Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-08 TBLASMAN PLANNING COMMISSION CONTESTED CASE MINUTES AND HEARING TRANSCRIPT WAYNE BLASMAN (SMA 02-03) May 8, 2003 A regularly advertised meeting ref`qchmfV@XMDAK@RL@MlRRODBH@K MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 02-003) was called to order at 9:12 a.m. in the Ohana KeatgntAd`bgQdrnqs+J`g`ktktA`kkqnnl+67,563/ Alii Drive, North Kona, Hawai`i, with First Vice-Chairman Earl Fujikawa presiding. PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT & EXCUSEDFred Galdones William GrahamJeffrey McCall Florence KubotaHannah Springer Aurelio Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Bill Thibadeau Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner And approximately 7 people from the public in attendance Adoption of written resolution reconfirming the continuing autho officers for the contested case of Wayne Blasman's Special Manag Application (SMA 02-003). FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Do we have the Applicant for Item No. 2 her the representative? TORIGOE:The intervenors are here. FUJIKAWA:Good. Okay, next on the agenda -. Anyway, weÓre going to go on Item No. 2. That would be Unfinished Business. ItÓs the adoption of the written resolution reconfirming the continuing authority of the hearings officers for the contested case of Wayne BlasmanÓs Special Management Area Use Permit Appli (SMA 02-003). Go ahead, staff. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, IÓd like to turn it over to Deputy Corporation Counsel, Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE:Thank you. Mr. Chair, I believe the Intervenors are here also and perhaps itÓd be appropriate to allow them to come up to the table at this time. 1 FUJIKAWA:Okay. Those of you who have signed up at this particular hearing, which one of you -? You have all signed in on the agenda. Is that Maile David? David Roy and Makahala Roy? ROY:Mikahala. FUJIKAWA:Okay, now, if three of you would raise your hand, right you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. You may be seated. TORIGOE:And the record should also reflect that the Planning Director, Mr. Yuen, is sitting at the table with them as a party to this Blasman contested case. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Yuen. TORIGOE:Just for background, you have received a draft resolution that I prepared and youÓve also received a written letter stating some objections and questions from Intervenor Maile David. And itÓs because of the questions that are raised by Ms. David during the course of the Contested Case Hearings that the hearings officers have already started, that I prepared this resolution in order to address the questions that Ms. David raises, and to try to put them to rest so that no one would have to worry about this. I understand that -. Obviously, all the parties are very concerned that if thereÓs any question about the hearings officersÓ authority, you know, theyÓre putting a lot of time and effort into this matter. And, so, basically, based on my research, I think that the strongest thing you guys, the Commission, can do to make sure that the hearings officers have unquestionable authority is to adopt the written resolution such as IÓve prepared, which basically reaffirms and recounts all of the actions that you have already taken to appoint Ms. Giffin, Ms. Springer and Mr. Togashi as the hearings officers for the Blasman Contested Case. So thatÓs my recommendation, that you simply pass this resolution to make sure that there would be, no one has to worry about the authority of these hearings officers. With that, I would simply turn it back over to you, Mr. Chairman. And I think the Intervenors and Mr. Yuen have something to say about that. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Mr. Yuen, you have something to say on this YUEN:Well, we stated our position in writing that we think that the hearings officers were duly confirmed previously. But we respect the analysis made by the attorney for the Planning Commission and support the Plannin reconfirming their appointment today. 2 FUJIKAWA:All right, any questions from the Commission? TORIGOE:Mr. Graham. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Graham, go ahead. GRAHAM:I wondered if Mr. Yuen or Corp. Counsel could give us a little substantive commentary on the nature of the objection by Maile David, which appears to be that the terms of those, of two of the hearings officers have expired as Planning Commissioners. And I donÓt have the legal background to know the relevance of that. So maybe you could just tell us a little bit about that? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically, the Planning Commission has authority under its rules and under the statutes to appoint hearings officers and they do not need to be members of the Commission. And, in this case, three people who were serving as commissioners at the time that they were appointed. But, as I said, the Commission has authority to appoint people who are not members of the Commission. And in the vast majority of cases where hearings officers are used, they are not currently sitting members of the Planning Commission. And, so, certainly, to the extent that the Commission has always had the authority to appoint non-Commission members as hearings officers, clearly, I think the Commission has the authority to affirm and reappoint and continue to have former Commissioners continue on as hearings officers, especially in a case like this where the hearing has already started and everyone has invested time into it. But, basically, I think itÓs pretty clear that the Commission does have this authority. FUJIKAWA:Good. Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? EverythingÓs fine? Okay, now weÓll listen to the testimony of the people who have signed up. Maile David, could you give us your full name and your address? DAVID:Yes. Good morning, my name is Maile David. My address is 78-6894 Mamalahoa Highway, Hlualoa, Hawai`i 96725. Before I state my written testimony, IÓd like to address Mr. GrahamÓs question, also. In this particular case, I agree totally with Mr. Torigoe that the Planning Commission does have the authority to appoint non-Commission members. However, itÓs my understanding that these non-Commission members are chosen from a list thatÓs available of people who have, IÓm not sure through what process, but there is a list of hearings officers that can be appointed. So I just wanted to add that to comment to Mr. TorigoeÓs. And I donÓt believe, unless they are, but I donÓt believe that Ms. Giffin and Mr. Togashi are on that list since I last checked, so thatÓs why IÓm raising this. Okay, IÓm going to do my testimony but do you want to -? 3 KUBOTA:Oh, yes. May I ask, may I ask -? FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Kubota, you have a -. KUBOTA:May I ask you a question just to clarify. So youÓre sugg youÓre coming from the point that although these people were appointed as Commissioners, they were reconfirmed before they became non-Comm saying that at this point they should be replaced by someone else? Is that where youÓre coming from? DAVID:No. IÓm here because thereÓs a question in my mind, at th public hearing when they were nominated, and they volunteered, they werenÓt nominated, they volunteered to serve -. KUBOTA:Right, right, they volunteered. DAVID:And it was decided, there was some discussion at that hearing whether to procure -. KUBOTA:Hire. DAVID:Yeah, to hire or not to hire. And it was decided at the hearing that the Commissioners, whoever could serve would, you know, serve. So thatÓs how these three Commissioners were appointed. Basically, because you were -. KUBOTA:Yes, IÓm cognizant of that because I was in that discussion. DAVID:Okay. KUBOTA:Okay, thank you. DAVID:Right. Okay. Then, in December, their terms expired but they still could, basically, they still could -. KUBOTA:They still have 90 days, yeah. DAVID:Right. And they were confirmed prior, after the confirmation in January, the replacement for Mr. Togashi was appointed. KUBOTA:Wait, wait. We reconfirmed them, according to my recolle and the notes here, in January. Their 90 days had not been up so they hadnÓt expired yet; and their successors had not been named, either. DAVID:At that point, yes. KUBOTA:So, theoretically, they were still Commissioners. 4 DAVID:At that time, yes. IÓm not arguing about that because -. KUBOTA:Yeah, okay, okay. I just needed to clarify that point. Thank you. DAVID:Right. It was what happened after is the -. KUBOTA:Okay, go on; and maybe IÓll get a better picture. Thank FUJIKAWA:Okay. You may proceed with your testimony. DAVID:Mahalo. Aloha, my name is Maile David and I am one of the three Intervenors granted standing in SMA Permit Application No. 02-003, filed by Wayne Blasman. On the first day of the contested case hearing I raised an objection to the authority of Grant Togashi and Geraldine GiffinÓs authority to serve as Planning Commission hearings officers in this case. I would like to restate my objections and also state my objection to the Planning CommissionÓs efforts to ratify, affirm and reconfirm, by written Resolution No. 01-03, the appointment of Ms. Giffin and Mr. Togashi as hearings officers in the Contested Case Hearings for SMA 02-003. I have no objections to Ms. Springer serving as a hearing officer