Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-24 TIBBETSON_2_ PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT May 24, 2007 DANIEL IBBETSON (SPP 05-000015) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 9:35 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 Daniel Ibbetson, Applicant Dennis Krueger representing Applicant Dean Kaiawe, Intervenor Michael Matsukawa representing Intervenor And 3 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: DANIEL IBBETSON (SPP 05-000015) Discussion and review of the Third CircuitCourt’s Order Reversing Decision of the Planning Commission and Remanding Case to Agency for Further Proceedings dated December 22, 2006, in Civil No. 06-01-037K, and further proceedings and consideration consistent with that Order, on the application of Daniel Ibbetson for a Special Permit (SPP 05-000015) to operate a 2-unit bed and breakfast establishment on 0.722 acre of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the west (makai) side of Mamalahoa Highway (Highway 11), approximately 120 feet south of the Kaohe Road-Mamalahoa Highway th intersection, Kaohe 5, South Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 8-7-9:14. GRAHAM: Our second agenda item today is Unfinished Business, the applicant is Daniel Ibbetson. This is in regard of his application for a Special Permit to operate a 2-unit bed and breakfast establishment within the State Land Use Ag District. It’s located in South Kona, Hawaii. And there are a number of legal points of clarification and procedure we need to work out today. So I think we’ll start and have Jeff give us a little presentation, so that it freshens up for everybody what we’re dealing with here, and then we’ll tackle some of the procedural issues on how we proceed at this point. Jeff, please? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to say welcome to our new Commissioner, Ms. Shelly Ogata. Welcome. EXHIBIT A 1 If I can direct your attention to the location map. This is a continued hearing, but I’d like to refresh the memories of the Planning Commission, and just give you some details on this application. The location of this application is within the South Kona District of Hawaii. More specifically we are looking at Mamalahoa Highway – Highway 11 – running in a north-south direction. This area identified in this location is the Kona Paradise Subdivision; you might be familiar with the Kaohe Road. Just to the south of the entrance to the subdivision is the location of this application identified in a blue dot. Access is directly off Old Mamalahoa Highway. The applicant in this case, Daniel Ibbetson, is requesting a bed and breakfast operation for two units. Referring to the site plan that has been submitted by the applicant, this shows the property which is identified as 0.722 acres or just less than 1 acre. Access to the highway is via this way to the -, this will be to the east. This area on this side of the driveway would be bordering Kona Paradise Subdivision. This is the existing floor plan for the dwelling that is on site. We have identified the two bedrooms in color: B&B Bedroom No. 1 and Bedroom No. 2. There is a third bedroom in which the owner would reside. Additionally there is a deck area and a pool. After finalizing this application, the Planning Department became aware that this property is also used as a cemetery. There are two grave sites on the property identified as Grave Site A and Grave Site B. At the time this application was coming before the Planning Commission, the Planning Department received a petition for standing in a contested case from Mr. Dean Kaiawe. Although Mr. Kaiawe does not reside within 500 feet of the application, he believed his interests were distinguishable from the general public in that his relatives are buried within Grave Site B. The Planning Commission voted to grant standing to Mr. Kaiawe, and also voted to conduct the th contested case hearing, which was conducted on November 18 of 2005, and additionally on thth January 20 of 2006. On January 20 of 2006, the Planning Commission voted to deny the application for a bed and breakfast operation. The applicant, Mr. Daniel Ibbetson, had filed an appeal to the Third Circuit Court in a timely manner, and that is why we are here today. This is a continued hearing to review and discuss the Third Circuit Court’s order reversing the decision of the Planning Commission, and remanding the case back to the agency for further proceedings. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Commissioners? Thank you, Jeff. Since this does cut all the way back to last year and I know all the Commissioners were not here at that time, I’d like to first just affirm, if you all could let me know, that you in fact do have the complete record from the proceedings we held on this matter, and you’ve had an opportunity and have reviewed the record. Is that true? COMMISSIONERS: Yes. GRAHAM: All right. Thank you all. I see affirmative nods from all of the six Commissioners plus myself here today. The question becomes, this has been remanded to us by the Circuit Court, so it’s back in our hands for our consideration. Procedurally how we go forward from now is something that I think we need to work out with the intervenor and the applicant on this. So I think probably it’s appropriate for them to come forward at this time, if you would, and your representatives. Okay. First off, I’d like to swear you in. Do the four of you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? EXHIBIT A 2 PARTIES: I do. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. I think our main order of business is procedural at this point. And whether we get to any content issues on whether we should grant or not this today, we don’t know at this point, but we sure need to work out what the procedure for going forward is with you folks. And I think maybe we’d start by having Mr. Torigoe here give us a little sense of what the Court had to say as it brought back it to us, so that the Commissioners are all aware, as well as you guys, of how we view this at this time. TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll try to be as concise as I can. The Court basically reversed the decision, but did not order that you grant the permit either. So basically the Court is returning the matter to us, and the Court said it’s remanded to the Planning Commission for consideration consistent with this order. So in a sense the Court has basically nullified your previous decision, and has returned it to you right at the point before you made the decision. And so you’ve got to pick up from there. And there are three basic kinds of things the Court said in the decision: No. 1, it affirmed that Mr. Kaiawe retains his intervenor party status. So Mr. Kaiawe remains an active party in this proceeding. Second thing was the Court said that you should not be considering Mr. Ibbetson’s alleged prior noncompliance with any law or failure to disclose graves. Okay? So you should not consider any of those allegations about Mr. Ibbetson’s prior conduct. This is a land use issue; it’s not a credibility or personality issue. And probably most importantly the Court seems to be ordering that, or you consider, that the essential character of this property and use of the land as it now is be considered residential, and not cemetery. Okay? So although obviously you don’t have to ignore the fact that there are graves there – you still can consider the impacts on the existing graves – but the Court seems to say that you should consider this essential character of the land to be residential. And so with that in mind, at this point again we need to pick up where the Court returned us, and proceed consistently with what the Court has told us about this. And so the parties are here today, and we can look at, you know -. At this point you need to continue with your decision making process. And the question is how do we go about that at this point. GRAHAM: All right. From the Commissioners? Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: I have a question for Mr. Torigoe. My reading of the Court decision was based on the fact that there was a deed, and the deed granted an easement to the gravesite, but didn’t call it cemetery. I guess that’s why they’re saying it’s a residential area. There are graves there, and there is an easement that’s granted in the deed. Is that correct? TORIGOE: That’s essentially correct, yes. GRAHAM: And yet -. Yes, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. Somehow things seem to have gotten turned around, because in the judge’s ruling the judge is saying that there are matters like the fact that the building permit was for a single-family residence, and not for a bed and breakfast, that is of no legal EXHIBIT A 3 consequence; the judge seems to be saying that whatever happened before was of no legal consequence. And the fact that certain pieces of information like about the fact that there were burials there were not disclosed to the Building Department when Mr. Ibbetson went in for his application, his permits, for the house and for the swimming pool were not disclosed. And yet, we were told we should consider this now as though this is a residential property, even though what we are looking at as part of the problem is the fact that it was misrepresented in the first place, and that the original deed says use it as cemetery forever. So I don’t -. What happens if we disagree with any part of the judge’s ruling? I mean, do we follow our own consciences, or do we have to -, are we forced to abide by something that we disagree with? GRAHAM: Mr. Torigoe, would you have a response to that? TORIGOE: Well, at this point my best advice to you is to try the best you can to heed, you know, what the judge has told us with respect to the -, being careful not to make this a case in which you make your decision based on perceptions that a party may or may not have misrepresented things. And again it’s a land use decision ultimately, and so I will urge you to make a decision on that basis. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: If I may, I think, Rene’, what the judge is saying is that the fact that the burials were not disclosed within the process of obtaining the permits is inconsequential, because the Planning Department, etc. we have no rules that say you must disclose this or you forfeit the permit. Therefore the permit was provided, and because the permit was provided, that established the usage as residential. And so now we have to consider this a residential -, basic use is residential – it was converted, yeah – and then determine whether we would grant a Special Use for a bed and breakfast, which is consistent with what we typically would do. On the other hand, I should also point out that the judge did not say or eliminate the possibility of turning down the Special Use, if you can find some other way of denying this by using a land use type of argument as opposed to the argument that we used. So the argument that we used was found incorrect. Had the judge felt that it should automatically be granted, it was within her jurisdiction to award the Special Permit to the applicant immediately, and not even have remanded it back to us, and certainly not have required them to mediate. As I recall, she required them to get into mediation, and from that standpoint, you know, I too really would prefer that this be mediated to a settlement rather than us deciding. GRAHAM: Okay, if you all don’t mind, Commissioners, I’d rather not discuss this too much at this point, because to me this gets into more something we’re going to discuss later when we take action. And I’d like to just go a little further with the procedures we’re going to deal with at this point rather than any of those specific issues. And in that regard, Mr. Torigoe, Commissioner Watanabe did bring up the mediation, and I don’t think you spoke to the mediation in your original words about the Court’s remand back to us and all. Could you just give us a little sense of where the mediation process came from and where it’s at now and all, so we can use that procedurally to go forward? TORIGOE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I was not personally involved in that, so I think we should ask the parties to explain the current status of that. My understanding is that there was a separate declaratory judgment lawsuit that was filed by Mr. Kaiawe with EXHIBIT A 4 respect to the import of the deed language, and there was a mediation that the Court ordered out of that lawsuit. So we can ask the parties what the status of that is. GRAHAM: Okay, I think we should turn our attention to the parties right now, and hear from them. And for sure what we want to try to determine is what’s the proper and most efficient way we can go forward from here. Maybe I can start with my left, with Mr. Ibbetson and Mr. Krueger. Do you folks need any more sense from me about what we want from you right now, or can you go ahead and give us your sense of how you would like to proceed at this time? And before you speak, just give your name and address for the record, please. KRUEGER: Sure, Mr. Chair. My name is Dennis Krueger. My address is 75- 5722 Kuakini Highway, Suite 208, Kailua-Kona.Mr. Torigoe’s comment with regard to mediation is correct, with a couple of minor changes. The action was originally brought by Mr. Ibbetson against Mr. Kaiawe for injunctive relief with regard to his access to the property and issues that arose as a result of that. As a counterclaim to that injunction, Mr. Kaiawe brought an action asking the Court to determine his rights outside of the deed itself. In other words, what rights basically did he have with regard to the property, to enter the property, to visit the gravesites and so forth, aside from what the Hawaii Conference Foundation deed says with regard to the rights reserved to individuals who are descendants of the people buried in the grave? The parties were ordered to mediation in that case.The mediation did not include the County, did not include issues related to this bed and breakfast permit application. It was only the parties who were involved in the other dispute, being Mr. Kaiawe, Mr. Ibbetson and Hawaii Conference Foundation. The Hawaii Conference Foundation was brought into that action by Mr. Kaiawe on a third party complaint. There was a mediation that was held. The first day of mediation where the judge, former judge, retired judge, Ricki May Amano, acted as the mediator, and worked with the parties on the first day of mediation. There was a site visit that was conducted subsequent to that about a week later, with further mediation occurring in the afternoon of the same day. Subsequent to that, and last Saturday, there was a meeting here at the King Kamehameha Kona Beach Hotel between Judge Amano, Mr. Kaiawe, Mr. Matsukawa, the Hawaii Conference Foundation and their attorneys. And the meeting was for the purpose of addressing Mr. Kaiawe’s family, the rest of the family, and to bring them up to speed on what was happening with the mediation. The judge requested that myself and Mr. Ibbetson not be present at that, and then just proceed with the other parties in the mediation. The status of the mediation at this time is that there is no future hearing date set right now for the mediation. That’s still up to Judge Amano, I guess, to establish a further date for conclusion of the mediation. I spoke to Judge Amano on Monday after the mediation. I was led to believe that there may be some offer coming from Mr. Kaiawe’s family on how they would like to proceed in the mediation. I’ve not received anything to this date