Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-18 TPARKERSCHOOLBOARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT March 18, 2005 PARKER SCHOOL BOARD OF A regularly advertised hearing on the application DIRECTORS (USE 05-001) was called to order at 3:07 p.m. in Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Hau/Lehua Room,62-100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala, Coast, Hawaii with Chairman Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Earl Fujikawa ABSENT & EXCUSED:Rene' Siracusa C. Kimo Alameda William Graham Jeffrey McCall FrancisSmith Hannah Springer Fred Galdones Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 15 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PARKER SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS (USE 05-001) Use Permit application to allow the establishment of an elementary school (K to 5) on a 2.635- acre area zoned Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) within the State Land Use Urban District. The property is located along the southeast side of Kapiolani Road, approximately 550 feet east of the Kapiolani Road-Lindsey Road intersection, Waimea, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 6-5-4: portion of 25. GALDONES:Commissioners, we are on agenda item #10. Applicant is Parker School Board of Directors (USE 05-001). This is a use permit application to allow the establishment of an elementary school K to 5 on a 2.635 acre area zoned Agriculture 1-a, A-1a within a the State Land Use Urban District. Norman. HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chair. Again to the presentation map on the board on the wall. The subject property, the area of consideration, the 2.6 acre area is located off of Kapiolani Street; and that€s indicated by this orange circle. If I may direct your attention to the site plan that was submitted with the application. Again, this would be Kapiolani Road. The previously discussed application is situated at this location here off of Kapiolani. The applicant intends to EXHIBIT H construct a classroom building consisting of 6 classrooms K to 5- to also include an office and restroom facility within the proposed classroom building. The parking will be provided on site at this general config- location- these 2 locations. There€ll be a loading area in front of the classroom. The existing Parker School is situated at this general location. If I go back to the overall location map- again this is the subject property. The Parker School complex would be in this configuration with access off of Lindsey Road. Those are parking in the back that gains access from Puuki Place, and that would be to the rear of the existing Parker School Facility. The existing Parker School Facility consists of grades 6 to 12 with a enrollment of approximately 191 students at this particular time. The applicant, well, according to the application the K to 5 facility would accommodate no more than 75 students, and that€s based on the representation made by the applicant. Again access would be from Kapiolani Road, and Kapiolani Road has a pavement width of approximately 20 feet. There are grass shoulders in certain areas along both sides of Kapiolani Road. Surrounding areas again are single family in character. We have the Puuki Subdivision lots within Puuki Road or Street. Those would be these lots here on both sides.Wehavesinglefamilydwellingslocatedintheseareas,aswellaslandsthatareusedfor agriculture purposes. There are 3 letters that I received- or 4 letters-basically stating their concerns relative to this particular application, from Mr. Len and Janine Packett, Victoria Missien and Diana Mahaney. We also had a letter from Linda Copman. Ms. Copman also filed a petition for standing in a contested case hearing on this particular request also. Are there any questions at this time? GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Norman? Hearing none, will the applicant or its representative please come forward. VITOUSEK:Good morning, Chairman, Members of the Commission. I€m Randy Vitousek and I€m Counsel for the Parker School Corporation. GALDONES:Mr. Vitousek, will all the individuals before you be making testimony before us? VITOUSEK:If they are asked questions yes. GALDONES:Oh, okay, why don€t I swear all of you in then at the same time. 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? VITOUSEK:Yes. GALDONES:Could each individual, Mr. Vitousek, have them state their name and residence-. VITOUSEK:Sure. GALDONES:Please for the record? 2 VITOUSEK:Yeah, sure. Greg Mooers is the Planning Consultant, and he€s representing the applicant. Dr. Ken Fischer is the Chairman or President of the Board of Directors of the Board of Directors of the Parker School Corporation, and Carl Sturges is the Headmaster of Parker School. GALDONES:Okay, thank you. Mr. Vitousek, have you folks received a copy of the background report and also attached with that the recommendation? VITOUSEK:Yes, we have. And the applicant has read the background report and the recommendations and the proposed conditions, and Dr. Fischer will confirm, or actually Mr. Sturges will confirm the applicant€s understanding of and agreement to the proposed conditions. STURGES:Yes, we do understand the traffic ameliorations, suggestions and we would acceptthem. GALDONES:Mr.Vitousek,isthereanythingelsethatyouwouldliketopresenttothe Commission? VITOUSEK:Yes, just-just briefly yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. There€s been some discussion about the organization of these 2 entities. The Parker School Corporation is the non- profit 501C3 Corporation that actually operates Parker School. And it€s their job to provide the educational programs, to hire the teachers, to get the kids in, to collect tuition, and apply the tuition payments to their expenses. So they basically operate the school. Parker School Trust is the beneficiary into the Parker Ranch Foundation Trust; but, frankly, there€s not a lot of money that comes from Parker Ranch Foundation Trust. And so while they have land and while they occasionally get distributions, the school operates itself. The school collects tuition, pays teachers, operates itself. Parker Schools decided to open an elementary school. They had sent out applications. They€re getting kids applying. They€re accepting kids. The school will open in the next school year. It will open temporarily in- on existing facilities of Parker School, which are already permitted. The Planning Director has issued a letter in April of 2002 confirming that the use of the existing campus for an elementary school is a conditional permitted use. And it will- so it€s going forward. So what they are trying to do here is apply to develop better classrooms on an adjoining property. And, you know, this is an established school in the community where there€s a significant increase and demand for education. And, you know there€s a lot of families moving to Waimea, there€s a lot of existing families