as her term as Planning Commissioner has not expired. At the August 2, 2002 public hearing, the Planning Commission considered whether to procure an independent hearing officer or to have the Planning Commission serve as hearings officers in this case. Since the majority of the Commissioners preferred procurement, roll was taken to determine if any Commissioners were willing to serve as hearings officers. Ms. Giffin, Ms. Springer and Mr. Togashi volunteered and it was moved and seconded by the Commission that these Commission members be appointed to serve as hearings officers. At the time the Planning Commission reconfirmed the appointment on January 17, 2003, both Chairman Giffin and Commissioner TogashiÓs terms had expired on December 31, 2002. However, successors to Chair Giffin and Commissioner Togashi were not yet appointed at that time, but both Ms. Giffin and Mr. Togashi were still authorized to continue to serve as Planning Commissioners. Article XIII, Section 13-4(d) of the Hawai`i County Charter states, ÐNo member whose term has expired shall continue to serve on such board or commission except that if no successor has been appointed and confirmed, the member shall continue to serve for ninety days or until a successor is appointed and confirmed, whichever comes first.Ñ On February 7, 2003 Commissioner TogashiÓs successor was appoint that date Mr. Togashi no longer was a Planning Commissioner, and I believe thus should not serve as a Planning Commissioner hearings officer. 5 st On March 31, this year, 2003, Ms. GiffinÓs 90-day authority to continue to serve expired and as of that date, she was no longer a Planning Commissioner, who should also not continue to serve as a Planning Commissioner hearings officer. The Hawai`i County Charter has a provision that states if the Charter makes no provisions, then powers may be made by resolutions.Ñ Article II, Section 2-2 of the Hawaii County Charter states, ÐExercise of powers. All powers of the county shall be carried into execution as provided by this Charter or, if the Charter makes no provision, by ordinance or resolution of the county council.Ñ The Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure contains no provision that would allow a CommissionerÓs authority to continue after the lawful expiration of his or her term. The Planning Commission Rules Of Practice and Procedure also contains no provision that the Commission, through Resolution can ratify, reaffirm and reconfirm authorities a commissioner no longer possesses. Likewise, the Hawai`i County Code, Article 7, Section 2-27 has no such provision. In closing I, again, state that my objections are in no way a personal attack upon Ms. Giffin or Mr. Togashi, but expresses my concerns regarding the authority governing this process. I believe the Hawai`i County Charter, in this case, is the proper authority; and any attempt to ratify, affirm and reconfirm the appointment of persons whose authority to serve expired is unlawful. Resolution No. 01-03 undermines the Hawai`i County Charter and attempts to impose regulations in lieu of going through the statutory rule-making processes. For the record, my objections are again noted. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Thank you very much. Maybe the Corp. Counsel, Mr. Tori can you give any comments on this? TORIGOE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the County Charter is a very broad enabling document that is not meant to be, you know, a very precise rule- making kind of a document. It doesnÓt purport to cover all of the procedures that boards and commissions follow. ThatÓs for the Planning Commission rules and other statutes. The Planning Commission has whatever powers its rules and other law gives it. And without going into all of the gory details, basically, I just want to assure you that the Planning Commission does have authority to appoint hearings officers who are not members of your Commission at this point. I understand from the letter of Ms. David and talking to her that, and maybe I just want to confirm this, you really have no objection to the qualifications of Mr. Togashi, or Ms. Springer, or Ms. Giffin, do you? DAVID:Well, as far as their qualifications as experienced Planning Commissioners, I have no, yes, I have no objections to their qualifications. TORIGOE:Right. 