Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-24 TALLIANCE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT May 24, 2007 ALLIANCE REDWOODS A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CONFERENCE GROUNDS, INC. (SPP 06-000033) was called to order at 10:29 a.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: Takashi Domingo ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda William Graham Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner James Blake (Alliance Redwoods Conference Grounds, Inc.), Applicant Jerel Yamamoto representing Applicant Brian Nishimura representing Applicant And approximately 35 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: ALLIANCE REDWOODS CONFERENCE GROUNDS, INC. (SPP 06-000033) Discussion and action of the Hearings Officer’s Report on the Special Permit Application to allow the establishment of a camping and retreat center on 6 acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The area under consideration is located approximately 0.8 mile makai of Akoni Pule Highway (Highway 270) and in the vicinity of Union Market, Hanaula, North Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 5-4-9: portion of 12. GRAHAM: Our next agenda item is an application for a Special Permit by the Alliance Redwoods Conference Grounds, Inc. This Special Permit application would allow a camping and retreat center on 6 acres of land within the State Land Use Agricultural District. And this land is located about 0.8 miles makai of Akoni Pule Highway, and it’s in the vicinity of Union Market in North Kohala, Hawaii. I believe our procedure here today would be Jeff of the Planning Department will give the Commission kind of a review of the specifics of the application. We had a hearings officer, Sherry Broder, who already conducted a contested case hearing on that. And the Commissioners here we have all the materials from that. So after Jeff gives us his review, then I do have some people signed up for public testimony. And if others wish to sign up, please go to the table there and do that. So we’ll take public testimony after Jeff’s presentation and any questions from the Commissioners about the presentation. And then after we had the public testimony, I’ll close the public hearing part of today’s item, and then EXHIBIT B 1 we’ll go ahead and call up the parties, both the applicant and intervenors. And then we’ll deal with going forward towards making a decision from there. All right. Jeff, could you start, please? DARROW: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct the Commission’s attention to the location map, the area of this application is within the North Kohala District of Hawaii, more specifically we are looking at the Akoni Pule Highway running in an east-west direction. Just for reference, we have the Union Mill Road, and we also have the Union Market identified in pink, which is Commercial Zoning.The area of the application is identified in yellow, the yellow dot here, which as the Chairman had mentioned is approximately 0.8 mile makai of the Akoni Pule Highway. For reference as well, previously the Planning Department Commission approved Special Management Area Use Permit 417 and Special Permit 1117 for a 16-room Hawaiian Permaculture Center, and that’s located just makai of this application. The applicant in this case, Alliance Redwoods Conference Grounds, Inc., is requesting a Special Permit for a camping and retreat center on 6 acres of an approximate 36-acre parcel. Referring to the submitted plot plan from the applicants, proposed access would be from what was called the road near Union Market, which it’s come to my understanding now has been named Maluhia Road. And this would come down to Pratt Road, and then come across to the access road, which is now identified as Lokahi Road. Access will be from this Lokahi Road. And the camping facility identified, the 6-acre permit area identified in blue will consist of the following items: Proposed are 14 cabins – they are identified in black dots in these locations, also a tent camping area, 4 farm worker staff cabins; additionally there are other items such as a bath and pool house, plant nursery, a meeting pavilion, a snack shack, a prayer cabin, open pasture, organic vegetable gardens, as well as recreational area for rope course, climbing wall, etc. nd This is a continued hearing. Our first hearing was held on September 22, 2006, at the Hapuna Prince Beach Hotel. At that time the Planning Commission voted to grant standing to two intervenors identified as Jean Sunderland as well as Kamakani O Kohala Ohana, Inc. or also known as Kako`o. The Planning Commission also voted to outsource this contested case hearing to a hearings officer. Attorney, Sherry Broder, was selected as the hearings officer, and the th contested case was conducted on February 6, 2007. The Planning Commission has received the entire record for this application as well as the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations from the hearings officer, as well as from the both intervenors, the applicant and the Planning Department. The recommendation from the hearings officer is that the application be approved with listed conditions. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you, Jeff. All right, I believe we should proceed with public testimony. And I have six names here. Maybe I can call you up like three at a time. So could I have Toni Withington, Mike Marsoun and Michael Perry? Come forward at this time, and you may be seated there. Thank you all. First of all, I would like to swear you in. So could you please raise your right hands, and swear or affirm that you’ll tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. As far as the order, I’ll start on my right with Toni Withington. And then as you begin your testimony, just give your name and your address first, EXHIBIT B 2 and then you can go right ahead without any further comments into what you have to say about this application today. And we only have six testifiers, but still some brevity is appreciated, if you could stay with the points of importance. Thank you. Ms. Withington? WITHINGTON: Good Morning to you all. My name is Toni Withington. I’m with Kamakani O Kohala Ohana, Inc., Kako`o. We have been a part of the contested case hearing. We are an environmental organization based in North Kohala, dedicated to the proper management of our community resources. As we have said before, we do not have objection to this project, or the scope of the project. Our -. GRAHAM: Ms. Withington, just a second. Are you testifying as an individual testifier, or are you kind of a representative of the Kako`o in this point, who is one of the intervenors who would come up a little bit later on the process? WITHINGTON: I’m testifying for Kako`o. I am only offering summary remarks as result of the hearings officer’s report, and so I’m limiting myself to two small points. GRAHAM: Let me check with Mr. Torigoe a second, first. Is this appropriate, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Generally speaking, if you have a contested case and you have the parties coming before you, then when you call the parties up as parties is the time when you should receive argument or commentary. Right now I think what you are doing is taking general public testimony from non-parties. So, but I believe it’s within your discretion. I think if you want to allow some limited commentary, you could do so; or if these comments from Ms. Withington could be done when the actual contested case parties are brought up, that’s another option. GRAHAM: All right. Ms. Withington, if you would like to -. I mean if the Commission is okay, since you weren’t participating in the contested case hearing, if you want to just make some comments as you were doing here, that’s okay. WITHINGTON: The brief comments I have to make are ones that were not addressed in the report of the hearings officer that we feel are important for you to hear. Is that all right? GRAHAM: Is that all right with the Commissioners if she just put them forward here now? All right. Go ahead. WITHINGTON: Okay. I have two things to say to you. One is that the use of Special Permits on prime ag land is having a devastating effect on the diversified agriculture in our community. The State and the County have both recognized so strongly that the transition from plantation agriculture to diversified agriculture is going to take a long time and it’s going to take a lot of forbearance by owners of prime ag property. The State law clearly says that pressure needs to be put on owners of prime land in a permitting process, so that it can continue in prime ag. But what is happening is investors and speculators are coming to the County to ask for Special Permits for non-ag uses in prime land despite the State law that prohibits that. The Planning Department’s own Recommendation recognizes this land as prime ag, and in your EXHIBIT B 3 Recommendation’s page 5 of the Planning Department’s criteria (E), they say that this should not be used on lands that, for which the zoned purpose is not appropriate – and the Planning Department says that this land is prime ag and it is suited for its permitted use, which is agriculture. And the Planning Department says this application has not met that criteria, and we believe the same thing. Second point that I would like to make is on cumulative effects, which was not addressed by the hearings officer in her report. We have said that the County through its Special Permits has approved accommodations for visitors in our community that are way beyond what is recommended by the planning process. The impacts of these people in our community are felt through the roads, through the public safety, through water, and through waste. A review of the permits that have already been issued by the County in North Kohala was undertaken by our group with the help of the Planning Department – thank you very much. And this review showed that the County has already permitted accommodations through the Special Permit process of 758 people in North Kohala at any one time. This figure does not include hotels, B&Bs, vacation rentals or illegal retreats. Now with the 105 accommodations proposed in this application, the total amount of new people into our community everyday could be as much as 863 people. We are saying that this impact must be taken into account when you are approving Special Permits; it’s not fair to look at each permit on its own basis, and just say, oh, here’s some and here’s some and here’s some. You need to know how many you’ve already permitted in the past, and how much the community can handle at any one time. It’s because of both of these Recommendations that the use of Special Permits on prime ag land in North Kohala may be an issue that the North Kohala people wish to address in the community development plan process; and the accumulative effects of approving Special Permits on prime ag land may be an issue that might be wished to be addressed by the community development plan process in North Kohala. We recommend that you hold off on approval of this project. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Ms. Withington. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. Thank you, Toni. How far along is the Kohala community on their community development plan? Have you completed the plan? And I know that the Council was entertaining a resolution involving a pause on change of zone for both Kona and Kohala – I wish they would do it for Puna. But at what stage in the whole process is Kohala’s plan now? WITHINGTON: We have entered the process. The steering committee has been appointed. The steering committee has met, I believe. Mr. Graham would know more about this than I would, actually. But -. SIRACUSA: He can’t testify, though. WITHINGTON: I know, I know. But I can tell you that they have met. They are getting ready to have their meetings, and the community is really up for this. I want you to know that there was a higher percentage of people turning out for participation in the CDP process in Kohala than any other District on this island. So the community is really up for this process, and we are doing it right now. And we would like to have community say over issues such as these. EXHIBIT B 4 GRAHAM: Any other questions from the Commissioners? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: You made reference to the Kohala development plan. I think it’s mentioned in one of the documents here that the plan states that agricultural lands should be preserved. But on the other hand, a few sentences below that under the economic element of the plan, states that agricultural lands should be used for retreats and other uses to bolster the economic potential of the area. Are you aware of that? WITHINGTON: Yes, I’m aware of that. I’m also aware of the State law; the State law regarding agricultural lands that lists specific uses for use on prime land and requires State review of these uses. And one of the uses that are specifically listed in there as not prohibited is overnight camping. DOMINGO: Yes, it does. And that is why they are here before the Commission to obtain a Special Permit. I would advise you, as you work on the Kohala development plan, that you consider this two – what do you call – discrepancies, and perhaps allow for some leeway, not leeway, but some explanation as to the importance of it. Surely agricultural lands are important. But when you look at it from the economic standpoint, I think what drives growth in Kohala and other areas on the island is the fact that people are using agricultural lands to consider other alternate uses, so that they can use the land for more economical purposes than ag use in itself. WITHINGTON: Yes, I understand that very, very much. And I do support any economic growth in our community; I mean that’s given. The point is that the State and the County have both recognized that the transition from plantation agriculture to diversified agriculture is going to take some forbearance by everybody. Because if we allow our prime ag land to be taken up by non-ag uses, we will not be able to go back. The inflation of the value of them will take them out of their ability to be used as ag, and we will find ourselves in a kind of a sticky spot, not being able to use ag when we have the opportunity to do that. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? All right. Sir, in the center, please start with your name and address. PERRY: Aloha, everybody. My name is Michael. Last name is Perry and not “W.” My address is 74-5085 Kealapua Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740. I just have kind of two things that I was, as he was speaking. I know we’re talking about land and the economic and the use of it of growing things on top there, and that’s cool and all. But as I was looking at your panel, I was thinking I work with teenagers and youth in high schools and stuff like that, and it’s very, very hard to find places where we can take the youth and do outreaches and camps. We normally get shut down because of a -, certain places have so much restrictions that we can’t be allowed to go camping in areas. In September I spoke about Makalawaena. We go camping down there. And not one occasion but two occasions, there’s big, huge parties, you know, people down there really destroying the land, really destroying. One night I explained in September was the morning after the Forth of July weekend, the morning after, the whole place EXHIBIT B 5 was littered with glass, trash, clothes, you know, it was just trash, really, really trash. And today I want to speak about another place that we go camping that I take a couple of my youth, is Kiholo, Kiholo Beach Park. There is no camping there no more because people wrecked that place up. There are teenagers that parties; I mean they are just having a blast, you know what I mean? I feel that if we get to the heart or get to the source of these teenagers and what they are struggling with, and if we can use the retreat as a facility to hold things there, we can get them out, you know what I mean, and get them walk in the right path. Then we would see a lot of development in our community that’s going to flow through; they are going to see how important our land is to us, how important people is to us, you know what I mean, is what’s going to boil down to. So again I’m just supporting these kids ’cause they’re our generation. They’re going to be probably the ones that are sitting inside your guys seats, you know, if we raise them right; it takes a whole village to raise one child, not just one person. But that’s all I have to say. GRAHAM: Thank you, Michael. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Perry, what kind of a program you work with the youth? PERRY: Well, I’m the upcoming youth pastor at Mokuaikaua Church, and we do a lot of leadership camps where we show them their leadership potentials. Picture it as a -, since we are right here located right on the main strip here, we have a lot of kids that just come right off of streets; we don’t even know these kids. But it’s like taking a piece of clay and molding them to just as beautiful statues that -, it’s like, wow. You know what I mean? And then they find not just respect in others, they find respect in themselves first. And through these camps, like what I said, we do leadership things that we find leadership qualities that we can build on within them. And that’s right there, you know, right when we get that ball rolling, then they’ll find leadership in themselves, and then after that it’s just a snowball effect. Once the leader is strong, who knows the possibility that’s going to happen from there; he might just step up to do more things. And in that time he is going to set example for the next generation. It’s just a snowball effect. And the one thing is leadership; we really do, really press on, ’cause there are leaders in these kids, but society really breaks them down, really breaks them down. DOMINGO: Are you familiar with the intent of the program that they are going to have at the proposed camp? PERRY: Yes, I do. I spoke to Jim, the one of the Redwoods’ -, that’s developing the camp. And that’s just amazing what’s going to happen down there. And I think it’s going to benefit not just the west coast here, but even Kohala side, too. ’Cause we do have a lot of – in our church ’cause it’s an old congregational church – we have a lot of sister churches down there that we do a lot of things with.Even the one church that got destroyed by the earthquake – I’m not familiar with the -, I forgot the name, can’t think of the name right now – even with that facility, too, that we work with, so -. DOMINGO: Thank you. GRAHAM: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Sir, your name and address first, please. EXHIBIT B 6 MARSOUN: My name is Mike Marsoun, and my address is P. O. Box 650, Kealakekua. GRAHAM: Go right ahead with your comments. MARSOUN: Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. I consider it a privilege to be here and to speak on behalf of Alliance Redwoods. I’m married. I have six children, and we are a home school family. And the reason I say “a home-school family” rather than “a family that home-schools” is because it’s a life style; we try to integrate learning into everything that we do. And we’ve learnt quite a bit about education over the last many years – my oldest is 17 right now. And one of the things that we’ve learnt is with children to get them to learn effectively, we do an approach which is called delight-directed education, which is where you will find something that the child already has a passion for, and then weave into that the reading, writing, arithmetic and all that. And it makes them be self-motivated, and they get it done, and they have an application to what they are learning, so it sticks a lot more. The reason I bring that up is because we’ve found with our own children, and just about every child that we’ve observed, is that the love of nature is ingrained into the soul of children, into the soul of man, and it does that work for you; it helps to teach them. And I believe that nature is God’s classroom and there is just so much to be learnt by nature, and that getting out in the light and to the illumination of the sun has a healing effect, the calming effect on children and all people, rather than the illumination from a, you know, computer screen or television or Nintendo, what have you. I don’t know your religious beliefs; I assume that they’re probably varied. But I think I could be bold enough to say that we would say that the Bible has some good moral and ethical teachings in it. And I just want to make the point that in those teachings in the Bible, almost all of the parables are in the context of agriculture; a man sowed seeds, and some fell on rocky ground, some fell on good soil, some fell between the thorns, you reap what you sow, on and on. They’re just everywhere. And that’s because it was agricultural society, but I also think it’s because it’s something that everybody understands, and people at that time could understand. I think it still applies today that one of the most effective ways that we can teach our youths character is through agriculture. And I’ve heard it said that this is not, you know, everybody is complaining that this is not to the prime land ag use. But it really is; I mean you are not only teaching them about the character qualities of getting your hands dirty, but also about farming. And if there is more of an awareness to what happens when you get your hands dirty and the fruit of that, then I believe there is going to be much more of a respect for the land in general. The lessons taught to these young people going to this camp will be patience, waiting, working hard to prepare something for the future that will bear fruit, diligence, discipline, team work and the rewards that come from all that, reaping the harvest, seeing something that comes out months later. This is character lessons with an application, and this is going to go deep into these children. And it’s going to be effective. There’re going to -, the lessons can be applied to education, higher education, their personal finances, investing, building a business, relationships; everything that you need to get on in life. This may be a stretch, but you can really glean a lot of – I’m trying to use ag terms “glean”, okay? And so I really believe strongly in this. Is my time up? GRAHAM: Thank you. EXHIBIT B 7 MARSOUN: Thank you. GRAHAM: I appreciate that. Do we have any questions for the testifier from the Commissioners? All right, thank you very much. You may go back. Our next three public testifiers are Jesse Toubman, Jovani Irizarry-Diaz and Nani Svendsen. Would you folks come forward, and I’ll swear you in? Would you raise your right hands, please, and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission here today? TESTIFIERS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. I’ll start with my right. Jesse, you could give your name and address first, please, and just go right ahead and make the comments you’d like to make. TOUBMAN: Okay. My name is Jesse Toubman, and my address is P. O. Box 1556, Kapaau, Hawaii. I being a youth know the importance of having a well-rounded life style and education, and I feel that some of the kids in Kohala aren’t getting that because they may have grown up around parents who haven’t had that themselves. Some kids don’t have good things to do with their time. After school they walk around; they don’t do anything. And I feel if there was a camp, they could learn how to communicate with children, how to be with the things that, skills to help them in their life, and so that they could prosper and be successful. And I feel that this camp is a very good way of doing that. I’ve seen other camps like this and I’ve seen what they can do. And I strongly believe that this camp can help children in Kohala. GRAHAM: Thank you for your comments. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? No, we don’t. So Jovani, start with your name and address, please, and then make your comments. IRIZARRY-DIAZ: Okay. Hello. My name is Jovani Irizarry, and I’m with Mokuaikaua’s youth group. I’ve been to a few camps just like this one that is coming out, and with the youth I really get to bond, and you learn respect and different skills like responsibility while you are at them. And also when you are at camps like this, you learn like survival stuff. When you go to camps that are similar to this, when you are with or around all the other people, you learn to become more responsible, and you get to like cherish the time. And I have friends at school that they smoke, they do drugs and they do a whole bunch of other things. And I bet that it’s because their parents are neglecting or they aren’t that caring for their children. If they made more camps like this, then they probably would have quality time with their parents, and they wouldn’t be so angry at the world and stuff, so -. GRAHAM: Thank you for your comments. Do we have any Commissioners with questions? All right, thank you. Ms. Svendsen, please; your name and address first. SVENDSEN: Can we try with me not speaking on this thing, if I can. I have to? GRAHAM: We need that because it’s recorded so we can have written minutes, okay? EXHIBIT B 8 SVENDSEN: Okay, okay. My name is Nani Svendsen. My address is Box 172, Hawi, Hawaii, Zip Code 96719. For myself I don’t come out to testify for people; I have been asked many times to do that to take a stand for a lot of Special – I shouldn’t say a lot – but for Special Permits. But I’m here today because this is something that I feel is important enough to take this drive to Kona. I work with men in recovery from drug addictions and alcohol, and I’ve been doing that for the past five years. Through working with them I have learnt many things. A lot of their problems started when they were children, and another thing that they’ve learnt through their program is about their connection to Higher Power. These two things are very, very important. And I think that come through working with me, I -. I have a taro patch. And they come and they help me in this taro patch, these men, and gardening. And it’s through this that we share our life stories, and it’s through this that they have learnt of their Higher Power. It is through the garden. And I’ve lived in Kohala all my life, born and raised in Kohala. I’m 51 years old. I’ve seen a lot of changes happen, and Kohala a lot of people have come. But a lot of people have come to take, not to give. And I think Jenny and Sully are here to give. We need more people that’s going to think beyond themselves, that’s going to open up their land, so that children can reconnect to what is being sold off. For myself there is much that I have learnt through working with men. There’s been over a hundred and fifty-some men that have come through this garden. And just recently, I want to say that they had asked me – there are seven that are graduating from Big Island Substance Abuse Counsel and the Drug Courts – and they had asked me if they could hold their ceremonies down at my taro patch because that was a time for them that really made a difference for them. So I think to have a prayer cabin is wonderful. I think to have gardens and people working together besides reasonable camping -. You know, a private ownership is when people really, really take pride in what they have; it’s yours, you’re going to make sure that everything flows right. Our Parks and Recreation can’t handle that anymore. Public has forgotten about how to be nice to each other and to be conscientious of their neighbor. So they trash, they drink, lewd behavior. And this is what our children need to be exposed to because this is the only public space that they can have? I don’t think so. So when someone comes along and offers their land to do good work, I’m behind that. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Ms. Svendsen. Do we have any comments or questions from the Commissioners? All right. You three may go back and be seated, please. And thank you for your testimony today. Is there anyone else in the audience here today that would care to testify on this matter before we bring the parties forward and proceed with our business? All right, thank you. So the three parties we have to this proceeding are the Sullivans who are the applicants; we have Kako`o who is an intervenor, and we also have Jean Sunderland who is an intervenor. Could you folks -, well, it doesn’t look like I’m going to get you all up there once but maybe -. Okay. Let’s see. Is Jean Sunderland not in attendance today? DARROW: No. GRAHAM: No. Jeff, do you know if Jean Sunderland was properly noticed about this hearing and all? EXHIBIT B 9 DARROW: She was properly noticed. We have made attempts to call her this morning, and we’ve left messages, but have not been able to contact her personally. GRAHAM: Okay. And for Kako`o, I know we had Toni Withington speak a minute ago. Is Toni still here, or is there any other representative for Kako`o who could come forward? In order to be complete, we’d like to have everybody that’s been a party to this forward, so maybe I’ll just take a five-minute recess, and will see if we can find anybody who’s missing. Thank you. RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 11:07 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:20 a.m. GRAHAM: Okay, I’d like to call the meeting back to order on the application for a Special Permit by Alliance Redwoods Conference Grounds, Inc. Also, I’d like to just let people know here that we are planning to break for lunch at 12:15, so I’ll just let you know our schedule, we’ll probably be gone until 1:30. So back on track with what we are tying to accomplish right now, we have the Special Permit before us. We had a contested case hearing. We got a set of proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations from the hearings officer. We also have material from our two intervenors – from Jean Sunderland and from the Kako`o group. We did not have any formally presented exceptions by any of the parties to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations of the hearings officer. We had Toni Withington speaking earlier today in the public testimony part, and she let us know at that time that she was representing Kako`o, but apparently chose to speak in the public hearing as opposed to at this point when we bring the parties together. We have not heard from Jean Sunderland, who was also an intervenor, at all today; and I did verify with the Planning Department that all the parties were properly noticed, and I believe the date of the notice went out was April 24. So, Commissioners, my sense is we’ll just proceed forward at this point. Is that okay with everyone? COMMISSIONERS: Okay. GRAHAM: Okay. So we have our applicant’s representative here before us today. Would you folks raise your hands, so I can swear you in? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawaii County Planning Commission today? APPLICANTS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. So I -. YAMAMOTO: For the record, my name is Jerel Yamamoto. I’m the attorney for the applicant. Along with me is James Blake, the Executive Director. GRAHAM: All right. Thank you. So at this point usually it would be up to the Commission as to whether we want to have any sort of concluding arguments on behalf of the parties, and our only party at this point is the applicant. Does the Commission wish to have any EXHIBIT B 10 final argument presentation, or shall we go right ahead into our decision making once I ask any further procedural questions of the applicant? Does anyone wish to have an oral presentation, or -? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yeah. If the intervenors were here, then I would say that I would like to hear both parties address any issues that were raised by the people who testified – the members of the public who testified. But since they are not here, and I think we should try to keep a level playing field. So I’d rather just, you know, proceed. GRAHAM: Any other comments from the Commissioners? Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: I don’t necessarily need a review, but I would like to ask a question, if that’s appropriate. GRAHAM: You ask a question of? WOODWARD: Of the applicant. GRAHAM: Referring to the specifics of the application? WOODWARD: Right. GRAHAM: All right. Well, I think what we should do then is we should take a few remarks from the applicant, and I think he understands the situation. And then we can get any questions from the Commissioners. Is that all right? COMMISSIONERS: Yes. GRAHAM: Okay. Mr. Yamamoto, then if – I think you can understand our situation here – if it’s all right with you and you would like to make a few concluding remarks about the application and your client, and then we can take questions from the Commissioners. But I don’t think anything other than brevity is really necessary at this point. YAMAMOTO: It wasn’t my intent to give you a dissertation about the project or its merits. I did want to respond to Mrs. Withington’s comments this morning about the hearings officer not considering the arguments raised by Kako`o. But if you look at the record, the record clearly shows that their arguments were raised; they presented evidence at the contested case hearing, and it was discussed with regard to the proper use of the Special Permit, the impacts. However, the hearings officer concluded that those positions were not worthy of response or inclusion within her proposed Findings and Recommendation to the Commission. So these things were discussed, and were raised during the contested case hearing. So I didn’t want to have that impression left that something wasn’t covered during the contested case hearing. It basically was a whole-day proceeding, and it was covered. But other than that, we’d ask the Commission to go forward, take the vote, and under the Rules either adopt, modify or reverse the recommendation of the hearings officer. EXHIBIT B 11 GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Mr. Torigoe, also I seem in my commentary to have neglected the County of Hawaii Planning Department as one of the parties to this proceeding. We don’t have our Director here today. Is there any formality, or are there any actions we should take in that regard? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess staff can verify that the Planning Director and/or his attorney was notified of today’s hearing. DARROW: Yes. And they have no objection to the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations of the hearings officer. TORIGOE: Okay. And when you say they have no objection, that’s based on what? DARROW: It’s based on that we had the opportunity to submit that, and we chose not to. TORIGOE: Okay. Are you speaking on behalf of the Planning Department as a Planning Director’s representative at this point? DARROW: In lieu of him not being present at this time. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Thank you, Jeff. So then I think we can move forward, and take questions of Mr. Yamamoto. Mr. Woodward, you had a question? WOODWARD: Yeah. I understand that this is largely a youth facility, and involves education with regard to agriculture, etc. And my question is: Is there going to be preferential admittance of residents of Hawaii, or we’re going to get, have a bunch of Californians coming over? GRAHAM: Mr. Blake, could you give your name and address, and then answer the question, if you are going to speak? BLAKE: Name is James Blake. I live at 2063 Peterson Lane, Santa Rosa, California 95403. To answer your question, no, this -, as one of the testifiers mentioned, we truly are doing this to give back to the islands. There will not be -, there will be preferential treatment for the youth and the families predominately of the Big Island and the other outlying islands. I see a very, very limited use to California groups coming other than to serve in the islands, not to take from the islands. So I hope that answers your question. WOODWARD: Yes, it does. Thank you. GRAHAM: Any other questions? Commissioner Rho? RHO: You indicated that you accept the hearings officer’s Conclusions and Recommendations. There are in excess of 15 of them. Number 14 talks about an archeological inventory survey. Do you have that in front of you? EXHIBIT B 12 YAMAMOTO: That was in fact one of the modifications at the contested case hearing where that condition was added in replacing a duplicate thereof condition. GRAHAM: Commissioner Rho, what’s the condition you are speaking of again? RHO: It’s Condition 14. GRAHAM: Thank you. RHO: And my question -. YAMAMOTO: Yes. RHO: Deals with what your idea of this 14 is; I mean what’s the scope of the work that’s going to be covered. YAMAMOTO: Basically an archeological inventory -. Maybe if I can call our planner up, he can better explain it. GRAHAM: Mr. Nishimura, would you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? NISHIMURA: Yes. GRAHAM: Thank you. Go ahead with your name and address, too. NISHIMURA: Brian Nishimura, 1174 Awiki Place, Hilo. Our understanding is that the applicant will be required to conduct an archeological inventory survey of the 6-acre area that is involved with the Special Permit request, and they will be required to do that before they will be allowed to proceed with the project. RHO: And it’s only limited to those 6 acres? NISHIMURA: That’s correct. RHO: So where the Birthing Stone was discovered, that is not a part of the 6 acres, right? NISHIMURA: That’s correct. That’s in a gulch, which there will be no activity and no access to -, down the gulch to get there. RHO: Okay, thank you. GRAHAM: Commissioners, any further questions? Yes, Commissioner Watanabe? EXHIBIT B 13 WATANABE: I have a question of the applicant. And I don’t want to particularly make a big deal out of this, however, the Sunderlands did have a request of moving – I think the major concern was the pool – say, 500 feet from the boundary line. And I believe that was Phase Two of your project. And I’m wondering if you would consider that a reasonable request, just being a good neighbor to them. BLAKE: We certainly want to do whatever we can to -. GRAHAM: Mr. Blake? Yes. BLAKE: Yes. That’s fine. We want to do whatever we can to minimize impact on neighbors. There is a property that they represented there that is misleading. If you look at that, there is a 30-acre property between the Sunderlands’ property and the proposed property, so there is extensive difference. And we would be -, there is going to be noise and windbreaks; there is going to be all consideration. This is a tentative plan, we now go to – assuming acceptance of this – we go to a master plan where we want to have elevations and appropriate placement of things. So to say it specifically they’ll be moved 400 feet would be really hard to do, but taking neighbors’ concerns into consideration, absolutely. WATANABE: Yeah, thank you. Like I said, I really don’t want to make a big deal out of it. GRAHAM: Any further questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the Recommendations, on the point 8, access for the project from Akoni Pule Highway shall be via an access easement near Union Market; this includes construction vehicles for the construction of the facility; and said driveway access shall be improved, meeting with the approval of the State Department of Transportation; and the applicant shall participate in the cost on improving the access roads with the applicants of the approved 16-room Hawaiian Permaculture and Wellness Retreat located below; and the improvements shall consist of those portions of Pratt Road and the former cane haul road that provide access to the project site from Akoni Pule Highway with a minimum 20- foot wide compacted gravel surface; and the Planning Director shall determine the cost to be paid by the applicant after reviewing the total cost of the improvements. Will the applicant be willing to adhere to whatever the Planning Director decides to be appropriate for the cost of sharing? NISHIMURA: Commissioner Domingo, the applicant has reviewed all of the conditions being proposed, and has agreed to comply. DOMINGO: Okay. Now the question is who will in this case compel the Permaculture and Wellness Retreat to participate in this joint-venture. Mr. Torigoe, is