Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-04 TDOUTOR PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 4, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of DOUTOR COFFEE HAWAII CO., INC. (SPP 1215/SPP 02-010)was called to order at 2:00 p.m. in the in the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Koa Room, 62-100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala Coast Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT & EXCUSED: Bill Graham Earl Fujikawa Florence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Daryn Arai, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 19 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: DOUTOR COFFEE HAWAII CO., INC. (SPP NO. 1215 Î formerly referred to as SPP 02-010) Doutor Coffee Hawaii Co., Inc.'s request to the Planning Commission to consider a Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted in regard to Special Permit No. 1215, which allowed public tours of the existing coffee farm, proposed retail sales of non- agricultural products, and related parking area on approximately 12 acres of a 28.47- acre lot situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located on the west (makai) side of Mamalahoa Highway, approximately 300 feet south nd of the Keopu Cemetery, Hienaloli 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-11: portion of 24. GALDONES:Commissioners, the next agenda item I will be taking it out of order. This has been a request by Applicant No. 8 of Unfinished Business. Due to time constraints that he needs to catch a flight that he had requested to be moved up on the agenda; and it is my understanding that the applicants on Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 have no objections. With that in mind, Commissioners, we are on Agenda Item No. 8. The applicant is Doutor Coffee Hawaii Co., Inc., SPP No. 1215 formerly referred to as EXHIBIT D SPP 02-010. Doutor Coffee Hawaii Co., Inc.lrqdptdrssnsgdOk`mmhmfBnllhrrhnmsn consider a Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted in regard to Special Permit No. 1215, which allowed public tours of the existing coffee farm, proposed retail sales of non-agricultural products, and related parking area on approximately 12 acres of a 28.47-acre lot situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. Norman. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission. We did th receive a motion from Doutor Coffee dated, we received the request dated October 15 and that was a motion, a request for consideration of a Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. All of the parties were informed that this motion was filed by copy of the letter that we acknowledged receipt, that was acknowledged. I have nothing further to add on this matter. GALDONES:Commissioners, any question of Norman? Hearing none, could we have the parties, the representative and the Applicant come to the table; and we recognize that Mr. Yuen, also, has joined them there. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GALDONES:The request has been made by the ApplicantÓs representa Mr. Tsukazaki. I will allow you to start up the, or address the motion that you had made before the Planning Commission. Please state your name, your residence address and you may begin your testimony. TSUKAZAKI:Thank you. My name is Ben Tsukazaki. My address is 1 Street, Hilo. IÓm the attorney for the Applicant. With me here this afternoon is Wally Dahlen, who is the operations manager. I thank you for taking us out of order and I thank the other applicants here for allowing us to do this. A short matter of background, this Special Permit d this body on August 1, 2003. The Applicant filed the request for reconsideration on th August 13. There was a hearing subsequent to that and there was no action taken. During that hearing the Corp. Counsel indicated that it appeared that there was some inaccuracy in how I framed the motion. And so I indicated at the end of that meeting that th I would reform the motion and refile it; and we did do that on O. Again, to be clear, this is not a motion of mine. This is a request for this body to consider making a motion or entertaining a motion, so I want to be clear on that. Substance-wise, you know, the background is the, as the Commission may recall, the issue of the large bus was something that was a critical issue to my client. And as IÓve stated previously on the record, itÓs critical in light of the fact that there are other coffee farms who are doing tours and theyÓre using large buses, and my client is prohibited under your decision. 