Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-15 tsunstone PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT February 15, 2007 SUNSTONE KONA, LLC (SMA 05-005) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 10:08 a.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred Galdones Rene’ Siracusa William Graham Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Steven Lim representing Sunstone Kona, LLC Gregory Mooers representing Sunstone Kona, LLC Christopher Yuen, Intervenor Amy Self representing Planning Director David Hardy-Sullivan, Intervenor Raymond A. Rusalavich, Intervenor And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: SUNSTONE KONA, LLC (SMA 05-005) Discussion and action on the Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of 289 multiple-family residential units and related improvements, including associated commercial space. The property is bordered by Alii Drive and Kuakini Highway, nd approximately 1,040 feet south of the Lunapule Road-Alii Drive intersection, Kahului 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-19:1. Special Management Area GRAHAM: For our second item of business which is a OdqlhsaxRtmrsnmdJnm`+Hsghmjvdlckhjdsnhave Commissioner Alameda chair that agenda item because this is a continuation from what we began last year when he was Commission Chairman. And maybe we can just take a five-minute recess rifgsmnv+`mcsgdmvdlkklnud on; and then Commissioner Alameda will take over the second item on the agenda. RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 10:09 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:15 a.m. EXHIBIT B 1 ALAMEDA: All right. My name is Kimo Alameda. I’ll be chairing this particular agenda item. And before we start I’d like to just make sure for the record that my Fellow Commissioners and the parties are okay with me chairing this particular agenda item. So if there’s no objections to that, or are there any objections? Okay, seeing none, we can move forward. You know, I was talking to Ivan here regarding the rule for public testimony and at what part does it come in since this is a contested kind of case. So let me just read to you, public testimony here, 4-21. It says here, “The Presiding Officer shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to present testimony on the matter prior to the commencement of the hearing and prior to proceedings on any subsequent day to which the proceeding is continued.” So this tells me that we should consider public testimony now. And that’s where I’m kind of leaning towards. So we have four testifiers. So if there’s no objection to that? And I’m making sure I’m on track with that, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Yes. ALAMEDA: Then I would like to just have the four testifiers come up and testify. Seeing no objection, could I please call on Lillian Fox, Michael Reimer, Tom Walton, this says “or”, or Brenda Walton. So I guess that meant “and.” Okay. B. WALTON: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you very much. I’d like to also share with you that we have a lot of material on this particular agenda item, and this goes a while back. And so if you could please limit your testimony to the facts and not try to, you know, I’m going to call a timeout that’s why, if I see you go off on a tangent. So just be clear and concise. And if there’s any questions, we’ll ask you those questions. So I guess we can start off on my far left. Could you please state your name and address for the record. FOX: Good morning. My name is Lillian Fox. I live at 75-6081 Alii Drive. I am the president of the Board of Directors of the Alii Lani Homeowners Association. And this is a condominium development of approximately 346 units. That’s a 1,000 people that live in there. And we are directly impacted by the proposed development of Sunstone, LLC. In addition to my position on the Board of Directors, I’m also the disaster preparedness coordinator for this development; and, as such, we’ve had two indications since last we spoke, and that was the tsunami that could have been generated by the 6.8 earthquake and also a tsunami warning that occurred about two weeks ago on Sunday, and we were to stay tuned for further updates. The people who run the restaurants on Alii Drive did not wait for further updates. They evacuated their customers who were dining. And the overflow onto Alii Drive tied up traffic for at least 20 minutes all the way down to Magic Sands. So we’re talking about a three-mile backup, and there was no problem. EXHIBIT B 2 I come before you today with some very heart-out, thought-out questions. And here are some of them and some of my observations: One of the things that was said in the past was that there may, and I’m underlining the word may, be a left-hand turn lane onto Alii Lani Street, which is how we hoped or you all hoped Mr. DeWeese’s development will be accessed. Both Mayor Kim and Troy Kindred have told this counsel or this Commission that they do not favor any further building of anything along Alii Drive, that means their entrance and egress has to occur onto Alii Drive because of the traffic right now. This parcel is also in the FEMA Flood Zone. And Mr. Mooers who spoke before said that he knows that there is a problem and that they don’t have to correct the problem, just not make it worse. But, gee whiz, if you grub, clear, grade and pave most