in Waimea, there€s a real demand. And, this is a real serious school with a significant track record of educating kids in our community. Majority of the applications are coming from kids already in the community. And so, when we talk about traffic, what we€re talking about is kids going to this school instead of another school. In other words, instead of going to Waimea School, or HPA, or Waimea Country School, or the Montessori School, they drive instead to Parker School. So there€s really no significant net impact of traffic on Kawaihae Road and on the Belt Highway. There will be some increase in traffic in approximately 400 feet between Lindsey Road and the entrance off of 3 Kapiolani into the school. But all this talk of concern about the mile loop is interesting because no one would drive the extra mile. You know, in other words, you can come right in off Lindsey Road, go into the campus, come out of the campus, go back on Lindsey Road. And so, there- and I should also say, you know,asapersonal side I also remember the community. I€ve owned property on Hokuula, lived in Waimea and, you know, I think that the community supports education. And so, I just would ask you in looking at this application to remember that every dollar that Parker School spends on lawyers and planners is a dollar that goes away from kids, it goes away from providing education to kids. And I€d ask you to look at this application in that light. You know, we would like to have as expeditious an opportunity to present the merits of this application to you as we can because it really matters you know. It really matters, the quality of education does, to some extent depend on the quality of the facilities, the amount of room the kidsgetand-andthat€sallthey€retryingtodo.Youknowthisisgoingtohappenanyway, they€re trying to make it a better facility. It seems like a very appropriate use; and we just ask that -. No one is making money here. You know, this is not a situation where this is a development where someone is trying to get something through quick so they can make more money. What we€re trying to do is develop classrooms that real kids from our community can be educated in. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Vitousek. Commissioners, are there any questions of Mr. Vitousek or any of the gentlemen at the table? Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Whether Mr. Vitousek or the Planning Department staff can answer this, I ask it of whoever can. What is the process by which enrollment may be increased above 120 students? YUEN:Under the terms- if it were passed with a wording under the present conditions, it would require an amendment to the same use permit. It would have to come back to the Planning Commission for an amendment. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Can I ask a follow-up to the Planning Director, too. It seems like everybody is testifying is in favor of the thrust of what€s to come forth here from the school expansion and I think, in general, even the one we heard before, the Parker Trust for the warehouse and all, that€s a community service, too; and the only issue seems to be the impacts- primarily traffic. And so, it€s unusual to see a single landowner and have 2 ends of the same parcel come in as 2 separate use permits; and then I€ve heard testimony about what may go on for the rest of the parcel. So I€m just kind of wondering, when the Planning Director made his recommendations is he looking at- is he putting on the blinders and looking at this one by itself and looking at the other one by itself or-. You know, if you look, if the Planning Department and Department of Public Works looked at the whole thing together and said this is an appropriate 4 way to deal with the traffic, it would be a lot easier for myself to swallow. But this kind of segmentation feels, lays one uneasy about the whole thing. So I€m- obviously you€ve had to deal with the same issues, so I€m just wondering how you are dealing with that issue. YUEN:Well, we certainly did know and consider that there were these 2 applications, and we are recommending both- approval of both of them knowing that- and with expectation that both of them will go forward. We definitely- we€re not saying, we€re not thinking, well, 1 is okay and put the blinders on, and the other one is okay, but the 2 of them wouldn€t be okay if you looked at them together. And we are recommending approval of both of them. I understand it is an odd situation but there is this division between the- there are 2 entities that are involved here, the School Board and the School Trust. So, and they have 2 different programs and 2 different applications coming in. And I€m glad that we at least have them- they€re being heard together, they€re on the same agenda. We can look at them together and consider the objections together. If you go ahead and hire a hearings officer, we€ll have the same hearingsofficerforthe2becausemostofthetestimonyisgoingtobeacommon-theissuesand testimony will be common to- to both of them but we definitely looked at these as being together and considered the impacts as well. GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? If not, Sharon, before I excuse the gentlemen, we did not get their addresses. Is it necessary for us to record their addresses? NOMURA:No. GALDONES:That won€t be necessary- okay, gentlemen, thank you very much. YUEN:And I€m sorry but I- I have to go. But before I go I want- this is my last meeting that I€ll have with 2 Commission members, Francis Smith and Earl Fujikawa. They have been great public servants during all these years with the Planning Commission. I wish I was there to shake your hand at the very end of your very last meeting but since this is my only chance I want to again express my thanks and appreciation for all your service over these years. (applause) GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Commissioners, we have before us a petition for standing in a contested case hearing that was submitted by Linda Copman. Ms. Copman. Ms. Copman you have been sworn in earlier so you€re still under oath. Is there anything else you would like to add onto what you have already said prior to us considering your petition? COPMAN:No, I still live where I live. I think I still have a standing. GALDONES:Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. Do you have any questions of Ms. Copman. Commissioners, motion is in order. Oh hold on- I€m sorry, back up. Mr. Vitousek, do you have any comments in regards to the petition for standing? 