The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-09-07 TPD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 PLANNING DIRECTOR’S PROPOSED A regularly advertised hearing on the AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25, ZONING CODE was called to order at 11:30 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones Andrew IwashitaBill Graham Jeffrey McCallRodney Watanabe Alvin Rho Allen Salavea Rene’ Siracusa Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Brad Kurokawa, Deputy Planning Director (from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 43 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 1, Section 25-1-5(b) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), by amending the definition of “family” to read as follows: “Family” means an individual or two or more persons related by blood, state-sanctioned adoption, foster parentage, guardianship or marriage, or a group of not more than five unrelated persons (excluding servants), occupying a dwelling unit. The term includes individuals in larger group living situations described as group living facilities and family child care homes[.] and a group of not more than eight unrelated persons, plus any program staff, living in a facility licensed by the department of health. ALAMEDA:Next on the agenda is Planning Director’s proposed amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 1, Section 25-1-5(b) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), by amending the definition of “family.” Okay, we’d like to make this as painless and as comfortable as possible for you guys. We really appreciate public testimony. That helps us to make a decision and to give us all the views necessary. So, also, note that with this particular agenda item, all we’re doing as a Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the County Council. So you have another opportunity to testify again, if you so wish. We have a lot of testifiers today, as you can see; and, EXHIBIT D 1 so I will ask that you be real specific in your testimony. We have a lot of letters so I’m going ask that you don’t read your letter, ‘cause we’ve already read it; but just speak from your heart and in a concise, as concise as possible, and try not to go off on tangents. If you do, please respect my non-verbal time-out. I’ll bring you right back so we can stay on track. And, also, if you can limit it to about three minutes, that way we’ll get everybody out of here before dark. So, with that, let me take a five-minute recess to just make sure that we get all the testifiers on paper; and if there’s no objection to that, I’d like to do that at this time. Seeing none, five-minute recess. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 11:26 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 11:31 p.m. ALAMEDA:Okay. So it’s little over 11:30 right now and I have a proposal. We have over 27 testifiers and I just wanted to get permission from my fellow Commissioners that I wanted to just hear it all and whenever we end, then we can take lunch. Any objection to that or -? Might be dinner but -.So is there any objection to that? ‘Cause I want to make sure that we honor the folks that are here today. Some of you took off from work and we don’t want to keep you guys any longer than you need to be. So thank you guys for coming. So we’ll just push on through. Agenda Item No. 6, says, “Initiated: Planning Director.” Staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At our last Planning Commission meeting, we had testimony in regards to this initiative that has been initiated by the Director. I’d like to just do a little house-cleaning. We’ve submitted to the Commissioners a new second revised Background and Recommendation. It has been distributed to the Commission. I’ll go more into this in a second. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners this hearing was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting in Kona on August 25, 2006 where the Commission heard numerous testimony from the public. Additionally, since our hearing, we’ve received numerous letters, and those have all been passed out to the Commissioners. This morning we have received one letter from Day-Lum Rentals, and I believe the Commissioners have gotten a copy from them. If it’s okay with the Commission, I’m just going to do a short presentation, just reading a short excerpt from the Revised Background so that way we can kind of be on the same page here. ALAMEDA:Sure, Mr. Darrow. Go ahead. DARROW:Thank you. The Planning Director is initiating an amendment to the definition of “family” in the County of Hawai`i Zoning Code. The amendment will address group living facility-type programs that will operate within a single-family dwelling which are licensed and regulated by the Department of Health. The amendment will allow up to eight residents plus any program staff in a group home licensed or certified by the Department of Health. Presently, group homes are limited to five unrelated persons unless they fall under exemptions allowed by the Zoning Code and state law. Within the State Land Use Agricultural District a special permit can be applied for to increase the amount beyond five unrelated persons. These group living programs are meant to be non-institutional and are designed to be operated EXHIBIT D 2 within a single-family dwelling. They are low-impact type facilities that are licensed and regulated by the Department of Health-Office of Health Care Assurance Division for compliance with the Department of Health rules that are applicable for each type of facility. The Planning Director believes that these facilities are accessory to the single-family dwelling and that they provide valuable services to residential communities for disabled persons needing treatment. It is proposed that these group living facilities would be allowed to operate within the State Land Use Urban District with up to eight residents plus live-in staff because they are regulated and licensed or certified by the Department of Health. This would also include facilities that are located within the State Land Use Agricultural District on lots where single- family dwellings are allowed, which are those lots created before June 4, 1976 or on lots created after June 4, 1976, as long as the home is also used as a farm dwelling. The definition of “family” within the County of Hawai`i Zoning Code is presently defined as “an individual of two or more persons related by blood, state-sanctioned adoption, foster parentage, guardianship or marriage, or a group of not more than five unrelated persons (excluding servants), occupying a dwelling unit.” The term includes individuals in larger group living situations described as group living facilities and family child care homes. The Planning Director is proposing to add the phrase, “and a group of not more than eight unrelated persons, plus any program staff, living in a facility licensed or certified by the Department of Health” to achieve the purpose of the amendment. Besides Hawai`i County, other counties have adopted similar language to their definition of “family” addressing group living or residential facilities licensed by the State, including the City and County of Honolulu and Maui County. There may be legal problems if Hawai`i County does not do something to make it easier to establish group homes. The Federal Fair Housing Law prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. Most of these group homes serve people with disabilities and the courts have ruled that such people have special need for group homes. Local governments must make reasonable accommodations so that such group homes can be established. A limit such as the five unrelated persons rule in the current Hawai`i County Zoning Code can be struck down by the court if the court finds that it has the effect of limiting group homes and that increasing the number of persons allowed would be a reasonable accommodation. For reasons presented above, the Planning Director is initiating his amendment to the Zoning Code and recommends approval of the change by the Planning Commission and the Hawai`i County Council. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Any questions for Mr. Darrow? Also, I’d like to acknowledge to my immediate right, Mr. Kurokawa, who’s our Deputy Director. He’ll be sitting in for Chris today, Chris Yuen. Any questions for Mr. Darrow? Seeing none, we can go right into testimony then? I was wondering, staff, could we have another chair so I could call five up together at once? Okay. We have a Dan Landis, Hiroshi Kozohara, Bernie Miranda, Eric Carter and Billy Kenoi. Please come forward. Good morning, thanks for coming. Could I swear you all in at the same time. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. EXHIBIT D 3 ALAMEDA:Thank you very much. Could you please state your name and address for the record, starting from my immediate left? LANDIS:Hello, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Landis. I live at 17-123 Palula Place in the Keaau Ag Lots. ALAMEDA:Could you just pass the mike down and get everybody on record for name and address? KOZOHARA:Hiroshi Kozohara at 17-329 Palaai Street, Keaau Ag Lots. ALAMEDA:Thank you. KENOI:Aloha, Mr. Chairman. Billy Kenoi. I reside in Hawaiian Paradise Park on Kaloli. ALAMEDA:Thank you. CARTER:Eric Carter, 17-209 Meaulu Street in the Keaau Ag Lots. ALAMEDA:Thank you. MIRANDA:Bernie Miranda, Mililani, Hawai`i, Oahu. ALAMEDA:Thank you. All right. Let’s start up with Mr. Landis. Again, let me just remind you, I believe we did get your letter and we did hear you at the last meeting in Kona, so if you could keep your testimony concise and to the point. LANDIS:Oh, gee. You ought to know better than that, I’m a college professor. No, but seriously I will try to keep it brief. I have a much longer statement. I’ll be glad to give it to you afterward ‘cause I approached this as a, the only way I know how to approach a situation like this as a social researcher of some 40 years of experience. And I went back through the literature to see how it is we get to this point where we have what has been called in the literature “aggressive autonomy” as a technique for citing these kinds of homes. And it’s a fascinating literature ‘cause it involves the Fair Housing Act, it involves a lot of things, a lot of acronyms like “nimby” and “news” and “slap,” “slapping,” “strategic lawsuits” to “against public participation.” I think you might find that kind of intriguing when you look at it. But I’m going to jump that history and go to the instant proposal that has been made, which I consider a very unwise proposal. Aside from the unnecessary verbiage which is included in the proposal, most of which isn’t really relevant, the Director’s argument boils down to four points, if I may. Number one, they are low impact. Impact level is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. But should a property have, for example, two houses that, for example, in the case of an ohana, we move from 10 under the current rules to now 16 plus. Without a definition of, and in my view that’s certainly not impact. But now, you’ve got something like 20 or more people going in and out of the property. Without a definition of impact, it’s hard to see how this argument can be EXHIBIT D 4 made. Because such a definition reasonably would include things like noise level, traffic, number of visitors, number of police calls, etc. And simply asserting something that is low impact doesn’t make it so. The second point: “that are licensed and regulated by the Department of Health.” If you look at the documents that are attached, the nice thick 40-some odd pages that were attached to the Background, it shows that they deal primarily with the physical aspects and the number of toilets in the house, number of square footage, etc. And while an annual evaluation plan is required for STF-type houses, no provision is made for review by interested members of the community, which would seem appropriate for some local involvement in deciding if a group home is meeting some sort of reasonable objectives in terms of client improvement. In the case drug rehabilitation, close monitoring of clients for at least a year past discharge would seem to be a reasonable minimum since the literature indicates that if they’re going to go back on drugs, they’re going to go back at about eight months post discharge. Recent findings of forged and highly selective research results in otherwise highly reputable laboratories should make us vigilant to the possibility that a similar phenomena may infect human service providers. Local community members may be in a good position to test the validity of the evaluation results. The delegating of such an important responsibility to a remote agency would not seem to argue for approval of the Director’s recommended changes. Further, suppose there are difficulties in the operation of the home that are clearly apparent to the neighbors. To whom do they voice their concerns when the operator seems deaf? To whom, would they not be better to have a mechanism for local response to such issues? Third point, what I call the Lemming and the magical number eight argument. “Honolulu and Maui allow up to eight residents so let’s join the bandwagon.” How many times have we told our children, something like, “If Jack jumps off a bridge should you do it also?” There’s nothing magical about the number eight. There’s no evidence that program goals will be accomplished better with eight residents than with five. Indeed, what evidence there is suggests that smaller is better. In any case, the reason why the operators have requested an increase is not that they will be more effective, but it is the only way that they can meet their overhead expenses. Mrs. McIntosh in a letter prepared for the Kona meeting, in effect, admits that as much when she said in her letter to the Commission, “It is impossible to operate this home with this limited (i.e., five) number of occupants.” No reason is given as to why it would be impossible. It’s also interesting to note that in the same letter she wants eight to be the lower number, not the maximum. The reason may be that it is in the Department of Health’s best interest to increase the number of clients being served in a single facility since it would allow limited funds to be more efficiently used. Increasing the size of a “family” means that the overhead cost (which form part of the per- client allocation and include such items as rent, mortgage service, staff costs, administrative expenses, and other indirect costs) can be reduced when compared with a smaller set of “families” having to reside in more locations. And the last point I want to make is what I call the son of SLAPP argument, slapping, strategic lawsuits against public participation. The Director seems to believe that the limit of five unrelated persons is so onerous that it would be seen by the courts as an “unreasonable” restriction on the rights of the handicapped to live in residential neighborhoods. The fear here is that the operator, acting for a disabled person or persons, will file suit against the County. The argument would have force if it could be shown that a) there is no procedure for increasing the limit or b) if there is a procedure, its invocation inevitably results in denial. Neither aspect is EXHIBIT D 5 true: an operator may apply for a special use permit to allow an increase to any number of clients and, I suspect, that when this has occurred it is more often than not been approved. Clearly, the present process works. To grate the teeth of an old saw, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If you increase the number to eight, how long will it be before some operator files suit to increase the number to ten, twelve, fourteen, or some even greater number arguing that eight is now “onerous?” As a harbinger of things to come, an operator has already threatened a suit against the Homeowners’ Association if the owners persist in opposing the siting of a drug treatment group home in their development. In fact, that threat was made at the very first meeting of the operator and the owners. My recommendation is similar, is simple: operators who wish to place more than five unrelated residents in a house should use the process now available to them. This would allow neighborhood residents to have their views respected and integrated into the decision-making process on a case-by-case basis. Nobody is asking for a veto power, only to not be stereotyped as some wild-eye people pushing the disabled back into the snake pits. While we might like the definition of the family to be restricted to people related by blood, marriage, adoption or “hanai,” we recognize that the “horse left the barn a long time ago.” However, we can ask that the local government prevent the neighborhoods from becoming stables with consequent negative effects on the quality of life. Let me be clear: We want to work with you and the Planning Department to support operators who are truly interested in client improvement and who forego aggressive autonomy as a siting strategy while at the same time weeding out those whose motivation is primarily pecuniary, something the Department of Health seems either unable or unwilling to accomplish. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion on this proposal. I hope you will now send it back to the Planning Department with a clear and unequivocal denial. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Landis. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, Mr. Landis, you may be seated. Mr. Hayashi, would you please give me that timer? Just so I can kind of be aware of our time. I’m just trying to calculate the minutes. If we go five minutes times 34, we’ll be out of -. You had the privilege because you were the first to sign up so -. Okay. Mr. Kozohara, go ahead. KOZOHARA:Yes, I’d like to approach this, of course, I’m against the amendment. And, first of all, wife and I grew up in, well, it was Kurtistown and Olaa before, now it’s known as Keaau; and we grew up in a very plantation camp atmosphere. This is in the 40’s and 50’s. And I think the major unifying thing about these camps where that we were all related. They had three generations in many of the homes, and these were families. We had lots of trust, it was very safe to live in the neighborhood. And, of course, we graduated from Hilo High School, and on to work on Oahu, spent about 45 years away and retired back here, again, looking for some sense of stability and safety, which I think it’s important. Because we’re retired and, but I guess the intrusion of increasing unrelated families to eight per unit, it’s a little scary for us. I think, first of all, you’re looking at ohana units that, I haven’t measured it, but being from a real estate lending background about 20 years living on Oahu, the units look like they are about 1,000 to 1,200 square feet; and to have over eight people I think that’s almost getting into encouraging a ghetto-like atmosphere in the community. I think it’s a, I don’t think we want that. And, also, looking at the Keaau Ag Lots, it’s one of the larger subdivisions or largest subdivision in East Hawai`i and it has the most ohana units. So you’re looking at further, I think, people coming in, EXHIBIT D 6 these are business enterprises. I don’t care what they say, it’s going to be for depressed politicians or recovering alcoholics. I mean, they’re going to look at it as cash cows now. You know, we can rent now two units and they get $2,000. They can do it for the Board of Health and pick up all these misfits, or whatever you call ‘em, you know, that need help, and you’re looking at maybe $5- to $10,000 per month coming in. It’s disastrous coming up. And, also, I think Mr. Igawa wrote a letter to the Editor regarding values. I think you definitely see declining values. I think if you are from Oahu, which I spent a lot of time in, the areas of Kahala, Waialae Iki, Hawai`i Loa, Hawai`i Kai, Mililani, they don’t have a lot of, you know, runaway facilities, drug therapy, alcoholic reform or rehab. I mean, these areas hold their values. And being retired, I mean, we want our values to be held because we’re not speculators, we didn’t buy low and sell high. That’s not our motivation. We’re looking at our homes to be kind of a safety-net. As we get older, if we meet up with medical catastrophe, then we have something to go back to. And I thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Kozohara. Any questions? You may be seated, Mr. Kozohara. Billy Kenoi? KENOI:Aloha, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission. I’m here to speak wholeheartedly in support of this amendment. This amendment was proposed as a way by Department of Health and the State of Hawai`i; however, the counties got together and tried to figure out a way to update our Code.There’s a basis that five people, unrelated persons, is not feasible. As was mentioned by the previous speakers, eight unrelated persons exist in the Code in both Maui County and Hawai`i County; and this amendment was proposed by the Planning Director without regard to specific service providers or geographic location years ago. I mean, if I may briefly, I know I’ve got a couple of minutes but the reason we proposed this amendment and we’ve been looking at it for years is because Hawai`i Island, as we all know, has experienced a dramatic increase in some of the problems facing our community. And what we were doing was sending away adult men and women, as well as our adolescents, our children, to other islands to get help, to get treatment. These types of programs we need to encourage in our communities, in our island home, so that we can serve our island residents and our island youth here on our island. I think it’s unconscionable to talk about helping those in our community most in need of help and at the same time saying we’d like to help them but somewhere else, let’s ship them to Oahu and Maui where programs already exist for them. We live on a 4,028 square mile island, we have geographical as well as transportation challenges. I don’t think any community can say not here but there. We need programs and group homes in every community on our island. You know, we talk about the syndrome of “Not in my back yard.” Yes we’re for helping our kids, yes we’re for rehabilitation, treatment and therapeutic living, just not here. I think the problems exist in our front yard so we cannot excuse it by saying, “not in my back yard.” We are for the amendment because every program that comes forward will always be challenged by local neighborhoods. A therapeutic living program in Kohala four years ago, vigorous and vociferous opposition from the community; and these are treating people in our own community from Kohala and Waimea. They’ve been in operation for years. Everything was fine. A group living home for women suffering from substance abuse and domestic violence, opposition in Kailua, vandalism, you know, dramatic opposition; it’s working fine. We see it everywhere we EXHIBIT D 7 go. To think that just because there’s a process to review applications that everything is fine, I don’t think that’s going to work. It’s unrealistic to think that there’s going to be communities that say, “Eh, that’s a great idea, let’s have it here.” But we’re talking, we’re not talking about institutions and we’re not talking about large-scale facilities. We’re talking about group homes, you know. And the only way we’re going to heal our island, and which is what we’re trying to do -. We’re not trying to send our problems elsewhere, we’re trying to take care of it here. It’s the same with prisons, we want to ship away our prisoners, out of sight, out of mind. Ninety-five percent of them are coming back and returning directly to our community. The threat isn’t from those getting help and getting treatment, the threats are those from still in our communities not in a group home, not getting treatment. You know, there’s a concept in Hawai`i we call malama kekahi kekahi. It means to take care of our own. And that’s what we need to do. If we don’t help our kids who need substance abuse residential treatment in a community-based setting, then we’re setting them up to ship them away later as adults because they didn’t get the help they needed. So I just respectfully request that the Commission support the amendment as proposed by the Planning Director. It’s not for a specific program, not for a specific geographical location, but merely to help those on our island that need it. Mahalo. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Kenoi. Any questions for Mr. Kenoi? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. Are you speaking today to us as an individual or as the Mayor’s representative? KENOI:I am speaking today as Billy Kenoi. The Mayor is not here. I told Chris that I would speak. I just talked about it, I reviewed this with the Mayor, the Mayor is also very concerned about this issue. And he is balancing the interest of the community and wants to mitigate impacts of homeless people in communities. But he wholeheartedly supports the concept of group homes in the community. What I said is from my heart and my experience as an Executive Assistant with the County of Hawai`i. Okay. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you. Good morning, Billy, or afternoon, I guess. Thanks for coming. Going through all of this, I guess my, one of the things I’m thinking about, I’d like your input on, you know, this whole nimby thing. There’s, one of the good things is people come out, you know, it’s these kinds of things. That’s why I say, you know, when we do our, eventually, our Community Development Plans, we’ve got to tell everybody that one of things they have to decide is where they want to put the prison. ‘Cause when we have a half a million living here, we’re going to need one prison, right? So you want them in Keaau, or you want them in Kona, or where you want them, where you want them, right? And, guarantee, they would come out. We can fill the Civic, I think, with that kind of agenda. But, I guess, my concern is that this proposal, you know, it’s a regulatory proposal, right? And it’s basically coming from the top down saying this is how we want to implement it. And there are obviously, you know, concerns in the community about now if we pass it, then basically DOH, some place out in State EXHIBIT D 8 bureaucracy, is supposed to make sure that the thing works. Because the counties, if we pass this, as long as they do the DOH thing and DOH, you know, then if there are any problems, it’s DOH kind of thing. Right? And, you know, DOH messed up mental health care for the kids in our schools so we have the Felix Consent Decree. You know, it took the Federal District Court order, right, to reel in the Department of Health so that we could have, you know, and we do need effective, you know, treatment and care, counseling for our kids in schools, for all the reasons you just stated. So that’s my main concern, is that this is sort of a roundabout way, right, to get to where we all want to be. We want to have the most and most effective therapeutic homes and therapy, or however it’s going to be delivered those services for our kids and the adults who need the care. I just don’t think right now, I’m not convinced that this change in regulation, right, is the best way to go. So, you know, I’d like my message, and my message to you as the -. KENOI:What was the question? IWASHITA:Well, I just, that’s my idea. I thought, you know, you smart guy, you probably have your comments to that. But before you do that my message, if you can be a message-bearer back to the Mayor, tell him please push the Council to do the Community Development Plans. Because these kind of issues, really, these specific kinds of issues, right, in each community, whether it’s Keaau, Hilo, Honokaa, you know, Kailua, Honaunau, wherever, right, we all, as a community have to deal with these issues. And, to me, when you take it to the community, in the Community Development Plan process -. And if we do it all at once, not like now, we’re doing North Kona, South Kona, South Kohala, Puna a little bit, right -? If we continue to do the Community Development Plan process in a disjointed partial way, then, you know, Kona is going say, “Eh, we no like the prison over here.” They’re not going plan for one prison, I guarantee you that. Right? Puna is not going to plan for one prison in their community, right? And they’re not going to be making plans for these kinds of needs necessarily, you know, And so it really needs to be done in a coordinated island-wide way, and we can do it in the next couple of years. And, so, instead of dealing with these kinds of issues that need to be dealt with, you know, we definitely need to do this as fast as this community is growing, talking about the whole island. Right? The Community Development Plan process, if the Mayor would please push that with the Council and tell them to get it going, put up the one or two or three million dollars, whatever it is, and take the next couple of years. Right? Let’s get it done, then we can deal with this, you know, in a more cohesive, intelligent way. That, to me, will be more effective and which we would have a control over as a community, not give it up to Department of Health. Department of Health who does have its role -. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita, I have to stop you. IWASHITA:The three minutes are part of me? ALAMEDA:The three minutes -. You know why, you’re kind of going into testimony. IWASHITA:I understand, I understand. ALAMEDA:And our testifiers are really not here to hear statements on our part but more to -. EXHIBIT D 9 IWASHTIA:But Billy is special. KENOI:I can give you my number. You can call me up. We can set up one meeting. I’d be happy to go over this with you, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA:I know your number. Okay. I would like to get your input about that, you know, this top-down kind of concern. KENOI:Okay. If I may, Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Sure. KENOI:I believe there are two questions I was able to discern from that. One is the question of Department of Health and their ability; and, two, is the issue of homes in our community being part of the plan if this is, and whether this amendment is kind of not well thought out and not part of a strategic effort.If I may start there first, this amendment was, Director Chris Yuen would admit, and has admitted, that this is about timing. We were planning to do this years ago. This is something that we’ve been talking about for four or five years. When you talk about as our community grows there’s going to be great need, there’s great need now. There’s great need now. We’re sending 200 of our youth off-island for decades and they come back worse than when we sent them; and we act confused. How are our kids getting worse? We’re sending them away without family, without support, out of their community, away from their schools, away from everything they’ve known their entire lives, and they come back home worse. Why is that? The document and the research show because people need to be treated, healed within their own communities. So the therapeutic living programs, adults who needed treatment, shouldn’t go off-island, same thing, away from friends. So we act like these people who are getting help are from somewhere else when they also were born and raised here. And it’s our obligation and responsibility to do whatever we can to help them within our own communities. These group homes, like you said, need to be in every community. If this amendment happened four years ago and Marimed wasn’t in Keaau Ag Lots, this wouldn’t have opposition. But Marimed went to Keaau Ag Lots, there is the opposition; and the timing of this amendment looks like it’s for a specific program and a specific geographic location; and that’s the breaks on our part, was just bad timing. Because the issue of having eight unrelated persons is an effective way to treat community-based therapeutic living programs statewide, Department of Health said that. So with regards to need, the need is overwhelming. No matter how many group homes we are able to get Federal, State funding for and get programs to actually come here, we’ll still be behind. We’re never going to catch up. So the fact of need I think is overwhelming. Two, Department of Health certification. The Department of Health I believe regulates homes both through Alcohol, Drug Abuse Division or ADAD, as well as CAMHD, Child and Mental Health Division. They go through a rigorous inspection process. They’re monitoring not only effectiveness of these group homes, but also the livability, the operation, the implementation and meeting measurable outcomes, are they doing the job they’re contracted to do. So if you ask me do I have faith in the Department of Health in effectively regulating group home programs on Hawai`i Island? Yes, I do. Felix Consent Decree was a statewide federal consent decree regarding special education that involved the Department of Health and Department of EXHIBIT D 10 Education; and that was a statewide program and we’re all very familiar with that. I don’t think because of that I would lose any faith in the Department of Health effectively regulating these group homes. So, one, the need is there; two, I have faith in the Department of Health, and it’s not some willy- nilly proposal that takes it out of the hand of the community. In fact, most programs in Kohala and BISAC, Marimed in Papaaloa, they have a Community Advisory Board. People from the community sit on the Board, meet regularly and talk about progress and updates. In Puailani, Inc., a dual diagnosis mental health facility in Kailua-Kona, the people, it wasn’t just substance abuse, it was actually mental illness as well. And people were like, whoa, you know, not just jobs but crazy, too; and it’s this fear, the unknown. But nobody talks about the people using drugs that are down the street. They only worry about the people who are trying to get help. And, actually, we’re talking about if you look at group homes statewide on other islands and in our community, they’re okay. They say they’re good neighbors, just like any other neighbor; and that’s what this is, not an institution, not a facility but a home. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Kenoi. Seeing no further questions, you may be seated. KENOI:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Mahalo. Mr. Eric Carter? CARTER:Good afternoon. I testified in Kona. I was going to talk about the change in the proposed amendment that popped up earlier. As one who, I started kindergarten in Honolulu right after statehood, and I worked on Maui in high school 35 years ago and the observatory in Haleakala. And now I cringe when I visit Honolulu and, to a lesser extent, Maui. And as Commissioner Iwashita eloquently said on another issue, I don’t know if we want to follow those two counties’ paths in planning or lack thereof. And as an anecdote, I wasn’t going to say this, but after my previous testimony, I was at a potluck a week ago Sunday sitting at a table and a friend who is trying to get shelters built for hurricanes, he went to help out the Katrina in the Gulf Coast, he asked, “Oh, how’s that thing going in your subdivision with the Marimed issue?” And I started talking about it a little, and then another guy sitting next to me said, “Oh,” he said, “A very good friend of mine was a registered nurse. She worked at Marimed up in Papaaloa. She said the place was a nightmare, disaster, said the kids were in some big barn-like building with a lot of bunk beds; it was filthy, things were very bad. She felt her license and career were on the line. She quit and went, left the island.” Just as a little aside, that happened. This morning, I received a statement here from Ron Schumaker, who is the president of the Association of Keaau Ag Lots. And if I may, I’d just like to read his little short statement here since he couldn’t be here due to understaffing at his government job. “As I understand it, the proposed change to the definition of a family is a request from the Department of Health. I believe the underlining reason is evident, but so be it. With all the added Department of Health attachments to the Code, the forms, procedures, etc., are these attachments ever going to be revised? If they are revised, does that mean the Code, with all the attachments, must be revised as well? Same question if new requirements are added to the Department of Health’s procedure to license the various programs. Sounds like a never ending circle of paperwork, hearings, EXHIBIT D 11 meetings, whatever. If the proposed change is to save entities from processing extra paperwork, I think it is foolhardy and tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot.Not only would the County be giving up all control of the Department of Health, it will be controlled from an entirely different county and would apply to not only current but also to all future programs licensed by the Department of Health. On the surface, the proposed change gives the impression that currently these programs can only operate with a maximum of five in a family. As I understand it, this is not true. Currently, occupancy is determined by the number of rooms and square footage in a facility. A special permit with the proper paperwork may be requested to increase the number in a program’s family. To say all the other islands have implemented the proposed change reminds me of lemmings running off a cliff. The Big Island is not like all the other islands. Let us keep it that way. There is no sense in adding on to something that already works just fine. Leave well enough all alone. I strongly suggest the Commission not approve the proposed change to the definition of a “family.” That’s it. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Carter. Any questions? Seeing none, you may be seated. Ms. Bernie Miranda? MIRANDA:Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Planning Commission. I don’t represent the entire Department of Health but I do represent the Adult Mental Health Division; and I am in support of this amendment to the definition of “family.” The Adult Mental Health Division has been providing housing for people with disabilities close to 20 years. This is not something new. We have established group homes throughout all of the counties in innovated communities; and I would like to say we do have a house in Hawai`i Kai and we do have a house in Mililani. And the purpose of that is because our folks have to return to the communities that they come from; and that was the whole idea of the development of the housing program, so that our children, so that our families could come back home. You know, the people that we serve are probably the poorest people because they get Federal subsidies. These subsidies do not allow for them to go out and rent houses in this competitive housing market. So the end result is these people end up homeless. These people homeless cost the State and the counties tremendous amounts of money. These are the people that end up in the emergency rooms, these are the people that end up in jails, these are the people that end up on the streets causing havoc to the neighbors. So this is not good. We contract, we have over 1,700 units throughout the State of Hawai`i in, as I said, in integrated neighborhoods. We contract with housing providers throughout the State. We have housing developers as part of our housing providers.Our housing developers have gone out and brought into the State of Hawai`i HUD subsidies totaling over $30 million. That is a lot of money for subsidized housing. You and I both know that the State cannot provide subsidized housing. Look at the affordability of housing, look at the housing market now. This is a great opportunity to have housing developers go out and solicit funds. Right now our housing developers aren’t subsidizing with HUD funds. They’re able to purchase homes. They’re purchasing larger homes. Some of our rooms are vacant because of the zoning on the island of Hawai`i. Having up to eight people in a home, we’re not stockpiling. We’re very cognizant of placing our th folks in healthy, safe and decent environments. Our housing program ranks 12 in the nation. That’s pretty remarkable. Our homes are certified, the homes that have treatment on site are required to be licensed. Those are very stringent requirements of the County and of the State. EXHIBIT D 12 So I want you to know, I mean, and I ask you to please support this amendment because it’ll only benefit the consumers, people with disability on the island of Hawai`i. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Miranda. Any questions? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Is it Dr. Miranda? MIRANDA:No. Bernie Miranda. SALAVEA:All right. Thank you, Bernie. Can you give us an example of what, you’ve heard some of the testimony and we’ve had previous testimony in Kona about how a service provider is not integrating well or working well with the community that it has come into. Can you give us an example of what measures the Department of Health can institute towards a service provider that is having a difficult time integrating? MIRANDA:We try very hard. We have to follow the Fair Housing Law, so it’s kind of a, you know, we have to be very cognizant of that. But we try very hard to be good neighbors and good tenants; and so we try to work with the communities. We can’t red tag the houses because, you know, I’m saying, our folks, our people with disabilities, are protected by Fair Housing Laws. They’re a protected class of folks. So just like you wouldn’t, you know, say, have a meeting, you know -. If a particular family was moving into the neighborhood, you certainly can’t have a meeting unless it’s a licensed home, if you’re opening up a regular group home that might be certified. But we still, in spite of that, try to work with the neighbors and try to get them, be attentive to their concerns, because I think that’s really important. To be good neighbors you have to sometimes, even you’re walking on the edge of the law. You have to try to work with people, you know, so that people are more open to having you as a neighbor. ALAMEDA:Mr. Salavea, follow-up? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in your experience, you’ve seen homes that, or you’ve seen I guess both types of cases where, you know, maybe a home gets opened in a community and, you know, right off the bat it’s smooth, it runs well, things are all right; and then maybe the other extreme of that scale would be something where there’s a lot of community opposition, people, you know, or the community opposed to it. I’m trying to look for a percentage or how often is it good or bad, I mean, is it more on the side where it takes time to establish that repertoire between the service provider and the community? MIRANDA:We’ve had homes that have opened up in communities where the communities were very supportive right off the bat. And we have had our challenges, and I’ll give you an example. Right here in Hilo when we opened up the licensed Crises Residential Shelter on Apoki Street, it was very difficult for the neighbors initially, and rightfully so, because of what was perpetuated in the media about people with mental illness. I mean, it’s always like killers on the loose, or that, you know, they’re going to come and terrorize the neighborhood, there’s going to be traffic problems, etc., etc., etc. And, so we had a, because it was a licensed facility, we had a meeting with the neighbors, and invited the neighbors to come to the house, and we had a little potluck; and they came en mass to the house. It kind of, this is kind of interesting, they kind of all grouped at the mailbox, and then they all came down the hill together. And we talked and they talked; and there was a lot of anger; and they stated their EXHIBIT D 13 concerns. And, but this didn’t stop us. We opened up the house; and today the neighbors get along very well with that program. In fact, the next door neighbor had a big issue with violence in the family and they, all of the focus then went into that house, so people became very appreciative of the licensed Crises Residential Shelter there. And, today, they just, they work out very, very well. And people went door-to-door, and they talked to the neighbors, and they explained what the program was about; and people buy into it. The people in Hawai`i are very, very compassionate people. They are, once they understand and the fears are addressed and they’re comfortable, they realize that this is their own people, this is us, this is our own folks here from the island. And, so, they make that extra, they take that extra step, and they’re very understanding, and they’re very supportive. The other thing that the neighbors really, really appreciate is that when they run into problems that they have someone to call. And if someone is living in a situation that doesn’t work out, that person can be removed from that living situation into something a little bit more secure if that’s what they need. This doesn’t happen in other houses in our community. It doesn’t happen with my neighbors, but it happens in our homes. And part of that is working with the neighborhood. You know, you don’t want somebody in there creating havoc. You want our houses to look equal or better than any house in the community because you don’t want to draw that negative attention. So we always give neighbors numbers to call; and if they’re not satisfied with the provider, then they can call us at the Adult Mental Health Division, always we do that. And if there are any complaints, we encourage that strongly that the neighborhood, you know, call us. Don’t let problems just, you know, drag on and on. SALAVEA:Thank you, Ms. Miranda. Did you bring a lot of cards with you, bring enough to pass them out over here? MIRANDA:I’ll be more than glad to. SALAVEA:You answered my third question; and that was to give some, give the Commission some examples of how community support, you know, give us the flip side of what’s going on, ‘cause what we received so far has only been one perspective. And as a Commission, I think it’s our responsibility to get as many different perspectives about the situation or types of situations possible so that we can make a more informed decision. So thank you very much. ALAMEDA:Thank you. You may be seated. MIRANDA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Salavea. Okay. Next five, James Frazer, Rosie Rodriguez, Beverly Hookano and Gary Michell and Roz Cohen, please come forward. HILL:Excuse me. ALAMEDA:Yes? EXHIBIT D 14 HILL:I would like to make a plea because of my baby, to be one of the next speakers if I can. ALAMEDA:Sure. You may be seated. Staff, can we get a chair for the Ms.? HILL:I don’t need a chair. She’ll fuss. ALAMEDA:She’ll fuss, okay, just like mine then. Okay. You’ll develop some good biceps, you know. Ma’am, can I get your name? Ma’am? HILL:My name is Ligaya Alipio Hill, and this is Malia Cateman Hill. ALAMEDA:I want to swear all you in at the same time. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? HILL:My name is Ligaya Alipio Hill. My address is 17-168 Palaai Street, Keaau. ALAMEDA:Go ahead. HILL:Thank you very much for allowing me to go first and thank you for allowing me to stand. Just very briefly, I realize there’s a three-minute time limit. My grandparents were Sakatas. They came in the early 20’s. I’m not here to give you a full history of my family, but they have been here for a very long time. And they have instilled in us, in my father and me and now in my siblings and in my family, that family is very important. A good neighborhood is comprised of good families. I, too, have moved away off island and have seen the demise of neighborhoods in the mainland and have chosen to return home to the neighborhood that I’ve grown up in, to the land that my father has provided for me in Keaau Ag Lots, the land that was available to him as a worker of the sugar plantation. And I am looking to continue my grandparents’ dream, her forefathers, her great-grandparents, to continue to fight for what I believe is right. And what I believe is right is to raise a family. It is the parents’ responsibility to prevent them, to prevent their children from getting into drugs, to prevent them from getting into trouble. It is their responsibility, not someone else’s, not the State Department of Health. I would plea with the State Department of Health to look for programs that prevent children from getting into drugs in the first place. And I would plea with the Commission now to please do not change the definition of “family” in the name of the Sakatas who have dreams and hopes of providing a good neighborhood, a good community to raise their children and become productive and contributing members of their community. I would plead with you as a mom to please do not change the definition of “family.” Thank you very much. EXHIBIT D 15 ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Hill. Thank you for your testimony. Could you please state your name and address for the record? FRAZER:My name is James Frazer. I live at 416 Kahikini Street in Hilo. I’ve been a resident of the islands for about four years now. I’m a retired pharmacist from the mainland. I’ve lived in Molokai for two years and, believe you me, I know what problems go, what they’re like here in the islands. But I’m serving on the Board of Directors for Sunrise Ridge Association, I’m not speaking for them, I’m speaking for myself. I’m definitely against this, a change in the number from five to eight. We already have a family in the neighborhood with five people being in a home that’s been rented out and we’re having a lot of problems with it. When I bought into Sunrise Ridge, the covenants stated that it was five or less. Now, you’re going to change that. So our covenants and other things we feel we’re losing control of. In other words, we’re being dictated from up above the way things are going to be; and we don’t appreciate it. So, Mr. Chairman and the Board, I strongly urge you to don’t go the road, the way of Maui and Oahu and to reject this. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Frazer. Thank you for your brief and concise testimony. I’m beginning to not, I don’t know, we have different definitions of “short” in this room, so I appreciate your definition. It’s consistent with mine. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Frazer? Seeing none, you may be seated. Sir, please state your name and address for the record? MICHELL:Yes. My name is Gary Michell. I’m with Mental Health Kokua. My office address is 75-166 Kalani in Kailua-Kona. I gave testimony in Kona a couple of weeks ago, and I’m not going to recapitulate what I said at that time. I’m just simply here to provide support for my colleagues in the mental health field. I pretty much gave testimony and don’t have much more to add, other than our agency strongly believes that every citizen has the right to live in and participate in their community; and I think the proposed amendment is very consistent with that mission. I might also add, and I think on a very personal note, that at the end of that last meeting, I left pretty angry; and I was pretty angry because of a comment that was made by one of the gentlemen that were there referring to the need for mentally ill to be on a leash. And I really took offense to that; and I think my colleagues in the mental health field feel the same way; and I just wanted to say that to get it off my chest. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. That’ll cost you five dollars, no, just joking. Appreciate your testimony. Any questions for Mr. Michell? All right, seeing none, you may be seated. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Hookano? HOOKANO:Yes. Good afternoon. I’m Beverly Hookano and I work for Mental Health Kokua. We are one of the contracted homes that are under DOH. We serve people that have mental illness and are homeless; and that’s, you know, a very good service that we provide. And as Bernie Miranda said, these are people right here from our island, from our communities, from our families. Housing as it is currently and within the market, it’s, you know, I don’t need to tell you how difficult it is to have mental illness and to be homeless. What a double whammy EXHIBIT D 16 that is. And, you know, we had served this last fiscal year 135 people; and we’re recovery- based. We are rehabilitative. And I strongly support, respectfully request your consideration for passing this amendment. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Hookano. Appreciate your testimony. Any questions for Beverly? Seeing none, you may be seated. Thank you. Ma’am, could you please state your name and address for the record? RODRIGUEZ:I’m Rosie Rodriguez. I work for Adult Mental Health Services as a peer specialist. ALAMEDA:How about your address? RODRIGUEZ:Oh, excuse me. I’m new at this. ALAMEDA:No problem. RODRIGUEZ:My address is 827-B Mililani Street. ALAMEDA:You may proceed. RODRIGUEZ:I’m a consumer, I’m diagnosed with depression, PTSD and anxiety. I just thought, I thought it was important for me to be here on behalf of the group home and what’s up for discussion, especially to share my personal experience in being in a group home. First of all, I was sitting in the back row and I don’t know why I was giggling because what I felt was hurt. And what I was hurt was, were the name-calling that was coming out as far as mental, people with mental illness, you know, the wide-eye, snake-pit, and what not.And it’s really funny because I didn’t think I looked like that. I never used any needles. I couldn’t look like that. But till this day even though I’m recovered, it still hurts to hear that name-calling and to hear other people who are still in recovery be called, you know, names. It still hurts me. So, you know, I just take it as there still needs to be further education in the community and with other consumers, and whatnot. But back to what’s going on, you know, as far as me and what I went through, there were a lot of traumatic events in my childhood and that, you know, led to an emotional roller coaster for me, anger, depression, suicidal events. And by the age of 16, I was just starting that in and out of hospitals, and just being recycled back to the family, back to the home where it just was bad for, was just very bad for me, back into the hospital; and, then the family pawning off, you know, me to friends and family who tried to take care of me but didn’t know how, you know, because they weren’t educated. And I was so depressed I wouldn’t do anything, so I went to the hospital. And I guess I finally made it to Hawaii State Hospital and got stuck; and I was over-medicated, I forgot who I was and I didn’t know my brothers and sisters; and luckily I didn’t get stuck for life, you know. One of the staff advocated for me, got my doses lowered and I got out of there. The reason why I recycled was there wasn’t a bed for me in the community as far as group homes were concerned. When I finally got out there, I did get a bed in a group home; and then it was like very few group homes. And that one bed was like the foundation of my recovery, you know. And what I mean by foundation, it was like I started my stabilization for my medication, I EXHIBIT D 17 needed to learn how to take my meds like, I mean, I know how to pop a pill in my mouth but I had to make it a habit to do it every day; and I had to learn to trust people because I lost all trust living at home. So I learned how to bond; and it bought me time in the group home to build a support network in the community because I didn’t have nobody. You know, I was a homebody, so it bought me that time. It also gave me time to seek drug treatment, not within the group home but in a treatment, outpatient treatment facility. So I was a drug user. But I was greedy, I didn’t share, so, you know, there’s nothing to worry about. But, anyways, so that was my foundation of my career group home. So I was very, very, grateful. From there, I grew and I was able to get out-treatment for my mental illness, and I was able to go back to work. And my first job was with Mental Health Kokua; and so when Beverly talked about, I’m sort of like a prodigy of Mental Health Kokua as far as the growth and whatnot. I worked there for 2-1/2 years and I gained confidence; and I got certified as a peer specialist in Honolulu. And then there was a job opening at Adult Mental Health, and I work for the State. And so I just keep growing, and growing, and growing. And my experience with the State is really an awesome one; however, I did have a really eye opener. I’ve been in my third week there. I had one of my clients walk in desperate, crying. We had her set up over the weekend to live with her uncle; and come Monday she came walking in, she said “I got kicked out, I’m scared, I’m feeling suicidal, I don’t want to live on the streets.” And I spent the whole day with her calling places, looking for a bed, went to the homeless shelter; and I know you guys probably heard all of this. And there was nothing; and I know Mental Health Kokua got those, you know, open beds, waiting list, but because of the cap and the fine -. It’s coming close to 4:30, I’m pau work, and it’s like I couldn’t believe I was sending her out the door to live on the streets; and that just broke my heart, you know, but thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. RODRIGUEZ:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Any questions for the testifier? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Can you describe for, first I’d like to acknowledge your testimony. Thank you very much, very informative. Can you tell the Commission what your status, your housing status was when you went into the therapeutic or the group home? RODRIGUEZ:What, you want my -? SALAVEA:Your housing stats. Were you renting an apartment, did you have a room, were you transitioning out of the State with no housing options, what was the -? RODRIGUEZ:The group home? SALAVEA:Yeah, when you got out of the State, were you being put into the group home, did you have an alternative housing set up to go besides the group home? EXHIBIT D 18 RODRIGUEZ:No, I wasn’t well enough to live independently in my own apartment. I needed support housing. SALAVEA:So without the group facility, other options -? RODRIGUEZ:I would keep relapsing and having to be in a hospital. SALAVEA:Okay. And then, currently, if you don’t mind, this is, it might be a little personal but -. RODRIGUEZ:That’s okay. SALAVEA:I just want to point out your current housing status now. RODRIGUEZ:I live independently with a significant other. SALAVEA:Thank you. RODRIGUEZ:And happily. Thank you. SALAVEA:Thank you, and congratulations. RODRIGUEZ:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Any further questions? You may be seated. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Roz Cohen? Would you please state your name and address for the record? COHEN:Aloha. My name is Roz Cohen. My address is P.O. Box 72, Captain Cook, Hawai`i. ALAMEDA:You may proceed. COHEN:Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission and members of our sweet island of Hawai`i. I am with a face of a bureaucrat here, a newly-crowned bureaucrat. My background, I’ve had the joy of being a Board-certified, nationally certified psychiatric and addictions mental health nurse, and moved to the Big Island in 1995 to raise my two sweet babies here who are now 19 and 21, Konawaena grads, yeah, and had the great joy of working at Kona Community Hospital to develop, design and open the psychiatric unit there. So it is one of those wonderful, great clinical and service development experiences, and I cherish being a member. I live in West Hawai`i and cherish being a member of the West Hawai`i community; and I do lots of service to develop health care and social services in any way I can kokua. That being said, four months ago I applied for and accepted a position as a bureaucrat, really. When you talk about the DOH people over there on Oahu and who’s going to answer and who’s accountable, I now have the job that’s accountable on the Big Island. It’s a position called The Hawai`i County Adult Mental Health Division Service Area Administrator; and the way I read it as it’s defined and understand it, having been on the job over three months, is I’m the single point of accountability for all Adult Mental Health Division Services. Any tears being shed for EXHIBIT D 19 the health -? So, I am the person and would accept the responsibility and oversight for all of the quality of the services for Adult Mental Health Division. So the function is to identify the pukas, expand and develop new or needed services, and then monitor and oversee existing services. And I think that’s important having been involved in lots of community collaboratives, is that there’s someone that folks know. If the buck doesn’t stop, they are at least responsible and accountable and have to give an answer or dig down. And that’s what was my personal experience in the past, was frustrating, is having somebody you could really hold accountable and get an answer from. So I’m happy to offer that. That’s my hope as a dedicated line staff who does believe that recovery is possible for folks with mental illness and substance abuse. I now hope to bring that to our County partners. And I want to tell the community folks in here that I view the community members as stakeholders in this, as well as consumers, providers, agencies, the Judiciary, all the folks that deal with and interact with people with mental illness and substance abuse. And the idea being that we are there if you or your loved one ever needs help, that we have an array of services that’s competent and safe and legal, while people can still live their lives and that, well, you’re not threatened. Bernie Miranda, just to understand, Bernie is the housing director for the whole State for AMHD. I’m the Big Island Administrator, if you will. So Bernie has the oversight and all the numbers of the pukas. I don’t have that at my finger tips but certainly could get it. But we do have years, and that’s what I think Billy Kenoi and the Planning Director alluded to, is the years of folks being homeless where we just had the beds but we couldn’t put them in because of the zoning restriction; and I think that’s what the effort is about right now. So I’m happy to do any follow-up, talking with anyone individually, or come to communities. I understand that the Keaau experience was based on a sub-contract, I think with the Child Adolescent Mental Health Division as sub-contractor; and I don’t know the details of that.But I’m happy to answer for and investigate and collaborate on any of AMHD, Adult Mental Health, initiatives or contracts. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Cohen. Any questions? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:How important would you say to the ultimate healing of your clients and their ability to move on to independent lifestyle would be the acceptance of the community in which their interim living facility is located? COHEN:Thank you for that question. That’s really interesting. I think from an overall aloha, just the general principles of aloha and malama pono, you know, in here that resonates as being really important, because it is about the concept of good neighbors, and the ohana being much bigger than just the people that I was born into. So I think from a spiritual or heart level that that’s critical. And then, number two is just for daily functioning, both from the neighbor’s side, say, and the people in the house and the staff, it’s critical. Because we all know, those of us unless we live in really isolated area, that your neighbors can make the difference between whether you have a pleasurable life experience or not. Again, I like the idea that was brought up before that these are homes that if you didn’t know that these folks were in there, if they weren’t causing problems and were well-managed and were therapeutic, they’d actually be some of your safest and possibly sanest homes in some of our communities, because there is no EXHIBIT D 20 active substance abuse. And psychotic and depression and manic symptoms are being attended to. So there’s that aspect of it. And I think it, and the other thing as a psych nurse I think is that it’s critical because when we’re not happy about things that are going on in our lives, whether it’s our work or our family, we have ways of acting out; and some of those passive aggressive leaks of anger can be almost more toxic than the over-rages. So, again, I think as far as being clean, it’s critical. And then the other piece from the consumer is discrimination; and stigma is often what keep people from getting help. To know that your neighbors de-value or marginalize, or disrespect you can’t be therapeutic. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I believe, maybe you can clarify what Ms. Miranda spoke of earlier in terms of providing neighbors with contact information and so forth. Is that part of a guideline or standard in how the homes are operated, or is that just, if they want to do it they do it, but they don’t have to if they don’t want to? COHEN:Thank you for that question. I was actually wondering the same thing when Bernie was speaking, that I need to get smart about that. Because I was thinking if there was a complaint, I would want to hear about it, and then I would meet with the complainants, the community members. Obviously, we’re talking about after it has developed and opened, and something came up. During the development period, I would anticipate the kind of thing we’re talking about where you go door-to-door and you’re having talk-story meetings with all the stakeholders, I don’t think that, I think I’m going to defer to Bernie or ask her about that. That’s the way I would operate. I’m involved now in the West Hawai`i Shelter Development and I know we’re planning a whole collaboration with Chamber of Commerce and all the people that are going to be worried and concerned about that. You know, let’s get it out on the table first, just being proactive. I don’t know that division has such a policy or not; but I know in my role, if I got a call, I would pull together the stakeholders and say let’s talk story. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:So just to clarify, in your position then you’re involved in the review of approving these homes, or is your role just after the approval you follow-up to make sure they’re complying with the terms of the license? COHEN:That’s right. That’s the oversight and monitoring of the quality of the service. As the gentleman, one of these gentlemen talked about, you know, is the service. That’s the program, therapeutic. Is it clinically indicated beyond just -? I’m not the one that goes in and looks at if the square footage is right and the number of toilets. I’m actually with the clinical program, feedback loop. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Okay, you’re on the hot seat. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Real quick. And I hope you’re able to answer this. My question is how much of your clientele, their housing status, is either transitional or homeless? Can you give me a ballpark percentage? EXHIBIT D 21 COHEN:I can’t. We have a couple of other experts in the room. I’m thinking of Brandy and Bernie, and I think we do have those numbers; but I’m not the one that has it. SALAVEA:Thank you. If someone is able to answer that, I’d just like to know that, get that information. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Sure. If any testifiers who have that information when you come up, please make a mental note of it so you can share that with Commissioner Salavea. Thank you, Ms. Cohen. COHEN:Thank you. ALAMEDA:You may be seated. Moving right along, all right, folks, we’re one-third along the way here. How about Anela Kailiawa, and Jeremy McComber, Nancy Cabral, Jim Anderson? Larry Thurman? Could you all please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. This time I’ll start off from my far right. And don’t worry if this is your first time, we can walk you through the process. Could you please state your name and address for the record? KAILIAWA:My name is Anela Kailiawa and my address is 1425 Kilaha Street. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Anela. What would you like to share with us today? KAILIAWA:I am also here as a consumer. I’m also diagnosed with mental illness and I’ve lived in group home environments. I came from a bad family and I didn’t really have support. I was born and raised here in Ka`u and didn’t have anywhere else to go. My family refused to take me in. I spent going in and out of the hospitals also ‘cause there wasn’t anywhere else for me to go, and I refused to live on the streets. After being released from the hospital, I thought I had a home situated and set up for me to return to; and that fell through, so I had nowhere else to go -- I stayed at a hospital for a little while -- and I was kicked out of there because my social worker came to visit with me and the man didn’t want to serve people like me, so I was put out on the streets. I wouldn’t be able to survive on the streets; and I overdosed just so that the hospital would take me in and I wouldn’t have to be homeless. They kept me in the hospital long enough for me to get accepted into a group home; and that was also my foundation for my recovery. I learned things at the group home that I didn’t know on my own because my parents didn’t teach me. My family never taught me how to manage my money, how to go out and look for work, how to cook a meal, simple things like that. I wasn’t prepared to live alone. The resident manager that worked with me in the group home really instilled in me that I could be independent, and that I could recover, and I could live a normal life. I have a six-year old son; and during this time I could not be with him. But I needed to get better so that I could take care of him. EXHIBIT D 22 And this group home allowed me to build the skills that I needed to go out into the community and be a productive member and a contributing member to society. I’ve lived in group homes for two years; and I think without that, I would not be where I am today. Today, I work with Care Hawai`i and I get to help people just like me. And I get to share my secret that we do and can get better, and we can live out there. I train the Hilo Police Department to help them understand how to deal people with mental illness; and so I’m out there in the normal community. I’m working with normal people. I educate people because I think that a lot of what’s lacking within the community is that people are ignorant because they’re not educated. I am a normal person. I go to work everyday. I come home, I pay my taxes, I pay my bills, I take care of my family. And a family is not defined by blood because the people that live with me in all of these group homes have become my family. I still keep in very close contact with all of them; and they help support me today so that I know I can still wake up tomorrow and be productive to the society. And another thing, too, is that I understand that I’m not going to get better. I’m going to have this disease for the rest of my life, and I did not ask for less. But I understand that some day I might need that group home again. I might have to go back there. I might have to re-establish some of the skills that I’ve, you know, I might lose them along the way, I might get sick. And if the cap is at five and it remains at five, I might be that one person that’s not going to have a place to stay, and I might have to stay on the streets. And so I beg all of you that you guys please consider accepting this, that the cap goes to eight. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none -. SALAVEA:Real quick. ALAMEDA:Go ahead, Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just for clarification, your current housing status is? KAILIAWA:I live independently in a three-bedroom home in Waiakea-Uka. SALAVEA:And you pay your own rent? KAILIAWA:I pay everything on my own. SALAVEA:Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. ALAMEDA:Seeing no further questions, you may be seated. Thank you. IWASHITA:Mr. Chair, just one. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:It’s not really a question. But this testifier and one other talked about, you know, the normal community. And I don’t know if that’s a term of art in mental health care but I just, personally, I just want to make it clear to the testifier that, to me, I have hard time making a EXHIBIT D 23 distinction. You know, we’re all one community and whether some of us are viewed as normal or not, you know, I know a lot of people out there don’t view me as normal. So I’m part of the testifiers’ community. ALAMEDA:Okay, point taken. Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Sir, your name and address for the record? MCCOMBER:Jeremy McComber; and in the interest of who I represent, I’ll just say Waiakea Uka in Hilo. ALAMEDA:Okay, you may proceed. MCCOMBER:Again, my name is Jeremy; and I’m here representing the County’s Office of Housing and Community Development. To give you a little background of what I do there that would hopefully help in my testifying, I do the land use planning affordable housing. I deal with homeless issues. I’m the Fair Housing Officer for this County. And so the Office of Housing and Community Development supports the amendment to this zoning change because our main goal is to provide affordable housing or housing options for individuals throughout the housing continuum which starts at homelessness and ends at the homeowner or individual that have aged on in the population and now require, you know, adult care or various types of situations. I did want to point out that the County currently does not have an occupancy standard that relates to residential units. And, so, in the event that you have a group home setting or any other type of setting where you limit the number of individuals that can occupy the dwelling unit, there is a liability that could be imposed on the County pursuant to the Fair Housing Act. I also wanted to point out that, you know, in trying to deal with issues of affordable housing, as an example, we have people that are in our work force that commute from either Ka’u, Puna area all the way to West Hawai`i that cannot even afford housing. So if you take that into consideration and compare that to these individuals that may be homeless and/or mentally ill and you don’t provide housing opportunities for them, then as Ms. Miranda indicated, those individuals will exhaust the various funding sources that can be utilized for other types of opportunities for other populations. An individual had mentioned covenants and, you know, there are, it’s debatable on covenants, and association rules, and that type of thing. But I would just say, speaking from the Fair Housing perspective, that limiting the number of individuals that can occupy a unit could be dangerous for the County, as well as other stakeholders such as the service providers and whatnot. And after having said all that, I would just like to encourage, again, the amendment of the Zoning Code because we have here these various providers that are actually willing to come into our communities and provide service to individuals that maybe we cannot relate to now, but I’m sure at some point in your life you’ll probably know somebody that has a mental illness. And if we’re not willing to accept that they’re coming into the communities now and that we’re not going to be shipping off these people elsewhere, then I don’t think our housing crisis will get any better. Thank you. EXHIBIT D 24 ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. McComber. Questions? Commissioner Salavea? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:May I -? ALAMEDA:Please. SIRACUSA:Thank you for not calling me Commissioner Salavea. When I was in college, I, at one point, lived in a very large house in Manoa, had a lot of bedrooms and I shared it with a whole bunch of other students; and of course it was not an official, you know, living facility, whatever, therapeutic living facility. It was certainly not certified by the Department of Health. Are you saying that the County could have had a liability because they were more than five of us living in one house, with unrelated people? MCCOMBER:No, what I’m saying is that because the Fair Housing Act protects individuals that have disabilities, if the County limits the maximum number of occupants in a unit -. You know, the Fair Housing Act essentially what it does is it provides individuals, protect the individuals the opportunity to enjoy the unit as an individual that maybe doesn’t have a disability have that opportunity to do so. So if we limit the number of occupants in a unit and you’re turning away an individual that has a disability, then you could be in violation of the Fair Housing Act; and because the Zoning Code would allow that limitation, that’s where the liability would come into play. ALAMEDA:Ma’am? SIRACUSA:But there would still be a limitation based on, say, the size of the house and the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, is that correct? Even if, say, we passed this and allowed eight unrelated people, if you had a house with two bedrooms and one bath, they would not be able to put eight unrelated people in that house, is that correct? MCCOMBER:That could be challenged. SIRACUSA:That could be challenged? MCCOMBER:Correct. SIRACUSA:Could you explain that in greater detail, please? MCCOMBER:Because the County currently does not have, again, an occupancy standard that relates to number of persons in a unit, in a residential unit, it would be hard for the County to quantify how they are limiting the unit without a standard in place. So if there is going to be a standard of eight and you have a two-bedroom unit, how would you be able to justify, not having the professional background of someone that services an individual with a mental illness, how would you be able to quantify that it’s unreasonable for eight individuals to reside in that unit? ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Iwashita? EXHIBIT D 25 IWASHITA:Thank you for coming, Mr. McComber. I just need a clarification or some education, I guess. What is this occupancy standard you mentioned several times now? MCCOMBER:Before the County had an occupancy standard that would say, you know, per unit by bedroom size, you know, no more than “x” number of people could occupy the unit. So, for example, and this is just an example, a three-bedroom unit could have no more than six people. That was written in the Housing Code before, that was repealed; and the Housing Code now was rewritten to specifically address the imposition of affordable housing conditions. So there’s nothing in the current Housing Code that addresses number of persons in a unit. So right now, there’s no standard. IWASHITA:And my impression is that we took it out in order to comply with some law? MCCOMBER:What happened was the contents of the Housing Code was integrated into the Building Code and the Zoning Code depending on what the issue was; and then it was just rewritten to address affordable housing conditions as applied pursuant to a change of zone. IWASHITA:Is there an acceptable occupancy standard under the Fair Housing Act? MCCOMBER:No, there isn’t. Currently, our office uses to administer various programs the HUD guideline, which is two persons per bedroom or, excuse me, two persons per living room which includes living area, which includes the living room. So if you had a three-bedroom unit, the maximum number of persons would be eight. That is the guideline. And we have been informed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that that is not hard and fast, and that we can be challenged. IWASHITA:So sounds like you’re saying the County should have an occupancy standard along the lines that you just described. I mean, it can’t be out there, you know, with no standard, right? It seems like that’s what we ought to be doing instead of this other thing. MCCOMBER:I don’t want to say that I think there should be a standard so much so as I’d like to just remind everyone or inform you if you’re not aware of the Fair Housing Act that individuals with the disability are protected. And, as a reasonable accommodation, we would allow a consideration such as additional individuals in the unit; and that accommodation is to prevent them from either relapsing, or becoming homeless, or whatever is specific to their situation. So I’m more focused on insuring the equal opportunity of housing, more so than actually establishing a standard. IWASHITA:So would it be helpful or not to have an occupancy standard to do your job? MCCOMBER:It would definitely be helpful; but whether or not that’s established, I don’t think that’s my call. IWASHITA:Yeah. That’s for the County Council, basically, is what you’re saying? MCCOMBER:Yeah. EXHIBIT D 26 IWASHITA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa and then Commissioner Rho? SIRACUSA:Yeah, it strikes me very strange that we talk about prison overcrowding and how many people to a cell is or is not acceptable, say, especially to their rehabilitation and, yet, we’re not looking at that, you know, in the case of therapeutic living situations. And I’m wondering how could someone really, you know, be rehabilitated into living independently if their living situation in a therapeutic home is so skewed away from a normal situation. I can see having a roommate, one other person in the room with you, maybe even if you’re really tight, you know, and the room is large enough for three people. But if you start crowding too much in there that seems to me that it would actually be counter-productive -. ALAMEDA:Your question? SIRACUSA:To a healing situation. And I have no questions. I’m just mouthing off. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, let me just remind you and encourage you to be disciplined in your future questioning. Thank you, Mr. McComber. Oh, Mr. Rho, Commissioner Rho, you had a question? RHO:Actually I have two questions, I think. ALAMEDA:Okay. RHO:The first one is, and I’ll preface it very briefly by saying that in Kona at the last meeting I heard the same thing and now I’m hearing it again, which is this number eight; and I guess you have come the closest to actually explaining number eight. So you heard testimony. Why is the number eight, why the current number eight in Maui, Oahu and the State Statute? That’s my first question. Do you have any idea? MCCOMBER:I don’t know specifically why the Planning Director initiated this. But if I had to give my assumption, it would be because when the Adult Mental Health Division obtained the unit, it’s highly likely that -. RHO:No, no. In Maui it’s eight; on Oahu it’s eight; the State Statute mentions the number eight, as I read this material. So at the testimony in Kona eight was mentioned again, in reference to Marimed but eight. And in here, today, we have testimony about this number eight; and it’s within the Director’s recommendation that it be eight. All I’m asking is, and I should have asked this for every single individual that testified, why is the number eight? And I’ll go further, in your testimony you’re basically saying, if I understand you correctly, that even if it’s set at eight, I, as a consumer, can file a lawsuit protesting that or arguing about that number ‘cause I want it to be nine in this house. Or, you know, in reverse, it could be argued the other way, too. So I guess I’m really concerned about this magic number eight. And, if you, in my mind, anyway, take it to its logical conclusion, then there should be no number, is basically what you’re saying. Is that not right? EXHIBIT D 27 MCCOMBER:I think to answer your first question when the various group home providers obtain units, it’s probably because the largest unit they would obtain is a four- bedroom. So they’re looking at a two-person per room standard, that’s my assumption. Having said that, I would say that you could use a two-person per bedroom as a guideline, yes. But, I mean, technically, anything could be challenged, anything that’s written in the County Code could be challenged. So, I mean, I’m not saying there’s one right answer, you know, one number that it could be set at where, you know, that’s absolutely the safe zone there. It’s objective. RHO:Taking it to its logical conclusion, would you also then agree that a number should not be set and that each individual house then comes up as some testifiers are proposing, that they come before the Commission to ask for an exemption every single time? MCCOMBER:I think that eight is a reasonable number. But I think to answer the question of whether or not that’s feasible for the program, that would have to be up to the professionals. I don’t service those with mental illness so I’m not sure. But I would say it’s reasonable. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Rho? RHO:No questions. ALAMEDA:All right. You’re off the hot seat. Thank you, Mr. McComber. Ma’am, could you please state your name and address for the record? CABRAL:My name is Nancy Cabral and my mailing address, Suite 2, Kamehameha Avenue, Hilo. I am the owner of Day-Lum Rentals and Management. And with this question just asked of Jeremy, welcome to my world. I can be sued at any time because if I allow or disallow, and it’s not a matter of just two per room, it could be what if they have the three bedrooms, the living room, and what about the family room, and the extra enclosed dining room that’s not just an open dining area? All of those could have two people in that room loosely considered by the HUD standards. Housing is a big item to me. I handle, right now my company handles 592 residential units, 12 condominium associations, and 9 subdivisions, and 89 commercial units. So housing and your zoning has a big impact on me, my employees and a whole lot of people I connect with on a regular basis. I have 38 individual units that are currently either group homes or that help with disabled people. This number includes one unit, one of these units, not 38, one of these units has 20 rooms in it and 20 bathrooms. It’s a group home housing former convicts. I have another project for developmentally disabled; and I have recently taken on the new turnaround in the successful management of the new soon-to-be better housing ability at Riverside Apartments. I am into housing in a big way. I support the concept of group homes; and I think it’s wrong that there seems to be so much of us against them here, maybe you’re used to that. No one here that I’ve heard, when you hear what they say, has spoken against the concept. I think it’s more of a matter of everyone looking at you, you folks on this panel, to do your job; and that’s what I’m asking you to do. I really think you should look at changing the zoning in a whole lot more areas and allowing for not just group homes but multi-family housing. Multi-family if the zoning were to be changed and it didn’t EXHIBIT D 28 take five years or $5 million to get a zoning change in this County, we might not have such a housing, affordable housing crisis. Okay? I deal with housing. I think the whole situation here is money. Your question about number eight, I don’t think it has anything to do with how many rooms there are or how therapeutic that number is going to be. I think it has to do with how much money they’re going to make or not make. Because the number of eight wasn’t how many of them are going to live in the house, that’s how many customers are going to live in the house; and I say customers. They say clients, or they say patients, or they say consumers. It’s customers ‘cause I’m in business. Business is money, and money means they’re going to have eight customers in that house. ‘Cause they’re going to get the money from the Federal government to house eight people, and they’re going to have an unspecified number of additional people living there, be that two people living there in addition to the eight, be that four. How many more people are going to “live in that house on a nightly basis?”And they say they don’t live there but they’re going to be there. When you have somebody there all throughout the night using the toilet, parking the car, they’re there. Okay? I’d like you to picture -. Again, I think that the current system is not really good because it shouldn’t make it so onerous that they have to come in for special use permits all the time. I think big areas should be really considered for zoning changes. And I think if the government was more receptive to the demands of supply and demand in our marketplace, more owners of properties, more developers would come in and make this available. It’s just too costly. Your Zoning Code is so hard or the zoning process is so hard to deal with. Your building codes are so bureaucratic and restrictive. But if it was allowed to work better, I think we wouldn’t have nearly as many housing problems. But I’d like you to picture because, again, what this ordinance as it’s put up now has no limitations, okay. Any neighborhood anywhere, regardless of CC&R’s, you’re saying that you bought a house in a neighborhood, you spent a lot of money, you pick the house out that you want it for your family, you paid a lot of extra money ‘cause it had CC&R’s, you were concerned about it for the safety of your family, big investment for you the taxpaying citizen without special needs, not a protected class, without any notification, without any warning, without any knowledge whatsoever. Again, they say they let the neighborhoods know and the Department of Health may, but they’re not required to. Again, you have no limitations or requirements in this ordinance you’re looking at. Someone moves in, they move in a group home, the property they’re moving in a group home is not a single-family dwelling on one parcel, it has the ohana permit from years ago. It’s two homes. So now we’re not talking eight customers, we’re talking 16 customers and four, six, eight care providers. So how many people are going to be there? Picture, now we’ve got 20- plus people living on this property in your neighborhood with 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 square feet, maybe an acre. Are they’re going to bus the people in? They drive in. This is not limited to just youth that don’t drive that have drug problems or whatever, there’s no limitation. So the concept is they’re going to go back to work and go back-and-forth to work, so they all need their cars. So now we have 20 cars on the street because the lot is probably not big enough for 20 cars, I don’t know. Now all of a sudden you live next door down the street and you can’t park anytime. You come home, your guest have to park two blocks away. What’s going to happen if 20 people flush the toilet everyday? How many toilets, how many cesspools? There’s no EXHIBIT D 29 requirement that it be on a septic system or a cesspool, it’s on cesspool or it’s on the County sewer line. Again, is your sewer line going to handle this? How many homes like this are going to be in the same neighborhood? Are there going to be any impact fees that anybody pays for this? What about the trash removal, daily food delivery? Now we’re talking what goes on outside. This is all what goes on outside those four walls. I don’t care what goes on inside those four walls. I handle all these properties. If they’re quiet on the inside, put earphones on, I don’t care how loud you play your stereo. Blast your own eardrums out. But the minute that noise exits the property line, the minute those cars are out there, all of those outside activities, everything is going to affect somebody in that neighborhood in some other way. Why do we have zoning if it doesn’t matter now? It doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter. Let’s just let everybody -- we can all go home, and you don’t have a job. Group homes, let’s say, and no limitations, that’s the concern. There’s no limitations in any of this. You know, again, it could be a group of teenagers, it could be a group that’s former sex offenders in a rehab, again, no limitations. What is going to happen to that community when no one is even notified in that community that this is now suddenly changed until something happens, okay? I think that the current situation allows for at least some notification or, again, make the zoning changes universal in terms of the land changes, not the decision universal to what a neighborhood has to have. There’s no requirement, no limitation that there be any contact given out. In one of my subdivisions where a group home is now living on an ohana, they’ve never given us, and we’ve had multiple meetings, they’ve never given us contact numbers. There have been runaways from that; but you can check with anybody, they say there’s no runaways because they never contacted the police. They run around the neighborhood instead looking for the runaways. So they don’t contact the police ‘cause they don’t want it documented that these people have run away out of the facility.So, again, there are no limitations, there are no necessary requirement for accountability back to this County. Therapeutic for our neighborhood kids? Again, there’s no requirement that it be for our neighborhood people. With the land and housing at Hawaii County being so much more affordable, particularly East Hawai`i obviously, then everyone that’s getting these Federal dollars are going to come racing down here to East Hawaii, as groups I think already are. And they’re going to be saying, let’s have that group home here in East Hawai`i and we’ll bring the Oahu drug addicts, we’ll bring the Oahu mentally ill over here, we’re going to -. You know, again, it’s a dollar business. So if it’s the industry you want to invite into East Hawai`i, that’s a choice. I’m opposed to allowing this kind of density on a universal scale. I think it should be more properly identified in the right neighborhood and have the right proper zoning changes take place so that that neighborhood, the impact on that neighborhood as previously indicated when you were considering for another consideration, the community government infrastructure is set up to handle that impact. Whether you have two or three or four group homes in one small subdivision, it could easily happen. You have no limitations here. So I’d like you to seriously consider it. I could see from your prior decisions you’re very conscientious. I’d also like to note that of the 15 people that spoke before me, eight of them that spoke in favor of this, all of them are probably catching the paychecks as we speak, because EXHIBIT D 30 every single one of them works in mental health now, works for the government. And I don’t think, probably Billy Kenoi really probably took an hour off on his vacation time to speak, but we could check on that. And I like him as a person, I love the concept, but understand who is here speaking. Everybody that has spoken in favor of this gets a paycheck because, unfortunately, these kind of activities, this kind of problem exist in our community. Okay, I’m in favor of having group homes and I’m in favor of multi-family, but let’s do it right. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Cabral. Any questions? Seeing none, you may be seated. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record? L. THURMAN:Larry Thurman, Post Office Box 1049, Keaau; and I live in Keaau Ag Lots. After the previous speaker, I don’t have a heck of a lot left -. But I do want to address the gentleman who was very upset about my statement about the leash at the last meeting. He either didn’t hear the entire conversation that was going on prior to that or he chose to take it out of context. But I’ll remind you as your minutes will show that the subject at the time was that without adequate supervision there is going to be walk-a-ways from these types of programs all the time. And I was asked the question specifically, well, do you think with adequate supervision if it would be all right? And I said it’d have to be one-on-one supervision and they’d have to have a leash on each one of them to prevent the walk-a-ways. So -. The only other two things that I got is that and, again, it goes back to visiting the number eight, the magic number; and the Mayor’s representative suggested that the Department of Health says it’s good, therefore, it is. And if you watch Fox News or if you watch MS, NBC, any at all, you know that you can find an expert on any subject for any position; and I think that’s what we have here. And the only other thing that I’d like to say was said at the last meeting, it wasn’t on this agenda item but it was a previous item, Mr. Iwashita, and I apologize if I didn’t pronounce your name right, made a comment that he was concerned about public safety. And that’s the whole gist of what we’re doing here today. It’s about public safety, and we’re part of the public, too. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Thurman. Questions? Ms. Siracusa? SIRACUSA:This is not a question to the testifier but to Corp. Counsel. ALAMEDA:But can I ask that -. Okay, let me just ask. Any questions of Mr. Thurman? If there’s no question then you may be seated. Thank you, Mr. Thurman. Ms. Cabral, you may be seated, too. Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa, go ahead. SIRACUSA:Yes. Ms. Cabral made a statement that the people who have spoken in favor are all on payroll from some mental health facility or whatever. And as president of a non- profit, I’m aware that if I am paid by a non-profit and I go and testify, I am required to announce myself as a paid lobbyist. Does that hold here in front of the Planning Commission? If someone, I know in government that’s not, that doesn’t count. But if people, I don’t know if that facility in Kona is a non-profit or not, but I’m wondering if that, it’s an operative concept here for us today. ALAMEDA:Mr. Torigoe? EXHIBIT D 31 TORIGOE:I don’t have that answer off the top of my head. I would have to go and take a look at the, I guess it would be the Lobbyist Registration requirements in the County Code. I can look that up if you want. ALAMEDA:Mrs. Siracusa, do you need Mr. Torigoe to look that up? SIRACUSA:Yes, I would. There is on the back of our agenda, there’s a notice to lobbyists. And it says that a lobbyist means any individual engaged for pay or other consideration who spends more than five hours in any month or $275 in any six-month period for the purpose of attempting to influence legislation. And I’m wondering if the people who have been sitting here for quite a few hours, we’re getting up to that five hour point, they should be registering as lobbyists. ALAMEDA:I don’t know if we’ve reached five hours, I hope not. I don’t think so with regard to this particular agenda item. So if you consider in the morning, but we’re talking just -. SIRACUSA:In half an hour, it will make five hours. ALAMEDA:Not this particular agenda item, I don’t think. So, anyway, Commissioner, Mr. Torigoe, would you like to comment on Commissioner Siracusa’s inquiry? TORIGOE:You know, Commissioner Siracusa is correct that there is that notice in the public notice of these meetings, and it does reference the portions of the Hawaii County Code. That basically says that “any individual engaged for pay or other consideration who spends more than five hours in any month or $275 in any six-month period for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative or administrative action by communicating or urging others to communicate with public officials.” Then, yeah, if that is what you’re paid to do and you do so, then you could be considered a lobbyist. Again I don’t have the full text of the whole Code here so, and that’s something that then obviously these testifiers would need to consult their own counsel on it. ALAMEDA:All right, future testifiers know that. I think we started this particular agenda item at 11:35, it’s now 1:30. SIRACUSA:Excuse me, does it go by agenda item? They’ve been here since 9 o’clock, a lot of them, so they’ve -. ALAMEDA:Well, from what I understand from the reading, I interpret that as the agenda item, the issue at hand, so I took that as 11:35. All right. Moving right along, our patient testifier, could you please state your name and address for the record? ANDERSON:James Anderson, 702 Hueu Place, Hilo, Hawai`i. I’m here representing myself. I’m speaking against the amendment; and I’m drawing my opinions on my experience of 28 years as a law enforcement officer in a large metropolitan city in California. So far, these have been called group homes, rehabs. They can be called safe house, care homes, halfway houses, therapeutic living center. No matter what you call them they are quasi- custodial, quasi-medical and 100 percent commercial. It’s my experience in the patrol, there EXHIBIT D 32 always was an increase of in-call for services relating from the above-type homes I mentioned, and also on-view enforcement action is required. And speaking to the neighbors of these situations, they always had a tale of woe, and none of them were really leaping for joy on that one. Today, I’ve heard the words, “liability” and “licensed” was thrown out quite a bit. As far as liabilities, I wonder if this is increased and the seven or eight, or that seventh and eighth person did harm to a family, would the County be liable for that since they increased the number of that home? I don’t know, you know. That liability seems to be just thrown out there as a big scare factor. And “licensed,” everybody was licensed this, licensed that. There are a lot of drivers out there that we have to have auto insurance. Your professional doctors have to have malpractice. So those aren’t panaceas, they’re not cure-alls. Whatever it is, there’s going to be some risk involved on that one. You know, and as far as the studies go, they talked about being off-island or being on-island so much better prepared. You can find any kind of study you want that’s going to show that it doesn’t matter if they were local or off, success rate is probably not going to be any better as to the help. It might help some of the families better. But as far as the success on that I don’t know. Nancy Cabral was correct, she said most of the people testifying for the motion today were from the mental health field. Unfortunately, that’s just not the only area covered by this amendment. You’re going to have drug abuse, drug rehab, criminals, and so forth. And, you know, there’s, you might want to be able to accept one type of a neighborhood house next to you, but there’s no guarantee that that’s what might turn up next to you. I also moved into an area with the covenants and for, the State agrees, and it just seems that those covenants are going to be overruled if a State or a County law is going to supersede that. So whatever reasons I chose to live where I live could have been taken away from me on that one. I guess what I’m asking you is that, you know, you do not need to change the rules by rejecting this amendment. You’re not denying anybody the right to have these homes. What you’re doing is you’re just limiting the amount to five. I’m asking if that is fine and that’s successful, don’t increase it. The only increase it seems to be is for monetary values on that one. So please keep that in consideration on that one; and I guess that’s pretty much what I have. I just feel that there probably is a need for these types of homes; but place it in an area that’s zoned for it and is acceptable to that. I’m not sure that just because it has to be in the middle of a certain residential area that’s going to help those people. In my law enforcement experience, it was very common to see the city bus come by and off-load members from guest homes. And I was in California, and you might know Ronald Reagan when he was Governor, he closed down the state asylums and everybody was sent out to live in the group homes. Well, these group homes released their assignees and we used to call it the “thorzine shuffle” (phonetic) because they would just come down, walk around through the neighborhood, through the downtown. And not that they did any harm but they were scaring them. So, like I said, I’m just asking you to consider this and to reject the amendment. EXHIBIT D 33 ALAMEDA:Thank you, sir. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thanks for your testimony. Thanks for coming out. You may be seated. I’d like to take five. Is there any objection to that? Seeing none, five-minute recess. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 1:35 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 1:45 p.m. ALAMEDA:I’d like to remind the testifiers again if you can keep your testimonies brief, to the point. Anyway, next five testifiers, Mike Saenz, Arlene Macanas, Carl Halstead, Roxanne Costa and Elizabeth Bermudez. All right, first, I’d like to thank you guys for waiting this long. Just shows your commitment to this issue and your passion, either way. I’ll just start off by swearing you in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. I’ll start off with Mike. Could you please state your name and address for the record, in the mike, Mike? SAENZ:Michael Saenz, I live at 500 Ohukea Street in Hilo. Tomorrow, I turn 48 years old; and half of that time, I’ve spent as being a law enforcement officer, both in the municipal and now at the Federal level. And while I commend all those people that were here today in the mental health field for the work they do, I think we have to realize that there are both good and bad that come out of these type homes. Unfortunately, I’ve always dealt with the bad. And as it was stated previously, you know, as a law enforcement officer, you deal with that part of it. And I’m just asking that you look that it’s not just mental health facilities that will be included in these type homes. As pointed out it is, you know, other problems, whether it’s ex- cons, whether it’s drug addicts, or whatever. Increasing the number that are allowed to live there is also going to increase the risk of the law enforcement problems that we’re going to have and that the safety that the community and the neighborhoods count on is going to be somewhat diminished. I ask that you confer amongst each other, try to come up with the best decision that’s best for the County, and realize that listening to all of us, and not just those whose paycheck, depends on it as has been pointed out, and not to succumb to threats that you’re in violation of some Federal law if you choose not to do this. Thank you for your time. ALAMEDA:Thank you for your concise testimony, appreciate your testimony. Any questions? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Saenz, you brought up your police background; and I’m not sure if you’re able to answer this question. But in your experience, which of the two people, and I’ll describe the persons, of the two people which, in your opinion, would have easier time reintegrating back into the community - someone released from prison that has a step-down transitional housing program that re-establishes their connection to the community or someone who is released from prison with no support? EXHIBIT D 34 SAENZ:Well, unfortunately, I’m usually dealing with the ones that have violated the law, so I couldn’t give you a figure saying, you know, this percent does well, this percent does not, because I don’t deal with the percent that does well. That’s just the reality of it. So, you know, I can tell you I’ve had instances where people with no support that I’m dealing with and I’ve had plenty of instances with people that had the so-called support that are crossing back over the line as well. SALAVEA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Seeing no further questions, thank you. You may be seated or you could -. By the way, if I say you may be seated, you also can leave, you know. So you don’t have to be seated. Okay. All right. Moving right along. Ma’am, please state your name and address? MACANAS:Aloha. My name is Arlene J. Macanas and I live at 17-342 Ipuaiwaha Street in Keaau Ag Lots. And just to let you know that I was the first one there in the subdivision living in a house trailer. And my husband worked for the plantation. We relocated from Kohala, which he was working in the plantation there; and, as you know, the plantation folded up. And we had a home out there, we had our children. We needed to relocate because there was only one hotel that was out there, and that was the Mauna Kea Beach Hotel. So we moved to Hilo and he went to the James Glover Construction, and then went to the Puna Sugar because he was laid off at Glover. Being in the Puna Plantation, he started back again from the very beginning, at the bottom poisoning, carrying the poison pump from a tractor trailer operator; and it was very, very difficult. But he started off, and we were so fortunate at that time that the Puna Sugar folded, that they gave us the property.We had an opportunity either to take the monies or to pay the County on a monthly basis. Raising five kids was not easy at that time so we chose to keep the property, knowing that it was a one-acre; and coming from a ranch hand, a cowboy family, we wanted to raise some cows, knowing that it was an agricultural area; and we ended up raising two horses and some sheep on half of the acre. It saddens me today to see that this is happening. I am not against rehabilitation for children. Children is what I, you know, I want to see them grow. And we all make mistakes. For those that go on to drugs, sometimes it’s just not their fault, they just don’t have the support either from their families, or they just get mixed up with the wrong crowd. If you’re born handicapped, that’s another story again. But I think these foundations should be placed in areas that they can rehabilitate. I’m not ashamed to say that there was one in my family, there was an in-law that went on drugs. And she went to Maui, to a rehabilitation center in Maui; and let me tell you being away from home made her realize that “I need to get back on track.” So we’re talking about facilities, sending our kids off island. And the facility that she went was in an isolated area. It wasn’t in a residential area. And I think that really helped a lot because there was no interference, there was nothing that they could go look outside the window and be distracted. I personally feel that these kids, you know, should be in areas that they can rehabilitate and have the care that they really need and not be distracted. EXHIBIT D 35 Also, for the Keaau Ag Lots, it’s safety that we’re thinking about. Like I said, it was designed for agriculture and, of course, there was the ohana. Of course, they did away with that. But I do have another home on my property which is for my daughter. And because the kids today, let me tell you, you know, they just can’t go out there and buy their own property. But I am not against rehabilitation. I want them to get the best care; but having a facility like this in a subdivision like ours, I don’t think so. So, please, consider this and let’s try to find a place for these kids to go, even though it’s isolated. But it’ll make them think, think hard, that “Is this what I want? I want to get back to my families, I want to be in the community.” It’s so very, very important.” So thank you very much. Mahalo. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Mahalo for your testimony. Any questions for our testifier? Seeing none, you may be seated. Sir, could you state your name and address for the record? HALSTEAD:My name is Carl Halstead. I live at 400 Kipuni Street in Hilo. The main reason why I oppose this amendment is I just see a further erosion of our control of our local communities. If you pass this, then what are we going to, what’s our alternative now? We have to call Honolulu and say, “You know, we object to something.” We aren’t going to have an opportunity to come before a board like this. And that’s why I strongly feel that we should keep control. It’s not to say that we’re against these homes. It’s just that, as been said before, we’re allowed one home in our lot in Sunrise Estates and I don’t like the idea of 20 or more people, you know, with all the infrastructure problems that it could create being next door. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, you may be seated. Also, let me remind the public and fellow testifiers that the Planning Commission, with this particular agenda item, we just basically make a recommendation. Our vote will be reflected in the recommendation to the County Council; and the County Council will have the final decision. And, also, the County Council will have an opportunity to look at all the minutes, and which they do, all of the testimony. But I encourage you, again, to be there to testify again and let them hear your perspective. But we basically make a recommendation. So thanks again for your coming out ‘cause this starts the process. Ma’am, could you please state your name and address for the record? BERMUDEZ:Okay. Good afternoon. I’m Elizabeth Bermudez. I live at 17-203 Ipuaiwaha Street, Keaau Ag Lots. I live next to the Marimed Foundation, just right next door. Okay, my husband was a former plantation worker, that’s how we acquired this property. We raised our children in this home and it was our plan to retire in this home. But with the Marimed Foundation as our neighbor, I don’t know how we can live safely. So I’m opposing on this amendment. So, please, I’m begging you, please don’t pass that amendment. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, thank you, Elizabeth, for coming out. Any questions for Ms. Bermudez? Seeing none, you may be seated. Thank you. Ms. Costa, could you please state your name and address for the record? COSTA:My name is Roxanne Costa. My address is 60 Hookano Street. Our agency is at 1786 Kinoole Street. I represent the Salvation Army Family Intervention Services. We were formerly called the Hilo Interim Home. I’m the program director of Residential EXHIBIT D 36 Services islandwide; and we have an emergency shelter here in Hilo and Kona; and we have a group home here in Hilo and Honokaa. We’re in favor of this amendment with some language changed. We are licensed by the Department of Human Services. We’re licensed as a child care facility, we’re also a child placing organization. So, if anything, we wanted to say licensed by a State agency, and not just the Department of Health. We take care of kids through Family Court and DHS. These are kids who are wards of the State. They have been abused or neglected. They are placed with us while they look at the family situation and look at other alternatives. Our group home is used when these kids cannot return home. And, hopefully, the time in there in the group homes, they can work out the family issues and hopefully reunify them with their families, or look at other options. So that’s why we’re in favor of this. I don’t think the number makes a difference whether it’s five, six, seven, eight. For us, it’s one, two, three more kids that we can save, we can work with, and preserve our families here in Hilo and keep them here in Hilo. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Costa? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:You’re in charge of a couple of facilities that do this; and the facilities right now you’ll have, say, five kids and then -. I mean, in effect, it’s the same type so -? COSTA:Yes. MCCALL:Thank you. COSTA:You’re welcome. ALAMEDA:Any other questions? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. Here, I think it was your opening sentence. You said you, with some minor changes and wording, did you want -? COSTA:Yeah, we’re not licensed by the Department of Health. We’re licensed by the Department of Human Services. SIRACUSA:Oh, I see. Okay. COSTA:So that’s why we want to change that lingo at the end. SIRACUSA:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Seeing no further questions -. Commissioner Rho? RHO:So how many kids do you have you have in your homes, on average? COSTA:Five is our maximum. We have an emergency shelter that we hold, house 11 kids. But we’ve been in business for 37 years, so we’ve grandfathered that shelter. It’s right EXHIBIT D 37 here on Kinoole Street, where our shelter and group home is located. Our other group homes are both five, Hilo and Honokaa, and our shelter in Kona has five. The number, my shelter, my group home in Honokaa just opened up last October and the State has found extra funding, and they want to take it up to eight because I have the capacity. I have four, it’s a four-bedroom house, big bedrooms; and now they’re saying that the space is there, they have the money. Our State doesn’t have foster homes or other programs to put these kids in. And when they see successful programs, they want to utilize that and take us to capacity, which is why they’re saying they want to take us to eight in Honokaa. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Rho? Follow-up? RHO:So if you didn’t have that capacity and there was great need or even, well, great need, period, let’s not talk about where that need is exactly in terms of geographic, but if there was great need, would you folks actually open up another home? COSTA:Yes, we would. RHO:So, you know, there has been this talk about eight being economic, an economic basis for that number eight -. COSTA:We’ve survived with five. RHO:Okay. Well, that’s good to know. Thanks. ALAMEDA:Ms. Costa, I have a question. You mentioned something different from some of the previous testifiers and that is actually the foster home and foster kids as opposed to kids who are, say, mentally ill or have special needs. How large is the foster need issue in the State? COSTA:I don’t know the State numbers, I know islandwide we have 400- something kids in foster care, islandwide. ALAMEDA:And is it easier to find a foster home? COSTA:We don’t have enough foster homes, which is why my shelter, which is a temporary shelter, is always at capacity, because they don’t have any place to put these kids because we don’t have the foster homes or programs to put them in. ALAMEDA:And if we had programs to put them in, would that, how would that be different from sending them to your shelter? COSTA:In what other kind of other programs are you thinking? ALAMEDA:Would it be better if they were in a foster home rather than your shelter? COSTA:It all depends. We have kids who do well in a family setting and we have some kids who are just totally against family, they have a lot of issues with family. So EXHIBIT D 38 sometimes living with peers helps them settle down, deal with the issues so they can reconnect with the family. ALAMEDA:I see. Okay. Thank you. COSTA:You’re welcome. ALAMEDA:Seeing no further questions, you may be seated. Okay, moving right along, that was pretty good in terms of time. You guys are getting better. You must be tired, too, huh? How about Clara Ichiriu, James Igawa, David Ridley, Luz C. Alipio? PUBLIC:She left. ALAMEDA:She left? PUBLIC:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay. And what about Henry Peterson? How about Brandee Menino? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. How about, we can start with you, ma’am. Could you please state your name and address for the record. ICHIRIU:My name is Clara Ichiriu and my address is 17-191 Ipuaiwaha Street. ALAMEDA:Okay, you may proceed. ICHIRU:We live right next door to that facility that’s going to open, and right now they have about three teenagers. I think three because I saw three girls; and with that three, they’re making quite a bit of noise. So when we have 20 in that facility plus, what’s going to happen to us, if we’re living next door? And we’re not young, so we need that peace and quiet, right? So I would appreciate it if you’d think twice about this amendment. Okay? Thank you very much. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Ichiriu? Seeing none, thank you for waiting patiently and coming out today, appreciate it. You may be seated. Sir? IGAWA:James Igawa. ALAMEDA:Address? IGAWA:It’s 17-101 Palua Place, Keaau Ag Lots. I’m against this proposal. Let me talk about the financial aspects of it. This lady here lives right next door to that facility, worked hard to buy the place, built a house; and now with the Marimed moving right next door, the value of the property drops. I don’t care what they say but, you know, you can take a poll EXHIBIT D 39 amongst yourselves, if you would buy a property right next door to a rehab house, I don’t think you would. As far as the number eight that Alvin Rho brought up, I think Marimed had to go to eight to make it financially feasible, because if they bought that house at a high cost, they got a large mortgage. And, now, what they’re planning on doing is driving those kids from Keaau to Papaaloa, 50 miles away, for training and then driving them back at night. We have these kids all pre-stressed to begin with, and we now drive them 50 miles to a training facility, Papaaloa, and back every day. So instead of sleeping over an hour in the morning, you get them up and take a drive over to Papaaloa and back. Now, that’s only Marimed. These kids are brought into those homes to sort of assimilate and live with normal citizens. Now, we had a meeting voting on this subject, Homeowners Association, and we were 100 percent against Marimed moving into the facility. Now we have these kids all stressed knowing that everyone don’t want them in the community. So I don’t know how this is going to help the kids as far as being assimilated into the community. And I think it should be voted down. If it was up to me, the quantity, the number would be zero in a residential area. Don’t want them there, period. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions for Mr. James Igawa? Seeing none, you may be seated. Mr. Ridley, could you please state your name and address for the record? RIDLEY:My name is David Ridley. I live at 1787 Haleokea Street in Hilo. ALAMEDA:You may proceed. RIDLEY:I’m speaking in favor of the amendment. I’m not a paid employee of the State of Hawai`i or any mental health organization. I happen to be in private practice as a counselor. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I should let you know that up until 12 years ago, I was the head of the Hawai`i County Community Mental Health Center; and we’ve had residential programs on the Big Island since the early ‘80s, perhaps even before that, and by and large they’ve been a very good service for people who happen to have mental illness and substance abuse problems. Currently, in my volunteer capacity, I’m the chair of the Advisory Board for the Mental Health Association on the Big Island. Our job is to educate and advocate for better services for people with mental illnesses. I must say, after listening to some of the discussions today, I don’t think that we’ve done a very good job over the years, because the same kinds of issues that are being brought up today, nimby and misfits and so forth, sad to hear that those things are still being spouted in 2006. I’m also on the Advisory Board for the Big Island Mental Health Kokua, which is an agency which provides residential services and has about six, seven, eight group homes throughout the Big Island, providing a very valuable service for young adults with mental illness. Very few problems with these programs. And I realize that the question today, really, is not so much whether or not these programs are to be allowed to be here, they’re here. The question is, really, are we going to increase the size of these programs from five to eight; and I’m certainly in support of the increase for several of the reasons that were mentioned earlier. EXHIBIT D 40 But there was a question, I think Mr. Rho brought up about why number eight. From my own background in counseling, the number eight has always been used as kind of a benchmark for a therapeutic number of people who could get together and benefit. If you get too much smaller than that, you end up losing perhaps people’s participation; and if you get too much larger than that, people feel somewhat anonymous and not part of the group. So I’m not sure that that’s exactly what the thinking was as far as the number eight goes, but it certainly seems to be consistent with what most people in the field consider to be a reasonable number for a therapeutic situation. So, in closing, I would just ask you to give a serious consideration to supporting this amendment. We put a lot of energy, all of us today, into, I guess, discussing it. Mental Health Association is an organization whose role is to try to bring educational information to the community. If there’s a way that we could be a catalyst for perhaps bringing people together to work in a community housing situation, I can picture a situation where somebody might start up a scrabble tournament on a Tuesday night at the group home, or someone else might call for a barbecue or potluck on Saturday afternoon at their own home and invite the neighbors over, things that we all do in our regular communities. You know, somebody might be interested in doing gardening to beautify the home. There are much better, I think, ways of spending our energy and our time than doing what we’re doing today; and I wish you the very best in your decision-making. Aloha. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ridley. Any questions for Mr. Ridley? Seeing none, you may be seated. Mr. Peterson, please state your name and address for the record? PETERSON:Henry Peterson, 35-1646 Ueki Road in Papaaloa. And Nancy Cabral, the real estate broker, has said a lot of what I was thinking; and I have to second everything she said. And as such, I have to oppose this amendment as it now stands. I thought that Nancy Cabral made some very constructive statements that could be considered by the board and possibly improve on this. It seems to me, it’s just much too general now, wide open. And who knows what’s going to happen, where, maybe not tomorrow but in the long term. And it just happens that Marimed Papaaloa moved in adjacent to my lot; and the result of that I can say that both Marimed and the County and State agencies can do a lot to vastly improve public relations in the entry of these places into these neighborhoods. It just happened to be a coincidence, I was working down near the boundary with the Marimed lot and the group of the executives from Marimed happened to be there and introduced themselves. And that was first I had ever found out that they were moving in there. When I announced this to the other members of our group, then we started to inquiring from the various County and State agencies, Health Department in the State as to, about this; and we were completely stonewalled. Nobody would admit even hearing of this even though the County had already provided the money to buy Marimed quite a bit previous to that since everything had been arranged, and they were ready to move in in just a matter of days. And they had gotten a special health permit to have eight people, that didn’t seem to be any problem for them; and I don’t understand why anybody else is having problems if it worked that easily. And so why -? The only thing I can see that this will do for eight, along eight people, is make it easier for, they EXHIBIT D 41 don’t have to go to the Health Department, Planning Division and so on to get the special agreement. So I do not approve of this amendment as it stands. ALAMEDA:All right. Any questions for the testifier? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:When you say that Marimed has a facility right next door to you, have you had any problems with that facility? Would you say they’re good neighbors, or just regular like everybody else, or bad neighbors, or how would you qualify them? PETERSON:I would say they’re quite, have been good neighbors, been relatively few incidents if anything, mainly running a commercial-type diesel generator at two o’clock in the morning and things like that which were settled. Other people had problems with driving on the roads. We just have a one-lane road like lots of Hawaii to go and come on; and, again, I haven’t had a real problem that other people have the problems. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa, follow-up? SIRACUSA:Yes. So, would you say, I mean, I have neighbors who run their generators real loud in the middle of the night and they’re not an assisted living facility or, you know, anything like that; and, I mean, everyone has got neighbors. So would you say that they’re no better or no worse than any other neighbors, generally speaking? PETERSON:This Marimed at this particular place, yes, I’d say that there has been no problem for me. SIRACUSA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:All right. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, you may be seated. Okay, Ms. Menino. Please state your name and address for the record? MENINO:Hi. Brandee Menino. I’m the Homeless Program Administrator with the Office for Social Ministry. My office is at 140-B Holomua Street in Hilo. I’m also a tenant, a resident of 17-474 Ipuaiwaha Street in Keaau Ag Lots. So it’s interesting that our neighbors are not in favor of this ordinance as I am in favor of this amendment. Previous testimonies talked about the homeless numbers, and that’s pretty much where I’m coming from. Last year we served over 1,500 individuals islandwide, and that’s only with our organization. There are other organizations that help and serve the homeless. We work with Day-Lum. Day-Lum is our landlord for our present re-entry program; and they rented us that unit on Kinoole Street, which is 20 studio apartments and two two-bedrooms for the purpose, well, they didn’t know before, but we told them after that, we were helping prisoners transition back into the community. Without that assistance, they would be more at risk on the streets and on their own. We are partnering with all the Judiciary agencies, Hawai`i Paroling Authority, the Probation Office, Hawaii Intake Center, the Community Policing. So it takes a community, non-profits, the government, community members to address social service issues in our community on our island, ‘cause homelessness touches upon all populations, not just the severely mentally ill or EXHIBIT D 42 people struggling with substance abuse. We’ve helped the elderly in which their own families kicked them out of their houses. Because their children take over the house and kick out the 86- year old kupuna, in which we’d have to help. Then how do you find a social security income individual find a unit that she can afford on Hawai`i Island? How can you help youth aging out of the system in foster care, now 18 with no money, on DHS, in the housing crisis we are in today? We were tasked by our government, by our community, to think outside of the box. What are some ways in which we can increase the number of living units, the number of beds in our community? As a new housing provider, we also serve eight apartment units, six two- bedrooms, one one-bedroom and a studio for homeless families. We were contracted by the State to only allow not more than two people in each room. So that magic number of eight, as was mentioned earlier, could be because of the four-bedroom. As Roxanne had mentioned earlier, if you have a three-bedroom house and you can only put up to five, you could put one person in there to make it to six. As an operator, you’re not going to put 20 people in a three-bedroom house. There’s no manageability of the operations, there’s not a manageability of staff to client ratio. So you’re going to have to be smart in opening up a group home and not overcrowd it. So I don’t think that’s the intention of group homes. I think you guys asked about the numbers of mentally ill or the homeless earlier. Sixty-five percent of those we have served have a severely-mental illness. That’s probably a modest number, you know, ‘cause, again, we’re going by self report and observations. And there may be deeper issues that we haven’t addressed yet that takes a long time to build and establish rapport and a trust with people who are on the streets. So, again, we’re the agency that nobody else wants to serve, you know. We’re the group that, you know, our community says let’s help them, but not where I live. And that saddens me as probably one of the younger people in this room, ‘cause that’s going to be my community and my life later to help and serve our people, our kids, our kupunas, our families to live together and take care of our own. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you Ms. Menino. Any questions for Ms. Menino? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:The 65 percent you’re talking about is 65 percent of what? MENINO:Severely mentally ill, those we have served through our homeless. IWASHITA:This is your clientele? MENINO:Correct. IWASHITA:And how many, what was the total number that -? MENINO:Fifteen hundred. IWASHITA: Last year? EXHIBIT D 43 MENINO:Correct. IWASHITA:Okay. And you have projections on how many you want to serve this year or next year? MENINO:There’s an increase. I’ve been at the OSM for about five years; and there was an increase from like 900 within the past five years to 1,500. And there are probably more because we’ve gotten more staff on our team. So it’s, again, depending on how much people we have on staff that can work with people individually. And we’re working with our community that already has put up barriers and walls because they have Section 8, they have a rental subsidy. They’re credit-challenged. We’ve also worked, right after 9-11, all the hotel workers, you know, all their mortgages were up and they didn’t have money, so we had the financial system to help them temporarily. So I think about six months we offered financial assistance so that they could stay in our home. So it’s not just the very low income. It’s the working poor working paycheck-to-paycheck, and you have a medical problem, you have a, I’ve got to “fix my car,” you know, they’re at risk of not paying their rent on time. So it opens up what, the definition what you believe what homeless is it’s not just people with disabilities. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita, follow-up? IWASHITA:No, thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Ms. Menino. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Menino, if you took out the residential housing from the equation and you weren’t able to use those units, how substantial would be the loss in terms of your ability to serve your clientele? MENINO:Well, there’s a large impact. You know, we’re thinking of just adding three more beds to one facility. Being a new housing provider, there’s a whole bureaucratic tape. You know, we call the Division at the Mental Health the dark side, ‘cause you’ve got to go and do all this red tape just to acquire money which could take more than a year or two, then, you’ve got to look for a contractor and building -. You know, I didn’t know I went to school for all that. Now, I’ve got to learn all this square footage, and how big is this, and how many is that. That, again, you’re working with the County and the State and it takes another year and two. We were working on a place, a drop-in center, not even a residential program in West Hawaii that took nearly two years to open up, from acquiring money, to building it, actually that was donated, actually not even money for that facility, time to build. Here we’re saying that there is a housing right now, I can increase it by three more beds, I can help three more people. ‘Cause it’s not, we’re not asking to solve homelessness today but we can by little creative ways outside the box by maximizing the resources that are available. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. In reference to previous comments made where we would be able to, in the best case scenario, we’d be able to locate group homes in more pertinent areas, I’m trying to get at how would that work from your perspective as a day-to-day provider, EXHIBIT D 44 how would that work in the realistic terms like right now? ‘Cause you’ve got to deal with what’s on the ground today. MENINO:Correct. SALAVEAAnd I agree with some of the concepts that we need to move to designate more areas. But if we had to wait for that, how would that impact your ability to serve? MENINO:There’ll be a lot more homeless on the street if there wasn’t housing providers available, which there is a slim -. You can count them, probably like six. There’s always hesitation from providers coming from Oahu here. There was that one about Puwailani, they didn’t want to come ‘cause you have these geographic territorial issues like, “You sure when we come that, you know, we’re not stepping on anybody’s feet about it?” And we’re like, “No.” There’s just not enough beds, you know. We, as working with people on the streets, can’t offer them much housing available, ‘cause there is none. SALAVEA:Okay, final question. Of the population or the current number you serve, is there a waiting list or are you meeting demand? MENINO:There is no waiting list. We have to see and engage with every referral or every person we see on the street. We don’t turn anybody away. SALAVEA:I guess my question is, could you use more beds, basic, the basic bottom line? MENINO:Yes. Last year of the 1,500 we served, we were only able to help 368 individuals move into shelter and housing options. SALAVEA:All right. Thank you, Ms. Menino. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Seeing no further question, thank you. Commissioner Iwashita, you have a question? IWASHITA:Well, I’m confused now because you said you have to place everyone, but now you just said you only placed 300-some odd number out of the 1,500. MENINO:Fifteen hundred living on the streets, of those 368 moved into housing. ALAMEDA:But you’re still serving those on the streets is kind of what you mentioned? MENINO:Correct, the 800-something. ALAMEDA:Served and placed is two different things. MENINO:Correct. Placed into the emergency shelter, the transitional housing programs, the domestic violence shelters, Salvation Army, Community Health Kokua, yeah. EXHIBIT D 45 IWASHITA:So there’s over 1,100 people you serve that are still homeless? MENINO:Correct. IWASHITA:Okay. ALAMEDA:That’s interesting. Thank you. MENINO:They hide, yeah? Yeah, Fern Forest, Paradise Park, squat, tents, in your cars, yeah. ALAMEDA:They hide. Well, thanks for bringing that insight, appreciate your testimony. All right, moving right along, Richard Thurman, Rachelle Agrigado-Lancaster, Charmaine Mattos, Dr. Steven Zuniga. How about John Barbour. All right, this is to let you know if Harland, Carmen and Richard is still here, you’ll be up next. It’s just that, as five testifiers go, we add five more, so -. PUBLIC:A question before we start? ALAMEDA:No, you may not, sorry. We get to ask the questions, you get to make the statements. However, you could ask one of our staff if our staff is willing to maybe entertain your question on the outside. If not, then we apologize for that.All right, will you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay. We’ll start on my far left now, just change it up a little bit. Could you please state your name and address for the record? MATTOS:Charmaine Mattos, 88 Kanoelehua. ALAMEDA:Okay, you may proceed with your testimony. MATTOS:Okay. I’m with Family Guidance Center in Hilo, I’m a mental health supervisor. Our agency serves a lot of the kids in our communities, 460 kids statewide is the number that we serve. In Hilo alone and Puna I think it’s about 300-something of those kids that we serve. We provide them group homes, foster homes, intensive home-based services, multi- systemic therapy services. There are a number of services that are provided to these kids and families. I am in support of the amendment; and as far as increasing the number of beds from five to eight, I think we are serving them right now, we have the group homes available now. All we’re looking at is serving three more. So, you know, I hope that you folks can support that. I do understand Ms. Cabral’s concerns. I hope you take that into consideration as well. You guys have got a lot of work to do. Thank you. EXHIBIT D 46 ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Mattos. Any questions for Ms. Mattos? Seeing none, you may be seated. Ma’am, could you state your name and address for the record? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:I’m Rachelle Agrigado-Lancaster. My office is at 88 Kanoelehua Avenue, Suite 8204. ALAMEDA:You may proceed. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:I’m a mental health supervisor for Family Guidance Center. I serve the Puna section; and we’re under Child and Adolescent Mental Health Division; and as Ms. Mattos mentioned, we serve over 400 youths. I currently have 150 clients registered in the Puna area. Thirty percent of the clients that I supervise in the Puna area are in-and-out of home placement. So I definitely support the amendment because the more kids that we can help serve and help house, I mean, the better our community will be. I just want to reiterate what was already said before in previous testimony that this is, these are our children; and substance abuse, the mental illness, it doesn’t discriminate. And it’s not just the poor people out there. I mean, we have kids that we serve that have parents who are doctors, who are lawyers, you know. I mean, it can happen to any one of us. And to put myself in a position to say -. Okay, if my kid needed help, I’m a parent, if my kid needed help and we needed to house him in some kind of therapeutic group facility, I definitely would want my child to remain in the community. I wouldn’t want them uprooted, sent to Oahu, sent to Maui, because it’s hard for them to get re-integrated back into the family. And part of what Family Guidance Center does is we support family reunification, that’s very important. And statistics will show that having the family involved from the very beginning until they are ready to transition home is important; and it costs a lot of money for us to send our families on a weekly basis off island to have these face-to-face visits with their kids, have the family therapy that is going to take for the kid to be okay when they come back home, I mean, that’s very, very important. And we can’t lose sight of that. And, you know, what I’d also like to say is a lot of the kids out there, regardless of those who entered the group homes, they’re out there breaking the law, they’re out there using drugs, they’re out there having unprotected sex. I mean, it’s happening right now, right in the community regardless of the group home. And like I said, I have 150 kids out in Puna. The majority of the kids that I supervise, I mean, I supervise care coordinators; and on their caseloads, majority of the kids are in the Keaau schools. So it’s in the community as we speak regardless of where they’re housed.So a lot of the police calls and a lot of outreaches are happening in family homes, in biological homes. So, I mean, they’re in your community already; and what we’re trying to do is to bridge that gap and, I mean, help these kids. If they need this certain level of care, we want to be supportive of that. And why not help the community, I mean, why not step up and rise above the occasion, community. We need to help our kids. This is, they’re the future. I mean, these are the people who are going to be making, sitting at this table in the future, making decisions for us; and I just think that, you know, we should be more supportive of helping out these providers who are willing to provide support to our kids and the families. EXHIBIT D 47 And I wanted to make another point, too. There was one mention about, you know, it starts in the home that the parents needs to take responsibility. Family Guidance Center, we believe that. We want to empower the parents. We ask them, you know, this your child, you need to take responsibility for the choices they make for, you know, where their life is headed. But some of these parents they just don’t know how to do it. And then who’s responsible? That’s the truth, who is responsible? But as the State and the community, we need to step up our game and we need to help these people because they’re our brothers and sisters, our aunties and uncles, cousins. I mean, that’s just, this is life and it’s staring us straight in the face. And I think we’re trying to take some proactive steps by providing, nurturing families. We’re doing a lot of training, help with parenting classes and stuff like that, so we can kind of -. We’re trying to catch these kids at an earlier age now so that they don’t have to go to the group home, they don’t have to go community/residential -. We’re trying to, you know, we’re trying to catch it early on so we can provide services in the family home and help the home support their own child. We want to do that; and that’s what we’re trying to do. But right now, with what we’re faced with, it’s really important to have these homes out there that could house a couple more kids because we are put sometimes between a rock and hard space. And we need to show up for court, with Family Court; and you know where we’re tasked to find places for the kids and sometimes they say, “Where do you put them?” I mean, we don’t have enough. So I think, you know, I’m sorry I’m very passionate, you know, I feel very strongly. And I support the amendment; and I think the community needs to be educated about what kind of kid, what kind of people, these people actually are. Because I took offense to things like, you know, the home will create a ghetto-like community, misfit. You know what? This is our kids; and to label them that’s, I mean, it starts there. We need to take better care of our own. That’s all. So sorry for being so long, but thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Lancaster. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes, you are talking about the family and the home as though it was something monolithic, as though every family and every home is the best thing that you can rehabilitate these children to go back to. And a lot of these children are having their problems because they’re coming from dysfunctional homes, they’re coming from homes where the parents are the ones who are abusing them either sexually, physically, or the parents themselves are on drugs. And I would have felt a lot more comfortable about your testimony if you hadn’t made it seem as though they were all just a family and the home were so idealized, and looked at the fact that there are some kids that the kids aren’t the problem. They end up on the street because they’re running away from the situation at home. And I was wondering if you would, you know, care to address that. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Yes, I definitely agree with that. I didn’t mean to come off as all of our families and all of these kids are great and they need to go back home, because a lot of the population that we deal with are involved with Child Welfare Services. So they are DHS kids, wards of the State. So, sometimes, I mean, and it’s on a case-by-case situation where the home is not where they need to go back to, which is why, another reason why these group homes are EXHIBIT D 48 important, because these kids don’t have long-term placements to go and return to. So I apologize. I didn’t mean to come across like they’re all good homes, because that’s definitely not true, a lot of times that’s where the problem is. The problem lies within the family. So a lot of what we try to do, too, is try to empower the family to try and not to fix it but try to give them the skills to be better parents and to create better homes for their children. And sometimes that might not be even where they end up because it’s not appropriate. So I apologize. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Also, please note that, as Commissioners, we don’t have to feel comfortable with any of your testimonies. So, no, Commissioner Siracusa, you know, that’s why we have a nine-member board and not a single-member board, because we bring different perspectives to the table and we all work in different places. So, just for the sake of testifying, you don’t have to please us.Commissioner Iwashita, question? IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for the record, you’re not going charge for that advice, right? ALAMEDA:That’s free of charge. IWASHITA:Thank you. I just wanted to see if you could help provide some numbers. Again, how many people do you serve? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Currently, in the Puna area, because I just -. I guess because this whole thing, this awareness arose from the Marimed, Marimed has a group home in Keaau area so that’s, you know, the population that I supervise. So right now I have a total of 150 clients currently registered to Family Guidance Center. IWASHITA:Any of those homeless? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Not that I’m aware of. Thirty percent are out of home placement, so none of our youth that we currently have are homeless. IWASHITA:You mentioned that need for placement in court cases and so forth. Is there a waiting list? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Waiting list from court-driven you mean -? IWASHITA:Yes. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Or just in general court? IWASHITA:Well, just, court-driven ‘cause you mentioned -. EXHIBIT D 49 AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Right. No, we do have a waiting list for out-of-home placements. It not necessarily has to be court-driven. But just in general there is a waiting list because, you know, we don’t have the availability of beds that we need to serve our population, basically. IWASHITA;Is there a number for that waiting list? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:I don’t have an accurate number as we speak, but I can definitely get those numbers and provide you folks with the -. IWASHITA:More than 10, more than 20? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:I would say less than 20, more than 10, so in between, yeah. IWASHITA:Okay. That’s fine. Thank you. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Okay, you’re welcome. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. The 10 that you, more than 10, less than 20, constant number, though? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Yes, yes. SALAVEA:It’s consistent. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Consistent. SALAVEA:Okay, just wanted to clarify that. In terms of, I wanted to focus in on one particular part of your testimony where you said you do have placements off-island and you have to, in the whole holistic treatment of working with the family and reunification, you’ve got to bring them, you have to bring the youth back to the island. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:We do both. We send the parent up there for some family visitation and therapy; and we also have the child come back and have, you know, overnight visits and -. SALAVEA:And who incurs the cost of that travel? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:We do. EXHIBIT D 50 SALAVEA:Not the parents? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:No. SALAVEA:The parents don’t pay for that. So, ultimately, it’s the State’s absorbing that cost to put the family back together? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Yes. SALAVEA:Okay. In retrospect or looking at it, if you’re not able to do that part, the reunification, having that constant face-to-face between the parents and the youth, what impact would you say that would have if you couldn’t do that. If during the treatment, send them away, send them Honolulu, leave them Honolulu six months, no contact with the family, in your, and I’m leaning on your professional assessment, what would you say the impact of that would be?. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Right. Let me ask you this first, so the question is if the plan was -? I mean, based on what you said, if the plan was actually to reunify, if that was the plan from the beginning, right, to reunify with the family but we were unable to provide that, it would be detrimental to the youth? Because once they made, they met all the treatment goals in the facility, they would have to come back to this community. So if no work was done here in the home and in the community, then I would foresee the kid relapsing. Because, I mean, it’s hard for them to, it’s like putting a band-aid on things, you know what I mean? You’re going to band- aid it, the kid is all good, you bring them back home and into the community and nothing here changed, then to me, it’s for nothing. SALAVEA:And then, follow-up, Mr. Chair? SALAVEA:When you say relapse, just give the Commission some examples of what that might be. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Okay, then what would happen is -. A lot of times a lot of our kids that we deal with are court-involved with Juvenile Court and also with the FDF cases, which is with CPS, Child Protective Services. For our juvenile case, say the kid is in treatment on Oahu, maybe even court-ordered by the Judge, we’re not able to provide the place and whatnot, and the kid doesn’t have that family therapy, what I foresee happening is the kid coming back home, blowing out of the home, not being able to follow the parents’ rules because the parent doesn’t know how to structure their home. They don’t know what the kid was learning up there in therapy so they’re going to come home, be completely out of control, maybe go out there, run amok in the community, and maybe rob a store or something, will go back to court, and the Judge will order us to find another place. So the kid unfortunately bounces from placement to placement. A lot of our kids go in and out because we don’t have, you know, we don’t have that bridge between the family and the child. So that’s why it’s important for us to address these issues here in our own community and make it safe for everybody, you know. EXHIBIT D 51 SALAVEA:Thank you, Ms. Lancaster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:You’re welcome. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Salavea. Any further questions? Seeing none, Commissioner Rho, question for the testifier? RHO:I don’t know how to phrase this. If you had three more homes in the Puna area, you would basically be able to meet your needs, more or less? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Homes or beds? RHO:Well, homes. Let’s say the current rate is like five to a home, right? Is that not right? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Yes. RHO:So if you had three more homes, then you would be –? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Better off. RHO:Better off, definitely, right. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Right. RHO:So what prevents you from getting those three homes? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Three homes or three beds? RHO:Three homes because you need 15. You have 10 to 20 kids who are homeless or, you know, on the waiting list. So to meet 15 kids’ need you, you would basically need, at this present time, three homes. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:What we usually do is when children are on waiting list, sometimes like we have to look out of the box. So a lot of times even though the plan is to keep the kid in their own community, if the resource is not here -. RHO:No, no, no, no. Stop, stop. You have 15 kids who need placement. I’m saying, what stops the development of three homes in the Puna area in their community? EXHIBIT D 52 AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Providers are constantly trying to recruit families to get more homes -. RHO:No, I understand that. I’m saying, you have a need, yes? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Correct, yes. RHO:So, you have providers -. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Yes. RHO:I want to know why the provider can’t develop three more homes to meet your need and collect money from the State of Hawai`i? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:I believe the increase in beds is what we’re looking at now. RHO:No, I know that. I’m saying you want to increase the number of beds. I’m saying why can’t you increase the number of beds by increasing the number of homes? AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:If there are no homes that are willing to step up to the plate and become a therapeutic foster home, then we don’t have three homes. Is that my question? Is that the answer? ALAMEDA:So there’s no interest, there’s no interest. RHO: No, okay. Let’s go to Marimed, then. Why can’t Marimed buy three more homes to meet the 5, 5, 5 for 15, is what I’m asking. I don’t know the answer. I’m asking you. AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Okay. And I can’t answer that question. I mean, fiscally, and I don’t know how -. RHO:And the reason I’m asking that question is, and the guy left, I think, but Ridley, he’s the only one out of all that testified, and there were a number of mental health people here, who talked about the reason for the number eight. MIRANDA:I can answer the question but I don’t know what the formalities are. RHO:No, you can’t, I guess you can’t. But I’m just tossing that out to you. ALAMEDA:And you can pass or you don’t have to answer the question if you don’t know the question. So -. EXHIBIT D 53 AGRIGADO- LANCASTER:Yeah. I’m not, okay. RHO:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Rho, if you want that answered, I could recall a previous testifier who may have the knowledge. RHO:Maybe at the end after we go through -. ALAMEDA:All right. Seeing no further questions, thank you, Ms. Lancaster, you may be seated. Ms. Mattos, you may be seated. Moving right along, sir, can you state your name and address for the record? BARBOUR:My name is John Barbour. My address is 6 Weloka Road, Kapehu Mauka, on the Hamakua Coast, in the neighborhood of Marimed. And I’d like to state the obvious. There’s a problem, it’s a serious problem; and the problem is community resistance. What do we do about it? And will this amendment that you’re proposing help it or exacerbate the problem? My feeling is that presently it would exacerbate the problem. I don’t want to reiterate what everyone else said ‘cause you guys have been here for a long time, and we appreciate the time you’re putting in. However, we do have to address ourselves to the problems as such and define them. And first and foremost is that we have much too broad a definition of the therapeutic patient, which leads to so many concerns in our community. Take a look at what we have, we have the homeless, we have foster children, we have mentally ill, we have elderly, we have drug users, we have criminals, convicted criminals on rehab; and this is too great a variety for the community to deal with. Rene, you were asking my neighbor, Henry Peterson, just a minute ago about whether Marimed has been a good neighbor; and this comes to the crux of the problem. Yes, we’ve had a few problems, we have traffic problems, we have some garbage and so on that’s thrown out on the roads that were not, by someone abused before. But that’s, you get that with any neighbor. However, there’s one distinction here; and that is you were asking what constitutes a good neighbor; and a good neighbor is one who does not pose an on-going threat to the community. And where you have drug users, people that can get away easily enough, walk off from the institutions such as Marimed, go off steal from other families, homes; we have neighbors who are actually petrified at the presence of Marimed and its patients in the community. And we have to distinguish between the elderly, the homeless, the handicapped in many anyways versus the potential criminal element that we are injecting into the community. As we move into a larger perspective of putting eight residents in as opposed to five, we’re exacerbating a problem; and where we feel that you are removing more and more of the community input and control as you put into our community elements that should be placed elsewhere; and this is a problem, again, of zoning. We do need to have other accommodations for this element apart from the handling of the elderly, the impaired and others which I just discussed. This has to be addressed. Our zoning is inadequate, it’s vague and it would be premature for us to move in the direction of the amendment to be in favor of it at this time until things are better defined; and that’s my position on it. I am opposed to the amendment. EXHIBIT D 54 ALAMEDA:Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Seeing none, appreciate your concise testimony. We made up some time there. Thank you. You may be seated. Sir, could you please state your name and address for the record? R. THURMAN:You guys don’t remember me from the Kona meeting I take it. Last one speaking. RHO:We do. R. THURMAN:Oh, okay. Well, thank you. Richard Thurman, 17-204 Meaulu, Keaau. I’m trying to gather my thoughts here. Quite honestly, listening to a lot of the State and County health assistants and so forth and so on, I just don’t know how in the hell I got to be this old. I’m in a quandary. We’ve got the State Department of Health, and under that umbrella, so far I guess I’ve heard maybe what, six, seven, eight, different sub-sections of assistants underneath that umbrella; and then we get down to the private assistants levels and then that umbrella is overwhelming. And I guess the reason we’re all here is because one of those legs on that umbrella has created a situation to where there are a lot of uncomfortable people. Twenty years ago at the Planning, if the Planning Commission that was sitting here 20 years ago could have foreseen what was going to develop today, do you think that they would go back and handle this the same way? If they were going to develop a 20-year plan of how they’re going to direct and foresee and guide our thoughts on how we’re going to develop the community, because 20 years ago we all knew that, 30 years ago we all knew that the population was increasing, we all knew that we had to have infrastructure, we all knew we had to have fire departments, schools, health departments, mental health departments, state health departments -. I mean, we’re an animal that keeps growing; and we’re not going to die back unless we have the great big one hit us, or someone comes down and swats us, or bigger powers than us. So I think that things would have been done a little differently if somebody would have had a little bit of forethought. But now we’re in a situation to where I think we have people that are trying to put a band-aid over a situation that has imploded. I remember back when I was kid and I was just about ready to get out of high school, and that was during the Viet Nam War, ’68-’69, if you were a kid that was 16, 17 years old and you got caught stealing a car, or you got caught drinking alcohol, or you got out and got caught smoking pot, you had two choices. You went to jail or you went to the military; and the court issued you a military exemption, and you were ruled as an adult, and away you went. Now I just happened to have a son that happens to be in the Navy, he happens to be out in the middle of Pacific right now, so I think back in my days of when those types of things were being controlled and happened. You know, I would love to stop the war, I would love to have a place where everybody could live, I would love that nobody was on the street. I mean, I wish everybody, we were, everybody had everything that we all wanted and wished for. But, unfortunately, that’s not the way the human race is designed. No matter what we do, no matter how much assistance, no matter how much patience, there’s going to be people, unfortunately, that just do not want to contribute to the process. And, unfortunately, if you want to go back and look at the prison recidivism rate, you want to go back and look at the juvenile recidivism rate. And I just learned something from this young lady over here. We have been using the words “juvenile challenged,” and there was EXHIBIT D 55 no court mandated system, and that these kids were on placement, and they’re out placement. And then finally she says that Marimed does handle court-ordered juveniles; and that there is a great possibility that these in my specific development are going to be court-ordered juveniles. Now I think the last time I brought up the situation about being in the middle of all the schools, and so forth and so on; and I’m going to wind this up real quick. As Planning Commissioners, your responsibility is to plan; and this ordinance is not planning. This ordinance is a band-aid. The proper procedure for development is when you open a business you go out, you look at a site, and then you’re thinking to yourself, “Okay, well, my business is this, has this got the proper infrastructure for me to be able to provide the service, do I need rail, do I need air, do I need feed, what do I need?” And then finally, I come in and I either build this building to suit or I go find a building that is suitable for my business. I don’t come in and buy a building and then after the fact tell the community that, “Oh, by the way, I’ve decided to open up an adult theater next to a church.” Thank you for your patience. ALAMEDA:Thank you for yours. Any questions? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I just wanted to say that happens all the time. We see people do that all the time; and that’s why they keep coming to us for change of zone applications. R. THURMAN:And that is the exact reason why in my response that let’s try and learn from the mistakes and not continue to make the same mistake as some of our politicians have been doing time, and time, and time again. ALAMEDA:Any questions? All right. We’re doing good so far. We got in the questions, although we are making some statements. So let’s exercise discipline as we finish off. Sir, could you please state your name and address for the record? ZUNIGA:Aloha, Dr. Steve Zuniga with Big Island Substance Abuse Council, 234 Waianuenue Ave., Suite 101. ALAMEDA:You may proceed. ZUNIGA:Okay. I’d like to present some information. I think I’ve heard a lot of people discuss and give testimony here. But my concern is that we’ve actually had about 38 years of prior experience in learning under the Fair Amendments Act of 1988, you know, which started back as far as 1968 when laws were needed by the Federal government to be passed just to protect people from, with race, color issues, moving into communities, and they were no less passionate than they are in this room today, you know. So with that in mind, you know, I’ve heard everything; and I think every community nationally struggles with this issue. I’d like to say that even group homes for the mentally retarded, when they’ve tried to move into communities, they were also challenged; and the Federal courts found that it was discriminatory to exclude them from communities as well. They have tried from the literature that I’ve been reading to look at issues of dispersal, which I think Nancy brought up. They even brought up issues of, “Well, let’s find ways to plan the community. Let’s put them in, let’s put stipulations on how close they can build.” In all those cases, the Fair Housing Act found them to be discriminatory, either in terms of their intent, their effect or failure to make reasonable EXHIBIT D 56 accommodations. You hear today that, I believe one of the women who spoke said there were 1,100 people or maybe 800 people that are still homeless and they’re trying to find placements. It would seem that the County still needs to make reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act to accommodate them; and by not passing it, even if you set it eight, I’m not sure even eight is sufficient and demonstrates fair and reasonable attempts. Oxford House, which is a nationally-based organization, specializes in opening up homes for alcohol and drug addicts. They’re a group of people who come together now. They’ve never applied for permits when they’ve gone into different places to open up a home; and they base it on the whole idea of the Fair Housing Act. And, so, therefore, they’ve moved into the neighborhoods, they’ve been challenged, they’ve been taking it to court; and in all the instances that I have here in information which I can give you, perhaps that will help you make a decision. What I’m saying today is that I’m not even sure if we arrived at the number eight that that will be sufficient. As you know, we’ve been operating houses in the Wainaku area for sometime; and we have a very good relationship with the community. We’re attempting to open one up in Kona. You know, we have approached people who rent homes to say we’d like to establish a home, we’ve been proactive; if they say no, we go somewhere else, you know. I can also say, as someone who recently moved here two years ago, I found it difficult, and not because it was an issue of price. It had to do with, well, whom do you know, you know. And unfortunately or fortunately sometimes a lot of our people that come into our program services, we know them in the community. And so if we don’t rent to them, what are they supposed to do? They have to come together, move into a home together in order to make it work, and they can’t afford the rents. Inside town they go up, so they have to go outside of town where it cost them more for gas, transportation, trying to raise families. You know, we recently had some women in our moms’ and babies’ home. They had no place to go. Thank God for people like Aunty Laura who could go next door and talk to the owner and say, “Do you have some rooms in there? We have some women that have no place to go?” You know, I just went a few months ago to a National Conference on Methamphetamine, the fastest- growing population of that population that’s afflicted are women. And so you’re talking women and their children. Where do they go? How do they get help? You know, I’m not sure we have all the answers, and it is a very heated and passionate experience for all of us. You know, the Fair Housing Act does caution commissions, and state localities, and governments to be careful about under pressure to not vote in favor, you know, of certain things that would allow people, allow these protected classes to move in. It’s a word of caution, perhaps this isn’t the place. We do the best that we can and then the attorneys are the ones that ultimately hash it out, you know. So that’s what I’d like to share with you today. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Dr. Zuniga. Any questions? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it Dr. Zuniga? ZUNIGA:Yes. SALAVEA:How would this, this is along the lines of Commissioner Rho’s question, how would increasing the number from five to eight impact your ability as an administrator to help that population that you serve? How would it enhance? What would the impact be? EXHIBIT D 57 ZUNIGA:I do know that it’s not, we can’t operate facilities with less than five, not even less than eight. It’s impossible. The amount of funding that you receive and in-kind costs that, you know, facilities do contribute when you’re able to make any headway, even eight becomes almost a break-even point for most facilities. You know, we have to compete with the mental health system for qualified staff. It used to be, I mean, I’m having difficulty recruiting staff at $45,000 a year, who has just a high school education and perhaps a certified addiction certificate. You can’t operate facilities and respond to the community’s issues on even five. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea, follow-up? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the concept of going out, say, you have additional need, you can service, you need to service 15 more going out and opening three more houses that would be five, five, five, and meet your need. You’re saying that it’s not cost effective -? ZUNIGA:Cost-prohibitive. SALAVEA:Cost-prohibitive -? ZUNIGA:Right. SALAVEA:And that’s the bottom line of it? ZUNIGA:Right. And you look at, you know, we talk about how many per room. Well, you know, you have to go into some of these houses. I mean, we’re also constructing houses in Kona that have huge rooms. You know, some master bedrooms are 30 by 20 and we go two to a room. Some of those, you can put other people in it, you know. No one here today I would imagine would object to Betty Ford and her 10 friends moving in together, you know. She was also and is a recovering alcoholic. There are many of those in our community. Dr. Kevin Coons has spoken quite openly in the Kona side about his own personal recovery. We don’t have problems with those. And the fact is a lot of our people do get well and do get better. There are those out there, and I did want to share, you know, we just recently suffered a loss in our house where one of our RC’s took a vacation and went to Las Vegas and doing what they do best is giving, helping, with the aloha spirit, got hit by a car, and was killed. You know, so, here’s a woman who lives her life helping in the house, to reside in the house, to help someone like her daughter who had gone to one of our program’s services, get back to the community, you know. These are the type of people that aren’t living in wealthy communities who maybe the life-time dream was to take a trip to Vegas, you know. These are the ones who are putting their passion and blood into this. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Dr. Zuniga. ALAMEDA:Seeing no further questions, thank you. You may be seated. Wrapping up, I got a Harland Tissue, Carmen Bowman, Richard Walker. Fellow Commissioners, a previous testifier just asked if she could provide a, seat next to a testifier just for support reasons. EXHIBIT D 58 All right, could you all please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. ALAMEDA:Okay. No worries for you first time testifiers. You’re just sharing kind of how you feel about the issue and you don’t have to read something, you can go straight from your heart. Try to be concise, to the point, so that it’s not too long-winded, kind of wrapping up here. So why don’t I start with man on the right. Could you please state your name and address for the record? TISSUE:My name is Harland Tissue. I live at 208 Wainaku. ALAMEDA:All right, Harland? TISSUE:I’m here as a client of MHK, I live there currently. I’m here to tell you that these places are few and far between, took me months to get on. I was on the waiting list; and, meanwhile, the symptoms of my illness were getting worse. Since being in the program, I’ve stabilized and am now currently working towards my health, my mental health. The problem of getting into the place in the beginning was that there aren’t enough beds to begin with. The concern over neighborhood placement seems to me more of that of a stigma rather than the actuality of the situation. Mental Health Kokua gets along well with its neighbors. We interact with our neighbors, we live across from a community park. There are different types of people with different concerns and they’re being treated individually. The programs have helped me stabilized, like I said. I think that I’ve had a safe place to live and work on my recovery. More people like me could be helped if there are more beds available. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Questions for the testifier? Thank you for coming out. Thanks for your patience. Sir, could you please state your name and address for the record? WALKER:Yes. My name is Richard Walker. My address is 35-1805 Kapehu Road, Papaaloa. Some of the things I’ve been hearing today regarding the necessity for residential treatment programs almost sounds as though the very idea were under attack, that the question before us is whether to shut them all down or something. The question is how many beds are available, how many homes are available, how many beds per home? Anybody who is running one of these places that wants to increase the number of beds has the opportunity and the right to come before you guys to ask for an increase in the number of beds in a home, and let them do so. Bless them and let them make the case, let them describe their relationship with the neighborhood, where they’re operating, steps that they’ve taken to make peace with the neighbors. Let the neighbors speak up. It’s a system that’s in place already and it works. I think what’s being considered here is a blanket approval for five to eight for everyone. And I can tell you with two years’ experience with Marimed that compared to, say BISAC or perhaps MHK, they may be giving residential treatment a bad name. You know, our experience has not been positive, it has been neutral on good days.And I can give you examples but I’d rather not, unless you’d like them, you know, traffic noise, that sort of thing, escapes. In fact, at the EXHIBIT D 59 Papaaloa facility the Marimed operates they’ve been working with eight people to begin with. And I’m not sure if they were ever, it’s because we’re Ag-20 zone or if they just told us that was okay and we didn’t say anything about it. You know, the way they came in, again, there are still hurt feelings in the neighborhood, there is still resentment against them and they have done nothing to ameliorate that. It’s very much a cookie-jar kind of arrangement where they feel it’s better to try to get forgiveness than permission; but they’ve not even asked for forgiveness, they just, well, they’re arrogant, and that has been our experience with them. There are other places, other operations that I think we’ve heard about that have very good cases for expansion, strong cases. I think they should have every opportunity to make those cases and, by all means, there are neighbors to support them in those, you know in those cases. Our experience has not been positive. But to authorize this blanket approval for everybody just without further review to go, boom, eight, automatic, it denies the public the right to participate in the planning of their own communities; and I cannot agree with that. I recommend that this amendment be shelved. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Questions? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:With the past two years experience you’ve had with Marimed, can you, one of the things that I lean upon in decision-making is quantifiable information. So can you point or give me an example of any police reports that have been filed, any incidents, and what the infraction was? WALKER:In terms of quantification, I would say that traffic has, at the very least, doubled on our little one-lane road, with the occupation of that one property. There have been four escapes in those two years, one came right to my driveway. The others, one was picked by police, one turned out he’d been assisted in his escape by his mother and his girlfriend, and the fourth was never seen again, as far as we know. We had a police report that was just filed about two weeks ago where one of their staff was doing burn-outs on the road with their transportation van, their passenger van, which anybody who wants to drive up Kapehu Road can see the marks today. It might seem like kid stuff but these guys are, you know, licensed by the State Department of Health; and we would hope to see a little better judgment in the hiring of staff that should be role models for these kids and not doing burn-outs on the roads. So traffic, police stuff, screaming at night, things like that. ALAMEDA:That answers your question, Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Any thefts? WALKER:There have not been thefts that we’re aware of, no. SALAVEA:How about assaults? WALKER:No. SALAVEA:All right. Thank you. EXHIBIT D 60 ALAMEDA:Seeing no further questions, thank you very much. Oh, Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:I just wanted to give some information that we had from the Planning Director about the Marimed -. ALAMEDA:Can you speak into the mike? MCCALL:I just want to give some information that we were given from the Planning Director about the Marimed’s operation in Papaaloa. You’re asking about the legality of it. And, actually, in the letter that we got said that the Planning Department wrote a letter which he signed stating that the group home was legal as a drug rehabilitation home, which was formerly allowed in State law as an exception to normal County requirements for up to 10 residents. And that law was repealed in 2005; but the house was allowed to go on because it was established before that. So, that’s why they’re allowed to have that number. It’s grandfathered in, basically. WALKER:May I ask a question? ALAMEDA:Sure. MCCALL:Except I only have this information that I got from the Planning Director, but -. WALKER:All right. That doesn’t quite square with what they told us. They indicated that they would need a special use permit and a public hearing to have more than eight, but you’re telling me that they got from the get-go of that approval for 10? MCCALL:This is what I have in a letter from the Planning Director. WALKER:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Any further questions? Thank you. You may be seated. And last one on the list, Ms. Bowman? Could you please state your name and address for the record? BOWMAN:Carmen Bowman and I live at 223 East Lanikaula Street. I’m a granddaughter, a daughter, a mother, and I also have a son that has mental health needs. So my interest in mental health was originally to help my son. I now work in the help, and advocate for parents, communities to get their voice heard. I’ve heard numerous people say, you know, that their voice wasn’t heard, especially in Keaau. But I can help and assist and educate them on what mental health needs are of children, what different diagnoses mean, how they can, you know, get support for the community that, you know, and come up with a plan that would, you know, insure safety and things like that. I also participate on district meetings as well as State meetings on quality assurance and how the professionals are very qualified to treat these kids. They have the highest degrees from doctors and psychiatrists to psychologists, to qualified mental health professionals. I know that I could never afford these kinds of services for my son and they are very, very costly. These homes, these group homes, and the State has provided an array of services for kids, so it’s not that a EXHIBIT D 61 child is left without service. A child may be placed in a service that may be not as appropriate as they should be; but as soon as one gets opened, they’ll move them into another place. And that’s why we really need, you know, group homes, therapeutic foster homes. We’re always recruiting. If you look in the paper, we have different agencies like Hawai`i Behavior Health, Catholic Charities that are always trying to recruit and give incentives to, you know, parents to foster some of these kids. I help other parents, give them technical assistance. I support them in meetings and things like that so that they can better help their kids. I know a lot of parents who have exhausted all their resources; and the children are older now and, so, I try to help them to become productive adults, if not going back to their families kind of thing. So I’m in support, and I don’t think there’s a difference between five beds or eight beds. I think the community needs more support in dealing with, you know, a group home, period. And I’m willing to help, you know, if you folks have meetings and you’re interested in finding out about this area or that area. You know, I can help you bring in speakers and, you know, support the community that way. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Bowman. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, you may be seated. Thank you very much. I thank all of you for your patience, staying with us during this, almost 3:30 now. I wanted to take five, if there’s no objection to that? Seeing none, let’s take a five-minute recess. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 3:22 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 3:27 p.m. ALAMEDA:Will the meeting of the Planning Commission now return to order. All right, it has been a long day and we’ve heard a lot. I think we’ve heard a lot on both sides and actually from different angles, too, so I really appreciate public testimony. I think that’s what these hearings are all about, really. And now it’s up to us, as Commissioners, to talk stories a little bit. Please know that this is the final hearing for our Commission on this particular matter. So no matter how we vote, it will be bumped up to the County Council for their consideration; and then the process of testimony and voting will continue. Is that correct, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Yes. Basically in terms of timing, this is the last meeting that the Commission has to consider this amendment. According to your rules, Rule 11-3C, it basically th gives you 60 days. That 60 days will be up about the 13 or so of this month. And if you are unable to get five votes, one way or another, then, the action, inaction is considered as an unfavorable recommendation by the Commission. So, again, if you’re not able to take an action one way or the other, it will go up to the Council with a default, unfavorable recommendation. ALAMEDA:Okay. Just to repeat that in my own words, if we don’t get a five out of six votes, then it’ll go up as unfavorable. Is that correct? TORIGOE:Right. One way or the other. EXHIBIT D 62 ALAMEDA:One way or the other. Okay. Fellow Commissioners, what’s your pleasure? Do you want to air your perspectives for now? Commissioner Rho? RHO:Can I request that we recall a couple of witnesses if they are available? ALAMEDA:Okay. Who do you have in mind? RHO:Bernie Miranda and Jeremy McComber. ALAMEDA:Okay. Let me ask, it’s your will, if you want to -. MIRANDA:I just wanted to -. ALAMEDA:Okay. You can come forward. And Mr. McComber, you may come forward. Commissioner Rho, would you like to -? I did already swear you in, we already got your address, so you’re set. Commissioner Rho? RHO:I just wanted to go back to that question I had -. MIRANDA:It’s a good question. RHO:And I don’t know if I have to rephrase it but -. MIRANDA:No. RHO:I don’t, okay, go ahead. MIRANDA:Well, let me make sure I got -. Let me just, just in case, you want to know what is the justice, why people keep asking for eight, where does that number eight come from? Is that the question? RHO:Well, that’s number one. MIRANDA:Okay. RHO:Or you start there. But I have, the more pressing question for me at this point in time is, I’m going back to one of these testifiers who said that she had a client load of 150 in Puna, 30 are in residential, some kind of treatment center, and she has 10 to 20 waiting for a bed. I want to really understand why it’s not possible to have, to open up five more homes for 15 more beds, five in each home -. MACOMBER:Three more homes. RHO:Three more homes in each, with five beds in each home to hit 15; and then you would take care of 15 kids instead of 3 out of the 20. So you can answer the eight; but the eight is, at this point, I’m kind of over that. EXHIBIT D 63 MIRANDA:That’s okay because it links. There’s a linkage there why people can’t just, providers can’t come in and just open up houses five at a time, because that would seem so reasonable to do and then it’s much easier. It would be easier on me, too, ‘cause we would have more inventory. But the difficulty is, first of all, there’s a scarcity of housing, there’s a shortage of housing, number one. Number two, economically, it’s not economically feasible to open a house because of licensure has such stringent staffing requirements. And I think the doctor kind of alluded to that, that it’s so costly that a provider wouldn’t be able to do it with five. That’s where they struggle; and that’s why providers are not that excited to come to Hawai`i, I mean, the island of Hawai`i, to open up services here. Because they struggle, they can’t make ends meet, and so they leave the island. So that is why we’re strongly advocating for it. So, basically, it’s an economic. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Rho, does that answer your question? RHO:One part of it, at least one part of it. So it really isn’t a therapeutic reasoning behind this eight? MIRANDA:Well, there’s a, you know, like Dr. Ridley said, or he alluded to the therapeutic group. You know, so, there is, there’s literature out there that alludes to it. RHO:But we could argue about that forever. MIRANDA:Yeah, we could argue about it. But, you know, the bottom line is economic feasibility. There’s a great shortage of housing, like I said; and, economically, because, you see, our licensure requirements are, like I said, so stringent that we don’t just have somebody go and operate a house without being licensed, if they’re going to provide treatment on site. The other part of the rule calls for certification. That’s stringent in itself because there’s housing quality standards that the provider has to meet. But when houses are certified, they’re not required, there is no treatment on site; so then the staffing is a little bit different. But when you’re doing services with adolescents, those houses all require licensure, at least it’s my understanding, although I worked with the adult mental health, yeah, I’m not that familiar with the child and adolescent division. But my understanding is any time in the State of Hawai`i that you’re operating a house that has treatment on site, that you are required by the Department of Health to be licensed. That’s my understanding. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Rho, almost there? RHO:Maybe two more. ALAMEDA:Okay. RHO:Maybe this is not, well, this is a question. So can I assume that if the State could pay more that we could get over that hump? MIRANDA:You could assume that if the Legislature would fund -. EXHIBIT D 64 RHO:‘Cause you’re not going to get, I’m just talking about the 10 to 20 kids that you have now in Keaau or the Puna area, you’re not going to satisfy that need by servicing three more -. MIRANDA:No, yeah. RHO:‘Cause you’ll have 17 waiting. You’ll service three and that’s great for these three kids -. MIRANDA:No, you’d have to continually -. RHO:But you’ll still have 17 kids -. MIRANDA:Oh, yeah, you know, the number here with the homeless, the number here with the children, these are not -. RHO:No, but I’m just pointing that out that we’re not really meeting the need just by raising it to eight. MIRANDA:No. RHO:That’s the only point that I want to make. And the other point, and whether you agree with that or not and you basically agree with that, yes? MIRANDA:Well -. RHO:That we’re not meeting the need -? MIRANDA:No. RHO:By just moving one house to eight? MIRANDA:No. Can I respond, though? RHO:Yeah. MIRANDA:Okay, thank you. I just want to say that the number of homeless, the number of, and, again, child and adolescents is not my area, but to let you know that that number is not a static number. Because you’re right, the need is dynamic and it keeps changing and it keeps growing because the problems are growing. But what you need is the inventory to be able to move people into living situations that are structured, if they need structured -. RHO:Right. I agree with that wholeheartedly. MIRANDA:Yeah. But, and to do that you have to bring providers in or to even develop providers, the provider base within your own island, you have to make it economically feasible for them. EXHIBIT D 65 RHO:Right. But, you know, we can go on and on about that. I just want to make one more point and then ask another question. Is that okay? MIRANDA:Okay. ALAMEDA:I don’t know about the point but I like the questions. ‘Cause the points we can save for our discussion. But if the point would lead to a question, then go ahead. Okay. Go ahead. RHO:Yeah, the point will lead to a question. So, you have Oahu and I hear on the news with eight, yes -? MIRANDA:Correct. RHO:Honolulu with eight. They have a massive problem, at least based on the news. MIRANDA:Massive problem, what are -? RHO:Homelessness for one. MIRANDA:Oh, yeah, there is a -. RHO:Okay, so you agree with that? MIRANDA:Tremendous housing shortage statewide because the State stopped doing affordable housing in the early ‘90s. RHO:Right. So to solve that problem, you know, it’ll take massive amounts of money because we have whatever social thing that’s happening, and we can go on and on and on, which is the Chairman doesn’t want me to do. ALAMEDA:Okay, question. RHO:Right. So my question next is to Mr. McComber. ALAMEDA:Okay. So you’re done with Ms. Miranda? RHO:Well, yeah, but they might -. ALAMEDA:Okay. RHO:So if we could actually provide for most, I don’t want to give you a figure but let’s say we could provide for 75 percent of our, let’s just focus in on the kids, the kids who need this kind of facility, meet their needs, 75-80 percent, you can go 90 percent if you want to, and we kept the number at five, do you think we’d have a legal problem? I know you’re not an attorney and maybe you don’t want to answer that question, but I just wanted to toss that question out for all of us to think about. Thank you. EXHIBIT D 66 ALAMEDA:You can choose to answer or not. It’s up to you. MCCOMBER:In talking about those that have mental illness or have some other kind of disability, it may pose a problem if there is, if there are limitations imposed and like they had mentioned earlier there are vacancies in the unit because they’re forced to turn away families. It could pose a problem because we’re not extending an accommodation which is required under the Fair Housing Act, two persons with disabilities. And can I just comment on, follow-up on something that Bernie had said, which is, you know, it’s not only a money issue. Even if there was the money to acquire the units, where do we buy the units without having to, without ending up where we are right now? Because if it’s not put in Keaau, it’s going to be put somewhere else; and we’re going to be here with that community going through the same thing again. So, it takes not only the funding but it takes the community’s support to establish those facilities. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Rho, follow-up? RHO:I have a comment, not a question, so I won’t -. ALAMEDA:Thank you, thank you for your discipline. The original request was for Commissioner Rho. But, Fellow Commissioners, since we have these two testifiers up and we don’t want to keep deliberating the point -. But if you need more data to help in our discussion and we have two testifiers here, then you could ask the question. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah, well, Mr. McComber was, you know, just saying about the numbers. And they say, well, right now we have a tremendous housing need, a tremendous housing shortage; and if we go up to eight, we would still have a tremendous housing shortage. And population is growing, not only by births naturally, but by in-migration. And a lot of people are leaving Oahu and coming here because they have a feeling that they’ll be able to find housing a lot cheaper here than they are finding it on Oahu. And so the need will increase and it’ll keep increasing exponentially. So do we stop at eight then, or do we leave it wide open? Where do we end up in terms of the law about putting caps on this sort of thing? At some point, it seems that we have to look at each individual situation, would you think, and judge whether the infrastructure -- and I’m talking about in its broadest term, sewer, water, you know, the number of rooms in the house and all of that stuff -- can support eight or can support more than that. MCCOMBER:Outside of that, they can’t answer that -. You know, in trying to do Fair Housing outreach to the community, it becomes really difficult because in trying to determine what is sufficient or what is, you know, what the maximum capacity of the infrastructure or what the neighborhood in general can tolerate, you know, it’s all speculative and it’s all subjective. Because as those who have commented that, you know, this will, and I don’t know the term that they use, but basically, there’s a negative connotation associated with these types of facilities or group homes and that, you know, it may negatively impact the community, that’s actually an assumption. And what I try to tell people is that how can you substantiate that any other resident in that community cannot be just as detrimental as the assumed population of the mentally ill or the youth. EXHIBIT D 67 So, to, getting back to your question, I think that’s a legal question, and I’d rather not answer it. ALAMEDA:Fair enough. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Mr. Torigoe might be chomping at the, to answer that one ‘cause he was looking over some case law over there. But I just wanted to say that it seems to me that we’re, you know, we have the same problem, you know, in a regular home that’s not certified by the Department of Health and is not therapeutic in any way. There are certain natural limitations before something becomes an unsafe and unhealthy environment. You’re not going to put people, you know, like in a closet and stack them up on quadruple bunk beds and say that that’s a healthy situation. So that sort of thing about, you know, equality under the law can be looked at from two sides of the fence. If the situation is basically overcrowding and unhealthy then it is, whether it’s the general public or special facility. Would you comment on that, please? ALAMEDA:Okay. Can I comment first, Commissioner Siracusa, ‘cause we may be going away from the application, and I want to stick close to the application. This is about licensure as well and, so, this is not about, you know, people just getting up and, so it’s about licensure. SIRACUSA:That was, he made the point -. ALAMEDA:Well, I know. So I want to ask you, too, as well, stick to the application which is about licensure. So it’s contingent upon licensure. It’s not to go deviate ‘cause that’s a whole different other legal issue. MIRANDA:Can I respond, please, -? ALAMEDA:To whom? MIRANDA:To anybody? ‘Cause I would like to answer your question and -. ALAMEDA:If it’s okay with Commissioner Siracua. SIRACUSA:Did you want to answer that question? MIRANDA:May I answer it? SIRACUSA:Please. MIRANDA:Thank you. Because it’s exactly what the Chairperson said, the Chairman said, is that if you look at the proposed amendment, it says “Homes that are licensed and/or certified by the Department of Health.” The certification, the licensing process is a very stringent process. It calls for a public hearing, it calls for meetings at neighborhood boards, it calls for, you can’t just like stockpile people in the house. The requirement is that you put no more than two people in a room. There are spacing requirements. You have people from the EXHIBIT D 68 County coming out and doing inspections before they even, before the licensing people even get involved to make sure all the permits are met. Then the licensure people from Department of Health get involved, and they have all of their requirements. It is a nightmare, believe me. It takes almost a year to get licensed. So it’s a very stringent process, just to answer your question. SIRACUSA:I wanted to ask you if you’re aware that we don’t have neighborhood boards on the Big Island. MIRANDA:Then it would be a public hearing. ALAMEDA:Any other questions for the testifiers? Commissioner Iwashita, question, please? IWASHITA:Yeah, so it’s a puzzle to me why the neighbors, most of them testified to say we had no idea this is happening or going to happen in our neighborhood. MIRANDA:And I just learned that because, again, this is a new agency that has just come in; and my understanding is that they are, the agency is doing treatment and there’s apparently no licensure. So, and I’m not sure about that so I’m going to go back and find out what that situation is. And, again, I’m with the Adult Mental Health Division, I’m not with the CAMHD, so, I really don’t know the details except what I’m learning from the neighbors here. So I’m freely giving out numbers for them to call and find out. ALAMEDA:You have a question, Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, just clarification. So the information you’re giving us about public hearings and stuff is with your group ‘cause there are several other groups here? MIRANDA:Well, it should be -. My understanding is that it is across the board and any agency providing group home services that have treatment on-site are required to be licensed by the Department of Health. So I don’t understand -. MCCALL:They may be licensing out, but we don’t have it -. MIRANDA:Right. So what I’ve asked the people here to do is to call the Licensing Department as I will to find out what’s happening in that particular situation in Keaau that the neighbors feel are not licensed, so -. ALAMEDA:Thank you. A1l right. Thank you very much for your re-entry. That actually did add to the discussion. So I want to thank Commissioner Rho for revisiting that discussion. MIRANDA:Yeah, I’m glad he did. ALAMEDA:All right. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:If I may, would you entertain a motion? EXHIBIT D 69 ALAMEDA:Sure. SALAVEA:Thank you. In the matter of Planning Director Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25 Zoning Code, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council per the Director’s, or with the Director, it wouldn’t be with the Director’s, it’s initiated by him, with the amendment to Paragraph 1, the last sentence to say rather than “the department of health,” it would state, “a state agency,” so “a state agency” would replace “the department of health,” the last sentence of Paragraph 1, Page 1. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Salavea. Is there a second? IWASHITA:Second. ALAMEDA:Seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. Discussion? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reason for my forwarding a favorable recommendation is I think some of what we’ve heard today is, it’s a difficult decision. And from both sides of the coin you hear some, you hear community concern regarding public safety; and in my summation of that testimony, that’s what boiled up to the surface in opposition. It was the public safety issue; and how can we insure by increasing the number, how can we insure that public safety is maintained. On the flip side, I think we heard a lot of passionate testimony from providers, State agencies, as well as consumers to the fact that group homes are effective and they serve a valued purpose within the community; and I think we’ve even gone so far as hearing testimony say that providing local services here on island would enhance the treatment rather than be a detriment, and that’s from a professional aspect. And that’s why I was asking very pointed questions to get that information, ‘cause I wanted the Commission to understand from a professional perspective data-driven, research-based perspective that this is what has been borne out, rather than -. And I don’t mean to demean any of the public testimony; but some of what I heard in regards to public safety, I couldn’t quantify how public safety was being endangered because this certain population would move into their community. I need, for me, like I mentioned earlier, I need quantitative data; and I didn’t get that. So my primary push is because what I’ve heard from the professional side that it is, it’s a great need, number one, they specified the need; two, they talked about the enhancement and impact of serving locally; and, three, that they’re, especially from the consumer, I think, from the consumer testimony, the impact of what can happen when therapeutic homes or therapy is followed through at the local level, what it can mean to one person’s life. And I, we threw around beds, and number of beds, and one bed. But what we’ve really got to realize is we’re talking about a person’s life, it’s not a bed. It’s an individual, someone who’s down in their luck, may not have all of the resources that others may have, have this wonderful potential but just need little bit help to reach it. And, in ending, what my point is to quote, I won’t say who it is, but to quote someone that I respect greatly, he once said that, “The greatest loss of potential is when,” I forget exactly how he phrased it, but ultimately he meant, “The greatest loss of potential is when it’s taken to the grave and never used in life.” So I want to give everybody who has, I want to give everybody equal opportunity and chance to reach their potential; and I think by providing these extra, I don’t want to say beds, but spaces, we help to improve lives in our own community, of our own community people. Thank you. EXHIBIT D 70 ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita and then Commissioner Siracusa? IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I think we all recognize, and I don’t think anyone disagrees that our community, as well as the rest of the state, I think probably we all sense that in our community it’s a greater problem, you know, as far as homelessness and the people that need assistance in order to improve their condition for the future. I think, as a community, well, again, in order for us to really address it, we need your input, the community’s input to come out. And one of the worst things about this State is our voter turnout, the worst in the country, you know; and that’s just -. And as far as planning, though, in terms of what we as a community need to do in order to address these, ‘cause people can, people that say, you know, go deal with this someplace else, let me just suggest that that’s a fallacy. Because whether it’s across the street or across the island, it’s still all our problem, you know, it’s still something that we all need to deal with. Because to say, well, if it’s not in my neighborhood then it doesn’t really affect me, wrong. Because that one person that doesn’t get the help that ends up going to prison costs each of us almost $100,000 a year to take care of; I mean that’s, if we don’t want to count beds, let’s count dollars. And, you know, people say, well, this is all about dollars. That’s right, it is all about dollars. Right? You spend, I don’t know what it costs exactly to maintain this bed, right, in the community, but it’s not going to $100,000 per consumer, or youth, or adult, or whatever you want to call that person; it’s not going to cost that. But when that person doesn’t get it, it costs us right around $100,000 a year, easy, right, for us to take care of either in Halawa, or up in Oklahoma, or wherever we’re sending them to. Right? That’s the community’s cost to us for not dealing with these people, helping them, you know, to keep them out of our prisons. And that’s, to me, the bottom line in terms of, you know, looking at this from a community perspective, you know. And if you want to be real Donald Trump about it, let’s talk about where you want to spend the money; because if you don’t spend money now, we guarantee you we’ve got to spend it later.Right? And so that’s how I look at it. And so even when I, you know, when I first got this, I had, funny how these things I get all these reservations; and I still do. I still have reservations about how this is, what we’re trying to do. ‘Cause those who say that this is a band-aid, I agree, that this is a band-aid. ‘Cause we’re saying, “Well, we’ll call it, you have eight people, that’s okay, we’ll consider that a family and that use is going to be legal,” you know, I think that’s a band-aid. I think that from the bigger perspective in terms of how we, as a community, need to deal with this, I go back again to my favorite CDP. Because if we as a community, I as a Commissioner, and you as, you know, those that come before the Commission or go to the County Council, look around, I don’t mean here, well, you can look around here, and see where we’re going, we all know where we’re going. But, you know, you look at Oahu, you look at Maui, you know, and you look at what you really want to do, then Community Development Plan process, the whole process, to me is a different thing that we have that we do, that the community can get involved in, and that it won’t be just nine commissioners or nine council people saying, “This is how we’re going to take care of things in the future and how the community is going to look.” That process has been going on for, from 1945 or whenever they passed those laws. Never work, right? And it’s not going to. And this band-aid kind of solution that we have is, you know, it’ll hopefully help, you know, for now. But in the big picture, I would like the Council to read this part of the transcript, you know, and get an understanding that, you know, those nine guys, mine, Stacy Higa and the rest of them are not going to be able to solve our problems, you know, our challenges for the future by themselves; and by doing Community Development Plan process and spending the money and EXHIBIT D 71 the time to do it in the next couple of years, I think we can make a better difference, you know, do it better. At least you have the opportunity. We can mess them up good, too, but then it’ll be the community that messes it up, not nine guys sitting in a Council chamber or someplace. So please push to get that done, Community Development Plan process. I will vote in favor of this motion, I seconded it, obviously. I have reservations that it is a band-aid thing; but, you know, the problem is so great as established on the record that we can’t just stand by and do nothing. So -. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Siracusa and then Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I don’t think there’s a question in anybody’s mind but that affordable housing for the general public as well as for special needs people is at a crisis level. I don’t know, I -. As a matter of fact, I’m pretty sure that if we pass this amendment, I don’t think it’s going to solve it. Adding three more people to a house is not going to make hardly a dent in the, I think we have to look really much farther afield at doing some, you know, broader planning. Ms. Cabral mentioned some zoning things, there are all sorts of “out of the box” things that we should be looking at in order to really address this problem, including, yes, Community Development Plans, right. The magic number here of eight, besides being as we’ve heard quite frankly being admitted to as being a question of economics, also appears to be tailored specifically for one particular applicant. And while it might not be appearance of favoritism can often be as bad as favoritism itself. It’s like conflicts of interest, you know. You may not have a conflict but you want to avoid the appearance of one. Another issue that is a concern of mine here is that Marimed came into this community without really going around doing pala pala, making nice; and we had this, there was the same problem when Waters of Life Charter School went into several communities in the same way, and alienating communities rather than garnering support by defusing concerns and addressing concerns before they started making their plans. This is not a really positive way of operating. It certainly doesn’t, it’s counter-productive it seems to me. If you’ve got, you’re creating a hostile community, and then you go in and you want their support. And then you’re putting people in who you want to get out into the community, you want to put them in a halfway house kind of situation and slowly ease in transition into a broader community, but the community you’re putting them in you’ve already alienated; and that seems counter-productive to me. We’re looking at all these different kinds of facilities, adult residential care, assisted living, clean and sober homes, special treatment, a therapeutic living, developmental disabilities; and that’s a pretty broad-brush. And the communities that these facilities will be put in, will be applied to be put in, are very different; and in each case there’s no community self-determination, and this bothers me a lot. Today, we had a lot of people come out and a lot of people who couldn’t come out submitted written testimony; and a lot of people came out all the way to Kona from Keaau Ag Lots. I don’t think that we’re turning down the possibilities of these kind of facilities because the possibilities are always there. The possibility, the process is there for increasing the number of people that can live in one, and the process is that would come before the Commission; and I would really prefer to see the Commission vote on these facilities on a case-by-case basis so that we could hear the concerns, the plans of each developer, the concerns of the community, and address them individually as they should be addressed. Because they’re too important to paint EXHIBIT D 72 the whole thing with a broad-brush and not look at each case on a case-by-case basis. And I think that the communities in question, the affected communities, deserve the right and the ability to be heard; and that is part of the Community Development process. I have no trouble sitting through more meetings this long if we have other facilities come forward and say, “I want to add three more beds, or five more beds,” or whatever the case may be, “We have a big enough house to support it.” But I would like to see us have the opportunity to do that. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa for your perspective, appreciate your opinion. How about Commissioner McCall, any thoughts? MCCALL:Yeah. Let’s see, where should I start. ALAMEDA:The beginning. MCCALL:I don’t want to start that far back. I don’t think anybody can argue that, you know, these group living programs are good for the community, the community-at-large and individual communities. They are in our communities now. I think it’s clear that they should be in our communities. They are our kids, our kupuna, or whatever, they are our people. We need to embrace them. We need to put them in. But they are there now. We have, they are legal as five. You know, we can have five people of, whatever the words are, you know, they’re legal now as a five-person. As I see it, what this amendment is is to change it from five to eight. All the amendment is is to increase the number on a specific lot, in a specific house. Everything I hear, it comes down to, it’s dollars. As I see it, it’s a matter of the people running these homes feel that they can run them more efficiently or they’re saying they cannot run them if they don’t put eight in there. They’re saying, but that’s dollars. I’m sure if we can pay them more per unit, per person that they’re serving they can do it for five. It’s been, some of the other Commissioners have brought up that, you know, we pay the money now or we pay the money later, if we don’t serve the community now, we’re going to be paying for the beds at Halawa; and it’s cheaper to do it now. I don’t think this is the right way to do it. I think that by putting, if we’re, it’s a matter of where we’re putting the money. If we’re just saying we’re going to raise the number of adults in one of these facilities from five to eight, who’s paying for this? Instead of, if we keep it at five and we want to make these things work, the County, the State, whoever the government which, of course, it’s coming out of our pockets, is going to have to pay more money to make these facilities work. If we just legislate that this goes from five to eight, who’s paying for it? The neighbors are paying for it; and I don’t feel it’s fair to make the neighbors pay for it ’cause we should all pay for it.So I think this is the wrong way to go. There are other options if these facilities need to go to a larger size. I mean, there is the use permits through the Planning Commission, as Commissioner Siracusa said. And it was brought up that if these facilities can show they’re an asset to the community, the communities will embrace them. But these facilities can be an asset to the community if they’re run properly. If they’re not run properly, they should not be shoved down the throats of a community. And, so, I just, I can’t, you know, support it the way it is now. I just think this is not, you know, let’s let the right people pay the money and not just left this into, you know, to the communities and make the communities pay for it. Thank you. EXHIBIT D 73 ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Well, Mr. Rho, you can add to the discussion. It’s up to you. RHO:First of all, I want to thank you for sticking with us. It’s now 4:15 and I’m sure you have lots of better things to do. I wanted to begin by saying that those of you who are opposed to this change, moving it from five to eight and you’re not in favor of that, that you really think about why you’re not in favor of it, truly think about why you’re not in favor of it. All the, well, I shouldn’t say all, most of the testimony that I heard today and in Kona last week or two weeks ago turned me off. Those people in the room who know me know that I started out as a probation officer in the Third Circuit, which is Hawai`i District. We did not have services for these kids, we still don’t; but we have more now than we had, I’m afraid to say this, but in 1972, over 30 years ago. So just let me, bear with me and let me give you one example. If you have a kid arrested in the middle of the night in Kona, there is no facility or there was no facility at all, except the lockup in the Police Station. Guess where that kid ended up? At my little cottage. The next morning, my wife serves breakfast and then we leave. Legal? I don’t know. In this age, in this time, I’m not sure I would do that; but at that time, that’s what we had to do, that’s what we did, that’s what I chose to do. I was in education for 30 years. Roz over there and I go back many years. We don’t have the money. But you know what? Changing it from five to eight just makes us feel better. It really doesn’t attack the problem. The problem is deep. We’re looking at symptoms, we’re treating symptoms. I’m a bleeding heart, a bleeding heart liberal. So if you ask me for anything, having to do with kids especially, I’d give it to you. I’m not in favor of this. And I want to make it a point to not be in favor of this because I think we all, and I’m not talking about just the people in the Keaau Ag Lots, the whole island, the whole state, maybe the nation, and that’s getting really big, really need to think about what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. We have to, you don’t keep talking about thinking outside the box. Well, I want, if I had my way, I would put up the money to fund houses, smaller the better, smaller the better, and give these kids the attention they deserve and need, and not house them in eight, ten, twelve, fifteen. I’m not sure about Koolau, what the maximum there is, but not house them like that. So instead of treating the symptom, maybe, and this is a real big maybe, maybe somebody or some people will actually look at the problem and try to address the problem. But, again, those people in the Keaau Ag Lots, most of your reasoning and reasons for protesting this, it won’t stand, it won’t stand up. Would I like a prison built next to my lot? No. I’ll be in the same position as you. But think about that. You’re not going to convince people by talking about all the, not in my backyard kind of reasoning. Thanks. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Rho. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:There was one thing I forgot to say. ALAMEDA:Sure. EXHIBIT D 74 SIRACUSA:So many people came out. It’s not often that we see so many people coming out on one subject, on one agenda item; and I think that band-aid solutions don’t work. What we always need to do is really look at addressing the problem. The problem is that there is insufficient funds for creating more of these homes. The answer is, and if everyone here who came today would do it maybe it could actually get done, is to petition the Legislature to increase funding for these types of facilities and to expand that program; and I just want to tell that one out. ALAMEDA:Is there any “I forgots?” Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I just didn’t think of it before. ALAMEDA:Okay. IWASHITA:And now you made me forget. You know, I have, part of my being is clumsy; and when that happens, I need a band-aid. All right, it doesn’t get rid of the clumsy part that caused the symptom of a cut or bruise that required that band-aid. But the band-aid is still necessary, right? So I would urge my Commissioners to think about that.Just because it’s band- aid, that’s not a reason not to do it. You know, and I will come out of the closet, too, and join Commissioner Rho in saying about bleeding heart liberal. I like to think I’m practical, you know. My wife will probably tell you different. She always says something about me not being productive. Hopefully, I’m being productive today. But I would urge my Commissioners, my fellow Commissioners, to think about two things as far as the band-aid kind of thinking. One is, it’s necessary; two, it will have an effect based upon what we’ve heard today, even though it is temporary and passing in a way. But hopefully it passes us to a place, you know, where we can have this outside of the box process where, you know, as a community we can come together and be creative, and try and deal with the problem. The problem, to me, is the lack of affordable housing and an economy that allows, you know, in the big picture, allows getting rid of that, the source of that problem. You know, because we have people that work that can’t afford housing. Why is that, right? And then what can we do as a community? I mean that’s real outside the box. What do we do as a community to, you know, to fix that? So I’m hoping those are the kinds of questions that can be answered by my outside of the box Community Development Plan thing. But, really, and as I understand it, the problem with, if we say that we want to look at each of these things one-by-one, that means, essentially, a Contested Case Hearing on each, which is not going to take months but years to resolve; and, in effect, it’s not a solution. It will not work, that avenue. So that’s why the rules are being changed in our Code in order basically to avoid that process. And I’m convinced that there’s, the need is great enough that the other concerns about public safety and those kinds of things can be addressed and should be addressed in the administrative licensing certification process. And we, as a community, if we’ll just keep our eyes and ears open and be more aware, we can probably help reduce that. So I would urge that my fellow Commissioners to look at the band-aid as a very important one; and if you only buy one band-aid this year, buy this one. EXHIBIT D 75 ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. All right. Any other comments or thoughts? Motion on the table by Commissioner Salavea, seconded by Commissioner Iwashita, in favor of this amendment. Seeing no further discussion, staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion is to approve with the amendment to change the wording “licensed or certified by the Department of Health” to “licensed or certified by a State agency.” Correct? SALAVEA:Correct. DARROW:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:No. DARROW:Commissioner Rho? RHO:No. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:No. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:The motion does not pass, three to three. ALAMEDA:Thank you, and thank all of you for being here today; and you’ll be revisiting this again if you so wish at the County Council. Mahalo. Have a good day today. The discussion ended at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT D 76 EXHIBIT D 77