Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-18 TPARKERSCHOOL PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 18, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of PARKER SCHOOL BOARD OF was called to order at 9:29 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona DIRECTORS (USE 05-001) Beach Hotel, Islander Room, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo AlamedaAllen Salavea Jeffrey McCall Rodney H. Watanabe Rene Siracusa William R. Graham Hannah Springer Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PARKER SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS (USE 05-001) Discussion and action on the Hearing Officers report on a Use Permit to allow the establishment of an elementary school on 2.635 acres of land zoned Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) and situated within the State Land Use Urban district. The property is located along the southeast side of Kapiolani Road, approximately 550 feet east of the Kapiolani Road-Lindsey Road intersection, Waimea, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-5-4: portion of 25. GALDONES:On agenda item number 1, the applicant is Parker School Board of Directors USE 05-001. This is a discussion and action on the Hearing Officers report on the use permit to allow the establishment of an elementary school on 2.635 acres of land zoned Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) and situated within the State Land Use Urban district. Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chair. Good morning Commissioners. Before I proceed, just wanted to note that, for the record, that I was a witness for the County of Hawaii Planning Department at the Contested Case Hearing. So, at this time perhaps if the chair would ask the parties if they would have any objections to me giving you a brief orientation regarding this matter. EXHIBIT A 1 GALDONES:Does anyone from Counsel have any problems with that, Norman making the presentation? VITOUSEK:The applicant has no objection. WOODELL:The intervenor has no objection. GALDONES:Seeing that there is no objection Norman proceed. HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just as a matter of brief orientation regarding the subject matter. The property is indicated by this red dot, it is situated within the Waimea Village area. This is the roadway that leads into Waimea. This would be in the Hamakua direction and this would be towards the Kona direction. This would be the old mauka Mamalahoa Highway. This would be the Kawaihae Road leading towards Kawaihae. The colorsonthemapindicatethevariouszoningdistrict.ThesepurpleshadedareasareVillage Commercial zoned district. We have single family residential zoning here in yellow and we also have areas that are designated agricultural 1 acre and these are the green shaded areas. The applicant intends to construct a elementary school, grades K through 5 with an estimate of 45 students. Access would be from Kapiolani Road and if I go back to this overall site, location map, this would be Kapiolani Road and this would be Lindsey Road. So access basically would be from Lindsey Road and this would hook upto Kapiolani Road. This is Puuki Road, this is a dead-end road that comes off of Kapiolani Street. So access, the driveway access to this subject property would be from Kapiolani Road. The hearing, the contested case hearing was held by your Hearing Officer Sherry Broder and this was held on September, excuse me, July 11, 2005. Since that time Ms. Broder did submit her report to the Planning Commission and that report was received on September 22, 2005. Since that time we also received the intervernors exception to the Hearing Officers report as well as the request for oral argument at the hearing. That exception was received on October 5, 2005. The Planning Director also responded to the, provided response to the intervenors exception and support of the Hearing Officers report. And that was received or dated on October 12, 2005. The applicants response to intervenor's exception to Hearing Officers report was received on October 12, 2005. And we recently th received on November 16 , the applicants motion to dismiss Allen Woodell as intervenors counsel. We also had several letters that were submitted including those that were circulated this morning. I dont have a complete list of those correspondences but Im sure that all of you were provided a copy of. Are there any questions at this time? SIRACUSA:Yes Norman. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Im sorry. Im not sure if I misheard you I thought you said that it was proposed for 45 students but weve been reading 90 here. Did I hear you wrong? HAYASHI:I believe the background report states 75 students? EXHIBIT A 2 SIRACUSA:Id like to get some clarification on that cause thats twice as many as were-. VITOUSEK:Its 90. SIRACUSA:All the stuff I was reading I was reading 90. VITOUSEK:Its 90. HAYASHI:Okay I stand corrected its 90. SIRACUSA:Okay. Thats a big difference, yeah. And I would also like, because we have a letter from Waimea Trails and Greenways. Could you show me on the map where that would be? HAYASHI:Im not too familiar as to the exact location of the Waimea Trails. Perhaps thatwitnesscouldgooverthat,personcouldpointthatoutonthemap.Ihaventseen,bythe way I havent seen that correspondence that youre referring to. SIRACUSA:Okay thank you. Ill hold that question then. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Just, I guess for clarification, both the Background Report and the Recommendation from the Planning Department indicate 75 students. GALDONES:Norman then does, do we have that, corrections made then on those 2 documents to reflect 90? HAYASHI:Yeah you know I was referring to the Staffs background report of 75. However if, perhaps that could be confirmed by the applicant or his representative as to the exact number of, as to the number of students that will be enrolled in this K to 5. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Id like to, Id like to just throw one other number into the mix here before we sort it out and that is in County of Hawaii Planning Department Recommendations that we got originally with this application, condition 3 says enrollment shall be limited to 120 students. So I think the purpose of that is that 90 is whats expected and the Planning Director has cut a little slack in there but I think we ought to at least bring that into the mix of our discussion. GALDONES:What the Chair will do is give you folks an opportunity to question Norman, and in areas where we need to have testimonies from the public or from the parties, then after I have them sworn in then you folks can raise the question when I ask for their testimony. So, Commissioner Springer and Commissioner Graham if you could keep that thought in mind and when they do make their presentations then you can raise the questions to EXHIBIT A 3 the parties. Any further questions of Norman, Commissioners? Seeing none, I would like to swear in the representatives of the parties who will be making testimony. Could you please raise your right hand? Not necessarily those in the back there, but those here on the front table. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? Could you please state your position and your name and address and have it recorded on the microphone? We start with counsel Leithead-Todd. LEITHEAD-TODD:Deputy Corporation Counsel Bobbie-Jean Leithead-Todd and seated to my immediate right is Planning Director Chris Yuen. GALDONES:And you swear to? LEITHEAD-TODD:Yes we do. GALDONES:Recordwillshowthattheysweartotellthetruth.Maam? COPMAN:MynameisLindaCopman.ImtheintervenorandIdosweartotellthe truth. WOODELL:My name is Allen Woodell. Im attorney for the intervenor Linda Copman and I confirm I will tell the truth. VITOUSEK:Good morning Randy Vitousek. Were representing the applicant the Board of Directors of Parker School and I swear I will tell the truth. GALDONES:Thank you. STURGES:Im Carl Sturges, the Headmaster of Parker School and I swear I will tell the truth. GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioners before we proceed there is an agenda item that I would like to dispose of before moving forward. And that would be if you would take out the-. Its a memo from Mr. Vitousek dated November 16 to Mr. Yuen, myself, Mr. Woodell and Ms. Leithead-Todd. This is in regard to a motion to disqualify Allen W. Woodell as counsel for intervenor. Mr.? So I would like to call upon Mr. Vitousek to give us a presentation on his motion. VITOUSEK:Thank you. Ive filed this motion because of a concern that if I didnt file a motion before the Commission I would be prevented from filing a motion later in court. In other words what Im concerned about is sometimes theyll be an argument made that you have to raise an issue when it first comes up and not let it sit or you lose the right to raise that issue. So I understand that its a difficult decision for a commission to make. And I understand that the Commission has the discretion to make its decision as it sees fit. What this motion is based on is a several times over the course of the contested case hearing Mr. Woodell has made direct communications with members of the Board of Directors and with Mr. Sturges, which are prohibited by an attorneys disciplinary rules. In other words they are prohibited by the rules of EXHIBIT A 4 professional conduct. Disciplinary rule 4.2 says, an attorney shall not engage in direct communication with a party that they know to be represented by counsel regarding the subject matter of the representation. And the rule is very clear. And this came to my attention when Leilani Lewis whos a member of the Board of Parker Schools said that she approached Mr. Woodell as he was making measurements at the Kapiolani Road and Lindsey Road intersection on her way to a Parker School board meeting and he said he was making measurements. But, which is okay, I mean I dont have a problem with that. But then he went on to say that the community was never going to give up, that if this, if the Planning Commission ruled against him they would appeal. If the appeal was denied theyd sue the county and sue the school. And that you know that Parker School should know that the communitys never going to give up on this. And that was the communication that was made directly to my client. Now remember that the Board of Directors is the client here, its the applicant and Mr. Woodell knows that Leilani Lewis is a member of the Board of Directors. And she was going directly into a board meeting at Parker School. She was on her way to a Board meeting. And so what came out of that Board meetingwascallstomesayingwhatdoesthismean?Whatdoesthismeanforourschoolyou know? I mean is this going to, is this going to threaten our ability to do this? And so you know what it was is a direct threat to a member of the Board on her way to the Board meeting and it had an impact. And, and so the school wanted me to address this and so I called the Office of Disciplinary Council which is the body that regulates attorneys conduct and I gave an anonymous description of the events. And I was told that disciplinary rule 8.3 says that as an attorney you have a ethical duty to report misconduct. In other words you are required to report misconduct. And I asked them, I gave them an anonymous description of the facts and said under these facts do I have a duty to report and there response was, if your client directs you to or if you client directs you to take appropriate action then yes you do. You have a duty to report. And so, you know I want you to know I, in 29 years of being a lawyer I have any made a disciplinary complaint against another lawyer and I dont like doing it. But I was under an ethical obligation to do it. And having done it, I feel Im under and ethical obligation to raise a disqualification motion. And Im just having done that. We filed a motion we committed to the discretion of the commission and we want to go ahead and get this matter ruled on. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Vitousek. Commissioners I will be allowing also Mr. Woodell to make a statement and also Ms. Leithead-Todd. But as each party makes a representation then I will allow you to question each one so at this moment in time Commissioners do you have any question of Mr. Vitousek? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:So Mr. Woodell is the representative for the intervenor then my question would be if we disqualify him does that mean were going to continue this? VITOUSEK:I, Im afraid it may mean that. And thats not something we want to see happen but we feel that we had a duty to raise the motion and to. You know sometimes what the, sometimes when a court considers a motion to disqualify, it looks at the stage of the proceeding and it looks at the question of whether theres any prejudice to the applicant, or prejudice to the person raising the issue. And so, you know those are the factors that the commission can use in making a decision. If the commission finds that theres no prejudice to the applicant at this point it can deny the motion. EXHIBIT A 5 GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:At this point we only have your word that this happened. Im wondering if Ms. Lewis is present here today? In which case we would maybe want to swear her in and ask her if that is a fair representation of the interaction? VITOUSEK:Yeah, absolutely. Or another alternative is to swear Mr. Woodell in and ask him. SIRACUSA:Hes already sworn in. VITOUSEK:Yes. SIRACUSA:But youre the one who we can ask questions of right now. VITOUSEK:No I appreciate that. And no shes not here today. SIRACUSA:Shes not here today. VITOUSEK:Yeah thats correct. And if we need to have that kind of factual informationthenwecanaskMr.Woodellcausehe,Iassumehewilltellthetruth. SIRACUSA:Thank you. GALDONES:Seeing theres no further questions from the commissioners, Mr. Woodell? WOODELL:Theres an old Hawaiian proverb that if you want, your want somebody to see the bottom of the ocean you stir up a lot of sand. You know Im not prepared to-, I admit that I talked to Mrs., Ms. Lewis whos a good friend of mine. I, Im not prepared to say what the conversation was. I think the characterization of the conversation as Mr. Vitousek stated it is probably not correct although there may be some parts of it that are correct. You know whether I consciously knew Leilani Lewis was still on the board, I mean you know this-. Unfortunately this is the kind of thing I think that would take a regular hearing. I mean you know I would have to confront her. I would want to see what she said what her recollection of the conversation was. You know Leilani Lewis brother and I have known each other our lifetimes. So you know and I, you live in a community and maybe I screwed up I dont know. But, I, you know its up, its up to you folks. You know I think I have had, I have practiced law a lot longer than Mr. Vitousek obviously. And I think I have had one other complaint against me that was immediately dismissed and lets see probably 63 years Ive practiced law? No, that couldnt be right. 45 years48 years! 48 years. In any event you know I, I, Im taken aback by this because I dont know what to tell you know. I dont know what to say because I would like to have the opportunity to complete this. I dont, I do not practice law and this is cert-. I, I took this case manuahi because I felt the community was, needed some help. And Im not going to practice law again. So it doesnt make any difference to me. I mean he can file his complaint with the commission and I respect if thats what they want to do. Go ahead and do it you know. EXHIBIT A 6 But I dont think this is the group who should decide whether I violated the ethical conditions of the bar association. Thats all I have to say. GALDONES:Mr. Woodell when you mentioned that you do not practice law, youre indicating to us that some point in time you have stopped practicing law and how long ago was that? WOODELL:1991. GALDONES:Oh, thank you. Commissioners are there any further questions of Mr. Woodell? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Mr. Woodell just, Im not sure how relevant it is to our decision but could you just give us a sense of what is, what was sort of your motive and situation when you did speakwithMs.Lewiswasitlikespeakingtoanoldfriend.Wasitlikewhateveritwas,could you just fill us in now so that we can understand what really transpired more easily? WOODELL:You know to answer that and I hate to take all the time but I think its-. You know I was elected to the Kailua, Oahu neighborhood board for 4, 3, 2 sessions, 4 years. And during that time I came to the very strong conclusion that the western method of deciding these, this planning issue was all wrong. That all it did was create a lot of bad feelings, cost a lot of money and you know I felt that in our community hoopono is the way to go. Discuss these things out. And I felt through this whole, this whole matter, I think its really sad that this is what its come to. And you know maybe in the back, back of mind I, you know I, I wish that we could have a discussion to see if the thing couldnt be resolved. And as a result you know this, I had this discussion with a, you know and I think Ive talked to her before. And, because, probably before I represented Ms. Copman at some time. I dont know you know, I, when you live in a small community and you know people these conversations happen. And, you know I, its, you know I am certainly willing to take my medicine before the disciplinary committee, council, if I did, you know if I transgressed the rules. Thats, you know, obviously I have to take my medicine although you know, it would be a hollow victory for the disciplinary council. But having said that, I was making a measurement. Leilani Lewis came up and I had no idea that, where she was going, in fact she walks that area a lot. She asked me what I was doing. And I said, you know Im measuring to see where the setback is. And then things just you know and we talked. And as I say, I didnt really consciously think about her being a member of the Board of Directors. I mean I dont know whose on that Board of Directors. I know at one time she was. You know its my obligation for me to I suppose know every member of the Board of Directors and not say a word to them but its pretty when you live in a community to not get involved with these things. And I said my background is you know this thing should have been talked out. So you know its my, my, my bad. GALDONES:Any further questions commissioners? Seeing none Ms. Leithead-Todd do you have any remarks to the motion? LEITHEAD-TODD:The County is opposed to the motion to disqualify Mr. Woodell. In, to a great extent because of the point at which we are in these proceedings. And at this point it would EXHIBIT A 7 be a substantial disadvantage to Ms. Copman to have Mr. Woodell disqualified. Whereas I dont think theres any disadvantage to the applicant to have Mr. Woodell here because theyre ably represented by Mr. Vitousek. I also would not want to see him disqualified because it would mean you would have to continue the matter until Ms. Copman could get somebody else to represent her and I dont think that thats in the best interest of any of the parties here. As to the merits of the issue I think that thats something that should probably be taken up by the disciplinary Counsel. For this board to get into that issue I think is a distraction and gets away from what the real issue is as whether the permit should be granted or not. GALDONES:Commissioners any questions of Ms. Leithead-Todd? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Well I have a question. I tend to agree with Ms. Leithead-Todd and I was wondering how we do this. Do we proceed with a motion to not deal with the motion to disqualify?Or,Imeanwouldcorpcounseladviseusplease? GALDONES:Mr.Torigoe? TORIGOE:ThankyouMr.Chairman.Basicallyyourrule4-5bsaysthatthepresiding officer controls the course of hearings and among other things rules upon all motions which do not involve a final determination of the proceedings. So unless one of the parties has some other authority otherwise it seems to me that under the rules it would be something that the chairperson would make a decision on. Of course youre welcome to give the chairperson your input on that. Mr. Chair if I may ask Mr. Woodell something really briefly? I just want to clarify something. Mr. Woodell you stated that youre, youre not actively practicing law at this point? WOODELL:Thats correct. TORIGOE:Okay. But are you licensed to practice law in the State of Hawaii at this point? WOODELL:Yes Im licensed to practice law in the State of Hawaii. TORIGOE:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners having heard counsels remarks do we have any comments before the chair makes a ruling? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I appreciate the remarks of Ms. Leithead-Todd and I would concur with them. GALDONES:Thank you. Seeing no further discussion or no further questions from the commissioners the Chair ruling on the motion to disqualify Allen W. Woodell as counsel for the intervenor is hereby dismissed. TORIGOE:Okay so for the record youre denying the motion Mr. Chairman? EXHIBIT A 8 GALDONES:Yes. TORIGOE:Okay. Are there any other commentsthat youd like to make regarding the substance of the allegations at this point? GALDONES:Well for one thing as a Commissioner and also as the chair of this commission I do not like to see something like this occurring because it prejudices the clients work and all that goes into this case so the only thing that I-. Im not the disciplinarian or anything but Mr. Woodell having gone through this exercise that you have seen before us I would appreciate it if you would refrain from conducting yourself in this manner in the future. Thank you. Commissioners, we are now dealing with the hearings officers report. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair? Before we proceed I just wanted to clear the record on the questionthatCommissionerSiracusaaskedregardingtheenrollmentfigure.Okayasfarasthe applicant initially submitted a, when they submitted the application indicated that would be a maximum of 75 students grades K to 5. However at the hearing, contested case hearing when Mr. Woodell questioned Dr. Sturges who is a member of the, I mean who is the, with Parker School, his response was that there would be a maximum of 90 students. And that is why the hearings officers reflected that under her item 36. Just for your information our, excuse me, the Planning Directors recommendation was to have a maximum of 120 students and the reason for that I believe was that, that was similar to another case or that was granted by the Planning Commission with a maximum 120 students K to 5. GALDONES:Thank you Norman. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Norman could you tell us the page and line that that appears on in the transcript? GALDONES: The transcript would be page 61 and that would be in the middle section where Mr. Woodell questioned Dr. Sturges. SPRINGER:Got it thank you. HAYASHI:One other thing too, I must note that the Planning Directors and I believe this might have not been corrected but the Planning Directors recommendation the last portion states that the Planning Director may initiate rezoning and that was incorrect. It should have been initiate (inaudible) procedures for the nullification or verification of the permit. GALDONES:Procedurally commissioners and also for the parties before us. What we will be doing is addressing the hearings officers Findings of Facts and Conclusions, allow the parties to address that, give you folks an opportunity to question. And after that there have been, there are people from the public who have signed up to testify then I will be taking testimony from the public thereafter. Then we will be going into decision making okay? Commissioners hearings officers proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations of the Hearing Officer. This has been presented to you. Procedurally what I will do is allow the parties EXHIBIT A 9 to address the hearings officers report. Also note that there has been exceptions and also the responses from the applicants and the county. So that also will be subject matters that we will be dealing with. I will allow Mr. Vitousek to address the Commissioners first. VITOUSEK:Thank you Mr. Chair. Im going to be very brief. This is an application for a used permit to allow Parker School to develop an elementary school campus adjacent to th their existing campus in Waimea. Parker School is a independent kindergarten through 12 grade school. It has been in Waimea since 1976. It is emerging as an excellent school at all levels. Because of changes in the demographics of Waimea, Parker School has decided to thth create-. You know up until recently Parker School was 6 through 12 grade. And because the change of demographics theyve decided to open an elementary school which will be th kindergarten through 5 grade. That school has been opened and is functioning on the Parker Schools existing campus. It opened this fall. There are 76 students enrolled and it is becoming a successful program. This application is to allow Parker School to develop a campus, which would be dedicated to elementary school use. Im sure all of you understand that there are some difficulties and potential conflicts associated with having elementary schools in contact with intermediate students and high school students. And thats why traditionally its better to have some physical separation between the campuses and generally its better to have any elementary school that is designed and created as an elementary school. Where things are sized right for kids of that age and where youre not asking kids to be in temporary classrooms or in improvised classrooms. But you can instead focus on having your facilities meet the quality of your educational programs. And so the property that is being identified as used for this elementary school is in the State Land Use Urban district. In other words its urban. Its in the General Plan as urban expansion area. It is in the county zoning as agriculture. And it is because the County zoning is agriculture that a use permit is required. And the, you know a school is a permitted use in the county Ag zoning if a use permit is obtained. So the matter was referred to a hearings officer. Sherry Broder is a very experienced hearings officer and did in my view an excellent job. And I say my view, I mean she ruled against the applicant in a lot of areas. And accepted a lot of evidence that we had made technical objections to including the traffic studies with all the various statements that were included as-, distributed to people who walked by. But what she said was you know because this is an administrative proceeding were going to accept the evidence and I will look at it and give it what weight I think its entitled to. And thats what she did. I think that if anything hearings officer Broder erred on the side of being over inclusive in evidence but thats her view. And what she found based on the evidence was that the proposed school meets the criteria set out for use permit under County reg-, under County Code. And specifically that it meets the intent and plan of the zoning code and the general plan and that it would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or cause substantial adverse impact on the communitys character or on surrounding properties. She also found that the third criterion of whether the proposed use will not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads, streets, sewers, water drainage, schools, police and fire protection or other related infrastructure. In other words she found that, that allowing an elementary school to be built adjacent to an existing campus would be materially detrimental to the community because there had already been a school there for, since 1976. There had already been a school there since long before the intervenors or other people who testified in opposition to it acquired their homes. And so, you know basically the testimony against it was concern about traffic on Kapiolani Road. And it was concern about traffic generally in that area. And what the, there was testimony from Ki Emler EXHIBIT A 10 on behalf of the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works. And what he testified was that applying the Countys criteria and applying the criteria from the National Institute of Traffic Engineers. The proposed traffic generated by the elementary school did not even meet the requirements to ask for a Traffic Impact Analysis. In other words, it didnt even raise to the level. They say that 150 vehicles at peek time, an increase of 150 vehicles at peek times is what would warrant a traffic study. And that this is significantly less than that. That the traffic generated by 90 students or by 120 students was significantly less than the amount required to even, under the warrants used by the County, to even ask for a traffic impact analysis. And so, you know based on that there was a finding that there would not be a significant adverse impact. Now remember schools, you know school traffic is 20 minutes in the morning, 20 minutes in the afternoon, maybe a half hour. Its a 180 days a year out of 365 days. And so its, so I think it you know it has to be gauged in some perspective in terms of what the actual impact is and it has to be gauged to some perspective of what the benefit to the community is of having quality educational opportunities in the community. I mean, if youre concerned about, about communitydevelopment,educationisacornerstoneofcommunitydevelopment.And elementary education is a foundation for quality education so-. And Ive been in a lot of proceedings before this commission and this is one where, where what we are talking about, where the project under consideration is an elementary school. By a well known, well respected and, educational institution that has been in this community a long time. And so we just ask that the hearings officers recommendations be accepted and that Parker School be allowed to proceed with development of this school. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Vitousek. Commissioners any questions of Mr. Vitousek? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Im wondering whether you could clarify the question I had asked earlier about the Waimea Trails and Greenways? VITOUSEK:Yes I can. SIRACUSA:Where it would be located on our map here? VITOUSEK:Sure. Our exhibit M, let me see-. SIRACUSA:While youre looking for it the letter from Lynn Taylor makes a statement, I dont know if shes here today or not. That traffic congestion at Parker School is already a major problem even without the planned expansion and then she goes onto say, the trail has the potential of somewhat alleviating this problem. Do you have any idea about how, what she meant by that and how she foresaw the trail as being an alleviating mechanism? VITOUSEK:Yes I can. Mr. Chair I dont know how best to address this. I dont know that the Commissioners have copies of the exhibits but may I approach Commissioner Siracusa and show her a copy of exhibit M? GALDONES:Yes you may. EXHIBIT A 11 VITOUSEK:Madam Commissioner this is the map that is the Waimea Trails and Greenways map and if I may, this is Parker School right there. And so, what this map is showing is that Parker School is going to make available across its land this segment of the trail. SIRACUSA:This dark line? VITOUSEK:The dark line is the trail. SIRACUSA:Represents the trail. VITOUSEK:Thats correct. SIRACUSA:Okay. VITOUSEK:AndsowhatIthinkshesreferringtois,youcanseethetrailconnects residential communities on both sides of Parker School. It goes out to Kuhio Village here which is the Hawaiian Homelands community. WOODELL:Show on the map there? VITOUSEK:Sure. Excuse me, Ill try to show it on the map. HAYASHI:Mr. Vitousek is referring to their exhibit M. VITOUSEK:Thats correct. I dont know how to fix it up. Commissioner Siracusa so I think that if you see on exhibit M where that, where that trail is located. That trail currently does not exist. And so what the plan is, is for that trail to link different residential communities on either side of the urban core of Waimea so the kids could ride their bikes or walk to school. In other words so kids would not have to, I mean it would be open for general use but so that, that kids would have the opportunity of walking to school or riding their bicycles to school and not be on the highway. And so, that, the idea there is that by creating bike paths and walking trails that would reduce traffic because people could walk or ride their bikes to school. SIRACUSA:Okay I get it. Thank you for clarifying that, that statement. I had another question and that was in the intervenors exceptions, number 2, under thats, this is the request for oral argument. It states that the applicant, Parker School, has undertaken construction without a permit on part of the 12 acre parcel outside the proposed use permit location. Would you care to address that statement please? VITOUSEK:If its okay Commissioner, if its okay with the Chair I will ask Mr. Sturges to address that because he is the CEO of Parker School and is better able to (inaudible) directly. GALDONES:Proceed. EXHIBIT A 12 STURGES:I believe that refers to our preparing a playing field for the lower school students in the pasture land. Theres no construction of any buildings involved. Use of Ag land for a playing field is allowed in the County code without any kind of a use permit. And it involves using a flat pasture land, mowing it over and in some cases smoothing it out so the kids will have a place to play. Were a little crowded on the main campus. There is no construction of any kind going on in the pasture land. It did not require a grading permit because of the size of the parcel involved. And thats all the-, thats the only thing I could imagine would be described as construction. Someone from the County came out and inspected the site. Actually I had several people from the County come out. The Planning Commission person said that we did not, it was not necessary to get a grading permit. Not Planning Commission, it would have been the, who would issue a grading permit? VITOUSEK:Public works would issue a grading permit. STURGES:Okay,publicworkscameoutanddecidedthatitdidnotrequireagrading permit what we had done. Secondly, somebody from air quality came out and decided that there was no violation of the air quality with the dirt pile that we had in reference to this. And then somebody from water quality, well, there wasnt any water quality issue related to the pasture so. SIRACUSA:Thank you. GALDONES:Seeing that theres-. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Mr. Vitousek, in the course of doing the hearing and all like that and the course of reading all the paperwork we have you know we see that the lawyers kind of spar back and forth about issues and all. And for us here, the Commission, obviously we want to kind of try to distill out whats most important and whats crucial to our decision and all. And clearly, the main point or a main point in all this is the traffic issue. And I know during the hearing Mr. Woodell presented information about surveys that were taken. And the hearings officer accepted the surveys but apparently granted them less than full weight that would be there if it was done by a traffic engineer. And there have been you know, correspondence or comments back and forth about the validity and whatever those. So what Im getting at is I read those traffic assessments provided by the intervenor as sort of a background baseline for people who are not familiar with the area. Most of the people on the Planning Commission to get a sense of you know what is the general traffic in that area. And if, if they were to say like roughly maybe 1 car every 60 seconds, I never heard anywhere from you folks on the applicant side saying that no thats way too much or no thats way too little. And I never heard anybody say, well if it was less than that it would be less of a problem. If it was more than that, it would be more of a problems. So anyway, I dont see that theres any real issue with that. I see that as a rough representation of information for the Planning Commission to understand the regular traffic that now is in the area. Is there something Im missing there? Is there some other part of that issue that makes it important beyond what I just said? VITOUSEK:No and I recall that you were at the hearing at least part of the time. And we did not object to the data from their traffic studies coming in. What we objected to is the fact that they included a number of statements that were purported to be given by pedestrians during EXHIBIT A 13 the survey time. So, yes, I mean I think that-. And the fact is all that information did come into the record. In other words, we objected but it all came into the record and so it should be considered and it should be given whatever weight the commission feels is appropriate. You know and youre correct in pointing out that at the most, at the times when there was most traffic shown in those studies there was about 1 car every minute that went by. And you know we could, we could take the time here and see how long a minute is but you know 1 car every minute is not a lot of traffic. So, thank you. GALDONES:Seeing that theres no further question. Mr. Woodell I have a question for you before I call upon you. Will you be calling upon Diana Mahaney, Lynn Stimler and Janine Packet as your witnesses? WOODELL:Well they-. GALDONES:CouldyouspeakinthemikeMr.Woodell?Thankyou. WOODELL:Ibelievethattheywantedtogivepublictestimony. GALDONES:Okaysoyouwillnotbepresentingthemasawitness? WOODELL:No. GALDONES:Okay so then I will call upon you Mr. Woodell at this time. WOODELL:Thank you. I gave you a whole bunch of testimony and Im going to try to distill it as much as possible. You know when-. LEITHEAD-TODD:Mr. Galdones I have a general objection that I want to put on the record. GALDONES:Ms. Leithead-Todd? LEITHEAD-TODD:We conducted a hearing at which time evidence was submitted by all the parties. We had a hearings officer. That hearing concluded. When we come here were basically supposed to be looking at the evidence that was presented at the hearing and not additional evidence that's presented here today. I understood that we would come and we would have oral argument. I was surprised by the submissions of Mr. Woodell of additional testimony at todays hearing. So I would like to know whether the chair is going to allow the introduction of that testimony in addition to whatever oral statements Mr. Woodell would have. And while the County doesnt have anything else that we would want to introduce, if you are going to allow Mr. Woodell to submit additional testimony then I would suggest that the applicant should also be given an opportunity. Because I think that they came here believing that there wouldnt be any additional testimony and just what was at the hearing. Thank you. GALDONES:Well thank you for those remarks Ms. Leithead-Todd. If the Chair has his way the Chair would grant your wishes because the process of the contested-case hearing should have been the process and the avenue for all testimonies to be presented. However Im going to EXHIBIT A 14 rely on counsel to give us some guidance here. So, I want to make sure that everybody has proper opportunity and also this is handled properly. WATANABE:Yeah. TORIGOE:Thank you Mr. Chairman. I see Mr. Vitousek has some remarks maybe you could allow to? VITOUSEK:Yeah, I share Ms. Leithead-Todds concerns but I think if counsel for intervenor would characterize his presentation as argument instead of testimony I think it, thats what were here for is argument. And most of what I looked at what he submitted although its called testimony, most of it is argument and most of it refers to exhibits already in the record. And so I just you know I tried to suggest to Mr. Woodell that he, that he characterize it as argument and not evidence and that way it would be exactly what were supposed to be doing today.So,thatsmystatement. LEITHEAD-TODD:Mr.GaldonesI-. VITOUSEK:Sorry,Ishouldalsopointoutthattheresaspecificdisciplinaryrulethat prevents an attorney from being a witness on behalf of their client. You know theres this specific rule that says if youre acting in a proceeding as an advocate for a party you are not to be a witness on behalf of the party because it confuses the roles of witness and advocate. LEITHEAD-TODD:Mr. Galdones the other I guess question I have is before we proceed further is because your plan was to have us talk about the hearings officers recommendations and exceptions first and then allow public testimony and I note from the list of people that have signed up for public testimony that some of them were witness, were supposed to have been witnesses at the contested case hearing who were unavailable that day. If they are going to speak as public witnesses and their testimony or their address to the Commission becomes part of the record I think in all fairness to both the department as well as the applicant we should be given opportunities if youre going to ask questions of them that we should also be given that opportunity because it essentially is by way of public testimony introducing new evidence. GALDONES:Thank you. Counsel? TORIGOE:Thank you Mr. Chairman. GALDONES:Oh excuse me- Mr. Woodell? WOODELL:Could I say something? You know I actually did this as kind of a hedge because if I was going to be disqualified I have in my briefcase withdrawal of counsel and then I could testify as a public witness. So, you know I mean I, I would be happy to reclassify my testimony as argument because this is what its going to do is raising the issues that we raise when we excepted to the Hearing Officers findings. GALDONES:Mr. Torigoe? Thank you. Mr. Torigoe? EXHIBIT A 15 TORIGOE:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Based on that why dont we do this, what if we go ahead and allow Mr. Woodell to make his argument and if there seems to be an objectionable injection of testimony then the other parties can object how does that sound? GALDONES:Do the parties have any objection to that process? LEITHEAD-TODD:The County has no objection. VITOUSEK:We have no objection to Mr. Woodell offering argument thats what were here for. GALDONES:Mr. Woodell proceed. WOODELL:Iwanttodescribetoyouwhatbothersmeaboutthiscase.Thatis,andits continued on today. Its a continual description of benefits of the school, which we do not deny. I mean I think every school is good. The benefits of the trailways, which presumably are good but certainly I see no, I dont see any connection between the trailways and the trailways has nothing to do that I can see, with the granting of this use permit. Of this permit app-, use