of things that those be worked out at that level. You know, essentially we’re being asked, it’s like the objections about West Hawaii grumbling about what East Hawaii does to West Hawaii because you don‘t know what goes on in West Hawaii. The Board in a five to one decision has said, and I’ll read it off the record -. WOODWARD: If I might interrupt, Commissioner Iwashita, I think we’re really -. IWASHITA: I’m almost done. WOODWARD: Okay. IWASHITA: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Point of order though, Mr. Chair. WOODWARD: Well, that’s what I was going to say, we’re really in discussion mode -. ALAMEDA: We’re still asking questions. EXHIBIT B 31 WOODWARD: Yes, if we have any questions. We’re going to close the hearing here shortly; and then we’ll have plenty of time for discussion. IWASHITA: Oh, I’m sorry. I thought that was done. WOODWARD: No, we haven’t closed the hearing yet. IWASHITA: Because I’m following Commissioner Domingo’s lead. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Domingo’s fault (jokingly). IWASHITA: He didn’t ask anybody any questions. ALAMEDA: Yeah, that’s what I mean. As Commissioners we’ve got to exercise discipline; or else we’re never going to follow the protocol and we’re going to make it hard for the Chair. IWASHITA: Point well taken, point well taken. WOODWARD: Okay. Do we have any other questions? IWASHITA: No. I’m sorry I thought the hearing had been closed. My apologies, profusely apologize. WOODWARD: That’s no problem. Okay, questions for the applicant or the intervenor? Okay, then I would entertain a motion to close the hearing. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, before you do that? WOODWARD: Yes, sir. HAYASHI: What staff would like to do is introduce a couple amendments to the Findings and Decision and Order. And this would be to, first of all, to Condition 3. And we had circulated the yellow sheet to you; however, I made some changes or we made some changes to that. And Condition 3 would now read as follows: “The applicant shall secure Final Plan Approval for the proposed use from the Planning Director in accordance with Chapter 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code within six months from the effective date of this permit. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures, fire protection…”, and going all the way up to the end of the sentence.Then it says “Landscaping shall be provided to screen all play areas from adjacent properties. The property shall also be fenced on three sides.” And also Condition 5, and I’ll explain the reason for this, “The hours of operation shall be limited to Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.” Although the applicant had requested a time of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. there are instances where the parents who are picking up these kids may be caught in traffic or emergency situations that they may not be able to pick up the kids by 4:30. So we just want to give this particular leeway so the applicant would not be in violation should situations like this occur. WOODWARD: Ms. Campbell, are you in agreement with those changed conditions? EXHIBIT B 32 CAMPBELL: Yes, yes. WOODWARD: Do you have any comment, Mr. Kaiser? No? KAISER: No. WOODWARD: Okay, then I’ll entertain a motion to close the hearing; and then we can get on with our deliberations. BOWMAN: So move. IWASHITA: Second. WOODWARD: All right. All in favor say aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. WOODWARD: All opposed? It’s ubiquitous, or unanimous, whatever. Okay, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair; and I apologize again for misconstruing or overlooking the fact that the hearing had not been closed before offering my comments. Again, I was referencing the actions of the Board of Directors of Hawaiian Park Owners Association, and it spent two meetings in July and August discussing this application; and the decision that it came down to is set forth in the August 26, 2008 letter, and for the sake of brevity I’m not going to read it again. But it’s clear that that five to one decision was a decision by the Board that this application not be approved. The letter does recognize that this body makes the ultimate decision. I urge my Fellow Commissioners to, you know, take to heart the actions of the Board. Because for all of the good reasons there are to do this, in my mind, that case should be made to the Board. I think that whatever the concerns are that the Board had that at some point some consensus should be able to be reached, you know, in making the case well; and then this project can go forward. Until that time I’m going to defer to the Board. WOODWARD: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: I understand what was brought up. I think of kind of an analogy with like covenants. And I really think we need to look at the General Plan, the Planning Director’s comments in weighing this. You know, I guess, my analogy is sometimes there are covenants in an agricultural area that says you can only have two cows, but actually our Zoning Code says you can have ten cows. You know, so who, what takes precedence? And I think we really need to weigh the benefits of this tutorial program versus, you know, the strict Code. So as soon as we’re ready I would like to make a proposal. WOODWARD: Any other comments? Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA: You know, this is an interesting one. First, I admire Mr. Kaiser for actually doing plenty of homework. I mean, you know, to me you’re just as concerned as a EXHIBIT B 33 citizen in this community as anybody else. And I don’t think there’s really any bad people in this room. Right? You just got your concerns. And, you know, I’m an educator, I’ve a masters in education, so I see the value of education as well. So I see both sides. But, you know, in light th of the lack of space in HPP for such an endeavor, the fact that no objections by 6 Street residents have come before us, the stated ambivalence by the board’s representative on this particular proposal, you know, these are factors that I think we can consider to help make a more informed decision, rather than go strictly by a document. Cause even a document is kind of like a paint brush. Again, you know, it paints the picture and then we’re here to put the picture in order and not just go, you know, take it all literally. So in light of all of that I would be in favor of this tutoring center. So I just wanted to put that on the table. So I’m ready to -. WOODWARD: Does anybody else have any other comments? HOUSEL: I’d like to make a comment, please. WOODWARD: Commissioner Housel. HOUSEL: Thank you. I understand clearly how important, you know, community regulations and the community plans, and the importance of developing and controlling development and businesses within a given area. However, I strongly believe that, you know, our children’s education is very important and when there’s a conflict between the two that the children’s education and the Board should address the needs of the children first. And if in this case they cannot provide a suitable alternative, then they really need to consider allowing this kind of application to help their children. Thank you very much. BOWMAN: So I’m ready. WOODWARD: All right. No more? IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Yes, sir, Mr. Hayashi. Oh, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Oh. I just wanted to respond a bit to Commissioner Alameda’s comment about putting meat on the bones, as it were, on the HPP Master Plan. And I agree, the point that the Director made is correct, that in any kind of planning document no matter what it is, no matter what level it is, we cannot anticipate all contingencies, that’s a granted. And that it is, you know, in the actual functioning at the County level, the Planning Commission and the County Council have authority to put meat on the bones. In the context of the Paradise Park Master Plan it’s my view that the Board of Directors should have the greatest say on putting meat on the bones. And the concerns that are a matter of record that have been brought up at the Board in which the Board voted on primarily that of, you know, a precedent setting decision in this particular case, for setting up whatever you want to call them, tutoring centers or schools, the Board basically says not now, not in these circumstances. And essentially if this Commission takes a contrary view and allows this to go forward, then basically we’ve cut the legs out from under the Board in this particular area and we will be setting the precedent that the Paradise Park Board of Director does not want to set. And I have EXHIBIT B 34 difficulty with that. You know, if I had my way, all our kids would have the best education yesterday. But the decision in this case I agree should not be a referendum on how good or how bad our public schools are, because you’re going to open up a debate. You know, that debate about whether or not this center is going to help our schools is going to be never ending. In my opinion there are arguments on both sides but, you know, that’s a whole separate matter. To me what’s pivotal in this case is planning procedure; and it’s a quagmire in Paradise Park and the rest of the Puna. The Board of Directors in Paradise Park in the last several years up until 2005 when they last revised and adopted their Master Plan, that is their effort to get in there. If we cut the legs out from our decision today then, you know, if I was on that Board I’d say, what are we doing, why do we do this, what for, you know, because they’re not going to listen, they’re going to do what they want. And really if we want to empower the people in our community to get involved and do the planning and take the steps that are necessary to improve their neighborhoods then I think we should honor the Board’s decision. The Board’s decision is the interpretation of the Master Plan, is the application of the Master Plan. They’re not deferring to us, tell us what to do with our Master Plan. They’ve made a decision that it’d be precedent setting, that it’d be contrary to two of the provisions, the concerns about traffic and so forth that they’ve reiterated; and the Board has made a decision. I cannot vote to cut the legs out from that decision. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Yes, Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you. I’ll do one of Commissioner Bowman’s real quick, real quick. The Board are residents from the community, so is the applicant and all the people who are saying that this is a good idea. So it’s a double whammy. So you cut the legs from the Board and the people who support the Board by voting for it. But if you vote against it, then you cut the legs from the community, and a portion of the community who says this is important. So, you know, which legs do you want to cut off, basically. You know, so somebody’s legs are going to get cut off. Just because you’re on a Board and, you know, people wiggle their way on Boards, right? They wiggle their way and they get to be in positions of power. But communities are just as important, to me. So whether or not we’re cutting the legs from a Board or cutting the legs from the community, I think we’ve just to go back in our own heads and think, you know, what is the best for children, bottom line. So I’m still in favor of this motion. WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think with regard to the arguments, previous two arguments, I think that’s why we have a Planning Commission; and we’ve avowed to uphold the laws that governs the County and everything that pertains to our conduct. And with regards to the planning issues, we have that responsibility. And our decisions are made by the values that we have, and the knowledge and the experience that we’ve acquired throughout the years, and, of course, by the testimonies that have been brought before us. And, of course, the finer points for arguments are whether is it good or bad? And, again, I still refer back to what’s the prevailing issue. I made comments with regards to the report by the school, by the DOE, with respect to our standards in the various schools. Some schools are lacking, and some are up to par, and