2 Now the bases for this request and -. You know, itÓs true that we recognize that your rule, Rule 6, allows a permittee to apply to amend a portion of the permit that was granted. We understand that, okay? Your rules, however, also allow Roberts Rules to apply. And the reason why we felt that we would look at Roberts Rules and present that to you is because there is a way if thereÓs a perceived misunderstanding in an action that was taken, the Commission has the ability under Roberts Rules to consider reviewing the action that they took, perhaps amending it, if it felt that it was warranted. And that is very different from the Applicant coming in under another portion of the rule and seeking changes. That procedure, if the Applicant does it, itÓs the same as filing a new application. And, so, itÓs very different; and this is more of a procedural issue. Now, in our previous filings we indicated that we thought the misunderstanding might be related to discussion that was held about how a large bus had been used previously or large buses have been used previously. And what I heard and what I have here in a transcript is the statement by Mr. Mina who was, I think, commenting on or making, involved in discussion on another motion to allow us, to allow my client to have one bus a day. Mr. Mina is reflecting that the tour bus is going to cause a safety hazard for the visitors in walking across the street. Mr. Chairman, would you, I brought copies of this. Should I distribute them right now so that you can see what the words are without me having to paraphrase it? GALDONES:Yes, if youÓre going to be referring to that, it would be helpful to the Commissioners if they have a copy of that. TSUKAZAKI:If I may, this is the, you know, the cover page for th st August 1. The very next page is page 52, and I included it because it gives you some background there that there was an attempt by an amendment to the main motion to allow Condition 5(c) to be amended to allow one large bus. And then on the last page, page 53, during the discussion in about the middle of the page, Mr. Mina, basically, indicates he would be going against the change to allow a large bus because of his concern of the visitors walking across the street to get on the bus. And what we had argued and submitted in this request is that that information is nowhere in evidence in the Contested Case hearing. And, so, we believe that it was something I had said or something that somebody else had said which gave Mr. Mina the understanding that the bus would be parked in such a way, outside the property, where visitors would have to walk across that highway. And we felt that if Mr. Mina, you know, got that misunderstanding from one of us, itÓs possible that some other people did as well. So we wanted to bring this back and ask you to take another look at it because this is, as I said before, is a really critical issue for my client. ItÓs not a case of merely being unhappy with the way that decision came out. It is because we want to be absolutely sure that if there was a mistake that it hasnÓt resulted in a prohibition, in a restriction of a large bus that really does affect my client greatly. So I wonÓt go over all the rules Òcause they are attached to my request. I believe itÓs clear that under Roberts Rules, anyway, this body can entertain a motion to amend something 3 previously adopted. And so what weÓre seeking is an amendment to Condition 5(c) to allow a maximum of one large bus per day; and this is, again, to transport visitors to the site. GALDONES:Well, before we proceed any further with the discussion, I would like to ask our counsel if this matter is properly before us for consideration. OÓTOOLE:Okay, Mr. Chairman, I believe that when the Commission h specific rule that addresses the problem thatÓs being presented, which you do, which is to amend the condition of the permit, that the Commission does not need to look in Roberts Rules to find some kind of rule that might fit the situation. What the Applicant is asking for is to delete a condition. And in your 6-8, that is specifically covered, the procedure is specifically covered; and it requires the filing fee, and notice to people who might oppose it, and we know there was opposition on this. So it is my opinion that the proper motion would be a motion to amend or delete the condition under your Rule 6. GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioners, any question of Mr. Tsukazaki? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:I have a question of counsel then. So if weÓre following Rule 6-8, weÓd be expecting to see a check for that filing fee, as well as something in that form that comports with 6-8? OÓTOOLE:Yes, as well as the notice requirements. OÓTOOLE:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:If I get the drift, are you saying this is not the correct format? There needs to be another revised request by the petitioner? OÓTOOLE:Well, I think the petitioner has been told more than onc motion to amend, that that seems to be the essence of what heÓs rules do refer to Roberts Rules, I donÓt see why you need to look for Roberts Rules for this kind of motion which heÓs saying the Commission itself should make. I donÓt see the Commission having a strong desire to go that way. If he wants the Commission to change the conditions, he should follow Rule 6. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Mr. Tsukazaki, have you been in dialogue with our counsel regarding the proper procedure or the preferred procedure, and you choose one over the other? Is there any reason for that, or is it one and the same to you? 4 TSUKAZAKI:I donÓt believe IÓve had conversation with your counsel to the effect that sheÓs making these statements today. Clearly, IÓve, you know, the Planning Department is a party in this hearing and I have received the letter from Mr. Yuen stating his belief, which is the same as your counsel. However, you know, I believe itÓs a discretionary thing; and I would weigh this very carefully if I were you, putting myself in your seat. Because to follow what counsel is saying, okay, would mean that in any situation, even if you felt there had been a mistake made, or mi something, you would never go back and fix it. You would tell the Applicant, ÐSorry, well, we made a mistake here but you got to go file this thing and you got to spend six, eight months whatever it is, Contested Case perhaps even, to try to redress something that occurred during the decision-making process. I donÓt, I believe that Rule 6 of the provision that allows a permittee to seek an amendment is very applicable in a lot of situations. But I also believe that under Roberts Rules, this Commission has the legal authority to take a look at something it did if it feels that there was something that may not have been right at the time they made a decision. So, procedurally, I believe you have the power to do it, this is that kind of case, or thatÓs what IÓm presenting to you -. Whether you agree with me or not is a whole another issue, but IÓm presenting to you why I think there was something not right at the time you voted. All right? KUBOTA:Thank you. OÓTOOLE:Well, let me respond that I donÓt agree that the Commission could not do anything. You did already have a request that you reconsider and that went nowhere. So now we have this other motion which seems to be ess thing, asking the Commission to take upon itself to reconsider. And if the Commission had wanted to do that, you would have done it the last time. I donÓt see the material difference. I really think what heÓs getting at is that he wants that condition deleted. TSUKAZAKI:Mr. Chairman, may I? GALDONES:Mr. Tsukazaki. TSUKAZAKI:You know, again, if you recall and I have the transcript here, your Corporation Counsel, it wasnÓt Ms. OÓToole, okay, but when we had the previous meeting the motion to reconsider or rescind was stated by Corp. Counsel to be not really appropriate, not -. I think there was even some question about whether it had been agendized, whether the intent was really what the label indicated. So that was another factor there. And we said, okay, well, weÓll, you know, change what the form of the request was to be more in line with what Corp. Counsel was saying. ItÓs true that the Commission didnÓt take action. But it may also have been that, you know, it was not properly before you. GALDONES:Commissioners, in light of the on-going discussion, perhaps the Commission would like to consider to go into Executive Session so we can have a discussion with counsel as to procedural matters how we move from here. Mr. Krueger? 5 KRUEGER:Mr. Chair, if it pleases the Commission, IÓd like to be able to briefly address the same point that has been the subject of discussion between Mr. Tsukazaki and the Commission. At the last hearing, there we were being, and actually, it was one motion, and it was brought by the Applicant. The motion was to ask someone on this Commission to bring a motion, Commission can bring, whether that be a motion for reconsideration or a motion for rescission of the prior action. It was determined at the last m rules state that you have to bring a motion for reconsideration prior to the written decision and Roberts Rules of Order say that it needs to be brought on the day of the hearing, that a motion for reconsideration was not in order the last time around. Even if any of you Commissioners wanted to bring that motion, it was too late to bring that motion. So the focus of the discussion at that point became a motion to rescind, which is an alternative to the, under Roberts Rules of Order to this motion to alter, or to amend something previously adopted, that Mr. Tsukazaki has now asked you to consider raising today. But I think the point that your Corp. Counsel made at the last meeting that Mr. Tsukazaki is referring to was after we took a break and after he spoke to someone in the Hilo office, he came back and said that even though this was rescind, that the attorney in Hilo that he spoke to said that it was really more of a motion to alter or amend, which is what your counsel is telling you today is really the appropriate motion for Mr. Tsukazaki to bring. And that required him to notice it, to properly agendize it, and so forth. The motion that he brought at the last meeting to reconsider, to ask the Commission to reconsider, or ask the Commission to rescind was properly agendized and was properly before this Commission; and that was determined at the last meeting as well. So what Mr. Tsukazaki is saying is I would like one of you to bring that motion to rescind so that it can be discussed. And at the last meeting nobody chose to bring that motion, nobody, it died because nobody raised a motion. So the today, is Mr. TsukazakiÓs request, again, to ask somebody here on the Commission to rescind or to bring a motion to rescind an action that had previously been approved. Mr. Tsukazaki, as the Applicant, canÓt bring that motion. The only way Mr. Tsukazaki can bring that motion is under Rule 6-8, which is a motion to amend a condition that has been previously adopted by this Commission. And if thatÓs the way he wants to go, I mean if thatÓs what he wants to do, thatÓs his only means of doing that. The Commission as a body can reconsider or can rescind an action that it has previously taken, but there are certain restrictions on that as well under Roberts Rules of Order. And with respect to the motion to amend