5 VITOUSEK:You know, we are dealing with 2 separate records here and so I don€t know that- I don€t know that you can just adopt a testimony from a previous matter into this matter. In other words, you know, this is on the record of our application. And what we€ve heard so far is I don€t have anything to add to what I said before; and that€s all the record for this proceeding. So what I€m saying is if she wants to make a record for this proceeding she should do it. Because we don€t necessarily agree that the 2 matters are going to go forward together. GALDONES:Counsel. TORIGOE:Okay- I think at this point on the record we also have the petition for standing that Ms. Copman has filed. She states in that- that she lives at and owns a home at TMK- so located less than 50 feet. Ms. Copman, I assume that you are reaffirming today that the facts that you stated on your petition are true and correct. COPMAN:That is correct. TORIGOE:Okay. And it sounds like Mr. Vitousek is not prepared to just agree to incorporateinthispetitionforstandinghearingwhatyoustatedinyourpreviouspetitionfor standing here. And, Mr. Vitousek, is that correct? VITOUSEK:Yes. Yes, that€s correct. TORIGOE:So, Ms. Copman is there anything else that you would like to add for this particular petition for standing? And again we€re just talking about your qualification as far standing for a contested case hearing. COPMAN:I believe I wrote it into my petition which you have before you. GALDONES:Okay, thank you very much. Commissioners, any question of Ms. Copman? Hearing none- motion is in order to either grant or deny the petition for standing. FUJIKAWA:Chairman. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:I do support education very strongly; and, with this in mind, I€m denying the standing. I make a motion to deny. GALDONES:There€s a motion to deny the petition for standing. Is there any second to that motion? Hearing no second to the motion- the motion dies. Chair is prepared to entertain another motion. Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I move that we accept Linda Copman as an intervenor in the contested case hearing in the matter of the use permit application before us by the Parker School Board of Directors. 6 SPRINGER:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Graham and seconded by Commissioner Springer that the petition for standing in the contested case hearing filed by Linda Copman be granted. Discussion? Hearing none, Norman. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Nay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:No. HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, 5 ayes, 2 noes, motion carries. GALDONES:Thank you, Norman. Ms. Copman, you will be informed in writing of today€s actions. There were 5 individuals who had signed up to testify on this subject matter. Oh wait- hold on. Excuse me. Commissioners- this subject matter will be sent over to a contested case hearing. As we do not have the Director with us today, we will not be able to proceed with the contested case hearing; and so we will need to set up another date for the contested case hearing. But we need to also decide if the Commissioners will be the hearings officer or we will be contracting out for a hearings officer. Commissioner McCall. 7 MCCALL:Yes, I move that we direct the Planning Director to hire a hearings officer to hear this. VITOUSEK:Mr. Chair, as the applicant, may I speak to that issue please, not speaking on the motion but speaking on the question of whether it should be referred to a hearings officer or heard by the Commission. GALDONES:Okay, can I have this motion on deck and then I will open it up for discussion and allow you to proceed. VITOUSEK:Yeah, that€s fine with me, yeah. GALDONES:Do I have a second? GRAHAM:Second. GALDONES:IthasbeenmovedbyCommissionerMcCallandsecondedby Commissioner Graham that the Director be instructed to hire a hearings officer. Further discussion? Norman. Oh- I€m sorry, it has been a long day. Mr. Vitousek. VITOUSEK:Yeah. I mean, I really understand that the point of referring things out to hearings officers is an attempt to speed them up, but it doesn€t work necessarily. The rules set out different procedures for hearings on contested case by hearings officers, and what they provide is that the, you know, it has to be a certain amount of time involved, and then there has to be a post hearing procedure, which requires submission of briefs, admission of proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, and then an opportunity to argue those before the Commission. And so instead of going to one Commission hearing for a contested case hearing before the Commission you go to a pre-trial, you go to hearings before the contested case- before the hearings officer, and then you have to get scheduled back on the agenda in order for the Commission to consider the recommendation of the hearings officer. I don€t- this is really not a complex hearing. You know this is not a hearing that€s going to require a lot of witnesses. And so we would really request that the Commission just set this thing for contested case hearing before the Commission, put it on an agenda and let€s rock and roll, because time really matters here, you know. Time really matters here and we will give you every assurance that we will go as quickly as possible. We will submit written testimony in advance. We will do whatever€s necessary to accelerate this. But the difference between 2 months, or a month and a half, and 6, or 8, or 9, or 10 months makes a huge difference when you€re on an academic calendar, you know, and when decisions have to be made and actions have to be taken to project where you€re going to be and where these kids are going to be in the following school year. So that€s really our request, you know, we would like to get this done quickly. Thank you. GALDONES:Norman, in light of Mr. Vitousek€s request, if you agendize this item in the next public hearing in this area will we be able to conduct the contested case hearing at that time and what kind of timeline will we be dealing with? Because I know we have other items on the agenda also. Will be able to fit it within the reasonable timeframe for the day? 8 HAYASHI:I€m sure we€ll be able to accommodate that. It€s up to the Commission how you want to proceed. I think just to expound on Mr. Vitousek€s concern, if you were to go to a hearing officer€s route then the procurement process takes a little longer than necessary. I mean, we have to go and select a hearings officer, and they have to get those, the hearings officer through the procurement process, the paperwork and everything; and that probably takes about couple of months. From there we have to go into having the hearing€s officer schedule, meet with the parties, and try to set up the schedule. So, it€s up to the Commission what you want to do. But yeah, we can put it on the agenda. It could be a separate time allocated for, or separate day allocated for the contested case hearing for this- for this application. GALDONES:Ms. Copman. COPMAN:I don€t know if I have the right to say something but I€m kind of wondering why there€s such an amazing amount of urgency on this. The school has already recruited,Ibelieve,75studentsfortheelementaryprogramthat€sduetoopeninSeptember. They plan to erect portable buildings on their existing campus. So they are proceeding according to their plan to serve the families, and I€m not sure why there is this tremendous rush to develop the pasture in such a hasty fashion without proper planning. I believe the parcel needs a Master Plan with a connection to the existing campuses, I said previously. So I€m not really sure what the urgency is to rush this procedure forward. I don€t really understand why it can€t go through the normal avenues that it goes through. So, that€s my point. I don€t really understand why there€s a rush because they€re going to have the kids in portable classrooms next year anyway. GALDONES:Thank you, Ms. Copman. Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Just for some clarification. The Hawaii County Planning Commission is duly constituted and authorized to hold contested case hearings. In the past when there have been particularly difficult hearings that have required a variety of legal counsel it has become the preferred practice by some of the Commissioners to out source. I don€t think that whether we out source or not is necessarily a matter of responding to what might be perceived as Mr. Vitousek€s urgency so just -. It€s not abnormal for the -. COPMAN:Okay, thank you for clarifying -. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. COPMAN:Because just to me it doesn€t seem as urgent, so -. GALDONES:Commissioner McCall. MCCALL:Yeah, I€d like to speak to my motion. I feel it would be, in my mind, it would be in our best interest to have a hearings officer hear this- both this and the previous thing. I mean, the applicant€s may have a different opinion, but in my mind these 2 should be seen together. I too, feel, that this is- I don€t understand exactly what€s going on, but I think these guys are, they make me feel very uncomfortable. We have 2, seem to me, competing interests to do some of the same things. I know they are both saying that they are not competing, that 9 they€re completely separated. They€re both on the same piece of property. They€re both- I think that they would do very well to get together and discuss this. Perhaps the intervenors and the 2 applicants can sit down and discuss this a little more. I think they can probably come to some sort of agreement on this and perhaps a contested case may not need to be necessary. But I think they need to, you know, I don€t think trying to railroad this through the Commission is going to, I mean that€s that feeling I get, is that to some extent that these guys just want this to rush through like we€re in, you know -. I get the feeling that they€re trying to put the, I don€t know, just dump it on us that we€re holding back this progress, and I think that, you know, we need to -. I think that it would be good to have a hearings officer hear this. Let things get cleaned up and cleared up; and then we can see what€s happening; and then make our decision. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr.- Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I had a question. Mr. Vitousek, in light of what Commissioner McCall is sayingandall-IrememberontheearlierapplicationwhenMr.Fukehadmentionedthatthere th had been a double community meeting on the 7 of March which to me if that€s the first official th community meeting on that application andit€s now only the 18 of March, obviously the application and the Director€s work have already been in place before the community meeting. So I felt kind of rushed to me already. I€m wondering on this application, have you folks had community meetings over a longer period of time that have, you know, worked their way into the particular application you€ve put forth already? VITOUSEK:Yeah, may I, I just got involved in this when the contested case hearing was requested. So may I ask Carl Sturges to respond to your question? GRAHAM:Please do. STURGES:Yes, we actually began hearings with the neighbors in the Fall, I believe the first one was in October. We held the second hearing in- meeting with neighbors in January, and we invited everybody around the block to come to both of those, and we had quite a large turnoutforbothofthose-bothofthosemeetings.I€vealsobeento2TrafficCommission hearings, 1 in December and 1 in January, to discuss the traffic issues related to this project, in additiontothat. GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Further discussion. SPRINGER:Question. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Regardless of the ownership, can the 2 applications be heard together whether outsourced or held by the- heard by the Planning Commission? May they be consolidated or do they need to be held separately? 10 GALDONES:Counsel or Norman? TORIGOE:I€m just trying to glance through the rules. VITOUSEK:4-15. TORIGOE:4-15, thank you. Okay, as Mr. Vitousek has pointed out, your Planning Commission rules on contested cases 4-15 says that, The Commission, upon its own initiative or upon written request, may consolidate for hearing or for other purposes, or may contemporaneously consider two or more proceedings which involve substantially the same parties or issues which are the same or closely related if the Commission finds that such consolidation or contemporaneous consideration will be conducive to the proper dispatch of its business and to the ends of justice and will not unduly delay the proceedings.‚ So there€s a number of considerations there. You should look at 4-15 to take a look at those issues, you know,again,whethertheyinvolvesubstantiallythesamepartiesorissues,andwhether consolidation will be conducive to doing your business and to justice, and will not unduly delay the proceedings. And this can be done again on your own initiative or upon written request. I don€t believe there€s any written request in the record at this point to consolidate, is there, Norman? HAYASHI:No, there are none. TORIGOE:Okay so it would be- it would be on your own initiative at this point. Before you do that I would suggest that you allow the parties an opportunity to address the issue of consolidation and whether that€s an appropriate or wise thing to do in this case. I don€t know also if Ms. Copman intends to get legal counsel to be involved in this process. If so, that may be something that you need to allow her to consult with counsel and address this issue. Because this could be a very important thing, whether it€s heard together or separately. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:May we inquire then of Ms. Copman if she€s anticipating getting legal counsel. COPMAN:Well, after today I think I€m considering it. SPRINGER:Okay. I have a couple of more questions if I may? GALDONES:Proceed. SPRINGER:Would the Planning Commission hearing the application not allow for the discussion that Commissioner McCall has anticipated in his comments to us? TORIGOE:Which discussion was that? 11 SPRINGER:I think that Commissioner McCall was sayingthat he preferred outsourcing because in the pre-hearing meetings there might be an opportunity for a resolution of the issues before the respective parties. TORIGOE:If the Commission were to hear the contested case then the Chairperson or delegatee basically would function as the presiding officer and that presiding officer could call pre-hearing conferences and hold discussions that are germane to the contested case, which might include whether there€s a possibility of settling things. VITOUSEK:Mr. Chairman, may I address the Commissioner€s question? GALDONES:Mr. Vitousek. VITOUSEK:Thank you. Madam Commissioner, in my personal experience, often negotiationsandcompromisestakeplacemorereadilywithshortdeadlinesratherthanlong deadlines, in other words, if there€s a lot of delay involved that doesn€t facilitate the process of the parties getting together and talking and trying to work things out. SPRINGER:We€ve, oh, Mr. Chair. We€ve heard from Commissioner McCall as the record will reflect. I€m a proponent of the Planning Commission serving as hearings officers more often than not, except in the instance of deeply complex legal matters. So I€d be interested in hearing from any other Commissioners, understanding that we do have a motion on the floor. GALDONES:Any further discussion- any further comments from the Commissioners before we take action on this motion. Mr. Fuke? FUKE:For the record, Sidney Fuke again representing the Parker Trust. Because our application has been kind of like banded around together with this current application, and I don€t know what the protocol is, but if I€m at liberty to just express what the Trust€s position is on this whole notion, Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:We€re still open for discussion. FUKE:You know with respect to having the consolidated hearing, I mean, if that€s the Commission€s wish, we would just respectfully request that, you know, provided that both parties can agree to a consolidated hearing. You know they are- we can understand that there are some overlapping issues probably from the community perspective, but they are yet some distinct issues that separate the Trust activity from the school€s activity; and I think we still need to discuss that. But if you give us the option to decide on the consolidated hearing, then we can so inform the Commission or the staff at the appropriate time. GALDONES:Thank you. In that vein, Norman, is it inappropriate to have the same hearings officer selected, if we decide that€s the route we€re going to go, the same hearings officer appointed for both hearings? Would that be a conflict? HAYASHI:No. 12 GALDONES:And- if that is the case then if the parties decide that they are willing to consolidate that- can they confer with the hearings officer or does it have to be by the direction of the Commissioners? Counsel? TORIGOE:Mr. Chairman, again, the rule says that the Commission may consolidate the hearing or may contemporarily- contemporaneously consider. So- I think there would have to be some action by the Commission to consolidate. GALDONES:Thank you. FUKE:All we€re saying is that, you know, we don€t want to like- an unequivocal commitment to have us consolidate our hearing together with the school, you know, but we would like the option to have it consolidated after we go back to kind of discuss the full ramificationsofit. GALDONES:Mr.Fuke,thatdiscussionandadecisiontoconsolidatewillthatbeatime consuming process that you folks need to go through or is it something that you can do in a relatively short time? Being- what I€m looking at is if the parties can agree that it will be consolidated then the Comm- since the Commissioners are here- Commissioners are here then we probably could take action on that if the parties can make a decision readily. FUKE:Could I have like the Corporation Counsel explain then? So then the hearing would be all the same, but the decision would still be separate, is that correct, on separate applications? TORIGOE:Well norm- normally if you consolidate the matter, then there would be 1 decision. It would have to deal with- basically it would- it would discuss and make findings and conclusions regarding the separate applications. But- but normally you consolidate a matter and you would have a single decision come out of it. Yeah so- I don€t know if- Mr. Chairman, are you thinking about trying to see if they can spend a few minutes now discussing it and -? FUKE:You know like- again just a follow-up question if I may, Mr. Chairman. You know if my understanding is that you would have like- you know just like this big funnel and that would be like all of your hearing information, gathering etc. and then in the end then you would have like 2 separate spigots, 1 decision and another decision. You know because largely from the Trust€s standpoint, you know, obviously you know there are conditions that we can comply with if it€s approved with conditions, and the Trust would also want to have the, not be responsible, or neither would the school want to be responsible, in having to comply with conditions that are applicable to the Trust€s application and vice versa. TORIGOE:I think ultimately that would be the substance of it. That you- you would have a combined fact finding hearing, but at the end the decision would in some way split out the 2 separate applications with their own conditions and findings. 13 GALDONES:Well- hold on- I€d like to respond to Counsel€s question. Being that 4-15 brings itback to the Planning Commission to make a decision whether they will combine that, then that item to be agendized for this area is probably, Norman, next month at the soonest that we can deal with this subject matter of consolidation? HAYASHI:That€s correct. GALDONES:So then, what I wanted to do if, if we leave today, if it€s at all possible, I€m not sure if that€s possible or even legal to do that. If it€s at all possible, then if we could, then I€d like to have the Commissioners deal with it now so that when- if we decide that we are going into contested hearing then this hearings officer selected does understand how he or she will be proceeding, and that€s the purpose of that question that I had raised? TORIGOE:Were you- do you want to see if we can work that out now? GALDONES:Yeah. So I€m- I don€t know Mr. Fuke or Mr. Vitousek whether that- that isapossibilityforyoufolkstodothat.Ifitcanbedone,I€mwillingtocallashortrecess-so you folks will be able to talk about it. Otherwise we€ll proceed as 2 separate hearings. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:It seems to me there€s a fairly simple thing if we just- if we just make motion that if the 3 parties are willing to consolidate the Commission would be- would- would approve consolidation. If they aren€t, then it keeps separate. If we give- if I make motion of that with the same motion, I would think that covers all bases. th HAYASHI:I just wanted to state that- not only will this be 3 parties- there will be a 4 party, Mr. Mahaney. GALDONES:And also we€ll need to have the Planning Director also involved in that decision, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Could we not authorize in much the manner Mr. McCall is suggesting- could we not authorize the Planning Director to act on our behalf to consolidate the hearing if the parties are in favor of consolidating the hearing? Maybe the Corporation Counsel could help with that? TORIGOE:Yeah- in this case because it€s a contested- formal contested case hearing, as you know, the Planning Director functions as a party. And so I don€t think you€d want to delegate that to him. But the idea of having a motion to consolidate if the parties are able to agree to consolidate then a reasonable (inaudible) it seems to be sensible and might be an option. GALDONES:CommissionerSpringer. 14 SPRINGER:In the event of that discussion who represents the Planning Director? TORIGOE:Which discussion would that be? SPRINGER:Discussion of the potential parties regarding consolidation. TORIGOE:That would be- normally there€s a separate Deputy Corporation Counsel. At this time it would probably be Bobbie Jean Leithead-Todd who represents the Director. SPRINGER:Who€s not here today- I€m wondering for today€s discussion regarding consolidation -. TORIGOE:Right, yeah, so that would be a little difficult. But what you could do is- as was suggested- perhaps ask- have a motion that would authorize consolidation if the parties areagreeabletothat,sothatthatcangoforward.Andif-dependingonwhetheryouwantto- whether you want to have a hearings officer for this Parker- this Board of Directors matter, I suppose that could be shaken out later, one way or the other. If you wanted to authorize a hearings officer for the Board of Directors matter then- and there is a agreement to consolidate then- then 1 hearings officer could be appointed for both of those matters. If you wanted to hold this Board of Directors matter as a Commission hearing, then you would have to make a decision down the line to either have the hearings officer hold the consolidated hearing or have the Commission take that consolidated hearing. GALDONES:Counsel in your statement regarding the parties agreeing to consolidate would the parties mean just the applicants, or it- it goes beyond that? Is it more complex? TORIGOE:Well, again, formally, the Planning Director is a party, and also the other intervenor- Mahaney, yeah they would have to be involved in that also. GALDONES:That being the case I think- I think its not- it€s not only Mr. Fuke and Mr. Vitousek getting together and making this decision but also the intervenors. I guess it€s more complex than that- in the consolidation; and perhaps I would recommend to the Commissioners just handle this thing as separate hearings. FUKE:Mr. Chair like- if I might just -. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke. FUKE:One last comment. If ƒ if consensus cannot be reached by all of the parties, then we would respectfully request that at least the items be held like pretty much like on the same day or the day after whatever have you, largely because, you know, all of the parties will pretty much be the same and then the interest will- you know on the- on the hearings officer as the case might be, you know, we€ll be all fresh and it will be together. So -. GALDONES:So noted, Mr. Fuke. Okay, any further discussion on the motion to contract this out to a hearings officer. Further discussion? 15 COPMAN:May I say something else? GALDONES:You may proceed. COPMAN:I just wanted to say that although they may be able- although apparently they do separate these 2 applications and these 2 ideas, I have difficulty doing this in my mind; and when I talk to other people, so do they. As I think Mr. McCall pointed out, this is 1 piece of property; and whether they are filing their applications with separate agendas it€s still 1 piece of property affecting 1 area. Speaking personally I€d be happy if it stayed a horse pasture, but I can see that€s not going to happen. But what could happen is if they are able, if we are all able to work together, that something really very good could be created. I don€t argue that there€s a higher need for education. I don€t necessarily agree that this student body from Waimea School will- that is, their children will be drawn away from Waimea School. Waimea Elementary and MiddleSchoolbothhavehigherthan50%freeandreducedlunch.I€vebeentherefor12years. At 8,000 and up tuition, their student body is probably not really going to affect the population of those 2 schools -. Still there is a need for schools; and I think that they could do something really very good both for the Elementary, the Middle School, and the High School level, and for extended education with community ed. But I don€t really see this happening with the divided agenda. And I certainly think that€s part of the reason that the- the neighborhood feels uncomfortable, that there does not seem to be a partnership, there does not seem to be a master plan, there doesn€t seem to be a common goal. And I think if there could be, not only would that make people feel more knowledgeable of what is- what the intentions are, but I think there€s potential to do something very good for themselves, obviously, I realize that is the idea, and also for the community and for the kids who need schools. I think their potential is much greater if they can work together. GALDONES:Thank you. We have a motion here to have the hearings officer be appointed by the Director; and if there€s any further comments I would prefer- I would appreciate if those comments can be directed to that motion. Any other? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I feel like, Mr. Fuke spoke of something that can do concurrency, that we have the same people come at the same time for this and- . Even though I understand Parker School€s concern about expediency I try to think down the line. The Planning Director already told us that he considered both these applications when he was working out what he felt were the infrastructural impacts, and me getting measures and all. So then I€m wondering if we have these 2 on a different timeframe, then we€re dealing with the first one- how are we going to work the infrastructural impacts of the 2 of them together when we€re only dealing with 1 of them? And presumably we should be doing that as the Planning Director did. So it feels like since we€ve already voted on the Trustee one to go to a hearings officer, we should try to make this one run on a similar schedule so that we can consider the joint impacts even if the applications themselves are not joined. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you. Further comments? Hearing none- Norman on the motion. 