Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-24 TPARKER RANCH LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 24, 2010 PARKER RANCH (SPP 10-108) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 9:40 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Ballroom I, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, HawaiÒi, with Chairman Frederic Housel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frederic Housel, Lani Bowman, Thomas Hickcox and Richard Nelson ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Brandi Beaudet, Geraldine Giffin and Wayne Iokepa STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Kiran Emler (Engineering Division) And approximately twelve people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PARKER RANCH (SPP 10-108) Application for a Special Permit to allow for the establishment of light industrial and commercial office uses within existing structures and the use of an existin events, all of which are situated on a total of approximately 14.897 acres at the Parker Ranch headquarters and rodeo/equestrian facility complex in Waimea. The project site is situated approximately 4,300 feet north of the Waimea-Kohala Airport on the east side of the Mmalahoa Highway, Waikoloa and PuÒukapu, South Kohala, TMK: 6-7-001: portion of 25 and 6-7-002: portion of 17. HOUSEL: Our first item on the agenda is Parker Ranch. This is a special permit application to allow for the establishment of light industrial and commercial office uses within existing structures and the use of an existing rodeo/equestrian facility for special events. Maija, would you like to proceed? COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The first item, we did receive a contested case petition from Sandra Song on behalf of her clients, the Hirayama family; but itÓs my understanding that both the applicant and the potential intervenors would agree to continue the hearing, so -. SONG: IÓm afraid thatÓs not correct. ThatÓs not correct (inaudible). COTTLE: IÓm sorry. Okay, then -. HOUSEL: Okay, would you like to come forward, please? FUKE: Mr. Chairman, my name is Sidney Fuke. IÓm a planning consultant. IÓm here serving as an agent for the applicant, Parker Ranch. What I -. 1 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Okay, before you start -. FUKE: IÓm sorry. HOUSEL: Could I ask you to raise your right hand, please? Both of you, please. SONG: Can I identify myself first? I think for the record. Should I? HOUSEL: Well, IÓd like to swear you in first. SONG: ThatÓs fine. HOUSEL: If you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission? FUKE: I do. SONG: I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. SONG: Mr. Chairman, IÓm Sandra Song and I represent the intervenors, the Hirayama family. HOUSEL: Could you give your address? SONG: My address is 10 Kamehameha Avenue in Hilo. HOUSEL: Thank you. FUKE: And Mr. Chairman, my name is Sidney Fuke. IÓm a planning consultant serving as an agent for the applicant, Parker Ranch, Inc. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, HawaiÒi. As the staff had indicated, I did not represent that, first of all, I did not represent that the applicant was in agreement. I was hoping to have some discussion with Ms. Song, but I only talked to her a few minutes ago. But essentially, this is the situation: The applicant is requesting that all matters on this item be contingent until the next meeting, and at the same time weÓd acknowledge that the intervention request filed by Ms. Song on behalf of the Hirayama family was timely filed, and that in the event the Commission at its next meeting determine that there is a need to enter into a contested case hearing, that the applicant would have no objections to having the Hirayama family be accepted as an intervening party to the proceeding. The goal is, over the next three weeks or before the next Commission meeting, is to hopefully arrive at a resolution, you know, between the Hirayama family and the applicant, and present that to the Planning Commission in the hope of obviating the need for a contested case hearing. SONG: Mr. Chairman, I met with Mr. Fuke last week and we did talk about trying to reach a resolution. But what we agreed at that meeting is I wanted to proceed with the petition to intervene and have the Commission act on the petition, and then continue on all of the matters. And thatÓs normally done in a course of this Commission, proceedings in thi would have no objection, and then he mentioned that he would contact Mr. Arai. Somehow things 2 EXHIBIT A changed from the time of our meeting. I would object to this Commission continuing action on the petition to intervene. My clients are neighboring property owners; they have a clear interest in this subject matter that is distinguishable from the general public. And I would just like that taken care of. I am hopeful we can work this out. But, you know, we need to at least move this thing along. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, again, it was just kind of brought to our attention, like, yesterday in discussions with your staff, Mr. Arai, that should the Commission accept the intervention request today, then it would be, time-wise it would be very difficult, or maybe almost impossible, to have this matter considered by the Planning Commission at this next meeting; alternatively, if everything was kind of pushed back, you know, for the action-wise, that there is a chance that if this matter was agendized for the next Commission meeting and things get resolved, then we can just kind of proceed from there. If things donÓt get resolved, weÓll essentially be in the same position as we are today. And that was the reason why we are kind of like today making the request that the whole item be contingent until the next meeting, be postponed essentially until the next meeting. Bearing in mind that this would, you know, we already conceded that we believe that the Hirayamas contested case intervention request has been timely filed, but the Commission decision, we would request that it would be delayed until the next meeting. SONG: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think itÓs improper that Mr. Fuke had ex-parte communications with Mr. Arai on the matter like this when we had agreed to a certain procedure Î thatÓs No. 