something previously adopted, one of the restrictions on that is when something has been done as a result of the vote on the main motion that itÓs impossible to undo, then you canÓt rescind, or you canÓt reconsider the previous action. And, in this case, there has been an appeal of this CommissionÓs decision which is pending before Judge Ibarra in the Third Circuit. And I donÓt think that itÓll be 6 appropriate at this time to go back and change conditions of the approval of the Special Use Permit that was granted at the time of the awarding of the Special Use Permit. So even if you wanted as an individual to rescind or to consider a motion to rescind, I donÓt think it would be appropriate to do it at this point in time as a result of that. So those are my comments. GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? (Momentarily, there was static in the recording.) YUEN:I donÓt mean to give you a lot of static. IÓm sitting down because this had been the subject of a Contested Case hearing. I wanted to speak for a minute in favor of what Corporation Counsel said. YouÓll note in your records that when this request came in, I sent a letter to the Applicant saying this was not in compliance with the rules, and theyÓre wasting the CommissionÓs time by bringing this before the Commission again. So IÓll try not to waste any more time and just say a couple of things. People will often, you have contested matters, people will disagree with the decision you make and wants you to reconsider it. If the Commission wants to reconsider, thereÓs a specific rule; and it says, ÐThe reconsideration should be made before the effective date of the permit,Ñ thatÓs when itÓs mailed out, effective date is when itÓs mailed out. It has been mailed out. The Commission cannot reconsider on its own an Applicant, as theyÓre doing here, wants a change to the conditions of the permit, there is a way for them to do it. ItÓs perfectly clear in the rules. It means itÓs under Rule 6-8; and they file with the filing fee, and they give notice to people who may be affected. ItÓs perfectly clear; and they should follow the rules. GALDONES:Mr. Tsukazaki? TSUKAZAKI:Yes. That, I disagree with the Planning Director. If you read Roberts Rules, and I think even Mr. Krueger would agree with this, the motion to amend something previously adopted, that can be made at any time. The issue is, as Mr. Krueger says, one of the things that prevents the motion is if itÓs too late to undo something. And Mr. Krueger argues that thereÓs a pending appeal, so therefore you canÓt change the decision. I donÓt really think that holds water. If Mr. Krueger would like to, if this Commission grants the amendment that weÓre talking about, Mr. Krueger can also amend the appeal, if he feels that itÓs an appealable issue, and we can go on with that appeal. So itÓs not something that, at this point, cannot be amended by you, if you so wish. GALDONES:Commissioners, you have heard different opinions on this subject matter. I, for one, would like to get more dialogue with our counsel as to how we proceed on this matter. I do not know the wishes of the Commissioners, however, at this time, how you guys want to proceed. ÒCause I donÓt feel that, given the information that 7 we have right now without going into further dialogue and going into Executive Session, that I feel comfortable in moving forward. THIBADEAU:So moved to have an executive session, Mr. Chair. May I make a motion for an executive session, Mr. Chair. KUBOTA:Talk into the mike. GALDONES:Mr. Thibadeau. THIBADEAU:Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. May I make a motion for an E Session, please. FUJIKAWA:Second. GALDONES:ThereÓs a motion by Commissioner Thibadeau and seconded by Commissioner Fujikawa that the Commission go into Executive Sess confer with legal counsel before proceeding further. Discussion? All those in favor say aye? COMMISSIONERS:Aye. GALDONES:Oppose, nay? Motion carries. WeÓll go into Executive Session. EXECUTIVEThe Commission went into executive session at 2:54 p.m. SESSIONThe Commission came out of executive session at 3:27 p.m., by a motion made by Commissioner Thibadeau, seconded by Commissioner Fujikawa, and unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. GALDONES:IÓd like to call this Hawaii County Planning Commission back into order. Having gone through Executive Session to confer with our legal counsel as to the situation that we are faced with and the options that we have, in accordance to the rules, are there any further discussions from the Commissioners? If not, from, Mr. Tsukazaki has given his presentation. Mr. Krueger, you did not really have an opportunity to address the issue that is before us. KRUEGER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to allow the Commission an opportunity to decide whether or not anybody wants to bring a motion to rescind. I would assume that if there is a motion to rescind brought or something like that that we could be given the opportunity to address the underlining merits of the case at that time. So we donÓt, I wonÓt waste any more of your time unless thatÓs necessary, if thatÓs all right. GALDONES:Yes, you will have that opportunity. If thereÓs a motion before us, youÓll be able to debate that. 8 KRUEGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:IÓve no need for any further comment. ItÓs taken quite a b time already. GALDONES:Commissioners? Chair is prepared to entertain a motion. FUJIKAWA:Can I make a motion to amend the, on the conditions on Doutor Coffee application of SPP No. 1215, referred to as SPP 02 GALDONES:There is a motion. Any second? MINA:Second for discussion. OÓTOOLE:Well, I think we discussed, Mr. Chairman, that if there were that motion to amend something previously adopted, that it had to be placed on the next agenda and notice given, and so forth. So that itÓs not to be considered today if the wishes of the Commission are to follow through with that. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa, will you amend your motion to incorporate what counsel has mentioned to place, have this be pl that we have here in Kona? FUJIKAWA:So move. MINA:Second. GALDONES:It has been agreed to by the maker and the seconder that the motion be amended. The motion is made by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Mina that we amend something that was previously adopted in reference to Doutor CoffeeÓs Special Permit application, SPP 02-010, and that it be placed on the agenda at the next Kona meeting. Discussions? KRUEGER:Mr. Chairman, just one point of order. I think under Roberts Rules of Order where thereÓs a motion to rescind which I believe is, IÓm assuming thatÓs what Mr. Fujikawa is bringing a motion to amend something previously adopted, that youÓre, in order to determine at the next meeting specifically what item is being amended, you need to state specifically what specific condition, or paragraph, or sentence that it is that youÓre asking to be amended. FUJIKAWA:That was the bus, the bus stopping -. OÓTOOLE:ItÓs (c) and (d) of Condition 5. 9 GALDONES:ItÓs 5(c) and (d). FUJIKAWA:Yeah, 5(c) and (d) conditions. KRUEGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak against the motion. that the Applicant has had a variety of remedies available to him from appeal to, as the Planning Director recommended, to resubmit under Rule 6-8. I believe that by relying on Roberts Rules of Order, the Planning Commission is considering relying on the weakest of the authorities that we have by which to reconsider, or even to consider an item brought before us. So I speak against the motion. GALDONES:Any further discussions, Commissioners? Mr. Krueger, I mentioned that you will have the opportunity to debate it, and I will give you that opportunity to debate that. KRUEGER:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, itÓs my understa that the motion to rescind is actually something you give notice of, that youÓre going to be bringing that motion at a prior meeting and then the motion is actually brought and argued or discussed at the subsequent meeting. But in order to be able to proceed with it at the following meeting, you need to give notice of it at a previous meeting. So I donÓt know that it would be appropriate to consider the motion and vote on the motion today. ThatÓs just my feeling. Corp. Counsel can obviously advise you on that. But I think you just, in order for you to proceed with it at the following meeting, you need to give notice of it at the previous meeting and specifically what it is that youÓre going to be moving to amend. And then at the subsequent meeting you can make the motion, have discussion and decide whether or not to amend or -. GALDONES:Mr. Krueger, that is the intentions of the Commission that, what you had just mentioned. KRUEGER:In that case, I donÓt know that it would be appropriate for me to address the motion today. It would probably be more appropriate for me to address it at the next meeting when the issue is actually raised and brought up. IÓd be happy to do that. GALDONES:So noted. KRUEGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? 10 YUEN:You have your rules, theyÓre perfectly clear. Your counsel has on the record and in public said that what is being attempted here is against the rules. If you allow this kind of procedure, youÓll simply invite anybody, anytime they donÓt like a decision that youÓve made to come forward like this, despite the provisions and the rules, and try to convince you, geeze, you made a mistake and spend hours and hours debating whether you made a mistake or not, and then perhaps make a change that affects many people, affects the permit, where the notice has not been given to people that this change may be made accordingly. And this is a safeguard which the rules are put in there and is uniformly, is uniformly applied. Someone could come in and requ provision of any permit that they donÓt like without giving notice to the surrounding property owners and without filing the application. You should reject this motion. GALDONES:Mr. Tsukazaki? TSUKAZAKI:Again, this is, that response is saying that you guys donÓt know how to distinguish between a request that go to technical grounds, etc. I have much more faith in this body than that. So, again, there are different ways to approach this issue. But I believe that you have the ability under Roberts Rules to take another look and change something if you feel that itÓs warranted because of some from the time that you took the action. GALDONES:Ms. OÓToole? OÓTOOLE:Well, by then, by that do you mean that you will give no or is it your position that we donÓt have to give notice under this procedure? TSUKAZAKI:Are