Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-22 TDELUZ PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 22, 2008 EDWIN DELUZ TRUCKING AND A regularly advertised hearing on the application of GRAVEL LLC (SPP 956) was called to order at 9:07 a.m. at the Waikoloa Beach Marriott - Hotel, Alii I, 69275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Andrew Iwashita Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And no one from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: EDWIN DELUZ TRUCKING AND GRAVEL LLC (SPP 956) Request to amend condition no. 5 (life of permit) of Special Permit No. 956, which allowed the establishment of a quarry for soil mining on 14.9 acres within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The permit was previously issued to Allied Aggregates Ltd. for property located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 190)-Saddle Road junction in the vicinity of the West Hawaii Concrete quarries at Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-7-1: portion of 25. WATANABE: Our first agenda item for today is Edwin Deluz Trucking and Gravel LLC in amendment to Condition No. 5 of Special Permit No. 956. With that, I’ll turn it over to Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good Morning, Members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to the location map, the area of this application is within South Kohala. Just for reference, on the left side of the map we are looking at Waimea with different colors of zoning displayed.Running through the bottom portion of the map in a north-south direction is Mamalahoa Highway coming out of Waimea. And running in an east- westerly direction is Saddle Road, and that’s identified on the right portion of the map. The area that we are looking at for this application is a large, approximately 22,500-acre property identified in this area. More specifically, we are looking at the project site being approximately 14.9 acres identified with the yellow Post-It. EXHIBIT A 1 The applicant in this case, Edwin Deluz Trucking and Gravel LLC, is requesting a time extension, a 10-year time extension to Condition 5, which is the life of the permit for Special Permit No. 956. Special Permit 956 was originally approved on February 6, 1997. Condition 5 had a life deadline of December 31, 2007. The applicant is requesting that the permit be extended to December 31, 2017. The reason for the request is that several large developments in the area had halted because of the economy, and the soil, the quarry soil had created a surplus in this particular quarry. The applicant would like to continue quarrying this particular site, as there is still ample cinder to be quarried here. Looking at the conditions within the recommendation, the Planning Department has revised several conditions. One of them is Condition No. 3, which is the standard Final Plan Approval condition; that has been amended to just state that the applicant comply with the conditions of the Plan Approval that was secured in October 2002. Additionally we’ve made the amendment to Condition 5 stating that the life of the permit would be till December 31, 2017. And lastly, Condition No. 12, once an applicant receives an administrative time extension, we end up, or if there is a condition requiring that a particular applicant come back before the Planning Commission for a time extension rather than receive an administrative time extension, we would delete the administrative time extension portion of that condition, and just state that any further time extensions in the future need to come back before the Planning Commission. There is one correction in the recommendation, and that is the number “12” is crossed out, that should remain uncrossed out; we’ll make that correction. We have received several late comments from agencies. One of them, they are from the Department of Water Supply, the Fire Department and the Department of Transportation. These were received after the background and recommendation were submitted to the Planning Commission. The Planning Director is recommending that this amendment request be approved by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? SIRACUSA: Yes. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Since you brought to our attention the correction to Condition No. 12, I would like to draw your attention to Condition No. 3, which you mentioned, which does need a minor correction. The ramsayered sentence at the bottom is not a compete sentence. You should preface it with “The applicant shall.” Because right now it just says, “Comply with the conditions of Final Plan Approval ….” DARROW: We can make that change. Thank you. WATANABE: Any other questions? Then may I call the applicant up, please? Can I swear you in? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? APPLICANTS: I do. EXHIBIT A 2 WATANABE: Thank you. I don’t know which one of you is going to go first as far as providing testimony. But would you state your name and address for the record, and then you can begin your testimony. LEELOY: Aloha. Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Sue LeeLoy, address is 121 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo. WATANABE: You may begin. LEELOY: Okay. I work for the applicant, Kevin Balog. And we reviewed basically the conditions of approval, and are comfortable with that. I do want to share with the Commissioners. Over the last ten years the applicant has had no complaints from adjacent property owners or any other agencies throughout this entire process.The applicant took over a permit that was issued back in 1997. We took it over in 2000. Between the years 2003 and 2006, basically like Mr. Darrow explained there was -, slow in basic construction and the need for quarry material. Since that time some of the construction has resumed and, which basically like Mr. Darrow explained, has created a surplus. We are asking for a 10-year extension. One, basically cause the resource is still available. But at some point we do recognize that the resource will be used up. But we do need that time to basically re-vegetate the area, which is part of the conditions of approval also. WATANABE: Thank you. Would you care to provide any further comments, or -? BALOG: Kevin Balog, P. O. Box 368, Paauilo, Hawaii 96776. If you have questions, I can answer but no comments. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. Then I take it that that’s basically the presentation. Okay. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of the applicant? And you did indicate that you read the conditions and you are, yeah, in agreement with all the conditions as revised. LEELOY: Yes, we are. WATANABE: Thank you. Well, are there any other questions for the applicant? ALAMEDA: I’ve got one. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Aloha. Why not ask for like – I don’t know – 15, 20 years? Just, or -. What’s so special about the 10 years? BALOG: It’s the original life for the permit, I believe, 10 years, so -. Probably Chris could answer better than me. But you know, what probably I’d like to say – and I can’t talk for the landowners – is that the permit gets extended until the resource runs out, which we can do, and then we renaturalize the area, and go from there. But we’re constrained under the original permit; so we’re going to abide by what the conditions were, yeah? ALAMEDA: Okay. Thank you, Kevin. EXHIBIT A 3 WATANABE: Yes, Rene’. SIRACUSA: In order to renaturalize the area afterwards, you have to know where you started from. Do you have -, have you taken pictures and done studies and things like that to establish a baseline, so when the time comes, you know what you are going back to? BALOG: There’re photographs of the area. There’s been a metes and bounds survey. Basically the renaturalization would be making sure that we put proper slopes in that people could traverse; or in this case, since it’s pasture land, the animals could get up and down without breaking legs, or when the ranchers would go out and have to move around, it wouldn’t be hazardous. That’s all currently happening on the property. There’re no fences around the mine itself. When Parker Ranch has cattle in the area, we don’t have any fences up; so they are amongst our operation as we operate now. So what we are going to have to do is slope the ground back to a slope that’s acceptable, and make sure that the grass grows back. We won’t have the exact -, whatever we excavate out, we’re not going to have put back; but we’ll have an area that will be vegetated. SIRACUSA: So basically the vegetation that would be replaced would be grass for pasture. Is that correct? BALOG: That’s correct -. SIRACUSA: Thank you. BALOG: And that’s what the surrounding area is now. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any further questions for the applicant? RHO: I do. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Rho. RHO: You know, in Condition 6 in the background report, it talks about having a plan one year prior to the termination of the operation. And I wondered whether or not a plan was developed a year ago or a year prior to 2007. BALOG: No, there was no plan developed because prior to 2007 from 2000 – probably the year 2000, maybe even before that – a half way through the permit we already knew we needed to get an extension. So the thought of exiting the quarry operation was never planned to exit. So when we get there, we’ll definitely have the plan ready and it’ll be submitted on time properly. WATANABE: Any follow-up? No? Any further questions? Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Well, if it’s appropriate, I’d like to make a motion that -. WATANABE: Oh, okay. EXHIBIT A 4 WOODWARD: Is that appropriate? WATANABE: I think so. It seems like we are at the end of the discussion. So you all may be seated. Thank you. And, yeah, we’ll entertain a motion, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Okay. I would like to make a motion that in the matter of Special Permit No. 956 that we grant the amendment for a 10-year time extension to Condition No. 5. WATANABE: Thank you. DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Thank you. It’s been moved -. SIRACUSA: Excuse me. Is that with the corrections -? WATANABE: I take it that it’s with the corrections to the -. SIRACUSA: To the conditions? WOODWARD: Yes. WATANABE: Putting in No. “12” and also adding in “The applicant shall -.” WOODWARD: Corrections, yes, as -, yeah. WATANABE: Right, to No. 3. SIRACUSA: Thank you. WATANABE: For the record, I’d like to indicate that there’s no one from the public that indicated any desire to testify.Oh, no one from the public is present, actually. Okay. So it’s been moved and seconded. Any further discussion on this matter? ALAMEDA: Sure. WATANABE: Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Originally when I was looking at the application, I thought, wow, 10 years, that’s unusual because you usually go 5 years, yeah? But of course when you look at what the applicant is trying to do and the operation, then it makes total sense. So, I mean, I like the application, the conditions to me are all mitigating factors that can potentially be adverse to the operation. So I think it’s good and I’ll be voting in favor of the motion. WATANABE: Thank you. Any further discussion on the matter? Mr. Darrow. EXHIBIT A 5 DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve the amendment request with the amendments to Conditions 3, 5 and 12. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, eight to zero. WATANABE: So you’ll be notified in writing, yeah, of the decision. Thank you. The discussion ended at 9:23 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 6