of the area I think you’re kind of mitigating (sic) the problem. And the people who live on the other side on Kaiolu Street (sic), there’s 20 people that live in there, and they’ve been flooded on a couple of occasions. Now granted this is historic floods, you know, but we have to prepare for that. And on the other side of Alii Lani they have grubbed and there was tremendous runoff in the last rainstorm, even though a berm had been created in addition to everything else. So such things are possible. You know, there are over 350 condos for sale between Capt. Cook and Kealakehe. There seems to be a glut. And I don’t know that 292 more condos constructed in the same vein that Alii Cove, Kona Sea Ridge, and Kona Sea Villas, you know, I guess if I wanted to live in Levittown, Levittown is a community of all like houses in Long Island, the first of its kind -. And it seems me that Mr. DeWeese could come up with maybe different kinds of condos. The Kona Community Development Plan does not, urges no development in flood plains; and we talked about that. There is no mention of affordable housing; and that was a big dangle of carrot that just wasn’t mentioned here. Also, Sunstone, LLC said it would build about 400 feet of Alii Highway; but that makes evacuation parallel to the ocean. And in a local tsunami it may be less time, and over 1,000 people need to get off of Alii Drive and up to higher land. And, of course, Kahakai Estates has already been gated so one cannot go up, straight up, the easement. The developer’s past is not a shining example of community improvement. He’s not a good steward. Of all his developments (Alii Drive, Alii Cove, Kona Sea Ridge, and Kona Sea Villas) only Alii Lani has street lights. As a matter of fact, Alii Cove doesn’t even have the infrastructure. In order for them to put in street lights, they’re going to have to dig up their entire streets to put in the necessary infrastructure for street lights. That’s not good stewardship. And I don’t feel that Mr. DeWeese should continue to go on in that vein. There’s no guest parking in any of his other developments. Alii Lani was the only place that has about 14 guest spots. That’s a paltry amount for 1,000 people, 14 guest spots. Mr. Yuen, you called me on Memorial Day and said regardless of what happens here that you were going to see what you could do to make that easement a tsunami evacuation. And I haven’t heard from you in this 9 months later; and I was wondering where we stood on that. ALAMEDA: Ms. Fox, we get to ask the questions. FOX: Yeah, okay. Well, anyway, that was a thought, an observation; and I thank you for your time. EXHIBIT B 3 ALAMEDA: Thank you very much for your testimony, appreciate it. Sir, could you please state your name and address for the record. T. WALTON: Tom Walton, 75-6060 Kuakini Highway. I live in Kona Sea Villas and I’m Vice-President of the Board of Directors at Kona Sea Villas. And I’ve been asked to come here by the Board today basically just to ask for a continuation so that we can develop a statement. Currently we feel that we’re under-advised; and I’m not prepared to make a statement today. ALAMEDA: Okay. I need to check with my Corp. Counsel here. We never had a testifier who asked for a continuation. Mr. Torigoe, what’s your response to that? TORIGOE: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you -. I mean, it’s certainly within the discretion of the Commission to continue a contested case hearing in the interest of justice so that -. But, you know, I guess you want to find out what it is maybe that they would like to address. ALAMEDA: Okay. TORIGOE: So it’s something that you can do, but you would probably want to have a good reason for doing that at this stage. ALAMEDA: Yeah. Well, Mr. Walton, is there anything that you would like to -? Do you need to gather evidence or -? T. WALTON: We’re concerned about access and egress, we’re concerned about construction access, and certainly we have some of the same concerns that the lady from Alii Lani shared with us concerning disaster evacuation. And there’s also some concern among residents there about the limitation of the view. As I said we’re just really not prepared to make a statement because we haven’t gathered enough information from the residents and from the other Board Members. So we feel that there has been an insufficient notification. ALAMEDA: All right. I have some thoughts. Let me just put it on the table and see if Corp. Counsel can help me with this. This agenda item has been on our agenda for a while and it has been back and forth with the Hearings Officer and all. So, I mean, to just, you know, my initial thought is no. You know, and if you have a thought, or you have a comment, or testimony that you’d like to do it, then now is the time. But, you know, I’m relatively new in this process, so I’d like to also open it up for my Fellow Commissioners to, or our Corp. Counsel to maybe -. If you disagree with, you know, my inclination to move forward then please voice yourself. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Yeah. Basically just, you know, if there has been some kind of lack of proper notice, that would be something that you would probably want to look into. If there has not been a lack of proper notice, as you noted, it is very late in this process to put things off. And, certainly, if you are considering any kind of continuance that needs to be discussed with the contested case parties, to see if they have objections or other suggestions as to how this could be handled. EXHIBIT B 4 ALAMEDA: First let me check with the staff. Did the notice, Mr. Darrow, did the notice go out in the appropriate time? DARROW: Let me check the files. They did go out, but we do have quite a thick list of notifications that did occur, both first and second notification. Whether or not those included, you know, residents of Kona Sea Villas I think the Applicant would be more inclined to answer that, but we did have a first and second notification. I’ll go ahead and pull up the notifications at this time. T. WALTON: There is a general feeling among residents that I spoke to this morning, basically, that no one remembers getting a notification, and I can’t speak to that. I mean I didn’t get one, so -. GALDONES: Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA: Sure, Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES: Thank you. I would not feel comfortable in making a decision to grant the continuance yet at this stage of the game. I would like to hear the Applicant’s side of the concern that is being discussed and raised right now. If all of those concerns have been addressed, the notification and the other issues that specifically has been brought out, and at that time I would decide whether sufficient time was given to the testifiers. ALAMEDA: Okay. That sounds good. Mr. Walton, what I’m hearing then so far is that from you, you don’t have a prepared testimony right now. T. WALTON: That is correct. ALAMEDA: You’re actually requesting for us to continue this hearing so that you can prepare a testimony. And what I’m hearing from my Fellow Commissioners is that you’re not going to hear a decision from us right now because we want to hear what the Applicant has to say; and then we’ll address it then if your request is valid. Is that okay? T. WALTON: That seems fair. ALAMEDA: All right. So that means you can sit down then. T. WALTON: Thank you so much. ALAMEDA: You’re welcome. Ms. Walton, do you have the same request? B. WALTON: Yes, in essence I do. The representatives of Kona Sea Villas do have some of the same concerns and expressions of the sense of project that I -. I hate to refer to Mr. DeWeese because I know that he is kind of a figurehead and responsible. But with our experience in the matter in which construction has been done in the past, and completion is a big issue and concern, responsibility for the land.There are overhead photos of the wall with a big hole knocked through it. At the time, the photos are after the land was cleared. So I am not pointing any fingers, but it is a very big gaping hole in the wall. And there was like a road, the EXHIBIT B 5 aerial photos do show a road type thing. So I guess I’m expressing concern. And, additionally, there’s just a heck of a lot of difference between the initial 20 duplexes, which would be 40 units, and 289 units and the kinds of impacts it would have. ALAMEDA: All right, let me just check again. I thought you were going to kind of withhold your testimony; but apparently you just gave a testimony. B. WALTON: I did. ALAMEDA: So, I guess, Commissioners, you have any questions? You have anything else to add? B. WALTON: No. I mean, again, we have not received any notifications. We were called on behalf of our president of the board and the treasurer who were both very concerned. They followed this development and DeWeese’s projects; and, again, the expression was, no, they had not received any kinds of notifications in the past of request for change in this development. ALAMEDA: Okay. Ms. Walton, for the record, could you please state your name and address. We forgot to ask you that. B. WALTON: Yes. It’s Brenda Walton, 75-6060 Kuakini Highway, Kailua-Kona. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Ms. Walton. B. WALTON: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Seeing no further questions, you may be seated. Please state your name and address for the record, and you may proceed. REIMER: My name is Michael Reimer. I live at 75-6081 Alii Drive. I am here today I suppose to frame my testimony more in a generic mode rather than anything specific. Certainly the counsel is well aware of all the issues that have been presented here; and they’re certainly well aware of the sense of the previous County Council, the current County Council and the people in their desire for if it’s going to be built, build it right. And concurrency is a major issue. We know that the concerns here are to adjacent properties, an issue of potential flooding; and certainly traffic is a main concern. This property being built is not contiguous with Alii Drive. Instead it needs 1,000 feet or so of road built to get into Alii Drive. I find it somewhat amazing that a proposal includes building part of the Alii Highway or Alii Parkway, because as far as I know the standards for that could change when the entire thing is built. And who knows if what is built today is any more than just a driveway to get from Alii Drive into the property. So I want to encourage all of you to consider all the issues that are being brought forth. I think it is well past the time for looking at a single project. In other words, don’t look just inside the box but rather look at the organism now as a whole and what the needs are for the rest of the surrounding community. And I thank you for your time and appreciate being able to testify here today. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Reimer. Any questions? Commissioner Rho? EXHIBIT B 6 RHO: Can I ask you where you live in reference to this project? REIMER: Yes. I live at Alii Lani, which would be southwest of the project and adjacent to it. RHO: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Any further questions, Fellow Commissioners? Seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony. And all the testifiers, thank you for coming again today. We really appreciate testimony. This is what a public hearing is all about. So, thank you. Thanks, again. All right. Moving right along, I’d like to call up the parties.So would the Applicant, the Intervenor and the County please come forward. Is there enough -? We have some extra chairs right there on the little round table. HARDY-SULLIVAN: Do you want the Intervenors also? ALAMEDA: Sure. All right, I’ll swear everybody in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you very much. Will the Applicant or his representative, Mr. Lim, please state your name and address for the record. LIM: Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, Steven Lim from Carlsmith Ball representing the Applicant Sunstone Kona, LLC. Seated to my left is Mr. Greg Mooers, our Planning Consultant. ALAMEDA: Okay, thank you, Mr. Lim. We did receive a letter; and for everybody there, a withdrawal letter, you know, the withdrawal for the witnesses. I just wanted to for the record, I see the signatures, but again for the record is that all right? Any -? LIM: Yes. The Applicant’s understanding is that the Consolidated Property Owners of the Hawaii Planing Mill Subdivision as a group and individually have signed their letter. I think it’s supposed to be dated today. That basically says that they withdraw their petition for intervention in this matter and they hereby support the approval of SMA No. 05-005. So we’re in agreement with that action; and we request that the Commission, I guess, act to close the petition for intervention and let us proceed with our case. ALAMEDA: Okay. Can I just check with our Intervenor. Sir, could you please state your name and address again for the record. HARDY-SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. David Hardy-Sullivan, 75-6052 Alii Drive, and I’m with the Consolidated Property Owners of the Hawaii Planing Mill Subdivision; and we’ve been Intervenors in this since June of last year. And, yes, we would like to withdraw our petition for a contested case and we will support, especially the mauka-makai corridor that will provide access EXHIBIT B 7 to Alii Drive. But we do reserve the right to work with the County for safety improvements. We gave a letter to Mr. Yuen, a letter today, that when things are built there are some, we’d just like to be able to have input to the County. There’s utility poles that have to be moved. It’s really necessary because it will be an evacuation route and a well-used road. It should have a dedicated left-turn lane. It’d be nice to have some crosswalks across Alii Drive coming down, and issues like that. So we’ll just reserve that right, please. But, yes, we have withdrawn our petition. ALAMEDA: Thank you, sir. Let me check with the County. I just want to make sure that’s okay and you’re seeing it how everybody else is seeing it. Name and address for the record. SELF: Amy Self, Deputy Corporation Counsel representing the Planning Director. Yes, we agree with that, with their withdrawal. ALAMEDA: Okay. All right, let me take it back to the Applicant. We did have the proposed Findings or the Hearings Officer’s Report and, of course, the exceptions by the County and the Applicant and the Intervenor. And then we’ve had this like a combined, the exceptions kind of combined in one single document. Mr. Lim, would you like to explain this, please. LIM: Yes. I guess before we move into that, could we have the Commission act on the withdrawal of the petition? ALAMEDA: Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think, basically with all the stipulation of the parties in writing and on the record today, I don’t know that there’s a need for a formal motion on that. But perhaps if you just check and see if there’s a consensus among the Commission that the withdrawal would be accepted -. ALAMEDA: Fellow Commissioners, is there any objection for the withdrawal? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I certainly have no objections. I’m just, I want to question Mr. Torigoe about procedural matters. Since we have contested case hearing then the parties, including the Planning Department, sort of provide all the exhibits and the evidence and all. And since our last meeting we as Commissioners did receive some other material which I think is relevant to this application as well relating to coastal resources and all. So I just wanted to maintain the opportunity for us to introduce this material into this application if the Commission should find it relevant. So I don’t want to sort of prematurely close the door to doing that. So are we at the point now when we accept this withdrawal that we close the door towards accepting other evidence, or does that come later? TORIGOE: I think at this point all that’s happening is that the formal trial-like contested case procedure that