1. No. 2, I cannot see why this Commission, this Commission has great discretion, and there is really no reason why this particular matter cannot be acted on. If the Commission wants to reschedule this for the next hearing for just a continuance after the petition to intervention is granted, it is free to do so; if the Commission wants to schedule this at a later date, thatÓs also in this CommissionÓs discretion. But again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, IÓm asking that this matter of intervention be resolved today. HOUSEL: I guess one question I have is, Daryn, is there a problem, if this were continued to the next scheduled meeting? ARAI: There would be a problem, if the issue of standing was decided today, because once standing is granted, then the proceedings for the contested case then proceeds forward, which means all of the deadline for submittal of the exhibits, witness list, things have to occur before the Commission can duly consider the contested case request at its December 15 hearing, and thatÓs just a matter of, what, three weeks from now. So, and there is also the fact that we have to be aware of publication requirements that needs to be done prior to conducting our hearing, and the deadline would actually be Monday at 12:00 with the newspapers. So you can see how itÓs going to be very difficult to try to schedule things within the short time frame that we have. SONG: Mr. Chairman, as far as deadlines, the Planning Commission rules provide that by stipulation the parties can agree to amend deadlines; so there is nothing in the Planning Commission rules to prohibit the parties by agreement to stipulate to extend any deadlines. And that has been done in the past. HOUSEL: IÓd like our corporation counsel to express his concerns, you know, so everybody hears it regarding the difficulties, if we proceed right now, just so we understand clearly what we are talking about. 3 EXHIBIT A GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The concern is to make fairness for the parties, if you are given petitioner status, and also to be fair to the Commissioners. While you guys may agree to file everything the day of the hearing, if the Commission gives you deadlines to file a week or two weeks before, itÓs for the purpose so they can review the materials before the hearing, and so that they can be ready for the issues at hand. And thatÓs one of the major concerns here is the hearings, th if there is going to be a hearing on the 15, we already have a contested hearing set for that date, so there is no guarantee that youÓll be even heard on that day. Secondly, the deadlines as drawn up to submit your statement of issues in writing, your exhibits, your exhibit list, your witness list, and then the subsequent deadlines for objections, and then the subsequent deadlines for rebuttals, itÓs all going to be compacted in the next couple of weeks. And while you guys might agree to push those dates closer to the hearing, itÓs up to the Commission whether they are going to grant it. SONG: I might also add that I have a schedule conflict for their next meeting; I am the counsel for the grand jury for East HawaiÒi and the grand jury is in session at your next meeting in December So it puts me in a very difficult position. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question of your counsel or maybe of the staff? HOUSEL: Sure. FUKE: Let us assume that the intervention request were considered and granted today, can this th matter still be agendized for the meeting on the 15? You know, with the understanding that if the parties donÓt resolve matters, that we will kind of just defer everything; on the other hand, if things are resolved and, you know, if Ms. Song is kind of tied up, weÓve already resolved the items through some kind of a written agreement, then we can kind of proceed with the matter on their conventional basis. LEITHEAD TODD: I have a question for counsel which is, is it possible if the parties stipulate that if there were to be a contested case hearing that it would be in January? But I think one of the issues here is that Ms. Song is saying that even if we have it on the agenda in December, she canÓt attend to put something on the record even if there is an agreement. Is that -? So IÓm just questioning whether they can stipulate that it would be January. And if it is going to be on DecemberÓs calendar, that it has to be in writing because Ms. Song canÓt be there. GONZALEZ: Okay, first, to answer Mr. FukeÓs question, I think what the Commission is trying to do is to craft something to save everyone time and money, right Î Ms. SongÓs clientsÓ money, Mr. th FukeÓs clientÓs money and time. One solution was that the Decem meeting would be agendized, and it could be agendized as a pre-hearing/contested case hearing, because our rules allow for a pre-hearing to be held. If a settlement can be reached, to address the DirectorÓs concerns, if the parties agree to continue it into January for the contested case hearing or pre- hearing, then the Commission can consider that as part of the scheduling; it helps the Commission because December is already packed. But the interests of the parties may conflict on this and they may not agree to such a continuance. So it depends on what they put forth on the record; I mean if th Ms. Song wouldnÓt have been able to be here on the 15 anyway, I mean IÓm glad you put that on the record, because thatÓs something the Commission has to consider as well. ARAI: And just for the CommissionersÓ information, the next Leeward Planning Commission th hearing in January is the 13. 