16 HAYASHI:That is the motion to request the Planning Director to appointa hearings officer. And- Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Nay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:No. HAYASHI:Was it no? FUJIKAWA:No. HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair motion carries with a 5 to 2 vote. GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Vitousek,you will be informed in writing of today€s actions. There were 5 individuals who had signed up to testify on this subject matter, Mark Mahaney, Linda Copman, Victoria Missien, Janine Packett and Lynn Stimler. Does anyone of these individual wish to testify on this subject matter now? If you wish not to, hen you proceed with your testimony at the contested case hearing. STIMLER:I want to clarify if I testify now may I also testify at the contested hearing or is it either/or? I€m Lynn Stim- GALDONES:I€m sorry I didn€t get your name? 17 STIMLER:I€m Lynn Stimler. I live at 65-122 Puuki Street. My house willbe the closest property to the school. GALDONES:Ms. Stimler, did- do you have only a question or are you going to be making a statement? If you going to make a- if you€re going tomake a testimony, then I need to swear you in; but if you have a question, I can just address the question. STIMLER:My question is- preliminary is that will I be allowed to testify in both places that-? GALDONES:Yes, you may. STIMLER:Then I would like to-. GALDONES:Okay-doyouswearoraffirmtotellthetruthonthismatternowbefore the Hawaii County Planning Commission? STIMLER:I do. GALDONES:Your name and address please. STIMLER:My name is Lynn Stimler, 65-122 Puuki Street in Kamuela, 96743. GALDONES:You may proceed with your testimony. STIMLER:My house is at the end of Puuki Street. It is exactly opposite from the current Parker School and it will be right behind the new school. I feel very strongly in favor of the usage of the land for Parker School. I have a couple of concerns. My number 1 concern is the lack of a master plan and coordination between the use of the Trust and the School Board use. I have been faithfully to the School Board meetings. I think they€ve been very well done. In each meeting I€ve had the sense that the Trust is oppositional at the best to the plans of the School Board. We have a huge- the majority of this land is unplanned for with no explanation of what will happen. What if the school wants to move K through 12 over and the Trust says no? We€re going to start out with a road that€s in a plan and no promise of the middle land. That really concerns me. Number 2, just to be simple, my 2 children are 6 and 7. We currently walk to our school. I can tell you, I hold their hands as we walk down the street and Kapiolani is already dangerous to walk to school. We have no sidewalks. We€ve twice encount- we walk on the side of the street we€re meant to walk on- we€ve twice had very rapid traffic pushing us over. I€m really concerned about that before any of this starts. I also think that maybe there€s another way to route traffic even though it might- may impact my neighbor Henry Kawaihae and I more- to route traffic around the back end. Maybe that€s a better solution than Kapiolani. But the only way we can do that is if we have a really good coordinated use. This is the heart of a residential neighborhood. An old established neighborhood that overlaps next to the commercial. We€re 18 right in the cusp of it. My house is right on the cusp between both- both places and we need to plan for 20 years from now. And how we€re going to use this land? If this school starts now, K through 5, 5 years from now, maybe shorter they want to move the whole K through 12 over. How is the traffic going to flow in and out? What€s going happen whenwehave the new houses? There- just- it worries me watching how this is going to be developed. And you are entrusted- I€m trusting you and I€m trusting this Commission to really be good stewards of this land cause we really need you to think about all the 6 and 7 year olds who are going to be trying to walk to school with no sidewalks with all these new cars. So those are some of my concerns, that I think we have to have a coordinated master plan. GALDONES:Thank you very much, Ms. Stimler. Commissioners, do you have any questions of Ms. Stimler? None, thank you. Mr. Mahaney. Mr. Mahaney, have I already sworn you in? MAHANEY:Not yet no. GALDONES:Okay- could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tellthetruthonthismatternowbeforetheHawaiiCountyPlanningCommission? MAHANEY:Yes,Ido. GALDONES:Your name and your residence address please. MAHANEY:My name is Mark Mahaney. I live at 65-1236 Puuki Street, Kamuela, nd Hawaii 96743 and my lot is the 2 lot- up in the northeast corner of this adjacent property. GALDONES:You may proceed with your testimony. MAHANEY:Thank you. I€m here with some of the neighbors in our neighborhood mainly to object to what I see as a lack of a master plan. In- in its simplest form to look at the plan that€s being proposed, it looks pretty innocuous. But as a landscape architect and a planner for 25 years, it€s what I don€t see on the plan that kind of worries me. Number 1, as has been mentioned before, circulation issues are huge in this- in this area. We collectively, all agree as neighbors that we would love to see Parker School there. But we just want to see it developed well, we want to see it developed right and we want it to be a win-win for everyone. This plan hasabigholeinthecenterofit,andcollectivelythispieceoflandshouldn€tbetakenasan either-or with respect to these 2 applications. It€s going to have a collective impact on the neighborhood.It€s-it€s1ofthelargestopenspacepiecesoflandintheneighborhood.There€s no reason why this can€t be developed carefully so that it can be enjoyed by everyone. I think everyproject,asIsaid-it-ithastostartoffwithagoodmasterplanandatleasttakesomeshots at what€s going to happen with the middle piece of the property. And- and again what I see here is,Iseetheverystartofaschoolwhichcouldbedynamite.ButwhatIdon€tseeis-iswhat€s going to happen in the next few years. As this school expands, if there€s a ball field, where does theballfieldgoandwhodoesitimpact?Wheredothebusesgoandparkifthereareschool events? You know access to and from the existing facilities, none of this is shown. And to me 19 those are very, very, very important pieces to the whole puzzle as a comprehensive picture of- of how this comes together. I think that- again space planning with respect to uses from a master planning perspective, this plan puts most of the impact on existing residence. A general planfor- for any intense in purposes usually tries to put like uses next to like uses. We have busy areas of the site, we have other residential areas ofthe site. And I think from a master planning perspective it needs to be looked at in greater detail where this is all headed and what uses are going to be most compatible to other adjacent uses. Let€s see here- as most of you know we have- we have a wonderful park right down at the corner of Lindsey and Kawaihae. The park gets heavily used and it€s wonderful to see it. The weekend impacts when we have ball games and what not there are- you know it€s wonderful to see that volume of use there. Parking is an issue, circulation is an issue. We also have another 40 homes