has been initiated by the Intervenors will then come to a close. I think the, you still have an on-going, you know, an informal contested case procedure that will allow for further introductions of evidence; or if there are Commissioners who would like to request that other evidence be looked at, you know, that can be done also. It is a good idea, I guess, to check with the parties to see if the evidence that has been introduced so far, including EXHIBIT B 8 the initial application and whatever other evidence has been put into the contested case record, if that is all still the understanding of the parties that the Commission will still have that to consider. LIM: Yes, that is the understanding of the Applicant. We would request that since the Commission votes to approve intervention of the parties that we would like you to take a formal motion to, I guess, vacate the intervention, or however you want to call it. TORIGOE: Okay. Well, perhaps a motion to accept the withdrawal at this point. ALAMEDA: Sure. I cannot do the motion. So, Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: I’ll be happy to make the motion. ALAMEDA: Okay, go ahead. IWASHITA: Based on the agreement of the Applicant and the previously approved Intervenor and the County, I move that the request for withdrawal of Intervenor status which the, signed by apparently all members of the Hawaii Planing Mill Subdivision, and from what I see it’s an undated document but has a faxed date of February 14, 2007, that the Commission accept the withdrawal with the expressed understanding that all evidence submitted during the previous contested case hearings would remain part of the record and that the Commission will also be taking further evidence in this matter. ALAMEDA: Very good. Is there a second? WATANABE: Second. ALAMEDA: Good. Motion made by Commissioner Iwashita, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. Seeing no further questions, Jeff? DARROW: Just for clarification, we’re still working on the notification issue. ALAMEDA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. EXHIBIT B 9 DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. ALAMEDA: All right. Thank you, Fellow Commissioners. Moving right along, so going back to this earlier document, Mr. Lim, you had any, or you -? Let me ask Mr. Torigoe to -. TORIGOE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point, it appears that the record is clear that the contested case, the formal contested case, has been closed with the approval of the withdrawal request by the Intervenors. So now you have to decide what you have before you to work with. Apparently there has been a stipulated proposed findings and conclusions and decision. And so maybe we’d just want to confirm with the parties that that’s the document that the parties are asking the Commission to consider at this point. ALAMEDA: Okay. We’ll start with the Applicant. Mr. Lim, the document that I showed earlier, is that the document that you want us to take a look at? LIM: That’s correct. It’s entitled “STIPULATION OF SUNSTONE KONA, LLC AND CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAII REGARDING THE (PROPOSED) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION AND ORDER RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT (SMA NO. 05005); EXHIBIT A; AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.” This is a document that was prepared between the Planning Director and my office which essentially picks up the procedural issues of the case and included the conditions of approval that were suggested by the Planning Director in his initial recommendation to the Commission. ALAMEDA: Okay. Let me ask the Intervenor. This is kind of like a summary document. Is there anything to add that Mr. Lim didn’t add about this document that we should be looking at? HARDY-SULLIVAN: I had not seen this document until just now. Mr. Rusalavich, this was th mailed on February 13 and I just received it yesterday. So I really can’t comment. ALAMEDA: Thank you. All right. Let me, it’s just something that occurred to me. Mr. Torigoe, now that, you know, we all had a motion to -. How does the Intervenor play a part in these proceedings? EXHIBIT B 10 TORIGOE: Yeah, I think basically what we’re talking about is the stipulated document that’s kind of the, part of the basis of the withdrawal. So we want to make sure that we’re playing with the right, you know, document as we go forward based on the agreement with the Intervenor. LIM: Excuse me. ALAMEDA: Mr. Lim? LIM: The stipulated document had nothing to do with the withdrawal. They have never reviewed it because they weren’t a party. ALAMEDA: Okay. LIM: It is our position that they have now withdrawn and they should be seated in the audience and not being a part in the proceedings. TORIGOE: Okay. ALAMEDA: Okay, that sounds accurate. TORIGOE: Okay, well, I’m sorry. I was mistaken then. ALAMEDA: Thank you. All right. Mr. Sullivan, thank you so much for coming and sitting here with us. HARDY-SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Thank you, Commissioners. ALAMEDA: Mr. Lim, could I ask, you know, the notice issue did come up and I wanted to just address it now. Mr. Mooers, could you state your name and address for the record. MOOERS: Greg Mooers, PO Box 1101, Kamuela, Hawaii. ALAMEDA: Okay, go ahead. MOOERS: Yeah, there were several mailings done related