permit application. The issue is what the state or the zoning ordinance says about use permits. And the issue is its on paragraph 2 of 25-2-55; the granting of the proposed use shall not be determined detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial adverse impact to the communitys character to the surrounding properties. And there-, I cannot find anything in the ordinances that says if the special good, especially good well if youre going grant trailways that you can have, that theres a different, theres a different standard. The standard is really, you know its very cryptic and very clear and you know with all due respect to your planning director I heard him discuss with you whether the hearings officer should be brought here for this hearing and he said well this is all at your discretion. But this isnt discretionary. You know its absolutely clear that if the applicant cannot show that there is no substantial adverse impact to the communitys character or to the surrounding properties legally you cannot grant this permit. And my concern you know, Im sure that the hearings officer was a very-. I assume shes a very, I think she is, Ive heard shes a very capable lawyer. But, she bought hook, line and sinker this argument about well; we need to have schools. You know and this school is good and they brought all these high maka maks in to tell her how good this school was and how important it was. But that is not the issue. You know the issue is traffic. Lets talk about what we have on the table for traffic. You know the neighborhood did this amateur survey. And all we did, you know its very clear the hearings officer did not include any of the, she very clearly dis-, did not include any of the statements that were taken. But what she did do, what she did do was admit the numbers, we counted and thats all we were trying to do really was just count. How many pedestrians, how many, what was the traffic? And we submitted that and she accepted it. But she gave, but in her hearing she said well she gave it little weight. Now what else was what other traffic information was there? You know you see in my exhibit, the exhibit, the exhibit where the witness was, that the applicant submitted all their list of witnesses and its in here as exhibits. And their, their, their list of exhibits showed. Theres exhibit O in their list of exhibits. This is, Im looking at, my exhibit 13. This is their, the applicants list of exhibits. And number O is traffic data for Waimea and under O says this exhibit will be submitted when its available. Thats the extent of EXHIBIT A 16 their submission. Lets talk about Mr. Emler. You know, the frustrating thing about it, Mr. Emler was talking about this traffic guideline that they use but we never saw it. Its hard for me to believe that they have one traffic guideline for every situation. I mean lets look at it. If you have a city or a small, a small town or a (inaudible) like Waimea youre going to have entirely different traffic numbers based on the school because some people take the bus. If its a urban community people walk. The other thing it doesnt show, we dont know was, what was the size of the streets? You know youre going to have a lot more impact on a small street or a small country road, which is what were talking about, than you have on a wide street. And this is the problem. The problem is we dont know you know that theres no traffic data except what we submitted. And, you know I dont want to make this too long but I want to, I want to tell you, if you will follow me on, in your map on the, in exhibit 1 in your exhibits. The streets and in, you can just, you can just look at that our map, exhibit 1. Kapiolani Road is 18 to 22 feet of pavement and about 38 feet of right of way. And if you look at our exhibit, our last exhibit 16 youll see what happens when you have a narrow right of way. Because when cars park theres noplaceforthemparktheyparkontheshoulder.Sowheredopedestrianswalk,theywalkin the road and Ill tell you thats where all the pedestrians in this area walk, they walk on the road. Because the sidewalk, theres no sidewalks, theres heavy grass it gets wet, everybody walks on the road. And, the thing that bothers me about this is that the hearings officer totally ignored the fact that traffic is a huge issue. And let me say this, I dont know where you live but if you lived in a place where like the residents of Puuki Street on that pasture side. They live, thats their homes. Theres a nice green pasture next to them and if you dont think that a (inaudible), that a person elementary school with all the traffic that entails doesnt, isnt a substantial adverse impact to the surrounding properties I just cant believe it. It is clearly, clearly adverse impact. A substantial adverse impact. The other thing that this hearings officer totally ignored. And this you know perhaps is more difficult if you dont live there perhaps you cant visualize it. But that block, our community is an area of 4 blocks plus the extension of Hokuula Road. If you look on your exhibit 1 you can see where the 4 roads are and the extension of Hokuula Road. You know some of those, Spencer Road is 12 feet wide in some places. Hokuula Road is 13 in some places, 20 to 18 through other places. No side walks. And let me tell you, this is our community and this community is a walking community. They walk, my wife and my daughter and my grandchild walk that community, that road, that 4-lane, 4 street block everyday practically. And unfortunately with my daughter and my, and granddaughter, and this was, she testified to this. They do it in the early morning, you know and during, between 7 and 8. Tutus house, which is a non-profit in Waimea published a map, they got a grant to publish a walking map. One of the areas of walking in Waimea as, are those 4 streets. Lindsey, Hokuula, Spencer and Kapiolani. So what were saying is, is that this traffic is going to have an adverse impact on the nature of our community. Let me tell you something. You know one of the, you dont know how this community has struggled with this because this community is not against-. This community is not against Parker School having a school there. What this community is really bothered about is you got a, you have a 2.6 acre little parcel here thats carved out and what about the other 10 acres. You know we would think, theres another use permit application on this side that was withdrawn. The whole thing gets more confusing because this isnt owned by Parker School, no this is owned by the Parker land trust. Parker School is a beneficiary of the Parker land trust. We think that from a planning standpoint to have, carve out this little area for a use permit then what happens the next use permit comes up and the community, we gotta go fight that one? And then the next one comes up and we gotta go fight that one. You know thats not good planning. EXHIBIT A 17 What we want is the community wants is a master plan of this whole area. I recognize that you know this, the cards are stacked against us. Weve got the Planning Department against us, hearings officer didnt agree with us but to me good judgement is. The first place I think clearly, clearly the applicant did not meet their burden of showing that theres no substantial adverse impact. But from a, from a judgment standpoint, from your discretionary standpoint what we would like to see you do is deny this application, get this whole area master planned. Lets try and solve some of these traffic problems. You know, youve got, this is Puuki, the residence is right along here, this is the road. Its 40 feet, 45 feet. Theres no reason that you couldnt move the road up if this whole area was master planned. That would make a huge difference of these residences. You know maybe the school could be done in such a way you block some of the noise from the traffic. Theres some real difficult traffic issues. I, you know, theres a possibility perhaps of putting it way down here where the trailways is linking the two schools. But the problem with that is, is the entrance to that is on Lindsey Road and theres a massive traffic (inaudible) problem there too. But you know I said this in the beginning of the thing is thatIdecrythis,thewaythishasbeenhandled.IthinkitsthePlanningDepartmentsfault.I think its the schools fault. I think its our fault for not trying to resolve this thing earlier. But I think for the benefit of this community, and you know I, I dont think this thing is going to go away. And I think for the benefit of the community we need to step back figure out you know this supposedly is the first phase of the school so plan out the school lets figure out the traffic problems. You know we wont get everything we want. Actually we need a sidewalk you know. Because you dont have room. Look at that, look at that exhibit 16. When you, and you know that was taken on a weekend so it doesnt happen all the time but I will tell you that cars park there more and more. And I havent raised the other issue we have, is we have a 40-unit PUD right on the corner of Lindsey Road and Kapiolani Road. The bulldozing is going on right now as I speak, theyre clearing. And that PUD has access on both Lindsey Road and Kapiolani Road. You know the problem is nobody knows. You know theres no evidence to show what, how do we solve this traffic problem? You know and we dont want, you know its bad enough in Waimea, its getting bad enough. Now we dont want another Kona. So, thats all I can say. I know it will be a very difficult decision for you to do this. But Ill tell you I think its the right decision. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners any question of Mr. Woodell? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Mr. Woodell for the, for your use as well as the Commissioners Im trying to refer to Ms. Broders proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law etc. number 51 which relates to traffic. Sure and so the particular sense I want to read to you is that, the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works found that the proposed use would not significantly increase traffic in the area. Okay, I noticed Ms. Broder didnt say that she found that to be the case but she just kind of repeated what she got from the Planning Department at some point and from the Department of Public Works. And what I want to do is just give you my take at this point on that whole thing. And if you feel like thats reasonable just let me know, or if you feel its not reasonable for some reason let me know too. Given the information you all put forth on the traffic survey of like roughly 1 car every minute and given to these short periods of time youre going to have roughly 90 students coming and going some of who may be car pooled and etc. It doesnt seem to me reasonable to say that it would not significantly increase traffic in the area. It seems like it will significantly increase traffic in the area. However for us EXHIBIT A 18 on the Planning Commission to rule on this thing we have a different standard and the standard is what you just said before, is this substantial adverse impact? Not is there a significant increase of traffic. So, for me it seems like yes it will significantly increase traffic even though I see written here that its (inaudible). But the question for me and for the commissioners is to decide whatever degree traffic is increase, is it such as to cause substantial adverse impact or is it such as to unreasonably burden the public agencies to provide roads and streets. Does that sound correct to you? WOODELL:Let me, let me say if the residents of Puuki Road were not there I would say that the increase of traffic going up and down Kapiolani while of some impact and my feeling is that it really adversely affects the community to the extent that the community has a bunch of walkers and taking their dogs and their kids. And also please dont forget theyre probably 10 or 12 children in that neighborhood who walk to Waimea School every day. And they walk down that street also. But you know to me the legal, if I were going to court, I would sayIwouldplantothefactthat90,180tripstimes360.360carsgoingupanddownnexttomy yard, you know and obviously its not 360. Obviously its some lesser amount. The problem is nobody knows what, theyre going to carpool yeah well so you know there are all these plans but nobody knows. But if you have 300, you know Im living at my house and right next to me, weve got some vegetation next to me but right next to me where I had a nice pasture, I got 300, a hundred trips, 200 trips a day going back and forth. You know theyre lining (inaudible) up, they drop the kids off, they go out they peel out into Kapiolani. I mean I dont know what happens but its very, very much of an adverse impact if youre living next on a agriculturally zoned pasture. I mean thats where the, thats where the impact is and you know Im sorry. I didnt make this law. But this is the law and it doesnt say, well a school outweighs you know, having a school which probably, if you weight everything having a school is certainly much more important than a few peoples happiness I guess and their home. But thats not what the law says. You know the laws, this is ag land and these people entitled to have what they have without some kind of, this huge heavy traffic going next to them and thats what I feel is you know if you could move the road over a ways a lot of you know the-. As far as the people on Puuki Street you know I think that that would be a huge relief for them. You know the rest, the rest of it as far as the our pedestrians and our people walking and all these people walking you know Im very concerned about it. I think the community is going to be very severely impacted by it but thats a much closer call I think. Am I answering your question? I mean obviously theres going to be more traffic. GRAHAM:Yeah, obviously yeah. My question was, theres my representation of how I view I decision before me as regards traffic. Was I reasonable, do you feel like thats a reasonable stance for me to have? WOODELL:Absolutely. GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Seeing that theres no further questions. Ms. Leithead-Todd? EXHIBIT A 19 LEITHEAD-TODD:The County supports adoption of the hearings officers Findings of Fact with the addition of the 13 conditions that were suggested by the Planning Department. And if you look at my list, my exceptions, my response to the exceptions. I believe that may be-. Im not sure what document it is on your-. But on my response to the exceptions, on page 9, Ive listed on pages 9, 10, 11 and 12 the 13 conditions that the department requested. And on page 12 we did make the correction that it states that if any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with within a timely fashion the Planning Director may initiate procedures to revoke the permit. The standard that the department applies in reviewing these use permits is the standard of substantial adverse impact. Not whether theres no impact or some impact its whether its substantial. I think its important in looking at some of the information presented to note that you are looking at limited periods of time when you can expect the increased traffic. From your own personal knowledge of schools thats going to be in the morning when children are dropped off and in the afternoon when they are picked up. The evidence in this case also indicated that 40% of the incoming students are related to existing students. The references to theWaimeatrailsandgreenwaysofestablishingapedestrianpathisintheevidenceandpartof the reason its there is that there is anticipated that it will allow for children to be dropped off and walked back and forth between the elementary school and the existing campus. I think if any of you have had experience with children of various ages it makes sense for parents if you have kids going to a school in the same area to pick them all up at one spot. And so, I think that was one of the factors that everyone took into consideration in trying to determine how much of an impact increased traffic would have and that it was somewhat mitigated by the fact that a large percentage of the incoming students are related to existing students. The other factors I think you look at the recommendations of the departments and youre looking at professional engineers who have national standards that they look at. In looking at their years of experience and they made a determination that they did not feel that this was a substantial adverse impact because it didnt even warrant having the traffic impact analysis report done. Its unfortunate that we end up here a lot of times. I think its that people are always afraid of something new coming into the community because theyre afraid that the traffic will impact their lifestyle. Theyre afraid that theyre going to lose what they have. And thats the balancing act that you have to take a look at whether the potential impacts on the existing neighborhood rise to that standard of substantial adverse impact. Unfortunately there isnt a measuring stick in the code that can explicitly tell you what rises to substantial. Obviously in the eyes of some of the residents the proposed use to them is substantial. But I think you have to look at common sense, you have to look at the totality of the circumstances, the totality of the impact here and the limited times of the year and the number of days that this is going to increase traffic. Cause if the standard were that any increase in the traffic is substantial then you would never grant any use permits. So obviously that cant be the standard. The standard has to be substantial and the question for you is whether you agree with the Planning Department, Public Works Department and the hearings officer that the anticipated impacts of this use permit rise to substantial adverse impact. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners any questions of Ms. Leithead-Todd? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes, there was an issue that was raised by Mr. Woodell and its something that has come to my mind in the past. Somehow I was under the impression and correct me if EXHIBIT A 20 Im wrong or clarify how Im wrong, that incremental permitting was frowned upon in the County. That were, you didnt have to implement your whole plan at once but you had to lay it out on the table. Could you clarify that please and how that relates to this. LEITHEAD-TODD:Well, what we have in front of us is just the application for the use permit. There was testimony at the hearing that the property is not owned by Parker School and that in fact the actual owners and Im trying to remember whether its Parker Corporation or Parker Trust may have other plans for that, that may not involve expansion of the school. So when the department has the application what youre dealing with is what is in the application. And all that we have right now is the proposed expansion. I might state that although our conditions has 120 students since the applicant is saying 90 the Department does not have an opposition and in fact feels that the Board could recommend that the use permit be conditioned on 90 students since thats the representation rather than 120. Its just that when the department was making its recommendations its just in knowledge of prior applications that frequently people come in for subsequentalterationsso,totheusepermits,soitwaskindoftryingtofactorinsomepotential growth. But since the applicant is saying that they dont envision going beyond 90 perhaps the commission would like to amend our recommended condition and lower it to 90 cause that would in fact lessen any potential impact cause it would be taking 25% of that 120 away. SIRACUSA:Actually Ms. Leithead-Todd I was thinking along those lines but lowering it down to the 75 that were in the original application. LEITHEAD-TODD:My understanding is they actually have 76 students that started this year so theyre already over that 75. SIRACUSA:Cause I notice that there was only one place. I must admit I never received a copy of your answer to the intervenors comments. I only just now had a chance to browse Commissioner Grahams copy. But I notice that the only thing you really have there to mitigate the traffic problems is the car pooling policy and plan. And, it doesnt seem that any of the other conditions relate to mitigation of traffic problems. And so I see lowering the number of students as one other method that could be employed here. Would you care to comment on that? LEITHEAD-TODD:Well you know we have that condition in there but basically felt that even at 120 students there was not a substantial adverse impact on the neighboring properties and community. I think I need to reiterate that youre talking about traffic between 7 and 8 in the morning and probably between 2 and 3 in the afternoon is the bulk of your traffic. And the fact that a substantial number of these students are siblings. There really isnt that much traffic being generated by this proposed use permit. And its for a very limited period of time during the day, Monday through Friday. It doesnt impact people when theyre walking. If you looked at some of the traffic and pedestrian counts you know theyre talking about people walking at 5 in the evening. Well the school is not going to be generating traffic at 5 in the evening except for the occasional day when youve got some kind of a meeting which theyre representative going to be holding on the main campus so thats not even going to be you know going through there. Im just saying that you have to look at this in terms of when is this generated. And its a short period of time in the morning. A short period of time in the afternoon, Monday through Friday. And its usually the period of time when other people along the road driving to work or taking EXHIBIT A 21 their children to school too. Itd be the same periods of time that people in this community unless their children are walking to Parker School would be on the road taking their kids to HPA or somewhere else. GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have a question for you because I. You know this process has been quite lengthy and weve had a number of continuances. And so if we were to limit it you know on a whim today to 90 and then all of a sudden they needed 10 more students it implies that were going to have to start this process all over again and Im not sure that, that would make a lot of sense. LEITHEAD-TODD:I think you can ask the applicant if they have an objection to limiting it to 90 because thats their representation that thats the maximum growth. Theyre planning their classroomsizesonthat.We,thereason120wasthere,weweretryingtobuildinthepotentialof them having to come back in. So if you limit to 90 then if they want to go above 90 then they have to come in and get an amendment to the, and start it all over again. And I think you can ask them whether they can, theyre comfortable with 90. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I wanted to follow up on Commissioner Siracusas original question relating to sequential segmentation of the development of this property. And maybe the Planning Director could respond if that would be appropriate. We right before us now have a particular use permit application which were going to act upon but the intervenor and other correspondence weve got does have concern about the long term plans here so it is certainly possible that if our standard you know is substantial adverse impact and over the next so many years lets say theres 3 or 4 of these ones maybe each one on its own we might deem to have substantial adverse impact but if you looked at them all clearly they would. So what Im wondering is, aside from us dealing with this one particular use permit before us at the moment, what can the Planning Department do to address that issue? Thank you. YUEN:In general we would prefer to see a master plan and an overall permit for the area. Unfortunately theres a reality of how the governing structure is set up for the school and the trust that makes it not possible for them to do this. Ive had this discussion with them. The 12-acre site is, Im going to get the names wrong. But there was originally a Parker School Trust that was set up by Richard Smart to establish the Parker School and it had certain assets put in front of it. At some point several years ago this Parker School trust was split into, essentially split into 2 entities. One entity controls the assets and the other entity runs the school. The school then does not have control over the whole 12-acre site. In wanting to expand the school the school board goes to the trust, the entity holding asset and says please release some of the land for us to use because we want to expand our school program. And in this case the trust has released the property to them. The school has not been able to, because of the split in authority the school has not been able to prepare a master plan that they can say-. That they can say the uses this has not been able to master plan this 12-acre site. They can give you a better explanation of this than I can. I accept that as an explanation for why they cant give us a master EXHIBIT A 22 plan. Given, so theyve come to us with this elementary school site. We, despite the fact that as I say we would rather see a master plan they have a right to apply for it. And, theyve presented what we think is a reasonable proposal that makes sense in itself, does not tie the Commissions hands in deciding on a future expansion or a future application for the same site. So, weve taken it through and were making this positive recommendation. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Im looking at page 3 of the County of Hawaii Planning Directors response to the intervenors exceptions. On the first paragraph, the discussion of Mr. Emlers testimony that the threshold for requiring a TIAR was 150 students. Is that regardless of road conditions or do those circumstances play into that number triggering a TIAR? LEITHEAD-TODD:My understanding of Mr. Emlers testimony was that it was based on numberofstudentsandnotontheroadcondition. SPRINGER:Thankyou.MayIcontinue? GALDONES:Proceed. SPRINGER:Lookingintoourbackgroundreporttheresaclearindicationthatthere will be on site parking and drop off is that accurate? That there would not be a loading on the shoulders of the adjacent road? LEITHEAD-TODD:Yeah, and I think theres also an agreement that they wont use Puuki Road which is that-. Cause there, theres that, I think if you look at that map you see that theres this kind of street that goes in and theres some residences in there so theres-. Yeah on the back that Puuki Road that they wont use Puuki to drop kids off because theres, cause that Puuki actually goes to the back of the existing campus but because of the concern over the residences and the driveways on Puuki instead they would come-. Some kids would probably be dropped off in front on the existing campus and walk because you know if youve got kids, multiple kids you drop them off one place. But some kids would come in the back and thered be a roundabout there and you drop them off. SPRINGER:So although those circumstances are not listed as conditions there will be no off site parking or drop off? LEITHEAD-TODD:I think you need to ask the applicant. GALDONES:Would you like Mr. Vitousek to answer that question? SPRINGER:May we at this time? GALDONES:Sure. EXHIBIT A 23 VITOUSEK:Thank you. There are a couple of points one was Dr. Sturges has indicated that Parker School would not object if the 120 number was reduced to 90 so that you know, thats okay. I mean the reason it was there is to allow for some reasonable expansion but in understanding of the concerns expressed and the schools plans thats an acceptable limitation. The other issues, the, I think theres a question about the Waimea greenways and trail and proposed condition 10 in the Planning Departments recommendation is that Parker School will provide an easement for the trailway. So there is a direct connection between the application and furthering the trailway. The other thing that wasnt mentioned Commissioner Springer is that Parker School has staggered the start times of their different divisions. So the lower school, middle school and high school start 15 minutes apart. And thats something theyve already, theyve already done and is already been a mitigation measure to spread out the drop off and pick up traffic. The other, and then you would have no objection to that being a condition because thats something theyre doing anyway, theyre already doing. They are already drafting the carpooling policy thats already in effect. Of the kids that are in the school this year, 30% of thekidsinelementaryschoolhavesiblingsinupperschool.Inotherwords,so30%ofthekids those cars are going to Parker School anyway already so. You know Parker School did meet with the community and did try to identify mitigation measures with respect to the traffic issues and has no objection to those specific measures being incorporated as conditions in the permit. And has no objection to the proposed 13 conditions that are already on the proposed decision. Thank you. Did I answer your question? SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, question for Mr. Vitousek. The, okay, currently the elementary school is occupied with 76 students I believe and theyre on the main campus now. VITOUSEK:Thats correct. MCCALL:So with the exception of the impact on Kapiolani Road, the impact on Lindsey Road occurring to the extent of say 79%. VITOUSEK:Thats correct Commissioner McCall. In fact, the impact on Lindsey Road and the impact on Kawaihae Road and the impact on the intersection of Mamalahoa and Kawaihae will be unchanged by this project. In other words, these kids are going to go to school somewhere in Waimea. Theyre either going to go to Waimea Elementary or HPA or Parker School or Country school and so you know what this school is doing is meeting an existing demand for kids and is not increasing the regional traffic issues at all. There will be temporary impacts on Kapiolani Road during the 20 minutes in the morning and 20 minutes in the afternoon when kids are being dropped off and people who walk on there, who walk their dogs and walk themselves on the road may have to change their schedules a little bit if they want to avoid that traffic. In other words they may have to go a little bit earlier or a little bit later and then theyll have the exact same conditions they have now. And so, you know I think thats a factor that figures into whats substantial and whats not substantial. And if you have to wait another œ EXHIBIT A 24 hour before walking your dog in order for a new school to be created in the community that may be the kind of balance. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I have a procedural question. Were talking about the use permit for this small amount of acreage of the total parcel. And so theres always a possibility that another plan might be decided for the rest of the acreage and it will come before us as another special use permit. So at, where do we draw the base line of impacts if theres a future use permit application. How do we count cumulativeness? Is that a word cumulativeness? Do we start from today before we approve this and use todays standard as a baseline or do we wait until after the elementary school is here and then count that as the new baseline to determine impacts for future use. Im not sure who I should be asking this question of, would it be the Director or somebody else? GALDONES:Ms. Leithead-Todd would you like to address that? LEITHEAD-TODD:I think the Director would be the best one. YUEN:When you talk, theres a different, the ordinance talks about 2 different things.Oneischangeinthecharacterofthecommunity,substantialchangetothecharacterof the community. And the other one is substantial adverse impact. The change in the character of the community has to take into account what has happened. So, in that respect if this elementary school does go in and 10 years from now there is a request to put some other kind of facility there you have to include the elementary school as part of the baseline in what is the character of the area. I do look at though, at the character of the community as being a broader concept than just the people who live on the street next to it. Thats, I dont think that you would say that just changing the-, just changing what its like to be on one house or 2 houses is whats meant by changing the character of the community. So, I think in response to your question on what is the baseline? Yes if they, if they did come in for an expansion in some years time looking at this question of change in a character of the community, yes you would take into account the fact that this elementary school is there as part of your baseline. Substantial adverse impact, at a certain point you, at a certain point the kinds of things that were talking about here in terms of how bad is it to have more cars come by your area thats, thats a cumulative thing. And in that respect I dont, its a little different than saying, for that part I think its a little different than saying what, that some change, some small change may be-. Well let me start over. You would look at the cumulative effect if you added another project and you might say that is too much. We, our recommendation here is that having the number of cars involved in a 90 student elementary school and staff impacting Kapiolani Road for this distance of a few hundred feet from the Lindsey intersection which is really all theyre talking about is not a substantial adverse impact. If somebody comes in, if they come in, in a few years time with another few grades that move here and you have another hundred cars youre going to have to look at that all over again. And you may say well a hundred students wasnt substantial adverse but 200 is. Were not faced with that right now but thats-, you would, you would look at it at that time and you would take into account well theres a hundred and now theres going to be 200. Then the commission may say well 200 is too many at that time. So, it doesnt lock you in to approving and a further expansion EXHIBIT A 25 of the school on this site. Im not saying that it would be bad but your action today does not lock you into approving something in the future. SIRACUSA:May I? GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah so if we say that right now their traffic count showed an average of say 1 car every minute and then in 5 or 10 years they want to expand the school and take on more students or whatever for example and theyre saying that theyre going to bring in another 150 students for example. All right this is all problematic of course. And you say well you know like when we first approved it, it was 1 car every 60 minutes after you put in your elementary school the frequency went up to 1 car every 45 seconds for example. And now you want to make it 1 car every 30 seconds. Do you start counting from before they put in the elementaryschool.Doyoustartcountingthe1carevery60secondsthewaywehavenowwas submitted into evidence at the hearing, at the contested case hearing. Or are they going to start counting from when its a hundred and you know. YUEN:There are 2 parts to traffic. One is the, well there were Id say 3 parts. One is safety. Theyre all related. One is safety. One is congestion and the other is what you would call a psychological sense of not wanting to have more traffic by your place. And all 3 are legitimate. And they are 3 different things. SIRACUSA:Theres 4 things. YUEN:What other thing can you think of? SIRACUSA:Noise and air quality. YUEN:Yeah. Those I count in number 3. You know the idea of not having more cars go by your place all right? And what I want to say about them being separate is the TIAR and a lot of the studies that youll see really relate more to the sense of congestion. At what point do you have trouble making turns out of a place? You start to have cars back up. You start to have people because of waiting a long time to make turns they get desperate and they do unsafe things. And so you have these traffic studies that are meant to analyze congestion. The engineers say well something of this size you dont, youre not going to trigger congestion so were not going to have a study. And I think even intuitively we can all understand that a school, the kinds of traffic were talking about is not a congestion issue on this side road. As Mr. Vitousek said on the Waimea wide level and even on the Lindsey Road level this school does not increase traffic. Its just on Kapiolani. So, its not a congestion issue. We, you look at pictures we think its not a safety issue at this level of traffic. It is a level, its this level of, it becomes, if youre on this short stretch of Kapiolani again between the Lindsey-. Could you pull up the other map, yeah pull that up here. This is Lindsey, this is the big intersection, this is Lindsey Road. This is where you turn down to go down to Kawaihae. This is the existing school. This is Kapiolani. This is Puuki Road here and this is where the elementary school will go here. So the only, the increase in, the actual increase in traffic were talking about is in this block from this EXHIBIT A 26 intersection of Kapiolani Road and Lindsey Road to this point here. Thats all the school traffic is doing is coming down this road, turning down in here, coming back up and turning back out. So, the question is, does that have a substantial adverse impact on people. The most affected people would be those who live along Kapiolani Road. As you go down into the school the people along Puuki are going to have a road, they will have this driveway that, behind their houses that cars are going in and out of. And I dont want to make light of this, those are impacts but the question you know in our judgement thats not a substantial adverse impact. And its ultimately up to the discretion of the commission to decide whether theres a substantial adverse impact. But on this question of what, at a certain point yes, having cars go back and forth is a substantial adverse impact on your neighborhood. So, and at that point you will have to judge what, at what point that is and it may be you know some level certainly would rise to that. And when that number comes to the commission then the commission has to decide that based on how many its going to be not, not just compared to anytime in the past but you look at it and you say thats too much. We think thats too much to expect for people in a neighborhood. GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Can I follow-up on that though? Because you know I think part of the confusionarisesfromthefactthatthecurrentzoningisagricultural,howeveritisdesignated within the general plan as medium density urban, which implies that youre going to have significantly more building thats going to come up. I assume though in that process that were also going to look at some of the concerns that the intervenor has raised such as you know the width of the road or sidewalks like that. But I think that would come in time or am I assuming too much here? YUEN:If there were a rezone yes it would, as weve done in the past there would be recommendations on improving the road to a higher usage on a rezoning, yes. WATANABE:Yeah, Im not trying to raise any red flags here. But you know for, when youre looking at this type of scale its to me unreasonable to say you know you have to widen the road or put in sidewalks or anything like that. For a project this size yeah. YUEN:Theres another element here is that there is this Waimea, theres a Waimea design plan that discourages sidewalks in the residential areas. So you have this sort of catch on this where do you want to, you want to put in sidewalks. So or you just leave it grassy. And for aesthetic reasons there is this comment in the design plan. I dont know that they wanted every neighborhood not to have a sidewalk but, and you have sidewalks on the main streets. But there, and say Lindsey Road going into the shopping center for example. But there is this design plan that talks about sidewalks. But, what I just showed you on the picture, this you know this area is getting built up here. This was zoned residential and it is getting built up to 40 houses. Theres going to be a 40 house planned unit development in this area here. This here is currently zoned agricultural. This is the Mormon Church. And if there were, if somebody were to come in for a rezone you know in this general area yes we would look at some improvements to the road most likely. EXHIBIT A 27 GALDONES:Commissioners if theres no objection I would like to call for a short recess. RECESSED:The chair called for a recess at 11:17 a.m. RECONVENED:The meeting reconvened at 11:31 a.m. GALDONES:Will the Hawaii County Planning Commission be back in order? Commissioners are there any further questions of the parties? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:To the Director, was that design plan that you referred to adopted as an ordinance? YUEN:No, I believe its, its definitely not an ordinance. I think it was a Council resolution. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Seeing no further questions. I would like to dismiss the parties at this moment in time. I will be calling on the public who will be testifying and thereafter call upon the parties for closing remarks then decision-making. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Thanks I just wanted to see if it would be appropriate to request that the testimony be brief and to the point and not redundant or repetitive. GALDONES:So ordered. VITOUSEK:Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:On behalf of the applicant just put on the record our objection to admitting testimonyfromindividualswhoarelistedaswitnessesinthecontestedcasehearingwhodidnot appear at the contested case hearing. In other words they, you know they were listed as witnessestheywerentavailableatthetimeandIthinkthatIobjecttotheefforttosupplement the record of a contested case hearing proceeding through public testimony. I just want to be on therecordwiththatobjection. GALDONES:Counseldowe,doweneedtoactonitorjustreceivethat? TORIGOE:Wellyoucan,youcanaskpartiesiftheyhaveanyotherresponsetothat. I have to tell you though that under your rules you have to afford all interested persons an opportunity to present testimony on the matter. But you can reasonably limit the testimony as to time and exclude anything thats irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitive. But you do have an obligation under your rules to allow all interested persons an opportunity to present testimony. I think if theres something objectionable then the parties can jump up and then object. EXHIBIT A 28 VITOUSEK:Okay and then Im sorry Mr. Chairman I would also say that if a witness is testifying and if their testimony is going to be included in the record of the hearing we are entitled to cross examine under the rules. And so, we may request that opportunity. TORIGOE:I think yeah you can make the request and well have to just let the Chairperson rule on how far to let that go if at all. VITOUSEK:Thank you Mr. Chair. GALDONES:Thank you. I would like to call upon Lynn Stimler who will be testifying first. Followed by Marc Boucher, Diana Mahaney and Janine Packett. Could you please, those of you please come forward. I would have you sworn in first. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GALDONES:Okay. Well start the testimony with Lynn Stimler. Please state your name,residenceaddressandbeginyourtestimony.Howeverbeforeallthetestifiersbeginyour testimony as indicated earlier you have heard, were trying to give everybody a chance to be able to be heard. However were trying to make this as expeditiously as possible and we need your cooperation to keep your testimony to the point. Any testimony that has already been presented if you would not repeat that we would appreciate that also. And I will be limiting your testimony to 3 minutes. So Ms. Stimler. STIMLER:My name is Lynn Stimler. I live at 65-1222 Puuki Street. My house is the very last house at the end of Puuki Street on the field side and the proposed school will be directly in front of my windows okay. Dr. Sturges came over and showed me where the school would be. I want to reiterate, I testified once before you. I am 100% for the school. I am not here for the intervenor I am here as a concerned citizen but I really support the school there. I trust the Planning commission to place conditions on Parker School that will assure that we dont have a substantial adverse impact. And I want to suggest 3 conditions that I think would lower the possibility of having a substantial adverse impact. The first thing that Im concerned about is part of the bigger picture that were only talking about the small acreage and that the acreage thats been picked really substantially impacts Puuki Street more than anyone else. Just the luck of the draw thats the way it is. One of the things Ive realized is this year is different. There is more impact to my home and my children and I. Theyre 7 and 8. They go to another school. We used to walk to school and Im really surprised by that and I want to talk about what I think is happening. My biggest concern is the 40 feet out that Parker School is being allowed for their driveway access. Im very concerned that whats going to happen on Kapiolani is its only 3 car lengths from the end of Puuki Street to the beginning of the 40-foot driveway access. Does that make sense to everybody, it looks like its about 3 car lengths. Theres also a driveway that you dont see on Kapiolani. So between Puuki Street and the new, the proposed access theres a driveway coming out on Kapiolani thats about 1 car length from Puuki. And across the street between Kapiolani and Puuki Street is going to be the entrance to the 40 houses that Tinguely is proposing. See what I am worried about happening is, if it backs up at all on Kapiolani, Puuki EXHIBIT A 29 Street, we wont be able to leave. I need to take my kids to school at 7 oclock, at 7:30 between 8. Im worried were actually going to not have access. Im also worried that when people turn around Tinguelys going to be coming out. So theyre going to get backed up that way because thats exactly where on Lindsey between, between Lindsey and between Puuki its where those 40 houses are coming out on Kapiolani. Am I making sense? GALDONES:Ms. Stimler? STIMLER:Some people are going-. Yeah, so Im going to be quick. GALDONES:Ill give you 30 seconds to bring it to a close please. STIMLER:All right so I think that the driveway needs to go off. Right now Parker School the faculty is parking on Puuki Street. Theres up to 5 or 6 cars. Dr. Sturges has been stellarabouttryingtokeepdropofffromhappening.Itstillhappens.Imconcernedaboutthat. I have 2 other things just personally that I think I need is number 1 the kids were running track out on the ag field earlier this year and they were looking into my windows. Id really like help making sure a condition is to have a good privacy screen. When they did grade a field there was a lot of dust, they fixed it right away, but I want to make sure that theres a screen. The other thing is lights are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You know theyre all year long at night. My bedroom windows, my house, looks right out on the school and Im concerned about lighting, privacy screen and getting out of Puuki Street. But again, I want to say one more thing, I really support the school. I have a question and Ill leave is that if the school wants to go from 90 to 120 kids next September. Say the Planning Commission says only 90 people, what is the process, how do they get another 120. I mean I think its reasonable in Waimea were going to need more school slots. What I would like to better understand as a citizen how simple it is or difficult it is for them to go from 90 to 120 after you tell them only 90. Thanks. GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioners any question of Ms. Stimler? Hearing none, thank you. Mr. Boucher? BOUCHER:Boucher (pronounced Boo-shay). GALDONES:Boucher. Could you please state your name, residence address and you may begin your testimony. BOUCHER:Yes, my name is Marc Boucher. My address is 65-1146 Spencer Road. And, my purpose is to kind of give you some background on the character of the area that were talking about cause often you dont really see what roads are and whose living where and what it looks like. So Ive prepared a very fast power point presentation to show you whats going on. Can everybody see this? Okay cool. Basically Im going to kind of just go through it real quick. This is a map of our area, which youve already seen. Parker School existing campus is here, this is the proposed total area. This is the general area of the 40-acre subdivision coming in. Theyre going to be exiting on Kapiolani on that subdivision and theyre going to be exiting on Lindsey Road right here. That will make a substantial cumulative traffic impact for the area. I know this one project for Parker School will have a certain traffic impact that would be EXHIBIT A 30 cumulative. This is what we have to consider is how the entire picture looks not just on specifics when it comes to traffic. I am a 24 year resident of Waimea and I teach drivers education there for many Parker School kids and I am thoroughly a proponent of Parker School growing. Its just growth has to be done the correct way, which is what you commissioners are good at doing making sure it does do that. What I want to point out is just what the place looks like. What were going to do is were going to take a little walk very quickly around from Kapiolani to Spencer, Hokuula and back to where we started to see the area that were looking at. Okay, this is the road that starts from Lindsey across from the park and this is the Kapiolani Road entrance right here okay. And this is further down looking towards Lindsey Road towards Kawaihae Road this side. Okay, it starts the entrance to Kapiolani Road. As you take that entrance there is a very tight turn here with a large hedge. As you can see pedestrians cannot be seen with that turn its very, very, a tough turn to make. I have a tough time with my drivers ed. students, they would have to come to almost a complete stop to do it. So this is now the entrance from Lindsey Road going down Kapiolani. This area right here thats now a grassy area is now currently being clearedforthe40-acresubdivision.Youcankindofseeitsrightonthecorneranditsanarrow road. Kapiolani and Puuki Street. This is Puuki Street on the right. Its a dead end street. This is the Parker School campus and some students that are performing some calisthenics on Puuki Street. It is, right now-. STIMLER:Thats my driveway. BOUCHER:Thats your driveway. Thats a picture taken from Lynns driveway right now. Okay as we proceed down Kapiolani Road and still know the area right on the right is the border of the entire Parker School parcel. Its not necessarily the part that theyre thinking about building on now. GALDONES:Mr. Boucher, 30 seconds please. BOUCHER:Thank you. So as we go down, we get to Kapiolani and Spencer Road turn, you know the blind turn towards Spencer Road as you come up again 20 miles per hour a very sharp blind turn very dangerous. This is the blind turn after youve completed down to Hokuula. A car trying to navigate that turn cannot see whats on the other side. And then as we proceed down Hokuula we get a lot of cars parked on the side of the side of the road feeding driveways from other, from other large homes that are built on larger parcels there. As you get to Hokuula then back down to Lindsey another blind turn, another place where I have a tough time with my driver ed. students and then Lindsey Road. So you can see right here that there is a construction area thats now being cleared as of a day ago and this is the parcel for Parker School that theyve now begun to clear for their field. This is the front portion of the area that they have that theyre going to build on. A very large parcel cleared and what I would like to see is a traffic impact assessment, an internal traffic plan and a long-range development plan for the area okay. Thank you very much Commissioners for your time. GALDONES:Thanks for your cooperation Mr. Boucher. Commissioners any questions of Mr. Boucher? Hearing none? VITOUSEK:Excuse me could I request to ask a question of cross-examination? EXHIBIT A 31 GALDONES:Yes Mr. Vitousek-. VITOUSEK:It will be very brief. GALDONES:I appreciate if you could keep it brief thank you. VITOUSEK:Did you say your address was 65-1146? BOUCHER:Yes. VITOUSEK:And isnt that also Mrs. Copmans address? BOUCHER:Yes. VITOUSEK:And whats your relationship to Mrs. Copman? BOUCHER:Were married. VITOUSEK:Youre married okay. And thats not something you felt you should disclosetothecommissionbeforetestifying? BOUCHER:I would have been happy to answer the questions (inaudible). VITOUSEK:No further questions. BOUCHER:Thank you very much. VITOUSEK:Except that we move to strike the testimony because this should have been offered at the contested case hearing. Hes testifying on behalf of the intervenor and hes trying to offer additional evidence in the record under the guise of being a public witness although hes really you know, testifying on behalf of the intervenor. BOUCHER:Could I answer to that? GALDONES:Could you use the microphone? BOUCHER:Ive been a resident for 24 years in Waimea and I have been living there long before I was married to Linda Copman and Ive made significant investments in the area. And Im not making a testimony; Im just really giving you an idea of the character of the neighborhood. Thats all it is so you can an informed decision. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you. You are? MAHANEY:I am Diana Mahaney. I reside at 65-1236 Puuki Street. Parker School has submitted plans for phase 1 of the expansion but has not presented a comprehensive master site EXHIBIT A 32 plan for the entire parcel, which would allow the neighborhood and community to understand their future plans, provide input and suggest measures to mitigate impacts to the neighborhood. Parker School has not been forthright with their plans for future expansion. A 15,000 square foot public gym, thats the size of KTA or Foodland, an athletic football, soccer field, additional school building shoe horned into this site leading us to feel that the voices of our, of their immediate neighbors do not matter in the schools decision making process. Between August thth 28 and 30 under Headmaster Carl Sturges direction Parker School maintenance men began grading with 2 bulldozers an athletic field at the subject site without a use permit. Please note that this field is not indicated in any shape or form in the contested case. The neighborhood had to contact public works and the planning department to inform them of their illegal activities. Upon County inspection Parker School was told to stop all improvements until the proper use permits could be obtained. The actions of Parker School underscore the attitude they have towards the neighborhood. Parker School has attempted to move ahead with a piece meal improvements for the school with or without County approval and definitely without comprehensive site plan. This is exactly what were afraid of and request that you require Parker School to submit a master plan and traffic study. Waimea neighborhood streets and Community Park now experience the overflow from Parker School faculty, staff, student drivers and visitor cars because there is not enough parking at the school. Add daily and weekend events from the CommunityParkandthe40-unitdevelopmentunderconstructionandyourealizethatwewillbe adversely impacted by this approval of the use permit. To the ignored the concerns of your neighbor is not the way to proceed especially for a school that claims to teach integrity, compassion and excellence to its students. Parker School administration needs to practice their own model and deal with the congested intersection and surrounding neighborhoods with integrity and compassion. My question to the Planning Commission is, is this the best that Parker School can do? If the current plan is approved the entire island will be burdened with additional traffic on 2 lane streets through Waimea. Any other developer on the island would be required to improve the roads before proceeding. Improving intersections, winding roads, adding turn lanes etc. We urge you not to approve the use permit until a comprehensive master plan and traffic study have been reviewed and approved by the community and neighbors. The planning commission has the power to control, accept or reject proposals for the benefit of the community. And I ask you to challenge Parker School and dont perpetuate failure or accept mediocrity. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you for your cooperation. Commissioners are their any questions of Ms. Mahaney? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Yes, Diana I guess its sort of appropriate you give this testimony at this time and I guess my question also goes to Lynn a little bit. Like did you all attend the community meeting that they put forth and also why did you not or did you testify during the contested case hearing which was held there at Parker School? MAHANEY:The contested-. GALDONES:Could you-, Ms. Mahaney speak in the microphone thank you. EXHIBIT A 33 MAHANEY:Excuse me. The contested hearing was held I believe in the middle of July, which is typically vacation month for all of Waimea, everybody leaves either the whole month of July or the whole month of August. And no, I was not available here; I did submit written testimony though. STIMLER:Two answers, one, my children and I were in Vermont when the hearing was held. I asked if I could put written testimony and I was told you had to be present to testify. I did attend the meetings. And I think whats happened this year is just I really, I, I really like Parker School but like the whole thing of the faculty parking on Puuki Street, the kids in the back running. GALDONES:Ms. Stimler are going to add more to your testimony? STIMLER:Those have not-. Those were not here before. Those issues were not here beforetheKthrough5. GALDONES:Ms.StimlerIdappreciateitifyoujustaddressthequestion. STIMLER:IthoughtIwasansweringthequestion,Ithoughtthatswhatyouasked me? That I wasnt here in July and my, I did testify once before this commission and at that time the school hadnt started K through 5. GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Ms. Springer? SPRINGER:May I ask a question of Mr. Yuen as the Planning Director in response to the testimony given by Diane Mahaney? GALDONES:Could you hold it for the closing statement I will be calling the parties back at that time or do you feel compelled that it has to be answered at this time? SPRINGER:Im just seeking your guidance on when it would be proper to ask him a question based on a statement that was made. GALDONES:If you could make note of that, when I call them back if you could ask them at that time? Id appreciate it. SPRINGER:Can do, thank you. GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:Yeah Id like to request a brief opportunity to ask questions of Ms. Mahaney. GALDONES:Proceed. EXHIBIT A 34 VITOUSEK:Ms. Mahaney, your house on Puuki Street is currently for sale isnt that correct? MAHANEY:Thats correct. VITOUSEK:And youre listing it at $939,000 is that correct? MAHANEY:Thats correct. VITOUSEK:And one of the remarks you made in the, or your realtor made in a multiple listing service as to the quality of the school as it is, of the quality of the houses that it is within walking distance from Parker School isnt that correct? MAHANEY:Thatscorrect.Itsasellingpoint. VITOUSEK:Thankyou.And,did,isyourhusbandMarkMahaney? MAHANEY:Thatscorrect. VITOUSEK:Andishethelandscapearchitectforthe40acre-the40-unitprojectthats right across-? MAHANEY:No hes not. VITOUSEK:Okay, did he propose a master plan to Parker School for the develop of this property? MAHANEY:What, what we did as a neighborhood and as a resource for the school because we realized they were limited funds is to make use of the professionals and the surrounding neighborhood. And yes he did come up with a proposed master plan that would actually sell off some residential lots that would increase revenues so that Parker School could go and do a great job versus a piece meal job. The, that master plan shows residents, resident buffer on Kapiolani and Puuki that will be on the same time zone as us. It shows ingress and egress from Kawaihae Road and Mamalahoa Highway and not impacting the neighbors. So there is a way to do it, to shoehorn it into the site you just have to-. Instead of hiring an attorney they should have hired a planner. VITOUSEK:So on your husbands proposal there would be 6 new for sale residential units that would abut on the residential? MAHANEY:Absolutely and land in right now 10,000 sq. ft. lots in Waimea probably would generate maybe 5 to $700,000 per lot. VITOUSEK:Mm. Hm. EXHIBIT A 35 MAHANEY:And increasing capital for them to build and improve that existing site. VITOUSEK:So according to his plan there would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 buildings and a soccer field on the side. MAHANEY:Well thats what we were told at our first initial community meeting where Parker School came and gave us a nice power point presentation. They showed a 15,000 sq. ft. building that they said was going to be a public gym. Thats the size of KTA right behind my house. And yes, you know I thought is that the most appropriate place for it? VITOUSEK:So, you say your, I guess based on this plan your husband submitted you have no objection to 6 new for-sale residential units, 8 new buildings and a soccer field but he does object to the proposed elementary school? MAHANEY:The6unitsarefineiftheresactuallyanotherstreetintherethatgives access to those people. The access to the school is not off of Kapiolani, which is what we liked about that. VITOUSEK:I have no further questions thank you. GALDONES:Mr. Vitousek before you leave in reference to your objection to Mr. Bouchers testimony? The Chair will allow that as public record. VITOUSEK:Thank you. LEITHEAD-TODD:Mr. Chair? We do have to make a correction to Ms. Mahaneys testimony. That the County did not find that the grubbing and grading violated any use, that didnt require a use permit and they were not cited for any violation. Thats my understanding from Mr. Yuen. MAHANEY:Can I respond to that with a e-mail that I received from Bruce McClure Director of Department of Public Works? GALDONES:Proceed. MAHANEY:Hi Mrs. Mahaney. One of our inspectors met with Mr. Sturges at the site of the alleged grubbing violation this afternoon. He determined that the work done to the date, the work done to date, the grading and grubbing immediately behind the newer lower school did not require a permit. He informed them that the school is responsible to clear away brush that was cut down. They also understand that to this point none of the grading and grubbing in the back pasture has necessitated a permit but that going forward from here will. They intend to move, they meaning Parker School, intend to move forward and will be submitting their site plan and application for a grading and grubbing permit for the back pasture playing area fields as soon as they can arrange for an engineer to approve it. Additionally they will look into remedies to alleviate dust. Should you have any questions please give me a call. I appreciate the time you EXHIBIT A 36 took to alert us about the activity in your community. Aloha, Bruce McClure, Director, Department of Public Works. GALDONES:Whats the date of that Ms. Mahaney? th MAHANEY:The date of this is August 30, 2005. GALDONES:Would you, could you provide a copy to the department? Id appreciate it. MAHANEY:Absolutely. GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioners any further questions? If not, Janine Packett? State your name, residence address and you may begin your testimony and appreciate it if you could keep itwithin the 3 minutes? PACKETT:Thank you. Im Janine Packett. My address is 65-1152 Hokuula Road in Waimea. I was contacted by Lynn Taylor from Waimea Trails and Greenways Project to bring to your attentiona letter from the Waimea Trails and Greenways. As a resident of the area, as a bicyclist and a pedestrian whouses this area often perhaps daily for walking one of my concerns has been the quick build-up of Waimea. Its nolonger country up there. And what we have in thisneighborhoodisasituationwherecarsandpedestrianssharetheroad.Wedonthave sidewalks as Mr. Yuen had indicated. Up until very recently it had been the philosophy of Waimea to keep it country. A survey we did this past summer with a grad student from the University of California at Berkley shows overwhelmingly that residents of the Waimea area want sidewalks in certain areas where theres heavy traffic. So, Mr. Yuen I dont know if youre still here, the 1984 plan that said no sidewalks, the Parker Ranch plan of 1993 that said the core area, the business district would not have sidewalks I think needs to be looked at a little more closely in light of the 2005 Waimea. One of the biggest areas of congestion here is going to be pedestrian impact with cars. And Waimea trails and Greenways along with the Waimea Community Development Plan is trying to look at alternatives. The trail that you had asked about earlier would run along Waikoloa stream. You can see the stream as it winds through the proposed elementary school property but it goes along the entire length of the TMK, which is owned by Parker School trust I believe. Dr. Sturges and Randy can correct me on that. While they have said that the school gave permission for a easement, we really need to I think work with Parker School Trust. And, it has potential as a trail to allow parents from Parker School to drop their kids off at say church row and walk down this trail. We can really mitigate a lot of the possible traffic from this school site if we can get first permission to put the trail on this property and second build it. The first stage of the trail will be to the west of Parker School, it is now in the planning stages and I believe the County has released money for this planning. Well still coordinating with I think theres 2 more landowners who have to sign on the dotted line but it looks very, very positive and I think this is going to happen. Parker School Trust and their length of land, its just essential that we get that. And I see this as a huge solution here. And I would if possible like to somehow fold this into the use permit as having County support for both Parker School Trust, Parker School and Waimea Trails and Greenways to sit down and try and finalize this access. Its a solution here and I dont know how much sway the County has but if you have any I encourage you to exercise it. Thank you. EXHIBIT A 37 GALDONES:Thank you Ms. Packett. Commissioners any questions? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Maam you may have address this in your testimony but I just would like to ask you this question for my clarification. Condition 10 of the proposed conditions by the Planning Director indicates that the applicant shall provide an easement on the subject property for the Waimea Trails, uppercase W, uppercase T. Is that insufficient in your opinion? PACKETT:Well, you know Im just a citizen of the community. My understanding is that the Parker School trust and Parker School are a little bit different here. The land is owned by Parker School Trust I understand and the applicant is only applying for use of the sub-portion, I think its listed as 25 on the TMK? So maybe you, youre the answer further else? Im probably not qualified to answer this. From the Waimea Trails and Greenways we see the persontograntaccessisthepropertyowner. GALDONES:CommissionerSpringer? SPRINGER:ShouldIholdanyfollow-upquestionsthatImighthavetotheDirectoron this condition until he comes forward again? GALDONES:Yes please. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you Ms. Packett. I have one other individual who had signed up to testify Louis Copman? Mr. Copman could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? COPMAN:I do. GALDONES:Could you please state your name and your residence address? You may begin your testimony and try to keep it within 3 minutes. Thank you. COPMAN:Im Louis Copman. I live at 65-1771 Makanahele Place in Waikoloa Village. And for Mr. Vitouseks information Im Linda Copmans father but I have been asked to read a letter from a resident of Kapiolani Road in Waimea. Her name is Victoria Missien. She states-. GALDONES:Mr. Copman? Are you going to read it word for word? Because we have already received a copy of that and the Commissioners have had a chance to review it. If you want to highlight, just bring up certain points you may do so. COPMAN:Okay. Yeah, I think the main point is that todays permit application doesnt allude to Parker Schools full design for the Kapiolani parcel but only to a third of it. It is incomplete. From the beginning a clear understanding of what might be developed across the EXHIBIT A 38 full 12-acres has been muddle by the fact that neighborhood informational have been with either the Parker School Board representing the school or the Parker School trust the landowner, never the 2 together. Neighbors attending have been given opposing reports from each entity alleging what the other entity will and wont support. The neighborhood therefore has been left uninformed. A traffic impact statement should be required as it was for the Mormon Church application. The impact on traffic vehicular and pedestrian of the development from pasture to school/leased gym/athletic fields etc. affects more than just the neighboring properties. The Lindsey, Kawaihae corner and recreational users are affected too. Mr. Vitousek said in his argument that the Parker School has been there since 1976. That is true but all the traffic currently generated is on Lindsey Road, which is very broad compared to Kapiolani Road. As you saw from the power point presentation Kapiolani Road is an extremely narrow road with 2 blind curves in entering it and also the turn onto Spencer Road. Right now there is no, virtually no traffic from Parker School generated on Kapiolani Road. There will be traffic generated with the staff and students that are currently anticipated to be attending that school. A total of 90 studentseventually.Therewillbeparkingthere,therewillbemeetingsafterschool,beforeand after school. You all know that a school is more than just traffic, dropping students off and picking students up. GALDONES:Mr. Copman could you bring your statement to a close please? COPMAN:Yes. Ill close right now sir. Im finished. GALDONES:Thank you very much. Mr. Copman hold on. Commissioners are there any questions of Mr. Copman? Hearing none, thank you very much sir. At this time I would like to bring the parties back on the, to the table please. Ms. Springer at this time if you would wish to have your questions directed to Mr. Yuen? SPRINGER:Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Yuen weve heard 2 opinions on the grading. Have you had a chance to review Mr. McClures correspondence and can you give us some enlightenment on it, the issue? YUEN:I saw these e-mails when they were going back and forth and there was a complaint both to the public works department concerning the grading and to our department concerning the use. As far as the Planning Department is concerned, the use of the area as a open-aired ball field is allowed by the current zoning. The current zoning allows neighborhood parks, playgrounds where no structures are enclosed within a building. So that, we did not cite them for anything and that is not a violation for us. I believe what has been read as far as the grading and grubbing issue is correct. They were not cited for anything and theres an extent of grading and grubbing you can do without a permit. If they stay within that then they dont need a permit. SPRINGER:Thank you. I have some other questions. Mr. Director can you compare and contrast this application with the Mormon Church application and why a TIAR was required for that and not for this? EXHIBIT A 39 YUEN:Im not sure but I believe, Id have to go back and take a minute to look at the record on that. I really, I cant answer that, Im not sure what the level of traffic was expected from the Mormon Church. That might have been the reason there were more trips triggered by the churchs use? LEITHEAD-TODD:Having attended that church theres a significant number of people that attend the church. There are funerals that are held that attract hundreds of people to the funerals and then there are being a Mormon Church there are activities that go on, on a 7-day basis also. SPRINGER:Thank you and one more? GALDONES:Proceed. SPRINGER:Im looking now at condition 10, which says that the applicant shall provideaneasementonthesubjectpropertyforWaimeaTrails.Thetrailthencontinueson either side of the property. Should we be taking the trail in its entirety into consideration or limiting our review to the subject property? YUEN:They cant get any more than the property that they control. We, this is a big project within the department. I havent been personally involved in this. The Deputy Director Roy Takemoto has been the one in the department working on this so I dont know that much about the project. Mr. Mooers has been working with Parker as a Planning Consultant. Hes been also working and helping the County on this project. So, its a big, something were trying to do. We wanted to put it in as a condition of this permit for the site that theyre applying for. Theres nothing they can do to help us on the remainder. I know that there have been some issues with some of the other, some property owners. Not so much as not liking it, but as to management type issues. So, this is still something thats in the works. SPRINGER:Thank you. YUEN:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Again for Planning Director Yuen. Ms. Stimler when she gave her testimony about the ingress, egress to the property across the street, you know Im just wondering is it possible that the PUD for the 40-units over there was designed and approved without consideration of the driveway going to the school. And was it possible the driveway going to the school was designed without consideration of the PUD or-. In other words, should we revisit at all the ingress, egress issue from this project as suggested by Ms. Stimler? YUEN:I cant give you any specifics about the PUD. They, (inaudible) so they had a, they had the ability to do a subdivision there. The PUD allowed them to do a subdivision with streets, internally, streets being narrowed and narrower than called for by the subdivision code and also to put a few more units than would have been possible with what you call straight subdivision. But, they did, I cant tell you any specifics about the access off, off of either side road and whether that was taken into account that thered be this school here. Its, they, because EXHIBIT A 40 theyre zoned and they had access to the property theres just been a question of where the access comes in, it wouldnt have been a question of not having it. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? Oh hold on. Commissioner Graham you have a follow up? GRAHAM:Yes. The end part of my question was, should this particular design of this access be revisited because of the other issues. So, do you have a response to that particular question? YUEN:I think whats being described as a situation where people have to, where people turning out of Puuki for example have to be aware of other traffic turning out of other streets. I dont see this. Its a low speed situation. I dont see it as. The way its been described does not strike me as anything terribly unusual. The subdivision does have access to Lindsey Road.So,forIwouldguessformostpeopleinthesubdivisionthatgoingouttoLindseyRoad would be a more direct way to get in and out of the property. GRAHAM:Therefore youre suggesting we do not revisit this? YUEN:No. GRAHAM:Thank you. YUEN:Just, the volumes are not that high. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Thank you. One of our testifiers was complaining about the lights being on all night long and so I would like to direct my question to the Headmaster and ask him if that is the case? And if it is if we could put in a condition whereby the lights would not be on unless there was, the field was actually in use. And at other times the lights would be turned out. STURGES:Im trying to understand the light situation there I mean there are no lights out in the pasture. I can only assume theyre referring to the lights on the existing campus. We would need security lights that would go on where there was movement present, something like that. But, you know I think a lighting plan that took into account the needs of the neighbors would be a reasonable to us. I dont want to say that I can guarantee where we wont have any lights on at night anymore than any other public building would expect some lighting of its area so as not to be a magnet for burglars. SIRACUSA:Can we possibly put in the condition that the, the school would work on a mutually acceptable lighting plan for the property with the community members? VITOUSEK:Excuse me Mr. Chairman may I respond just to one question? GALDONES:Yes Mr. Vitousek. EXHIBIT A 41 VITOUSEK:Commissioner Siracusa, the proposed conditions already require that there be a landscape buffer in between the school and Puuki Street. And the Director can explain this better than I could but what, what he required was a significantly higher level of screening than would ordinarily be required as between an agricultural zoned property and a residential property. And he required the applicant to treat this as a commercial zoned property in terms of the extent of visual buffer they have to create by landscape. So, I think that, what Im trying to say is that I understand your concern but I think that this was already anticipated because condition 2 in the proposed approval would require that a visual, to mitigate adverse noise and visual impacts that landscaping would have to be in accordance with the Planning Departments rule number 17-6 B-2b, which deals with landscape requirements for commercial zones, CV zones adjoining a residential zone. SIRACUSA:I understand what youre saying. Im thinking in terms that were talking aboutthisisgoingtobeaplayingfieldandIknowthatballfieldsbecauseIhaveoneatPahoa School right near me and I know that there are these big overhead lights. VITOUSEK:Its not like that. SIRACUSA:And I can see them from my home 4-miles away. VITOUSEK:I (inaudible). SIRACUSA:And so thats they were on all night long, so what Im saying is, once you develop this playing field you might have so that you can have night games, you might have these kind of lights installed and thats why I was considering a condition whereby the school separately from the landscaping because you couldnt get landscaping high enough for those kinds of lights. If the school would be willing to work with the community members to develop a mutually acceptable and practical lighting plan. STURGES:Yeah I think I misunderstood your question a little bit. I thought you were referring to lights on the building. I have no objection to what youre talking about in terms of the playing field. We dont have any intention of putting lights on the playing field and a protection for the neighbors such as you suggest would be fine with us. SIRACUSA:Thank you. Would any of my commissioners care to comment on this idea? Would they approve of that as an extra condition to be added on? GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:My sense is that particular application before doesnt relate to a playing field and the lights and all so that, that is not quite germane to what were doing right now. GALDONES:Okay. Are there any further questions? Commissioner Springer? EXHIBIT A 42 SPRINGER:I would then inquire of hearing Commissioner Grahams comments, I would then inquire of the Planning Director or the applicant if this application covers the playing field? STURGES:The playing field is located on Parker School Trust land and they have allowed the use of that land for a playing field. They said as long as its available, as long as its not sold off or used for other purposes were welcome to use it as a playing field. It is not included in the site as part of the lower school. It represents a use of Parker School Trust land thats granted to us on a temporary basis. SPRINGER:So then also this e-mail from Mr. McClure does that also address a property that is not the subject of this application? STURGES:That is correct. SPRINGER:And while these circumstances are accurate it does underscore I think the communitysconcernabouttherenotbeingamasterplanthatembracesallactivitiesbythe school. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes I have one other question and that was whether your plan provides on campus parking for teachers and staff? STURGES:Yes, one of the reasons that the driveway is as long as it is, is to allow for considerable on site parking which would allow for parking not just for faculty and staff but also for people dropping off their students. One of the things we find is that kindergarten and first grade parents often want to walk their kids in rather than just open the door and let €em on out. So part of our assumption is that we needed parking for that so thats included in the plan. SIRACUSA:You know well also a lot of times there are parent teacher conferences and its more than just a 5-minute drop-off. You know you need some time and a place to park in order to accomplish that. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:This is for the Director. We have an application before us which a number of the community members contend or speculate is incomplete. Just the discussion that weve had recently regarding the e-mail from Mr. McClure and the grading and development of the ball fields and the lighting of it underscores to me the issue of having 2 owners with inter connected uses and activities. Can you give us a bit of a discussion of, from your perspective of how we should resolve these, this issue of dual ownership. YUEN:Well I think the Commission, like we did, just has to look at the application before you. Its a situation that has its own background where the financial management, the long term financial management of the Parker School trust is under the school EXHIBIT A 43 trust and then the administration of the school is under a separate entity. So the school has then brought this application forward and unfortunately there hasnt been the ability on the 2 groups to make a long-term plan for the area. So, you do see this application and I-. This-. Not-. It would be better to deal with a master plan in all cases but the fact that they havent been able to accomplish this, they have this application before you and they have a right to have it heard and decided on its own merits. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Im wondering if we voted to deny the permit that it might force the issue and get them to sit down together and work out this whole business. I would feel much better with a total master plan for the entire acreage. VITOUSEK:I mean you know the Parker School Board of Directors would love to be abletosaytheycouldgetcontrolofthatpropertyandmasterplanit.Theywouldtrulylovethat. Theyre not able to do that. Theyve had those discussions theyre not able to do it. The point is that Parker School is trying to deliver education to the kids in the community. You know they are trying to deliver a quality elementary education. And this proposal enables them to do that. I mean weve talked about a lot of different issues and a lot of concerns about walking and about you know about cars on the road. But what this is really about is providing a school you know, its providing a school for kids. Its really needed because they open the doors and they got 76 kids and what theyre trying to do is not cram them into another facility. Not be temporary classrooms. Not convert a former, you know hotel into a school. Theyre trying to create a quality educational environment for kids and thats what developing a community is about. Thats what supporting a community is about. And so, Im not you know, the schools tried to accommodate the concerns of different people in the community and tried to mitigate the impacts but the bottom line is this is, this is about creating educational opportunities for kids and for the future and that goes right to the core of what a quality of life and quality of the community is about. And so, you know I mean, the concerns about walking your dog, how many cars go by your house, those are relevant but they shouldnt prevail over the opportunity to provide quality education to the children in our community. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? WOODELL:(not speaking in mike) Do we get to answer to that? GALDONES:Mr. Woodell if youd like to be recognized you can ask the Chair for recognition but Im having the Commissioners address each speaker. WOODELL:(not speaking in mike) I didnt mean to interrupt (inaudible). GALDONES:So, Ms. Springer if you have comments to Mr. Vitouseks comments? SPRINGER:I do and I just need clarification. Who is the landowner of the subject property? EXHIBIT A 44 VITOUSEK:The subject property is currently owned by the Parker School Trust. The Parker School Trust has committed to give that property to the Parker School Board of Directors when the school is approved, when theyre able to go ahead and build the school. WATANABE:This specific property. VITOUSEK:This specific property. This specific 2.6 acres. SPRINGER:So at this time the subject property and the adjacent property are owned by one entity. VITOUSEK:Thats correct. SPRINGER:Thanks for now. GALDONES:Commissioners any other questions to Mr. Vitousek? Otherwise, Mr. Woodellwouldyouliketoberecognized? WOODELL:Ihad-. GALDONES:Couldyoupleasespeakintothemike? WOODELL:Id like to have the intervenor just answer that question please. GALDONES:Ms. Copman? COPMAN:Okay. Good afternoon, I really appreciate. I would like the opportunity to speak, I dont know if this is the appropriate time. I would like a chance since Ive spent a year of my life on this. Is it okay for me to address you? GALDONES:Thats fine. If you could keep it to the point wed appreciate it. COPMAN:Oh sure. LEITHEAD-TODD:Mr. Galdones, Mr. Chair, I really have an objection to this. We were supposed to be here for oral argument by the attorneys who are representing their clients. Ms. Copman is represented by Mr. Woodell. Her testimony is in the transcript. You know, the Chair, if you are opening this up to additional evidence, additional testimony, beyond whats in the transcript then I think you need to make that ruling and then it has to be open to the other parties to do so too. Otherwise it is unfair to the applicant and its unfair to the Department. We have rules on how these things are conducted and I think weve gone far beyond-. Why have a contested case hearing before a hearings officer if were going to come here and have additional testimony, additional evidence, and why have attorneys representing their clients. The whole point of oral argument was to have the attorneys do the oral argument. And if youre going to open it up then Id like a formal ruling from the Chair that youre opening this up for additional testimony and give the Applicant an opportunity as well as the Department. EXHIBIT A 45 GALDONES:Ms. Leithead-Todd in response to your statement, the Chair is not taking a position to allow more testimony. The whole process went, I agree with you we went through the whole process already. Now, Ms. Copman is indicating to the Chair that she wants to respond to a question that was raised. Now, the question that youre going to answer was there a question that you were asking? SPRINGER:I asked a question about ownership and it was answered. So maybe it was somebody elses question. COPMAN:I wanted to provide clarification on your question if I could. Im not providing additional testimony. Im actually responding if I may. GRAHAM:Excuse me? GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Thanks. I certainly agree with Ms. Leithead-Todds commentary that this isnottogivecontentissuebutismoreargumentationbutIdidnoticethatinadditiontoMr. Vitousek and Ms. Leithead-Todd we have had commentary on the issues from the Planning Director and also from Mr. Sturges. So, I feel it would be appropriate for me to ask Ms. Copman right now if she had any commentary in her part not on bringing up content but on other oral argument oriented commentary that shes heard here this afternoon and this morning. Could I make that request? LEITHEAD-TODD:Mr. Chairman again, I object. The comments from Mr. Sturges and Mr. Yuen were response to questions from the Commission. They did not just you know unilaterally come up and provide comments. It was in response to questions from the Commission. GRAHAM:I agree. But I also wanted to ask a question of Ms. Copman in the sense that I asked just then if I may. GALDONES:Commissioners if there are any more questions that are going to be asked, it should be on issues that we have not already covered that you folks will need to make a decision that is not clear in your mind before you make a decision. We have heard a lot of testimony, the whole process that we went through, the contested case hearing and also what we have heard this morning. But to ask the Chair to allow for commentary I will have to rule against doing something like that. But if you folks need to clarify a certain point I would like to keep it as narrow as possible so that we can all have the information to make a intelligent decision and that is the dialogue that I would allow it to go through at this time. GRAHAM:So could I ask a specific question then in that regard? GALDONES:Proceed. EXHIBIT A 46 GRAHAM:Weve had commentary on the role of this particular project, use permit before us in relationship with the larger Parker Trust owned lands there. So I wonder if Ms. Copman had a commentary on how she believes we should view this particular use permit in light of the larger Parker ownership in the area? GALDONES:I would say that, that question is asking for a commentary because the parties that have the decision for a master plan is really not here at all. The issue that we are dealing with is just the school in itself. So that question I believe were just going to have a commentary. I dont see how that is going to be helping the commissioners in reaching a decision unless the Commissioners feel otherwise that its very important. But I, as the Chair, Id say its not. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Im thinking that probably a lot of this will come up when were in discussion about this. We havent really heard their closing arguments yet yeah? GALDONES:Yes I-. WATANABE:That might be helpful at this point. Ive been reserving comments because Ithinkthatmightbemore,moresuitedforwhentheCommissionisindiscussion. GALDONES:Iftheresnofurtherquestion.Iam,Chairisgoingtobeproceedinginto closing arguments. I would be allowing the parties 3 minutes each to come with a closing arguments and I will be starting with Mr. Vitousek. VITOUSEK:Thank you very much. Its our, we (inaudible) that the applicant met the burden for use permit with respect to this application. The, you know the original application was filed in the December of 2004. It first came up for hearing before this commission I believe it was in April of 2005. The Contested Case hearing was held in July of 2005 and here we are in November. And you know theres been a lot of consideration given to this issue. The voices of certain members of the community have been heard repeatedly. Their points have been raised. The issue here really, the core issue is an established schools effort to create a quality elementary school campus adjacent to their existing campus. And you know we dont, you know we, Parker School Board of Directors has done its best to work with the Parker School Trust. They have reached agreement this far. Theyve reached agreement on the ability to provide this school and so what were asking is that the Planning Commission support the use permit, allow this school to be built. If there are going to be further discussions let that take place but theres no reason to hold an elementary school hostage to a preference that Parker School Board of Directors or Parker School Trust could work together on a bigger project. In other words we just ask that you give consideration to the fact that there, there are 76 kids, theres a family, there are families of those kids. That this is a real quality educational program. Its well thought out. Its tried to mitigate all the potential adverse impacts on the community and we just ask it be given a favorable consideration. They be allowed to build this school. And then any further applications be given thorough and careful scrutiny based on the circumstances that exist at that time. Thank you very much. GALDONES:Mr. Woodell? EXHIBIT A 47 WOODELL:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Im going to let my client Ms. Coffman, uh, Copman do the closing argument thanks. COPMAN:Good afternoon, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you and thank you also for your careful and thoughtful consideration of this. I came in here thinking that I pretty much didnt have a chance and I really appreciate you taking the time to listen to these arguments. Okay, what Id like to see happen here this afternoon, this afternoon, is a win-win solution. And I do think that is within I reach. I believe we can come to a win-win solution. Id like to see all the parties, the landowner who is not represented here. There are all kinds of representations made about what the landowner, how much land the landowner is willing to give to this school. From my conversations with members of the Parker Land Trust they are willing to give this entire pasture. Theres nothing in writing, nothing has been presented, no representation by the landowner here today. So, everything that youre hearing is pureconjecture.Idliketositdownalltheparties.Idliketohavethecommunitymembers,the neighbors, the school and the land trust sit down and get clarity. How much of this pasture is going to be developed for the school use first. That can come out of the conversation very simple. Second, for the amount of land that the trust indicates that theyre giving to the school to use for the school use whats the plan for all of that land? Clearly its more than 2 acres. Theyre allowing the school to construct a playing field in the middle of the pasture. Theyve already given them permission to use more than the 2 acres. So we have some, a little bit of conflicting information here. Id like everybody to sit down, look at the pasture, talk about whats really going to go there. Next, Id like to see a traffic impact analysis. That has not been provided. We did the best we could. We stood on the road and counted cars. But thats not a traffic impact analysis. Theres a lot of traffic in this area and I believe that the burden falls on the applicant to look at what do they really want to put in on this parcel, what are the uses, what are the impacts and assess it in a, as traffic engineers. Im not a traffic engineer I just counted cars. So, the Mormon Church which is located directly across the street from this parcel was granted a use permit in 1992. They were required to perform a traffic impact analysis. GALDONES:Ms. Copman could-? COPMAN:For a Sunday only use. Yes? GALDONES:Could you bring it to a close in 30 seconds please? COPMAN:I thought I had a closing argument that didnt have a 3-minute time limit. Ill be done shortly. GALDONES:Id appreciate it. COPMAN:Yes. The Mormon Church was required to do a traffic impact analysis for a Sunday only non-peak hour use back in 1992 before the traffic congestion in Waimea got as bad as it is now. They were also expressly prohibited in their use permit, which is on the same zoning designation, the same urban land from having a pre-school use at their church. The Planning Commission back in 1992 was so concerned about the traffic impacts on our EXHIBIT A 48 neighborhood that they expressly prohibited pre-school use at the Mormon Church. This is located across the street-. GALDONES:Id appreciate it if you could bring it to closure now. COPMAN:Okay. GALDONES:Thank you. COPMAN:The other thing Id like to see is safe pedestrian access. Kids walk in the road because cars are parked along the shoulders. Id like to see safe pedestrian access, if we bring more cars onto our roads it will jeopardize the safety of our children. And the last thing Id like to see is an internal roadway access. The school has opened a temporary campus on their existing land and they are bringing the cars in through Lindsey Road. There has not been a noticeableaggravationoftrafficconditions.Duetothat,Iseenoreasonwhytheycannotextend the existing access to connect their existing campus to this new parcel along the bottom. It seems to me a totally reasonable thing to do. It would protect the kids. It would protect their school children. Keep them secure and keep the traffic off our narrow neighborhood roads. Theres no rush with this. They already have their school open. Its already operating. We have time to sit down and come to a win-win solution and I hope you will do the right thing here. I did my best. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you. Ms. Leithead-Todd. LEITHEAD-TODD:County supports granting of the Use permit. As to the ownership issues, if you look at your transcript pages 65 through 70 theres a extensive discussion of the ownership of the land. Regarding Ms. Copmans desire for an internal road network on page 69 of the transcript there is testimony I believe Mr. Sturges that although they asked they were denied that by the Parker School Trust. And one of the reasons is, is because of the value of the property because its zoned commercial and so they were unwilling to allow a connector road to go through the pasture to the location of the elementary school. So, some of the issues that Ms. Copman is raising were addressed in the transcript at the hearing. And earlier in those same pages between pages 65 and 69 and 70 theres a discussion of the fact that one of the reasons that they dont have a master plan is because the Parker School Trust Corporation has indicated that they do not have use of the entire pasture land. As a matter of fact on page 66 of the transcript and part of the reason is at that time, this was in July that because of the value of the property. You have to remember we have less than, a very small percentage of land on this island is classified urban, State Land Use Urban. This property happens to be classified State Land Use Urban. On our general plan, its medium density. And because of those designations the land potential is very valuable to the Trust. And so that is one of the reasons why they have not committed. And its in your transcript that they are currently undecided what they want to do with the property and part of it is because of the value of the property. They may want to come in and do something commercial. They may want to sell the property off. That decision is not in the control of the school. And what, all they have is that the school, the Trust has said if they get the use permit that they will then transfer this property to the school. The 2, I think its 2.6 acres for the elementary school. EXHIBIT A 49 GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Vitousek closing? VITOUSEK:Yes, just briefly. The, you notice from the use permit application that the Parker School Trust did sign the application as the landowner. And you know so theres, and heres an indication that they are authorized to make that application. And, the, you know, if you, hey, do you mind holding up that photograph again? Would you mind showing where the, just show them where the property is on that. Where the subject property is. Okay, do you mind showing where KTA is? Okay do you mind showing where Parker Ranch Shopping Center is on there? Okay so, as you can see this proposed school is right in the core of Waimea. I mean its in a State Land Use Urban. Its a lot closer to KTA and the Parker Ranch Shopping Center than it is to Ms. Copmans house. And, you know basically what, what this is, is that you know, its, so the effort is to make this a school instead of to devote it some other kind of commercial or industrial or heavier use. And all, all Parker School is asking for is please do not hold them hostagetoproblemswithParkerSchoolTrust.Pleasedonotholdthemhostagetoissuesabout what might be you know that people would prefer to walk their selves and their dogs at different times of the day. You know, this is about, this is about a school. You know, this is about a real. Theres a real application for a real elementary school. Its been in the process for over a year and you know we just ask please you keep that in mind as youre voting on this. That this is, you know this is-. An elementary is a powerful benefit to our community. Theres a need for it. It was filled up immediately. Theyre trying to do it right. Theyre trying to make it good. And so please give that some consideration. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Vitousek. Commissioners I am prepared to bring this-. VITOUSEK:I just want to-. This is nothing like for private gain. You know this is not where someones trying to make money on something. This is a private, its a school thats creating opportunity for kids. GALDONES:Commissioners I am about to close public testimony and move to decision making? STURGES:Do I get a closing sir? Do I get a closing statement too? GALDONES:You yield it to Ms. Copman. STURGES:Well he made argument first and now he just had a second time. GALDONES:No he has a closing argument. ALAMEDA:Chair do you need a motion for that or no? GALDONES:Well for all intents and purpose Id like to have a motion to close public testimony. ALAMEDA:I move that we go ahead-. EXHIBIT A 50 GALDONES:A question? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yeah I think. Could you perhaps, some of us went to that workshop yesterday where, on contested case hearing procedure and maybe you could just sketch out why Mr. Vitousek got to have the extra opportunity to give concluding arguments after the other parties each had opportunity to make their concluding statements. GALDONES:Sure, I will refer to counsel. SPRINGER:Thank you. TORIGOE:Okay on your, refer you to your rule 4-11 on your contested case procedure, it says the applicant shall open and close, other parties shall be heard in such order as thepresidingorder,officerdirects.Alsowithrespecttoclosingofthehearing,yourrule4-22 says at the end of the presentation of the evidence, submission of briefs and oral arguments if any, the commission or the Hearing Officer shall close the hearing. So, the, basically at this point it would be time for the commission to close the contested case hearing and go into decision making. GALDONES:So Commissioner Alameda the motion that would be in order right now is to close the contested case hearing. ALAMEDA:I move that we close this contested case hearing at this time. WATANABE:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Alameda and seconded by Commissioner Watanabe that this contested case hearing for use permit application 05-001 be closed. Discussion? Hearing none Norman? ALAMEDA:Excuse me? Did you mean discussion meaning amongst us as Commissioners? GALDONES:Discussion on the motion. ALAMEDA:Oh, no. HAYASHI:Do you want a roll call vote or will it be a voice vote? GALDONES:Id just like to put this on a roll call vote Norman. HAYASHI:Okay. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. EXHIBIT A 51 HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:CommissionerSpringer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:ChairGaldones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries to close the contested case hearing. GALDONES:Thank you Norman. Commissioners what we are acting on is the Hearings Officers proposal, Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the Hearing Officer in this application. WATANABE:Can we take 5? GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe requests a 5-minute break. Are there any objections? Hearing none we are on a 5-minute break. RECESSED:The Chair called for a recess at RECONVENED:The meeting reconvened at GALDONES:Will the Hawaii County Planning Commission be back in order? We are on discussion on the motion. Motion. Oh, Im sorry. Right now we are in-. ALAMEDA:I was just wondering its usually the motion then discussion or discussion before the motion? How does it go? EXHIBIT A 52 GALDONES:You usually have a motion then you discuss the motion. Okay the. I believe I know where we are right now. We are prepared to act upon the Hearings Officers proposed Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the Hearing Officer. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:It seems to me after this mornings discussions that we have 2 kind of vague issues to some degree. One would be what creates substantial adverse effect and another one would be what would be the cumulative effect. I think those are the 2 main concerns that were really looking at when were looking at these Findings of Fact. I, Im not trying to interject testimony here but you know I live in Kona Vistas Estate. As you know Kailua Kona needs a lot of, a lot of mauka/makai connectors. And, within Kona Vistas Estate Im approximately 100 feet off of Lako Street, which is a proposed. Well actually its going to be a mauka/makai connector. And one of the reasons Im not opposed to that even though it would effect me traffic wise much more than say this Parker School and say even 90 students is because itwasareasonableexpectationwhenIpurchasedthelottobeginwith.AndthereasonIbring that up is because this school was in that neighboring area. It is an allowed use even in Ag zoning and yet according to the general plan this whole area is designated for medium-density. And so, based on that I think just the general plan alone would tell you that, youre just going to have a lot more development right here and its not unreasonable to expect that when you consider the proximity to, for example all of the shopping centers and other commercial complexes within that immediate vicinity. With regard to the, the cumulative impact I think as I alluded to earlier that its going to come and Im sure that well have opportunities to address that. And I think most of it as we have in the past determined has been determined by scale. And, when youre talking about a school with currently 76 enrolled students and on the upper end either 120 or 90 students, I just dont see the scale there to warrant you know, excessive concern about the cumulative impact at this point. Thats pretty much my take on it right now. Especially since, you already have these students enrolled albeit a couple of blocks away but theyre enrolled you know. And so theyre going to school, the kids are there, youre not going to change that. So for the greater area, I dont think the overall impact is going to be that great. I think the real impact is going to be like we had said on that one particular street. And, Im not certain that that creates severe adverse impact. But like I said, thats my take. GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe with that being said would you like to introduce a motion? WATANABE:Wow, okay. Give me a second here, let me get organized. Id like to move that we approve-. Id like to move that we approve the-, wheres that uh-? Would it be that one, the hearings officer? Not the special use? GALDONES:We are acting upon the Hearing Officers Proposed Findings of Fact. WATANABE:Oh, Im sorry. I was thinking Id have to go through Special Permit no? Okay. Lets see. Id like to move that we approve the Hearings Officers Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order and Recommendations. SPRINGER:Second. EXHIBIT A 53 GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Watanabe. Seconded by Commissioner Springer that the Hearings Officers Proposed Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation in the application of Parker School Board of Directors USE 05-001 be approved. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Discussion? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Just a possible friendly amendment based on the response from Deputy Corporation Counsel is it approve or adopt? TORIGOE:Let's see, I'm searching the rules to see if there's any specific language that'srequired.Idon'tthinkthatthereisanyrealmagicwordsthatneedtobeused.Ithink basically the intent is clear to grant the USE permit application and to adopt the planning, the Hearings Officer's proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation. Is that consistent with your understanding of the motion? WATANABE:That is my, yeah, understanding. TORIGOE:Okay and then if there's any modifications that you want to make to the proposed Findings and Conclusions then now is the time to do that. GALDONES:Discussions? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Question, the conditions that were discussed in the County's response to the Hearing Officer's report. I'm wondering if we deal with those separately or if we attach them as a friendly amendment to Mr. Watanabe's motion? WATANABE:I believe we've handled that in discussion yeah? TORIGOE:Yeah, I think it's, it'd be a lot, at this point basically you ought to make it as final a package as you can by way of whatever amendments you can agree upon at this point. GALDONES:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:If I understand right, we this, accepting of the Hearing Officer's proposed findings we are, by doing that we are also accepting the County Planning Department's recommendation and their conditions. Is that correct? GALDONES:Yes, the order of the Hearing Officer is subject to the 13 conditions imposed by the Planning Director. EXHIBIT A 54 MCCALL:Okay thanks. So and if, would this be an appropriate time to ask for an amendment to condition number 3 that was discussed where enrollment would be limited, to reduce the enrollment to 90 from 120? GALDONES:This is an appropriate time to do that. MCCALL:Would that be acceptable as a friendly amendment? WATANABE:Seeing as the applicant did not have any objections to that I guess you know I guess that would be fine. GALDONES:If there is no objection from the Commissioners and hearing the testimony from the applicants, their having no objection to it, then by consensus we will incorporate that into the motion that it has been amended to 90? WATANABE:To 90 from 120. GALDONES:Okay. Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I just wanted to throw in that in my own reading of the proposed Findings ofFactandConclusionsofLawandall.TomewhatthePlanningDirector,whattheCounty came up with was more concise and I felt more kind of speaking the truth to the issue rather than kind of mixing in lots of words and all so you know I found that a much more attractive alternative for me. And you know one of the examples is what I brought up in the conversation before about Ms. Broder's you know citing that there would be not significantly increased traffic and all. Those kind of issues were a little worrisome to me and since we are creating a record that you know could go before the court and all I personally am more in coherence in my feelings with what the Planning Department has come forward with as proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? I'm not quite clear on the concerns that you have or what you are trying to interject into the motion. GRAHAM:I'm not objecting to the thrust of the motion. What I'm objecting to is, is I found we got the Hearing Officer's proposed Findings of Fact, which we are part of this motion. And we also have before the Hearings Officer made her Findings of Fact we had a proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the County Planning Department and that's one of our documents dated September 1. And I found in my mind the content of that was more to the point and forthright about what the Findings of Fact are. So, you know as far as approving or not approving this application perhaps that's not so important cause we're going to take our action the way we feel about this but as far as where it may go in the future before the court or something it's a lot easier for me to subscribe to the particulars that are given in the Findings of Fact and all by the County of Hawaii. st GALDONES:Mr. Graham it's dated September 1? EXHIBIT A 55 GRAHAM:Yes. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? In comparing the, both documents does each, the enhance each other or does contrary statements. Where I'm going with this is quite possible what we can do so you can make it a global motion is to incorporate both or specific parts that is not included in one. GRAHAM:Yeah that only seems like a reasonable direction from what I'm saying but it also feels like it's a long meticulous job to do that so. Maybe while we continue discussion I'll just look at a few changes that maybe I could recommend to the Hearings Officer's Proposed Findings since that's what the motion was and perhaps thats what the Commission would like. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:The13conditionsreferredtointheorderbytheHearingsOfficerdated th September 19 , are those the conditions in our background report? Cause I think that they're not exactly the same as the conditions in the County's response to the intervenor's exceptions to the Hearing Officer report. GALDONES:Would you know off hand what the differencesare Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:It looks to me in particular, condition number 4 the carpooling policy and plan? That there's different language in the background report as compared to the County of Hawaii Planning Director's response to intervenor's exceptionsand support of the Hearing Officer's proposed Finding and Conclusions. WATANABE:May, is it, this. I have a question for Counsel is it appropriate for us to supplement the Hearings Officer's proposed findings with the County of Hawaii's Planning Director's response to Intervenor's Exceptions? TORIGOE:You can put whatever you really believe represents the proper (inaudible- Watanabespeakingatsametime). WATANABE:I believe if I were to amendthe motion to that extent that would satisfy your concerns also Mr. Graham? GRAHAM:Amend to which extent? WATANABE:To supplement the Hearings Officer's proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations of the Hearing Officer with the County of Hawaii's Planning Director response to Intervenor's exceptions and support for Hearings Officer's Proposed Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Order of Recommendation. So it would be like adopting both documents. TORIGOE:Well that would-. EXHIBIT A 56 GRAHAM:Yeah I'm just afraid that we may work into it some territory we don't want to if we do that in all the particulars. WATANABE:That's no good? TORIGOE:That would be very confusing. Basically you should issue one document that states what your findings are and what your conclusions are and what the final decision is. So I think Mr. Graham is saying that he was going to look at the Planning Department's form and see if there are particular things from there that he would like to see grafted into the Hearing Officer form. And if that can be done that would work. GALDONES:Okay, that being the case Mr. Graham would like a few minutes to browse over that? GRAHAM:No I think we can go ahead with the discussion and then I'll just sort of, beforeweconcludethisdiscussionI'llindicateanychangesI'dlikeorsomethingifwecould? GALDONES:Theremaynotbefurtherdiscussionthat'swhy? GRAHAM:Allright. GALDONES:But I mean hold on. Go ahead and proceed with that. I'll see if there are further discussion. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Chair. For the sake of my fellow Commissioner, so he has time to think. I wanted to just offer some of my own opinions, feelings, regarding this subject matter. I think in my mind you know it's like I have voices going back and forth you know. Not that I'm schizophrenic or anything but it's just that there's different testimony, different ideas, different thoughts that projected and then it kind of makes me think differently about the subject matter so. But at the end for me I feel kind of like Commissioner Watanabe and that is you know weigh out all of it out education is kind of a no-brainer for me in that kids gotta get educated some place. If it's not at this school, it's going to be at another school. And the traffic is going to be there no matter what because people keep having families. And so, so where do you put it? Well nobody wants it in their back yard and so where else does it go then? And in looking at the map and the surrounding infrastructure I cannot think of a better place actually. So, I'm leaning towards favoring the motion. GALDONES:Any further discussion? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, I too am definitely leaning in favor of this motion. I think that this is definitely something needed for the Waimea area. I think that while there is no doubt that there is an impact in the neighborhood but I think it's an acceptable impact. I would like to see have a whole, we don't you know, our hands our tied as far as looking for a master plan and that type of thing. It's not fair to burden that on Parker School. I would definitely you know if, when the Parker Trust comes back in with their proposal for the rest of the area I think it should be EXHIBIT A 57 scrutinized and I think at that point hopefully we can you know get a master plan and do whatever-. Put in whatever infrastructure is needed in this area. I mean, it's clear that there will need to be some improvements to roads and stuff. But I think for what is being proposed here I think the impacts are acceptable and I think it's in the best interest of the Waimea area to approve this. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:A significant amount of the testimony from the public was regarding traffic and traffic impact analysis reporting and we do have testimony from a Civil Engineer V with 12 years of experience and we can look to the transcripts on pages 42 to 53 to see that testimony. We also have a letter from the Department of Public Works dated February 15, 2005 that was in our background report. And, we need as commissioners to rely upon the information presented to us by experts in their fields. So I'm taking those testimonies and letters, or that testimonyandletterintoseriousconsiderationasIcometodecisionmakinghereandIwill.I have the reservations that I think that any of us who deal with the traffic on Hawaii island or Hawaii ne on a daily basis have. In my role as Planning Commissioner I have found no evidence presented by the Intervenor to the contrary of this expert testimony. But of course we do offer to the Intervenor that by having stepped forward as an Intervenor in this proceeding and having been granted standing as a party to this proceeding unlike a member of the general public you do have the opportunity to appeal any decision that's made here. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just 2 things. One, from attending the original meeting was held down at Hapuna Prince and contested case hearing and what we're hearing today now I certainly in regards to the larger concern about this being a incremental development of property I certainly come to the conclusion that there is no purposeful intention on the part of the Parker School Board of Directors to work things in that way so that if it comes to that way it is unfortunate but I certainly don't feel like I don't carry any concern that its purposely being perpetrated in that manner. Also on the issue I brought up on the Findings of Fact I think rather than try to make a big issue of it what I'd like to do is just take Condition 51, which I spoke to before about the traffic impacts? GALDONES:Commissioner Graham is that a condition or is that a-? GRAHAM:I'm asking for an amendment to the motion which is adopting the Hearing Officer's proposed Findings of Fact? GALDONES:And you're going to insert paragraph 51 into the motion as part of the condition is that your motion? GRAHAM:I'm asking for a friendly adjustment of the motion to where condition 51, not condition 51 excuse me finding number 51 from the Hearing Officer's proposed Findings of Fact and all had one additional sentence added to it? And that the thing says that, (inaudible) the Planning Department, Department of Public Works filed the proposals for not significantly EXHIBIT A 58 increased traffic in the area. I would like to put in that the Commission did not necessarily agree with this finding. If we could add that? GALDONES:Norman would you know where that would fall in? WATANABE:It's not a condition huh? It's just an amendment to the-? HAYASHI:This is paragraph 51? MCCALL:-to a statement yeah. GALDONES:Paragraph 51, the last sentence. He would like that incorporated into the Hearing Officer's Document. Counsel? TORIGOE:ThankyouMr.Chairman.Ithink,Mr.Grahamis,Ithinkhe,youknow you mentioned this issue earlier in the discussion and you were saying something along the lines that your view of it was basically that there will be some significant increase in traffic during the beginning and the end of the school days but basically that it does not rise of the level of being substantial and adverse impact that would prevent the granting of the permit. Is that what your analysis was? GRAHAM:That's a fair reading. TORIGOE:Okay. I would suggest that we do state that whole you know structure in there because if you just say that the Commission did not necessarily agree with the conclusions here then that kind of weakens the basis for the decision. But your, you know your entire analysis is I think, pretty helpful. So basically again to say that you, that the Commission does find that there will be some significant traffic increase during beginning and end of school days but that this does not rise to the level of being a substantial adverse impact that would preclude the granting of this permit. GRAHAM:I'm very happy with those words if we could use those. And I, you know as the other Commissioners have spoken up I feel like on balance I am supportive of this request for a use permit. GALDONES:There is an amendment to introduce. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I'm sorry? GALDONES:Could I have a second to that amendment? ALAMEDA:Second. GALDONES:It's been seconded by Commissioner Alameda? TORIGOE:Just take a voice vote. Do it by consensus. EXHIBIT A 59 GALDONES:I'm going to deal with the amendment first. Can do it by consensus. Do I hear any objection to that amendment? Hearing none then the motion has been amended. Are there any further questions to the motion as amended? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I'm still wondering about clarification on Condition 4. If I erred or if the various copies of it read the same? Or if that matters? I'm looking at page 8 of the Hearings Officers report. Item 38, which discusses the carpooling policy generally. GALDONES:You're asking for a clarification Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yeah just a- and maybe I'm reading it wrong but it looks as though the condition 4 is worded differently and was amended in our original background report? And I'm wondering if when we approve the Hearings Officer's-. When we adopt the Hearings Officer's reportwouldjust,whichlanguagewe'readopting? GALDONES:Thatwouldbenumber4ontheHearingOfficer'sdocument? SPRINGER:That'snumber4ofthePlanningDepartment'scondition.Andifitisnot, if it is not a, if the language is not an issue of substance, if its just a various wording of the same thing we can move on. TORIGOE:Can we? Mr. Chairman I wonder if we can clarify with the Planning Department whether their version that is included in the response to the exceptions, is this the current version that is intended to be used? GALDONES:Ms. Leithead-Todd? LEITHEAD-TODD:The conditions listed in the response to exceptions are verbatim taken from the Planning Department's recommendations. There's a background report and then there's the recommendations. The only difference in my response is on the very last condition, in the last sentence and that's because the original recommendation had a mistake in-. It was a typo where it said that the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area. Since this is not a rezoning action, my response has language that says that if the conditions are not met the Planning Director may initiate a revocation of the use permit and that's the only difference in my response was to correct that. I think you're confusing the Findings of Fact of the Hearings Officer which sometimes includes not just the condition but other testimony that's included in the transcript. And unless there's a specific page you could refer to? GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I'm looking at page 10 of the County of Hawaii, Planning Director's response. Where the 13 conditions are iterated and I'm comparing that with page 6 of the Background report that was distributed to us with a proposed amendment to condition 4. EXHIBIT A 60 LEITHEAD-TODD:The conditions are from the recommendations of the department not from the background report. There's 2 separate documents. MCCALL:The last sentence in number 4 is different. SPRINGER:And then there was an amendment that was supplied at that original hearing. And then my other question is that the County of Hawaii's response to the Intervenor's exceptions came after the Hearings Officer's report to us. So just, I'm wondering which language to use. HAYASHI:Maybe I can clarify. The report that you have before you that was the original report and since that time prior to the, after the first, during the time of the first hearing we did submit a amended recommendation and that includes the current language. And just to make sure what the current language is may I put that into the record? SPRINGER:Thank you. HAYASHI:The condition 4, "A carpooling policy and plan, to include a method for determiningthenumberoffamiliesthathavecarpooledinagivenyear,shallbesubmittedtothe Planning Director and implemented prior to the opening of the new school facilities proposed under this use permit." GALDONES:Okay, so where are we? We are okay? SPRINGER:Yes thank you. GALDONES:Further discussion on the motion as amended? SIRACUSA:Even though I really didn't say anything this time around. So I just wanted to say that where I live there's a school at the end of the road that during school hours I can't get out that way. I'm sort of land locked and I have to go around an extra couple of miles out of the way so that I avoid the school traffic. And, so I could understand you know how people living in a dead-end street could get sort of trapped by school traffic. And, at the same time I'm very supportive of education so I will be voting for this motion but with reservations. Because I just can't feel rah, rah, about it. GALDONES:Thank you. If there's no further discussion? Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chair. Just to be clear before I take the motion. The motion is to approve the application and adopt the Hearing Officer's Findings and Report with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Director with the condition being the maximum of 90 students and also to amend, amendment to Finding of Fact number 51, which would include the wording that Legal Counsel had pointed out to you. With that, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. EXHIBIT A 61 HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye with reservations. HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries 7-0. Seven, 6 to 1 with 1 reservation, voting with reservation. GALDONES:Thank you Norman. Mr. Vitousek you will be informed in writing of today's actions. HAYASHI:Excuse me correction 7-0. VITOUSEK:Thank you very much Chairman, thank you members of the Commission. GALDONES:I guess the Intervenors and also the Department will be having a decision in writing also. Thank you. This discussion ended at 1:25 p.m. Respectfullysubmitted, Lynette Marushige, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 62