in that regard. Mr. Ibbetson’s request at this time, because the bed and breakfast permit is separate from the other action, is to proceed with the bed and breakfast permit application. That can certainly be negotiated with Mr. Kaiawe and his family and the Hawaii Conference Foundation as a part of this other litigation, if they choose to include it in that. But right now it’s not a part of the mediation. It’s not -. In other words that’s why Mr. Torigoe and the County are not participating because this is a separate proceeding from the other Third Circuit Court action. So EXHIBIT A 5 we would like to proceed with the application. If we have an opportunity to reply perhaps to some of the questions or comments of the Commissioners, I would like that opportunity as well on going forward. GRAHAM: Okay. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Let me just ask you -. Let me ask you. All these structures currently exist, or does this require new construction? KRUEGER: They are all there. They’ve been there for -. WOODWARD: So it’s just a permit to allow two guests to an existing property. KRUEGER: Correct. WOODWARD: So there is nothing that will change on the property. KRUEGER: No. There is nothing that will change on property. WOODWARD: Okay. All right. Thank you. GRAHAM: Okay. Mr. Ibbetson, did you have anything you needed to add at this time, or shall I go and move over to Mr. Kaiawe and Mr. Matsukawa? IBBETSON: I think -. GRAHAM: Excuse me, if you’re going to speak, just start with your name and address, please. IBBETSON: Oh, excuse me. I’m sorry. This is Dan Ibbetson, and my address is Post Office Box -. Do you want my street address? GRAHAM: Post Office Box is adequate. IBBETSON: All right. 842 Honaunau. GRAHAM: Thank you. Go ahead with any comments, if you like. IBBETSON: Okay. Yeah. The one thing that was mentioned by Mr. Watanabe and -. KRUEGER: I don’t think they want you to address the remarks of the Commissioners at this point. IBBETSON: Oh, all right. All right. Well, I would like to make one statement then, and that simply is that there seems to be the impression that none of the graves were made -, the fact that the gravesites were there was not made available or presented to the County before permits. And I can assure you it was. I met with the Burial Commission; I met with the EXHIBIT A 6 DLNR; Mary Anne came out; she then inspected the whole deal, which – I don’t know – some of you remember we went through. But there was no sneaky business here. In fact I was complemented for having done what I did do, which was immediately the first thing I did was to make sure that the County was aware that graves did exist. GRAHAM: All right. Thank you, Mr. Ibbetson. IBBETSON: Okay. That’s all I wanted to say. Thank you. GRAHAM: Fine. Mr. Matsukawa, would you and Mr. Kaiawe have any comments to the Commission? I think what feels like it’s right to me at this time and needs to be addressed is how do we proceed procedurally at this point. So if you can just start with your name and address, and go ahead. MATSUKAWA: Thank you. My name is Michael Matsukawa. My address is 75-5751 Kuakini Highway, Room 201, Kailua-Kona. I’m Mr. Kaiawe’s attorney, who is also present to my left. Mr. Krueger accurately described the mediation process that’s ongoing. I’d just like to clarify that in that separate civil case, one of the questions raised is whether in fact the Hawaii Conference had the authority to change the landscape, so to speak, of the parcel. Judge Strance noted that the 2003 deed by the Conference had the effect of changing the character of the land from a cemetery to an ordinary agricultural parcel with graves on it. And one of the issues raised in the separate civil action is did the Conference and its deed have that authority to so change the character. As far as how we move forward, I think the statute governing administrative practice leaves the case now where those persons who were not present during the hearing, if they are familiar with the record, can take action as the Commission may feel, but provides for proposed Findings first, with the parties having the right to file Exceptions. That process can be waived. Under these circumstances, Mr. Kaiawe would not want to waive that process. If you do move forward, we’d prefer to follow Section 91-11. And I think the same procedure -. SIRACUSA: Excuse me. Could you hold the mike closer to your mouth? I’m having trouble hearing you. MATSUKAWA: Oh, okay. To follow the process outlined in Section 91-11, I think there is a similar rule in the Planning Commission’s Rule 4. So that would be our take on it. Thank you. GRAHAM: Okay. Let me -. Thank you. Let me put in a little bit of my understanding now from what I’ve heard, for the Commissioners’ benefit and for you to correct me if it’s not quite accurate. As the Commissioners will know from the record, we did not have a hearings officer when we had this contested case hearing. So we did not have the hearings officer provide us with the Findings of Fact and all like that for us to act upon. But as Mr. Matsukawa mentioned, you know, he does have rights, and both parties have rights, under the Hawaii Administrative Procedure’s Act to essentially see