that are being proposed to be built right across the street from Puuki Street. Again another acceptable use. But we look at it from the collective impact of- of what€s happening on that side oftheroadandwhat€sbeingproposedontheothersideofus.Sowe€reconcernedaboutthat. Again collectively- as this site gets built out- if it were proposed to be a school what is the true impact long term when there€s a gym, there€s ball fields, there€s weekend activities, there€s buses, there€s other schools that are bringing students in? What is the impact of- of the corner of Lindsey and Kawaihae Roads? Again, all in all, I think the most important thing from- from our perspective is that we would love to see a comprehensive master plan done for this. It doesn€t have to be exact. It can be generic to a certain degree because not everybody knows what€s going to happen with the land. We€d love to see how these pieces fit together at ultimate build out as best we can. And I think in- in accordance with that we also need to see what the potential ultimate traffic impacts are going to be to our neighborhood. Those 2 things are huge. Everybody in the neighborhood will support this school all day long but we need to work together with it. That€s all I€ve got. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Mahaney. Commissioners, any question of Mr. Mahaney. If not, thank you. Ms. Packett, you have already been sworn in and you€re still under oath. You may proceed with your testimony. PACKETT:Thank you. As a citizen of Hawaii and a resident of the- the Big Island I entrust all of you to make decisions not just for myself but for the good of this entire island- for all the residence. Infrastructure has been in the paper, you have taken a big hit for many decisions based on infrastructure. And I think that is really one of the big issues here. There are no sidewalks, we have blind curves, we have a dangerous situation existing for pedestrians. The only reason someone has not been killed in my opinion is because there is minimal traffic on these roads. Mr. Vitousek has said that we are dealing perhaps with 400 feet of traffic and I say maybe, but we cannot predict the driving habits of people coming to this school. I live right on Hokuula so I see everyone who drives up and down that road, and I see everyone who walks up and down that road. My- my house is right there. I see students going to Parker School, High School right now, that drive by my house. I don€t know where they€re coming from and why they€re taking that road but they zip down there and then I assume come around the corner. I 20 happen to know these kids. I know they€re students of Parker School. I see themat 7:20 in the morning. So- at some point I think when we have a business in a closed neighborhood like this we are encouraging these people to come into the neighborhood no matter what. How they get there is going to be up to their- their discretion. They may go Opelo to Hokuula and they may choose to go all the way around the square, which is where the 2 dangerous 1 lane roads are located and these blind intersections, and where literally between 6:30 and 8:00 I€ll watch 20, 30 people walk by. I have here a list with 71 signatures. This was done in response to a perception in that area that the County was getting ready to consider putting a bridge from Church Road to Kapiolani Street, as was proposed in a 1986 plan. Of these 71 signatures it appears that 50- little over 50 do not live on this square of streets. And this was just put out in front of 1 of my neighbor€s house for peoplewhowalkbytosign. Andso,Ireallywanttoimpressuponthis-thisCommissionthatthesafetyofpedestriansandthe infrastructure issue is not just for those of us who live right here. You know it€s not a not in my back yard. We have a wonderful park resource and that this- this surrounding streets are really an extension of the park sort of by default. There are no sidewalks. In some places there- there is no safe room for pedestrians to go. A lot of moms with strollers you know- they can€t go on the side anyway. People are in the streets here. So when we look at infrastructure I have to ask well- does the County have a mandate to keep all these people safe? Does the County now have a mandate to build the sidewalks to make sure these blind curves are no longer blind curves? And- and it may be that indeed the County is going to have to spend an awful lot of money down the road to make sure this quasi-commercial use or commercial use as it is in the center of a rural neighborhood- that the neighborhood is developed for such commercial traffic. You know, I don€t- I don€t see how we can have it both ways cause I think someone is going to get killed. GALDONES:Thank you, Ms. Packett. Commissioners, any questions of Ms. Packett? Thank you, you may be excused. Any other testifiers? Seeing none, before I recess this hearing, Mr. Vitousek any closing statement? VITOUSEK:No. Thank you. GALDONES:There being no other testifiers the Chair will declare this hearing on this application for Parker School Board of Directors USE 05-001 be in recess. GRAHAM:Excuse us. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Did we ever deal with suggestion from Commissioner McCall and the Corporation Counsel that we- weren€t we thinking of making a motion regarding consolidation of the hearing or that€s out of the picture at this point? 21 GALDONES:That the Chair is prepared to entertain thatmotion. GRAHAM:I may be remembering wrongcause that was a very complicated part of our discussion. But I think there was some suggestion that we could have a motion which would allow a consolidated hearing to take place if the parties are agreed. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham. I don€t- allow me to adjourn this then we can discuss-. GRAHAM:Okay. GALDONES:So that- we can bring this one to a closure and then decide whether we going to combine the 2 hearings. Counsel. TORIGOE:Mr.Chairman,it€skindofdifficultatthispointtoauthorizeakindof blanket consolidation since we have before us the Parker School Board of Director€s matter which only has 1 intervenor. The Parker School Trust matter had 2 intervenors. And I- I feel a little uncomfortable with doing a motion here that would- that would authorize consolidation of these matters without all of the parties being present and with the Planning Director also not being here. GRAHAM:Thank you for your comment. GALDONES:Thank you. So just to reiterate where we are, the Chair will declare this hearing on this application by Parker School Board of Directors USE 05-001 be at recess pending the adjournment of the contested case hearing and this application be placed on the agenda again. Thank you very much for your patience to the applicants and those of the public and the interveners. VITOUSEK:Thank you very much. GALDONES:Thank you. The discussion ended at 3:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Lynette Sanemitsu, West Hawaii Secretary 22