to this application. The first mailing on September 9, 2005 there was a notice to 399 neighbors. At that point the proposed mauka-makai connector was adjacent to Alii Park Place. Subsequent to that, the Director asked us to relocate that access point to Alii Lani Way; and at that time we did; and we sent out an additional 689 notices to people who now were within 500 feet of that roadway. So in total over 1,000 people were notified. Then on May 5, 2006, a second notice went out to both groups, so the 399 initially and then the 689. As we started the contested case, there was a question related to the owners, the Intervenors, who lived on a roadway in which we had notified everybody within 500 feet of the project. But since the roadway was owned jointly by the entire organization we were asked to do a fourth mailing, in which we did to all of those roadway owners; and that was done on May 30, 2006. I do have all of the mailing list here and the dates they were mailed. I don’t know what the, the testifiers, what their particular TMK numbers are; EXHIBIT B 11 but the County should have copies of all these that were certified by the postal service when we did the mailings. I don’t personally do the mailings. I have a service that generates the list and we post it. And I take it down to the post office; and they certified that every name on the list did get the mailing and that’s what’s submitted to the Planning Department. So in this case there were three, both mailings, and then a fourth additional mailing to just the lot owners. And we do have records of all those TMKs. ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It appears that the possible situation may be that the testifiers live in the Kona Sea Villas project which apparently is on the same TMK as the proposed project that is before us. So there’s a possibility that being on the same TMK the notifier had gone from the property line rather than within the property itself. That appears to be the situation. We can’t find anybody that’s notified within the same TMK. ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow, so could you further comment on the implications of that? DARROW: If I could direct that to our Director or Corp. Counsel. ALAMEDA: Mr. Director? YUEN: I want to take a break, whenever it’s convenient for the Commission, and discuss this, not in executive session but just with the Department to discuss with our Corp. Counsel. ALAMEDA: Now is a good time. Is that okay? Seeing no objection, let’s take a ten- minute recess. RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 10:45 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:55 a.m. ALAMEDA: Commissioners, we’ll reconvene at this time. Mr. Lim? LIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’ve consulted with the Planning Department; and in light of the fact that there’s approximately a thousand mailouts there’s no way we’re going to be able to check whether the particular people that came to testify got notice. So we’d request a continuance to the next meeting of the Planning Commission in Kona. In that time, what we would do is we’d work with the Planning Department to determine whether or not the residents of the Kona Sea Villas got noticed; and, if not, we’ll send the notices out immediately. And in that way we could have a notice to them and a return to the Commission for next month’s meeting. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Procedurally what would happen after the notice has gone out to them? Because the contested case hearing, will that reopen again or this just EXHIBIT B 12 provides those who were left out the opportunity to come before the Planning Commission and provide testimony? I’m not so sure what’s going to happen after that. ALAMEDA: Right. Thanks for the question, Commissioner. Let’s ask Mr. Torigoe. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have to assume that it would involve the possibility of further contested case requests. I don’t want to say any more than that because I don’t have any further facts to work with. ALAMEDA: Follow-up, Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: The current concern that I’m raising is because there is the Findings of Facts, and Conclusions of Laws, and the Decision and Order proposed. And so somehow if there are individuals who have not been given the opportunity to be noticed and give testimony it has to be incorporated or included in some fashion in the thoughts, anyway, in putting this document together. So that’s the concern that I have, so that there is, procedurally everybody has been given due process. ALAMEDA: I, there’s agreement to that, Commissioner Galdones. Thanks for bringing it up. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I move that we continue this SMA request till, should we specify the next meeting in Kona, till the next Kona meeting. GALDONES: Second. ALAMEDA: Okay. There’s a motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Seeing none, staff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion is to continue this matter till the next Kona meeting. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Graham? EXHIBIT B 13 GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. ALAMEDA: All right. We will see you all again on this particular agenda item. LIM: Thank you very much. ALAMEDA: Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT B 14