6 DAVID:You know what my objections are. TORIGOE:Yeah, itÓs just as stated, to the process here. Okay. And the record also reflects that the Applicant has put on record that the Applicant has no objections to the reconfirmation of them as hearings officers. So I think you can take some comfort in that the efforts would not be in vain. Having said what they said, I donÓt think the Applicants would be able to then later on complain that, you know, the hearings officers were not appropriately appointed. So, I think, basically, then, this resolution would be the strongest possible thing you could do to put everybodyÓs fears to rest; and, so, I respectfully recommend that you pass it. FUJIKAWA:Maile David, are you satisfied with the Corp. CounselÓs comments? DAVID:I understand his comments. FUJIKAWA:You understand it. DAVID:Yes, and I still state my objections. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Yuen, you raised your hand. You have -? YUEN:Yes, I donÓt have anything to add to what Mr. Torigoe said and I support him as an advisor to the Planning Commission on this. I did want to say one thing about this question of appointing a hearings officer from a list that was stated by Maile David. She may misunderstand this a little bit. When a hearing officer is hired, then paid, then that hearing officer has to be appointed from a list. This is because of the way the State Procurement Code works for non-bid-type services. And hiring the hearing officer is not the kind of service that you would want to hire on the basis of the lowest bid. So itÓs done on a non-bid basis when we go out and hire someone. In that situation, the State Procurement Code requires us to have a list of qualified people, and we have such a list for hearings officers. Then we have to have a committee thatÓs set up to actually decide on who the hearing officer is. Because of the Procurement Code, in that case, the Planning Department is actually the procuring agency. And we do the selection, although we have typically had a member of the Planning Commission on the committee that selects the hearings officer. So then the department does the hiring of the hearings officer; and thatÓs where this matter of a list comes in. This is a situation where Commissioners, sitting Commissioners, were originally appointed and then have volunteered to stay on and hear the case out without compensation. So the Procurement Code does not come into play. FUJIKAWA:Again, Maile David, you understand the DirectorÓs comments? 7 DAVID:I understand, yes. FUJIKAWA:Very good. Thank you. DAVID:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Are there any other questions? Commissioner? D. ROY: I have a question as a layman here-. FUJIKAWA:Just a minute. I have to swear you in yet and -. M. ROY:You did. FUJIKAWA:I did. Okay. David Roy, can you state your address first before you do a -. D. ROY:As a layman, I -. M. ROY:He cannot hear too well -. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, we would need his address. M. ROY:Address, please. Your address? FUJIKAWA:Your residence. D. ROY:My address is P.O. Box 596, Kailua-Kona. ThatÓs my maili address. FUJIKAWA:Okay. D. ROY:But my question is -. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. D. ROY:If this Council has a system whereby the hearings chairperson is nd regularly reappointed after a certain term, why is it now at such a point after August 2 that this is allowed to happen? Can you tell me that? FUJIKAWA:Is the Director or the Corp. Counsel -? TORIGOE:IÓm not sure I understand the question. FUJIKAWA:You would like to clarify your question again? 8 D. ROY:I would like to say that in August 2003 -. M. ROY:Two. D. ROY:I applied, that is Klana Huli Honua applied, for a Contested Case Standing. And since that time, we have a situation where the hearings officersÓ term has expired. And there are certain rules that you have in your Charter that call for some action. Now, why was it that we have to wait to almost June this day, in order to reappoint that hearing officer? I think thatÓs a legitimate question that we have. This is our County now. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Corp. Counsel, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Yes, Mr. Roy, I think the record reflects that this Commission confirmed and reaffirmed -. D. ROY:Excuse me. TORIGOE:You still canÓt hear me? D. ROY:Your voice is muffled by the mike. M. ROY:ItÓs muffled. You need to -. D. ROY:Can you speak clearly? TORIGOE:Yeah. I think the EQ needs to be adjusted, maybe a little more treble and a little less base. Yeah. Is this better, Mr. Roy? Okay. D. ROY:Just speak slowly, please. TORIGOE:Sure. Basically, the Commission did take votes to confirm and reaffirm these hearings officers before; and, so, and this was done before they went off the Commission as well as after, I believe. But, in any case, the Commission has already taken action way before this. But because Ms. David raised further questions, I wanted to make sure that the Commission did everything that it possibly could to put on record in writing that they are reaffirming; and then nobody later is going to say from this Commission, ÐGee, you know, we really didnÓt intend that to continue on after they went off the Commission.