some are probably a bit ahead, you know. But where we find schools and areas which need extra help, then that’s where these student services come in. And if applied appropriately, EXHIBIT B 35 appropriately, then it will help improve the learning capabilities of the students and their performance under a regular school. And that’s where I’m coming from, Mr. Chairman; and I strongly, I strongly will support this issue. WOODWARD: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: Well, I’m ready to make the motion but I think my neighbor has something else to say. WOODWARD: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: I thank the Chair for your indulgence. The last comment I would like to make, now we’re getting into the substantive pedological benefits of this for the community. And I guess the scenario that I see in the future in terms of precedent setting for these pedological kinds of institutions that we’re going to start establishing throughout Paradise Park and the rest of Puna is -. I know, I think we all know that one of the great needs in our public school system is for alternative teaching environments for kids. I think I was one of them back in the late 60s that, you know, square peg in the round hole. You know, and today I consider myself lucky that for whatever reasons of fate, you know, that I didn’t end up on the other side of the street, if you will, cause we don’t have railroad tracks to be on the other side of. But as long as -. Well, in my mind if we approve this then to be consistent when the next application comes along and says, you know, we have this Ag program we’re going to do it for, I forget the exact term in the Department, for the kids that don’t fit, we have to get them out, they don’t fit in the school -- whether it be a Department initiative or some other person comes here who wants to set up a school for kids that otherwise or probably have a record with the family court system and need to have an alternative place and they’re going to do it on 2 or 3 acres in Paradise Park and farm taro, whatever, and have the kids come down there to do that -- that this body will support that because that’s basically the same kind of measure. I don’t see that there would be an argument that could distinguish such an application from this one, other than nimby, that this is different kind kids so we no like them, you know. And as long as it’s clear -. You know, to me, that is the kind of precedent that this body is setting with this, is that you can no longer say any kind of pedological -. Anybody can come in there or any educator can come in there, that wants to, you know, and set up something like this but for different reasons and different kinds of kids, and this body would really have no way to distinguish that request from this one. That’s what we’re doing today. We’re saying in any Ag area you can set up any kind of supplemental or alternative education facility and we’re going to go for it because we want to support education. I don’t think that’s our job, one. Two, I go back to my original point -- you know, to get into the debate about the educational benefits of this -- I think we have to look at the bigger picture. And as long as it’s okay in your mind that all these other alternative education possibilities are going to be allowed in Paradise Park, not withstanding the Board’s objections or whatever -. And what if you only have three people that are greedy but the rest of the community comes in and says we don’t like this for whatever reason? Then you’ll say, well, the community doesn’t like it so we’re not going to allow it? That’s, now you’re starting to cut on the edge of what are your real reasons, what are your, you know, what kind of Code are we doing here. So I don’t even want to get there. And I think Mr. Kaiser is right, this is not a referendum on our education system or how we should EXHIBIT B 36 improve it. This is a planning decision and we should follow the planning process. Thank you. Mr. Chairman WOODWARD: Thank you. Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: Okay. I just want to make one comment. I think this is an agricultural district but I think it’s well recognized that it’s a huge residential area also. And I don’t think this sets a precedence saying every agricultural district, I want to say that for the record. And I think it’s a unique situation in Puna because of all of the ag/residential. So I am ready to make a motion. I move that the application for a Special Permit SPP 08-000057 be approved based on the Planning Director’s recommendation and the proposed conditions as amended by Mr. Hayashi. Is that right? Did I do it -? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, I second the motion. WOODWARD: So we ought to include in that, if you don’t mind, that it be based not only on the Director’s recommendation but the Findings, the Facts and Findings of Law that were submitted by the Planning Department. BOWMAN: Yes. WOODWARD: Okay. All right, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, just a matter of clarification. Mr. Matlage came up today and said that the findings presented by the Director is incorrect. Page 6 it says that “The following individuals submitted letters in support” and it also lists Mr. Matlage. So that will be corrected. And Mr. Matlage indicated that he is in opposition to the tutoring center, so that will be reflected on No. 2 on page 6. WOODWARD: Right. And there was also a correction in regard to the acreage, that it’s a permit for one acre of a two-acre parcel. HAYASHI: The acreage is correct, that is how the applicant had requested it. WOODWARD: Okay. HAYASHI: With that, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. EXHIBIT B 37 HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: ‘A‘ole. HAYASHI: That means? IWASHITA: No. HAYASHI: Thank you. HAYASHI: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA: Si, Senor. That means yes. HAYASHI: And Chair Woodward? WOODWARD: Oui, oui, that means yes, too. HAYASHI: Okay, the motion carries six to one. The discussion ended at 3:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT B 38