there anyway that we can impose such a condition on that permittee? GRAHAM: Mr. Torigoe? EXHIBIT B 14 TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, generally speaking, as to any of these conditions, should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with within a timely fashion, the Director may initiate procedures to revoke the permits. So for a permit like this, basically if they’re not being reasonably cooperative, the Director can come in and try to revoke the permit. DOMINGO: You’re saying that there is a high probability that the permit of that Permaculture Retreat be revoked, if they refuse to participate in the cost-sharing program? TORIGOE: Well, that would be the intent of -, you know, that’s a final part of this -, that’s like the last subheading under, at the very end of the proposed decision. DOMINGO: I recall that the owners of the Retreat are a party to the intervention of the application. Were they intervening in this particular case? Sunderlands? GRAHAM: Yes, Sunderlands did intervene. DOMINGO: Okay, so -. GRAHAM: I think I understand your point, Mr. Domingo. It’s that the Wellness Retreat of the Sunderlands has already been permitted -. DOMINGO: Yes. GRAHAM: And they are using the same access road, and it appears that this extra Special Permit may be imposing additional conditions on the Sunderlands and the Wellness Retreat. You are saying, well, is there any way really to enforce that because this is not their permit; this is another permit. DOMINGO: That is correct. GRAHAM: I presume that’s probably not a real issue in fact, because I think at this point the Sunderlands sort of have responsibility for the whole access down to their place, of which this is only a part, and so that maybe this is actually relieving them of some responsibility. But I’d like to look confirmation from Mr. Nishimura about the specifics of this. NISHIMURA: Thank you. In response to the question, Mr. Graham, your description is correct. The Sunderlands have a condition of their own that was imposed on their Special Permit to provide a 20-foot wide gravel compacted surface access down to their property. So the imposition of the same condition on this applicant will result in a cost-sharing of that improvement with the Sunderlands’ property. So they already have a condition to improve it to the same level of improvement that is being imposed on Alliance Redwoods. GRAHAM: Is that okay, Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Yes, it’s okay with me. I understand. GRAHAM: Jeff, did you have a comment? EXHIBIT B 15 DARROW: Just a quick comment is this is Condition 6 of Special Permit 1117, which states that these improvements must be done prior to the establishment of the proposed Retreat for the 16-room Hawaiian Permaculture center. So before they can even open up, they have to have this gravel roadway in. So they actually have a time constraint regarding the improvements of this road. GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. These are prime agricultural lands, as Toni Withington brought up. And we have been told here today that there is a strong agricultural component in the curriculum – shall I say – or the activities planned for the young people, if this goes through. And I also noticed on the map that there are like proposed fruit orchards and organic vegetable gardens and things like that. Yet, when I look at the original recommendations by the Planning Department, and when I look at the hearings officer’s decision and recommendation, I do not see anything in either document that says that they shall be bound to do agricultural activities on the property. And I would not like to consider anything on prime ag lands without an assurance in a form of recommendations that some sorts of ag will actually be performed in the camp in the retreat center. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa, the only thing I see that looks to address that is Condition 3 of the Order, which says the construction of the retreat and the operation shall be conducted in a manner that is substantially representative of plans and details as contained within the application. So that doesn’t pin it down like you’d like, I think. SIRACUSA: No, it doesn’t, it doesn’t. There is reference to it throughout the application, but there is nothing in the recommendations that say, thou shalt, you know; thou shalt plant or thou shalt raise some livestock or that sort of thing. And this is a big change to change prime ag land out of ag. And the only reason that I believe that the Planning Director was originally supporting it was – despite some other concerns – was the fact that there was going to be a strong agricultural component. So I would like to see that carved in stone here. YAMAMOTO: If I can? GRAHAM: Mr. Yamamoto? YAMAMOTO: I believe Finding of Fact No. 10 basically identifies the applicant is proposing to incorporate agricultural activities, there will be fruit orchards, etc. And that was testimony given during the contested case and part of the record. So it’s a transcript page 12, transcript page 71, transcript at pages 74 and 75. SIRACUSA: There’s a lot of references, that’s true. I just don’t see anything in any of the recommendations that we have before us – either the Planning Director’s recommendations or the hearings officer’s recommendations – and that’s where I’d like to see something that pins it down. WATANABE: Mr. Chair? EXHIBIT B 16 SIRACUSA: Because even the map, you told us, is basically conceptual; that’s not the final thing. What comes at plan approval time might look considerably different. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, I understand her concern. However, in the past it has been our practice to rely on a rather broad statement such as Condition No. 3 where the construction of the retreat and the operation of all of its related facilities and activities shall be conducted in a manner substantially represented by the plans. So, you know, I’m not sure that we really need to be that definitive. There might be no end to it. GRAHAM: Just as a way trying to resolve this issue, suppose an additional Order item was put in there, Commissioner Siracusa, which sort of said agricultural activities will take place as -. SIRACUSA: As represented. GRAHAM: As represented in Finding of Fact No. 12 or whatever it was. Would that be -? SIRACUSA: Yes. That would be just exactly what I need to cast my vote in favor. Otherwise, I would not be able to do so. GRAHAM: Thank you. SIRACUSA: I think it’s a wonderful program. I would have my concerns about the right location for it unless I can get that kind of assurance. GRAHAM: Is that okay, Mr. Nishimura, or -? Mr. Blake? BLAKE: Yeah, if I may address that. Absolutely. One of the -, as the testimony represented today, part of the whole value to the youth and the families that come there is interaction with the earth and with gardens and agriculture, so certainly that’s part of -. What we don’t want to be pinned down to is what is the appropriate location of things and buildings based on findings; that’s more of a logistical reality.But the programmatic part is we are in favor of having an agricultural component. Absolutely. SIRACUSA: Thank you. Then you will not object to an additional condition. BLAKE: Not as stated there. That would be fine. SIRACUSA: Fine. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Can I get some clarification on that? Are you going to add that to Condition 15, or does it become Condition 16, etc.? EXHIBIT B 17 GRAHAM: We’re going to make an additional condition to that effect. WATANABE: Okay, okay, then if -. GRAHAM: And I think -. Go ahead. WATANABE: My follow-up to that is, because I just realized that the Conditions as numbered right now are in error; we have two Condition 16. GRAHAM: Yes. WATANABE: So I thought we might want to correct that at the same time, so that it’s re-numbered. GRAHAM: Okay. Jeff, are you on top of this okay, that when we come time to dealing with the order, you can have that straightened for us? DARROW: Sure. Correct. Just as a suggestion, would – the addition that Commissioner Siracusa recommended – would that be possibly an addition to Condition 3? Could that be a possibility? GRAHAM: And to be clear what do you mean? Would it be -? DARROW: The agricultural activities would be conducted in a manner as described under the Findings of Fact, if we -. Condition 3 is a condition that states that basically -. GRAHAM: Yes. DARROW: That they need to be in conformance with what they represented, so this would possibly be a good addition to that condition. GRAHAM: Right. Is that okay, Commissioner Siracusa, be an addition to Condition 3? SIRACUSA: That’s fine. Then we don’t have to bother re-numbering. GRAHAM: Fine. YAMAMOTO: If I can suggest? GRAHAM: Mr. Yamamoto? YAMAMOTO: If the following language -, if we can add “which shall include agricultural activities”; insert that after “details” on Condition No. 3 and before “as”? So the sentence would read, “The construction of the retreat and the operation of all of its related facilities and activities shall be conducted in a manner that is substantially representative of plans EXHIBIT B 18 and details, which shall include agricultural activities, as contained within the Application for Special Use Permit, Alliance Redwoods Conference Grounds dated May 1, 2006.” GRAHAM: I’m not sure that that’s preferable to what we had in the Findings of Fact. Is that okay with you that we have the specifics of the Findings of Fact put in there, or -? How do you feel, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I have no problem either way -. GRAHAM: Either way. SIRACUSA: As long as that, we make sure that the ag component is in there -. GRAHAM: Okay, so -. SIRACUSA: And tied to the approval of the permit application. GRAHAM: All right. So I presume we can go ahead with what you suggested there then. I appreciate everyone’s patience as we go through all these little details, but it’s important that we do this, I believe. Mr. Yamamoto, or Mr. Blake, maybe I can ask you. I had one little thing that popped up in my mind, which was at the very end of the Order we’ve got two No. 16s, as you remember. One of them says that the applicant shall adopt guidelines and rules for its guests to place the gulches off-limits and to restrict access to the cliffs adjacent to the ocean, etc. I just had a personal sense that maybe we were overreaching a little bit saying that we restrict access to the gulches, which are right on the property.I mean we can put in all kinds of safety related things, but I don’t know if that’s something we need to do. However, if we were to remove that restrict access to the cliffs, not to the cliffs, to the gulches, I think then Commissioner Rho’s point about the archaeology would come into play that we wouldn’t -. If we took that condition out, then we’d expect the archaeological work to be done. So are you happy to have the condition the way it is right now, and there is no need to mess with that? BLAKE: I know during the hearing the intent of that was safety because getting near the cliffs. That was the intention. You know, there’re two gullies: The one, if you are facing the ocean, on the right is where like the Birthing Stone is, and one on the left. It does limit potential future recreational opportunities. If we realize that that’s what’s necessary, we will do that. It’s unfortunate -. I think it’s overstating the necessity. It’s primarily safety related for the cliff. That was the intent of the petitioner, which we agree with. There needs to be controlled activity, but it does limit the potential development in the future. That seems unnecessary – overstating the concern. GRAHAM: Well, that’s the way I felt and I’m glad you feel that way. But I think if we were to remove the condition, then we would expect that there would be the archaeological work done to preserve Birthing Stones or anything else that’s found in the gulches. And I don’t know how the rest of the Commission feels on that. Does anybody else on the Commission have any comment? RHO: Actually my initial -. EXHIBIT B 19 GRAHAM: Commissioner Rho? RHO: The question I had; it’s not really clear to me that, at least from the reading, that the archaeological study would be restricted to the 6 acres. And when I read the whole thing, I wondered why it was decided to do that study on those 6 acres when it’s plowed under – I don’t know how many times – over 100 years according to, whatever. I guess they could find something there. But I guess what I would have preferred was to see a study done of the gulches, especially the gulch on the right. But you know, if you’re not going to use it, fine. But I think once you start using it, that study should be done. GRAHAM: Mr. Blake? BLAKE: We’re, the only proposed development is on the 6 acres, and so that’s what we are restricting the permit to at this point. What I’m referring to is in the future hiking trails that would -, other landowners would allow across their property or whatever, you’d hate to have the restriction. But as far as development to the camp, it’s restricted to the 6 acres. That’s why it’s been limited in its archaeological review to that; because the gulches are outside of the proposed area of development. GRAHAM: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Yeah, I understand that. It’s restricted to the 6 acres. But if you allow the campers to hike through the gulch for instance, then I would want to see a study done of the gulches. I’m not saying that I want the study done now because you have restrictions over what you’re going to use; you’re going to use the 6 acres only. I hope you understand where I’m coming from. BLAKE: I do, yeah. So I have no problem with moving forward as it currently states, if, you know, you understand my concerns. GRAHAM: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: As indicated, the development will be only upon the 6 acres. But the activities that will be carried on there would be upon the whole property, the entire property, that you have there? NISHIMURA: The activities are intended to be carried out within the 6 acres. DOMINGO: Just within the 6 acres? NISHIMURA: That’s correct. BLAKE: There’re activities where we’re going to be taking campers off the property to go down to overlooks, to hiking trails, to beaches, all those activities. So it isn’t going to be limited in a sense that it’s not areas that we’re developing but access to public use. And it’s part of the experience -, we hope in the future that would be part of the experience. So what this does is it limits us from being able to take a hike into the gully, that’s what, or in the EXHIBIT B 20 gulches – that’s what we realize -, that’s the limitations that we have. But there’re other public trails that we can access. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Torigoe, is this permissible under the Special Permit with the focus on only on the 6 acres, but thereafter the activities will be upon -, will be over the limits of the 6-acre boundary? How would you interpret that in its application of the law? GRAHAM: Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I gather that the question is asking whether the Special Permit ought not to cover more than 6 acres, if they are going to be taking hikes across other land. Generally speaking, I think they could hike across the land regardless of whether they were having a retreat there. So generally speaking, though, we would not consider that as something that has to be considered as including whatever areas they may hike off of from the actual retreat center. DOMINGO: Okay. GRAHAM: Okay. Mr. Blake, just for clarity at least where I was coming from and I think it’s in conformance of what we are hearing, is if you wish to do the full archeological study on the full parcel, you know, I would be amenable to taking out the gulches’ off-limits part of the Order. So I’m hearing from you, no need to go there. Is that correct or not? BLAKE: Not at this time that we need to do that. GRAHAM: Okay. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I suspect that we’ve got all our questions answered. I’d like to suggest, oh. Well, I move that we close the hearing. GRAHAM: Okay. Any other questions or any -? All right, let’s have a second. SIRACUSA: I’ll second. GRAHAM: So moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Siracusa, to close our hearing. Thank you all for your presentation and your answers to our questions. You can go back now. Mr. Torigoe, the hearing is closed. Do we have any other procedural things we should be careful of before we take action at this point? TORIGOE: Just to make sure on the record that all of the Commissioners have reviewed all of the materials that came from the hearings officer and everybody is familiar with that. GRAHAM: Is that a fact that you folks all have? COMMISSIONERS: Yes. EXHIBIT B 21 GRAHAM: All right. I see all are nodding in assent. So thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I’d like to move to approve Special Permit Application, SPP 06-000033, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and subject to the attached conditions as revised, and specifically referring to the revision to Condition 3 and the addition of the agricultural activities there, and also including the re-numbering of the second No. 16 to No. 17 and 17 to 18. SIRACUSA: Second. GRAHAM: All right. Moved by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Watanabe, we’re referring to the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision, which came to us from the hearings officer? WATANABE: That is correct. GRAHAM: What I think what’s called here is Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the hearings officer. WATANABE: That’s correct. GRAHAM: Thank you. SIRACUSA: And are we also -, wait, for clarification, are we also referring to the conditions that were imposed by the Planning Department? WATANABE: The conditions are included in this Findings of Fact -. SIRACUSA: Okay. WATANABE: And they are essentially the same as what was proposed by the Planning Department, well, for the most part. Only minor revisions. SIRACUSA: Fine, fine. GRAHAM: Okay. Commissioner Domingo, did you have a comment? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, yes. I will support this application, and vote yes for the motion. And it’s only because of the purpose and the nature of the permit, and that is to provide service for the youth. And I agree with some of the youngsters who came forward and expressed strong concern with regard to having a place to go and a program which would help them in their life to make sound decisions that would benefit them as they go into society. Only upon that fact would I support this issue.As this Commission or the Commission members know, and others from the public, I’ve been in the Commission only a few months, but I have taken some drastic positions with regard to taking prime agricultural lands out for other uses. And I just would want the staff to know and let the Planning Director know that, you know, it’s EXHIBIT B 22 my strong concern that when we take prime agricultural uses off for other purposes, it’s a great concern to me, and that it’s also being listed in the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii. The State Constitution strongly states that agricultural land should be protected from other uses, and that it should be encouraged that those lands be cultivated and used for the production of agricultural commodities. Recently I read two articles from two different publications indicating and the concern about of what is to be, in store for us in the future years with regard to being self-sufficient in the agricultural produce that we depend on. Most of the produce are being shipped and flown here to Hawaii. As more and more people come to the islands and live here on a permanent basis, there would be a time when there will be a much more demand for those products. And I think if we gradually go into areas where prime agricultural lands have been taken out for other purposes, then we are preparing ourselves for a day that someday we might regret to see. Therefore, I only vote for this application only because of the nature of the program that it will provide for in a community. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Commissioner Watanabe, my recollection is that we did have a formal motion to close the hearing. Am I correct on that? Do you remember? WATANABE: That is correct, and it was upheld. GRAHAM: Good. Thank you. Did we take a vote on the motion, or -? WATANABE: Yes, we did. GRAHAM: All right. WATANABE: It wasn’t a roll call vote, though. I think it was just by consent. GRAHAM: Let me just re-affirm, so we have it on the record. I do recall your motion, but I don’t recall taking a vote, so -. WATANABE: I made the motion to close the hearing before this second -, the motion that’s on the table now and Ms. Siracusa -. SIRACUSA: I seconded the first one. WATANABE: Seconded. GRAHAM: Okay. For the record, could I have an assent from all the Commissioners that we have closed the hearing? Please say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. GRAHAM: Thank you. Part my oversight there. Do we have any other further comments by the Commissioners on the merits of this application on the motion before us? Personally, I also share – I mean this is extra important to me being a resident of North Kohala – and I do share a lot of the concerns. And in particular I think that Kako`o brought forth about the Planning Commission one application at a time sort of establishing a land use pattern for North EXHIBIT B 23 Kohala without the sort of planning that should be done in general. And in fact, it seems especially troubling to me because we do have a community development process just starting up right now. So to actually bring this through under the wire before the community development plan process has identified what areas are appropriate was troubling to me. And I was initially, when I saw the application, feeling like I would vote in opposition for that very reason. But it certainly seems to me that if I ask the applicant to hold off until the community development plan is complete, which is like a year and a half, I don’t think that result will be any different because it seems to me it’s a valuable program and the community is really behind it. So I certainly have no taste for doing that, and I will support the application also. All right, any further comments? Jeff, you want to continue with the roll call then? Oh, excuse me. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I just wanted to say that I totally -, my position aligns perfectly with that of Commissioner Domingo. I feel very strongly about protecting our prime ag lands for our island’s future sustainability, especially when we’re looking towards increase population. And once something is paved over, it can’t be, you know, undone. That’s why I was insisting very much that my vote hinged on having it carved in stone in the conditions that there would be ag activity with this permit. And since it’s -. I know that our youth really need programs and they need to be focused. And I know how important it was for me growing up having a garden to work in, and having land, and being able to play out in the country.And look where it got me today. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Anything further? Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to adopt the hearings officer’s proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations; this will include an amended Condition No. 3, which will state after the word, “details”, “which shall include agricultural activities as contained within the Application for Special Use Permit” and so on. Additionally we will be re-numbering the last two conditions: Instead of 16, 17, they will be 17, 18. With that, I will take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. EXHIBIT B 24 DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, seven to zero. GRAHAM: Thank you folks for your attendance today. So you will receive written notification from us on our action today. The discussion ended at 12:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT B 25