Ñ We want to make sure that this Commission is on record in writing saying that you guys can rely on these three hearings officers, and remove any doubt at this point. FUJIKAWA:Do you understand the comments from the Corp. Counsel? D. ROY:ItÓs not sinking it quite clear yet; but IÓm pretty sure that you have it under control. But the thing I donÓt like about this is that with all the time that you 9 have at your disposal, that these things are not prepared for ahead of time and you can function on time, on schedule. Now IÓm only a member of the pub weÓre subjected to from the County, then we have to be on our alert standing all the time; and I object to that kind of thing. As a citizen, IÓd like to feel comfortable that the County is exercising all the rules that they set up. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Commissioner Kubota, go ahead. KUBOTA:As a lay person to a lay person, let me tell you how I see the picture; and I understand your questions. But itÓs not that we were unprepared, we just didnÓt expect it to be questioned. We thought -. You can hear my voice, yeah? D. ROY:Yes. KUBOTA:Okay. We thought, in August, when we appointed the three hearings officers, we thought it was pau. They were going to serve right through. Okay? Then two of the three people, their term expired in December, yeah. Okay, so in January, we reconciled, that we thought by voting them in again as hearings officers. So we thought they were all legit and all pau, all that was taken care of. Okay, and, then, comes this question during the Contested Case Hearing about their tenure as Commissioners, having been expired, still serving on the, as hearings officers. The questioned came up much later. ThatÓs why weÓre here today trying to make everything all honky-dory. Okay? ThatÓs a laymanÓs point from a layman answer. D. ROY:In other words, it is a good faux pas thought. KUBOTA:A what? D. ROY:A good faux pas thought. KUBOTA:Oh, no, it was not a faux pas. No, it was not a faux pas thought everything was honky-dory. But it seems that something needs to be corrected, so weÓre just trying to make it very clear. Okay? D. ROY:Well, excuse me. KUBOTA:Okay. D. ROY:Something like this, a hearing on a Contested Case is the most critical thing you can imagine -. KUBOTA:Oh, I agree. D. ROY:To be held by an individual whose term is not certain. A object to the idea of being put to a test like this on such a matter, such a critical issue. 10 I would like to say that IÓve seen that model that the Applicants have prepared for this place. It was readily apparent to me that under the circumstances, the Keakealani residence would never be exposed to the public at all, forever, with this building in place. And another thing is that with the excavation that they plan in hand, I do not think that we can rest comfortably to the effect that subterranean channels might be affected underneath there. We have some caves in that area; and I hesitate to think of what could happen. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Mikahala. Could you give us your address, please? M. ROY:Yes, good morning. My name is Mikahala Roy. Address, P. Box 596, Klana Huli Honua, Kailua-Kona. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. M. ROY:Thank you for your time today. I realize why weÓre here. will say for the record that when we began the process for Contelana Huli Honua supported the stand and encouraged the stand of Maile David, knowing that she had planned to make, bring this point out. We supported it immediately for the fact that, No. 1, the setting of the hearing dates were not clear. When these initial actions were taken in August and then in January, we support your activity in that way. However, as the people who are participating in this Contested Case, our concern is for qualification. I will say, it is not really that the terms have been expired. But on top of that I will say that the quality we raised in our initial meetings, that for the case of this magnitude of Kaluaokalani, which is the entire name for this residence at Keakealani, it is of such high importance that we question, that we wanted the finest representation in terms of hearings officers. And this is why, for our organization, we go back to that list and ask you what are the kinds of qualifications you have or the State has for their hearings officers. We, again, I agree with Ms. David, we do not raise concern against these individuals, fine individuals personally. But in the for -, while we have a chance to contest this, this is the point we raise, that we contest and we look for qualifications of the hearings officer of the highest qualification, that perhaps financial involvement makes that difference. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Corp. Counsel, maybe you have any comments you would like to say? TORIGOE:No, I really donÓt have anything else to add at this point. KUBOTA:I have a question. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Ms. Roy, that adds a new wrinkle to our consideration because, up until now, the consideration has been on their authority to serv expiration. Now youÓre raising the question of qualifications, which is an entirely new 11 wrinkle that youÓre bringing into consideration. I donÓt feel IÓm willing to make a decision on this until -. IÓm going to ask Corp. Counsel for an Executive Session so I can bring some questions. ROY:Thanks, Mrs. Kubota, because, IÓm sorry, I come to you like mother organization here. Thank you for putting this on the agenda because I raised this point at the hearing. This was our point. And I know the individuals, I thank them for their service to Hawai`i County; itÓs not that. ItÓs about the magnitude of this case and about the safety of the just outcome, the carriage of justice here. KUBOTA:Mr. Chair, I request an Executive Session to consult with Corp. Counsel. FUJIKAWA:This time here, now, Commissioner Kubota requests an Ex Session based on this matter. Do I have a motion, anyone -? Those of you in favor for Executive Session at this time, make a motion. Which Commissioner is making a motion? Go ahead. KUBOTA:Did I move? I move that we go into Executive Session. MINA:Second. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Commissioner Kubota made a motion to move and seconded by Commissioner Mina. At this time, we are now in Executive Session. Before we do that, we have to take a vote. Any question before we take a roll call? No question. Go ahead. Staff. HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. 12 HAYASHI:Chair Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. We are now in Executive Session. Would the please leave? EXECUTIVEThe Commission went into executive session at 9:42 a.m. SESSIONand came out of excutive session at 10:03 a.m. FUJIKAWA:Will the meeting please come back to order again. Just record that David Roy and Mikahala Roy has not returned. They had other commitment. We are now back in the session. We are out of the Executive Session so we may continue. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Maile David, do you have any other comments? DAVID:The only comment, I guess -. FUJIKAWA:Sharon, itÓs not on. DAVID:Yeah, I know. I thought it sounded funny when you were ta NOMURA:IÓm sorry about that. FUJIKAWA:Okay, I guess, itÓs all on. Go ahead, Maile David. DAVID:Okay. The only thing that, I guess, in closing, IÓd like to say - it just appears to me that the authority here would not lie with the Commission adopting the resolution for this case. It just seems that the County Charter, although itÓs vague, as Mr. Torigoe says as far as not being specific on what can and cannot happen, I see that the Charter is basically the only thing that I can look at right now that can authorize something like this to happen. So I just wanted to make that la FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Mr. Torigoe, you have any comments on this? TORIGOE:No, I have nothing else to say. FUJIKAWA:Is there anyone else whoÓs testifying on this? No one? Commissioners, you have any other questions? So weÓre going to have your testimony recorded. ItÓs all recorded, okay? Okay, weÓre going to ask for a motion on this one here. Do I hear a motion? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? 13 FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Mrs. Kubota. KUBOTA:I think todayÓs exercise was a good one and IÓm ready to make a motion. I am moving to approve the Resolution No. 01-03 confirming the appointment of the hearing officers, as recommended, no, not as recommended, as reaffirming the action taken by the Planning Commission in the previous months. FUJIKAWA:Do I hear a second? MINA:I second that motion. FUJIKAWA:It has been moved and seconded, it has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Mina. Is there any question? If none, staff? HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. ItÓs carried at 6 to 0. The motion is in favor on the application. Thank you. DAVID:Thank you very much. 14 The discussion ended at 10:06 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary A T T E S T: Earl Fujikawa, First Vice-Chairman Planning Commission 15