you talking about putting this on an agenda or are you talking about serving everybody within 500 feet? OÓTOOLE:Yeah, IÓm talking about that. TSUKAZAKI:No. My view is that the public notice is served, this is an amendment of something of a decision that the Planning Commission made in August. ItÓs, the only way we move on here is if this body votes to go back and look at amending something. ItÓs not an applicant-initiated matter, so there is no rule that requires us to go back to the beginning and serve everybody again. ThatÓs a different procedure. OÓTOOLE:Thank you. Because that brings me back to the idea that you have a specific rule which protects the public and adjoining property owners and that this is an attempt or will have the result of circumventing those protections. GALDONES:Any further discussion? Hearing none -. KUBOTA:Wait, wait, Mr. Chairman. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? 11 KUBOTA:WasnÓt part of the motion that was made requesting that it be put on the agenda with notification at our next meeting or whatever that was added on, and he agreed to it, the maker of the motion agreed to it? OÓTOOLE:Yeah. So that would be notice just from publication. If you went under this rule, he would have to notify surrounding property ow and they could come in, they could ask to intervene as they did in the original issuance. That is not going to be there if you go this way. And Mr. Tsukazaki is saying, yes, that heÓs not going to notify anybody, doesnÓt have to, and that itÓs just the Commission doing what it feels it should do. So IÓm just asking you to consider is that really what you want to do when you have a specific rule that has certain protections in place? You know, you did have a Contested Case before. ThereÓs no reason to think that those people would still not be interested if you change the issues or the conditions. TSUKAZAKI:Mr. Chairman, may I have a, speak? GALDONES:Mr. Tsukazaki? TSUKAZAKI:My view is that the Contested Case proceeding has, you starting a new one. YouÓre basically going back to the time that the action was taken and youÓre making a decision whether or not to amend that action that was taken at the end of the Contested Case. ThereÓs only one party in that proceeding, and Mr. Krueger represents them. So I donÓt share the view that this is a whole new proceeding where you start serving everybody again. I donÓt share that. GALDONES:I understand. Commissioners? Hearing no further question, no further discussion, Norman? KUBOTA:Wait, one more question. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:One more question. Hierarchy was mentioned as to whether we follow Roberts Rules or 6-8 of our PC Rules. I would like to ask the Corp. Counsel not, well, I donÓt how to put this. But theyÓre both avenues for recourse but they present a different facet or a different procedure involvement. Does following one over the other have any significance or any weight? Does one rule higher than the other? Hierarchy was mentioned earlier in our discussion and Ms. Springer mentioned that weÓre following the lowest. Is there a lowest/highest in ruling and procedures that are available to clients? OÓTOOLE:Well, I donÓt know if I would put it that way. But your rules are specific to you in your proceedings. They were adopted after public hearings, pursuant to, you know, statutory authority to adopt your rules. Your rules do then reference Roberts Rules and says parliamentary procedure to be utilized in the conduct of its own 12 meeting shall be based on revised edition of Roberts Rules of Order. But I think youÓre, to me, youÓre kind of slipping over just procedural into substantive questions when youÓre talking about amending the conditions of the permit. ItÓs not just what Roberts Rules says about adjournment, or taking a recess, or doing something like that, procedural issues. So there is a procedural aspect to what heÓs asking, but then I think your specific rule also gives the substantive protections that are not considered in Roberts. Because, you know, Roberts is used by Kiwanis or Lions -. KUBOTA:Everybody, right. OÓTOOLE:Club or something and, you know, you have to follow administrative laws. KUBOTA:So youÓre saying that there is no hierarchy; however, one is global and one is very pertinent or personal to our Commission, the rules, but there is no hierarchy. The other question I wanted to ask was, oh, it slipped my mind. I pass. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? KUBOTA:I got it. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Sorry. I donÓt mean to belabor this point but I want to be very clear in my own mind before I take a vote. This business of correcting a possible misunderstanding is only available through the procedures as presented in the Roberts Rules? OÓTOOLE:Right. KUBOTA:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, anything further? Norman? HAYASHI:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. 13 HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:No. HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries with five aye votes and three GALDONES:Thank you, Norman. Mr. Tsukazaki, youÓll be informed i of todayÓs actions. Thank you very much. TSUKAZAKI:Thank you very much. GALDONES:YouÓre welcome. The discussion ended at 3:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 14