what is proposed in a written form, I believe or -. And then they can file Exceptions to that, and we make our final decision thereafter. I don’t think we are in a position ourselves here today to discuss this matter, and come up with some proposed Findings that we then pass onto you folks. Mr. Torigoe suggested EXHIBIT A 7 to me a little earlier that maybe our process would be that each of you do your own preparation, and submit what you prepare to the other party as well as to the Commission, and then according to our Administrative Procedures Act, there is like a 15-day time in which you have an opportunity to make Exceptions to what the other party has come forward with. And then maybe those Findings plus those Exceptions can all be brought back to the Commission, and then we could take action thereafter at an appropriate meeting. I see you nodding your head, Mr. Matsukawa. Does it seem okay by you? MATSUKAWA: Yes, that would be an acceptable process. It will be timely to expedite the process, I think. GRAHAM: Okay. Mr. Krueger, do you have any comments on that proposal? KRUEGER: I agree with the proposal. It’s fine. Just one point of clarification: Is it the intention of the Chairman to have discussion or vote of the Commission prior to the submission of the proposed Findings, or would that occur after the proposed Findings are submitted? GRAHAM: Your question is regarding to a vote on approving or not approving this application, yes? KRUEGER: Yes. GRAHAM: That would come thereafter. KRUEGER: Okay. GRAHAM: That’s the intention, is that be thereafter. And so that process feels okay to you to go ahead with that in that way? KRUEGER: Yeah. I think that Mr. Matsukawa made a comment about the record being closed, and I think that that needs to be done in order for the process to move forward in a manner that you are suggesting. But I don’t have objection to what you are proposing. GRAHAM: Okay. KRUEGER: I’m sorry. One of the comments is, well, I guess -. Will the parties have an opportunity to perhaps make a final argument to the Commission, or to respond to questions of the Commissioners prior to the adoption of the Findings at whatever meeting that will be? GRAHAM: That will certainly be my intention that we have that. KRUEGER: Okay. Thank you. EXHIBIT A 8 GRAHAM: Okay. And Mr. Krueger, were you saying that there is like a formal closing of -, given what we’re intending to do, is there some formal closing that the Chair should make here today? KRUEGER: Well, I believe the Commission closed the public hearing the last time before the matter was decided upon, and I -, as long as the public hearing is not re-opened, I don’t think there is any need to close it. But if there is a re-opening of it, you need to close that before the Commission considers the final Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. GRAHAM: Okay. Just for the record, also let me just ask if there is anyone here in the audience that intended to speak on this matter today, since it is on our agenda. Could you raise your hand or let me know? Okay. So, Commissioners, I think we have an agreement on how we are going to proceed, which is that we are not going to take any action today, but we are going to have formal Findings made by both of the parties; and they will send them both to the Planning Department and to the other party, and then they will have a chance to make Exceptions to the Findings of the other party; and all that material will come back to us, and we will have a meeting where we will use that as our source material for making our decision. And my presumption, if that’s okay with the Commissioners at that time, is at that time we will allow the parties to speak to what’s on the record and answer any questions from the Commissioners. Do any of the Commissioners have comments on that process or anything? Okay. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for reference, as Mr. Matsukawa said, substance of HRS Section 91-11 is contained in your Rule 4-23. So if you want to look at that, that will give you an idea what’s going to happen. And that Rule does also say that the parties are to be allowed to file Exceptions and present argument to the Commission. SIRACUSA: Excuse me. Could you repeat that reference again? TORIGOE: Yes. Four-23 of your Rules. GRAHAM: Mr. Krueger? KRUEGER: Mr. Chairman, and perhaps either the Chair or Mr. Torigoe intended to do this, but can we establish a time for the submission of the Findings to the opposing party, and then a time for submitting our Exceptions to the Planning Commission and the other parties, and then -, so we have some indication of when that’s necessary? GRAHAM: Yes, that was my intention. And I think what we want to do is kind of have a time schedule that’s okay with the both of you. So do you have a suggestion you can put forth, Mr. Krueger, and then we can see if that’s acceptable to Mr. Matsukawa? KRUEGER: Mr. Chair, I would really like to do it in a manner that would allow us to address this matter at the next Commission hearing, if at all possible. I think we can both reasonably prepare the necessary Findings in adequate time to get to the next Commission meeting on this matter, if we work backwards from the -. I don’t know what the date is, but whatever the date is, we can work backwards from that date and establish a time frame for doing that. EXHIBIT A 9 GRAHAM: Okay. That sounds good to me. Jeff, do you know the date of the next meeting on west side here? nd DARROW: The next Kona meeting is scheduled for June 22. GRAHAM: Okay. So would you folks -. SIRACUSA: Mr. Chair, do you need a motion on that? GRAHAM: I still want to inquire of the parties here for a second. So I think we need kind of like two dates: One date is the date when you’ll put in your proposed Findings and all, and transmit it to the other party, and the second date is when you’ll have your nd Exceptions filed also. And both of those dates would have to fall before the 22. It seems like, for the Commission’s benefit, it’s most important that we have time to go over the proposed Findings clearly, and maybe the Exceptions could come more close to the date of the meeting. And on a real pinch, we can probably just read them at the day of the meeting. But if they can be done a little ahead of time, that’s always helpful. So do you think you all could come up with some dates right now? Shall I just take a five-minute recess or something and have you all talk about that, or do you want to just make a shot at it? KRUEGER: I don’t have a calendar right in front of me; otherwise I think we could do it right now. But if you prefer, I can take a five-minute recess and give my little PDA calendar up here and come up with some dates. GRAHAM: Okay. Let’s -. Is that okay? Mr. Matsukawa, is that okay if we take a five-minute recess? MATSUKAWA: Okay, that’s fine, that’s fine. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. Recess. RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 10:05 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:09 a.m. GRAHAM: The Hawaii County Planning Commission, return to order, please. I believe our applicant and our intervenor have worked out some dates for filing of the Findings and then the Exceptions to the Findings.Mr. Krueger, do you have a date for us? KRUEGER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If it pleases the Planning Commission, I think we can submit the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the Planning Department or the th Planning Commission and the opposing parties by June 11. And then we can file our th Exceptions to each other’s proposed Findings by June 18, a week later. That would be four days prior to the next Commission meeting over here. Is that acceptable? GRAHAM: I think that’s acceptable. We need to just recognize that the Exceptions will come to the Planning Department, but they will not really have time to mail EXHIBIT A 10 them to us before the meeting, so that we’ll just have them right there in front of us when we begin the meeting on that day. Is that all right? MATSUKAWA: What would be the date when staff distributes? Maybe we could work towards that date. DARROW: Yeah, it would at least be one week prior to the hearing. If we nd were to get it on the Thursday -. Is that a Friday, June 22? nd GRAHAM: Yeah, I believe June 22 is a Friday. So June 15 will be a Friday, th so Jeff is saying if you could give it to him by June 14. But that gives you very little time after June 11 unless you choose to move the first date. DARROW: We would be able to mail it out on the Friday, the week before. Anything that comes in usually about Monday of that week for the hearing, we’ll hold onto it to pass out to the Commissioners because there is always that chance of the Commissioners not getting it in the mail. th MATSUKAWA: So we could keep the 18; but I guess the parties are noticed that if th they want their documents circulated, they need to try to get it in before the 18. GRAHAM: Okay. Commissioner Siracusa, do you want to comment? SIRACUSA: Yes. I want to make a suggestion. I’m not sure if this is legal or not; Mr. Torigoe will have to tell me if it isn’t. But in an effort to save some time and to give you folks ample opportunity to draw up your Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, to allow the Planning Commission ample opportunity to review and study, could you mail those directly to the Commissioners, as well as submitting your copies to the Planning Department? That way, even before the Planning Department sends us our copies, we will have maybe a couple of days extra leeway to review the material. Is that allowed? GRAHAM: Mr. Torigoe, do you have a comment on that? TORIGOE: Well, I think if the parties are agreeable -. SIRACUSA: And would you be willing to do it? TORIGOE: Yes, if the parties are agreeable. And it’s the same thing as coming to the Commission office or the Planning Department. KRUEGER: I have no objection to that. Would we mail them to the individual Commissioner’s home address, or just to the Planning Department? SIRACUSA: No, mailing addresses. GRAHAM: We’re thinking of home -, I believe Commissioner Siracusa is thinking of home address, so we get them directly. EXHIBIT A 11 KRUEGER: I have no objection to that. I just need to get a copy of the addresses, so we can mail them out. GRAHAM: Okay. KRUEGER: But that’s fine with me. I have no objection to that at all. SIRACUSA: I have no objection with you knowing my home address. GRAHAM: Jeff? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other option is if they could email the Exceptions to the Planning Department, we could send it out to, email to all the Planning Commissioners. GRAHAM: Jeff, do you have emails working for all the Commissioners? DARROW: Yes. GRAHAM: So that’s certainly another possibility. DARROW: We would still receive a hard copy from the parties, but we would be able to mail out at least, or email the copies of the Exceptions to the Commissioners, so they can have it prior to the hearing. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa, does that sound okay with you then? Instead of trying to mail us directly the hard copies, they just send emails? SIRACUSA: That’s fine with me. My concern was that since we have such a tight time frame, and there is so much to do within the frame, that we look for ways to cut corners, so that they have enough time to prepare, and we have enough time to prepare on our end as well. So anything that accomplishes that goal is okay with me. th GRAHAM: So my understanding now is that by June 11, you will have the written Findings of Fact, Decision and Order, and those will be sent to the Planning Department, th and the Planning Department will in turn send those to ourselves. And then by June 18, you would have your Exceptions, and you could directly email those Exceptions to the Commissioners. And certainly a copy would go to the Planning Department also. Does that sound like it’s acceptable to everybody? KRUEGER: It’s fine with me. MATSUKAWA: Yeah. GRAHAM: Commissioners, do you have any comments to make on that? Mr. Torigoe? EXHIBIT A 12 TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just want to clarify for purposes of providing proposed Findings as well as Exceptions on the dates that were stated, are the parties intending to deliver them also? I just want to make sure, you know, you guys would understand whether it’s served putting in the mail on that day, or actually delivering a copy, or emailing a copy to each other? KRUEGER: We can -. I’ll be happy to deliver them. MATSUKAWA: Yeah. KRUEGER: Mr. Matsukawa’s office and mine are about a building apart, so it shouldn’t be a problem. GRAHAM: Okay, Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Okay. And then I guess we also want to allow for the Planning Director as a party to participate in this, if he chooses to do so. Is that your understanding? MATSUKAWA: Right. KRUEGER: Yes. In reference to your previous request for delivery, would you th like those hand-delivered to the Planning, or to the Corp. Counsel’s office as well on the 11? And if so, which one? TORIGOE: Actually I think email would suffice. KRUEGER: Email? TORIGOE: Yeah. KRUEGER: Okay. TORIGOE: Unfortunately we don’t have either the Director or a representative here, so I guess I’ll make sure to communicate this to them. And I doubt if there would be any objection to that; but if there is, I’ll let you know. GRAHAM: Okay. And Mr. Torigoe, as far as the Commission now, I think we sort of settle what we need to do. Does the Commission take a vote on, or make a motion sort of affirming what we’ve decided here? TORIGOE: You can do that. But as the presiding officer, I think it’s within your authority just to go ahead and set that as well. But it’s always a good idea to see if there is any objection from any of the Commissioners. GRAHAM: All right. So we have an understanding about the timing of what’s going to be coming to us in the future. Are there any objections from the Commissioners to that timing? So then maybe we could have a motion right now just to take up this matter at our next EXHIBIT A 13 hearing, and with the assumption of those time and actions to be put forward by the intervenor and applicant. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Okay. I move that action on the application for Special Permit 05-000015, Daniel Ibbetson, be deferred to the next Kona meeting with the understanding that both parties will submit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the matter to the Department and the Commissioners as discussed. RHO: Second. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. And I have a second by Commissioner Rho. Jeff? DARROW: This would include the Planning Director as well, correct? As far as party -. GRAHAM: Would include the Planning Director’s? DARROW: It was mentioned both parties, but there is actually -, the Planning Director is considered a party as well. GRAHAM: Yes. Commissioner Siracusa, I know Mr. Torigoe indicated that the Planning Department -. SIRACUSA: I will accept that as a friendly amendment that includes the Planning Director in my motion. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Rho, is that acceptable? RHO: Second. GRAHAM: Okay. Jeff, could you call a roll on this? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. EXHIBIT A 14 DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes to defer this matter to the next Kona meeting, seven to zero. GRAHAM: Thank you folks for your cooperation. Okay, we’ll see you at our next meeting. The discussion ended at 10:18 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 15