4 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Thirteenth of January? ARAI: Yes. th HOUSEL: Ms. Song, would the 13 of January possibly work for you? FUKE: Again, as your counsel had advised, we are both trying to move this thing along, save monies for all of the affected parties including the County to, you know, eliminate or obviate a need for a contested case hearing. So if the intervention request were acted upon and favorably granted today, I guess my only request in the interest of the time and the money is that, you know, for all of th the clients and the County involved, that this matter still be agendized for the 15, you know, with the understanding that if there is no resolution reached between the affected parties, that this matter will proceed as scheduled for the January hearing on a contested HOUSEL: So you would prefer to go forward today then, is that what I understand? FUKE: No, itÓs just to accommodate what Ms. Song is saying, you know, just to accept the intervention request. And if you do so, then we would request that this matter be agendized again for your next meeting in December. And in the, I would say, unlikely event that we cannot, the parties cannot resolve the issue, then we will just request it be postponed and just proceed with a contested case hearing beginning in January or February. HOUSEL: So you are fine with going ahead with determining the standing condition today? FUKE: Well, from the applicantÓs standpoint, you know, as Ms. Song had indicated, the Hirayamas live within the surrounding areas, so they have no objections to the CommissionÓs acceptance of the intervention request. We are just trying to see how we can find a way to move this thing along in a most efficient and least costly manner. HOUSEL: Ms. Song, do you have a comment on that? Do you want to go forward? SONG: Yes, IÓd like to go forward. The only thing I might say is if anything is put on the December agenda and if I donÓt have a written agreement, my clients do not have a written agreement with Mr. Fuke, this Commission cannot do anything because I canÓt be here. And I donÓt think I can find anybody with the expertise in land use to fill in for me, attorney. FUKE: The applicant -. GONZALEZ: Well, I think the representation by Mr. Fuke is he wants it on the December agenda in case you guys reach a resolution, so that they can act upon it; because if itÓs not put on the agenda by next week Monday, no action can be taken, if you guys resolved it. Then youÓve got to come th back in January anyway. So itÓs just in case you guys get something done before the 15. And if you donÓt, then we would probably expect something in writing letting us know you guys werenÓt able to resolve it yet, please take it off the December agenda and weÓll address it in January. Does that make sense, and is that okay? SONG: That seems fair. 5 EXHIBIT A ARAI: Mr. Chairman, I donÓt mean to throw another wrinkle into all of this, but I have to assume that the December meeting will be a contested case proceeding. Now, as corp. counsel mentioned, we do have the Foulk contested case proceeding already underway; it would not be proper to place this contested case hearing prior, you know, prior to Foulk because Foulk is already underway. So th itÓs highly likely, if I do schedule it for December, it will probably be on the 16 after the conclusion of the Foulk contested case hearing just to be fair. HOUSEL: Okay, I think -. Commissioners, are you in agreement w FUKE: Mr. Chairman, I guess, in talking with Ms. Song, is it possible to, Daryn, is it possible to schedule it rather than a contested case hearing, like, as a pre-hearing/public hearing on the item, rather than a contested case hearing? Because itÓs clearly understood that, if there is no resolution, that we donÓt intend to proceed and then weÓll go into the conte obviously, you know, we donÓt have any plans to do any contested case -. ARAI: ThatÓs a good point. Thank you. GONZALEZ: Yeah, we can agendize it as a pre-hearing/status conference, right? And then the contested hearing in January, and we can set deadlines appropriate for that. th ARAI: You are correct. Thank you for clarifying. So we can schedule it for the 15. Thank you. HOUSEL: Okay, but do I understand you do want to go ahead with the determination of the standing today, is that correct? SONG: Yes, Mr. Chairman. HOUSEL: Okay, I guess weÓll proceed with that plan. Could we get a staff presentation on this? COTTLE: So this application is a special permit request. The property is the location of the Parker Ranch headquarters in Waimea. And you can see Mmalahoa Highway running in a north-south direction through the middle of the slide, and Llmilo Farm Road connecting to the highway, going off to the left of the slide. The subject property is outlined in black. ItÓs actually two properties: a small portion here at the bottom of a 2,000-acre property and then the main property of the headquarters location. The current zoning of the property is Agricultural 40 acres, which is shown in blue. Surrounding zoning to the north is Residential, Single-Family Residential, and to the west is mainly Agricultural 1 acre and Agricultural 5 acres. The General Plan designation for the property is mainly Low Density Urban thatÓs shown in yellow, and also a portion of the property is designated Important Ag Land which is shown in light green. This is a map of the Waimea Conceptual Map of the South Kohala CDP, and you can see the existing Parker Ranch rodeo arena in this area here. The headquarters building, the office building, is right about here. And the maintenance warehouse area is in this area here. So the Conceptual Map shows that the main feature they want preserved is the historic race track complex. The applicant is proposing to use the existing structures on the property for light industrial and commercial office uses, as well as the equestrian arena for special events. The entire area of the special permit would be 14,897 acres. Specifically, there is the main Parker Ranch headquarters building thatÓs a little over 8,000 square feet in size, and the applicant would like to open that up to 6 EXHIBIT A for other businesses to use as office space. They are also proposing to open up their existing 9,000- square foot warehouse and 1,500-square foot maintenance building to be used for light industrial and general commercial uses by other tenants for things such as vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance and just general warehousing and storage. And lastly, they are proposing to use the existing rodeo arena and the grandstand and related structures around there for special events that arenÓt necessarily agricultural related. This is a site plan of the property. And the current access driveway comes off of the highway in this area here. This is the new in-town bypass, the Parker Ranch connector road that just recently opened. And you can see the existing rodeo arena is in this area here. The maintenance shop and the warehouse is in this area over here. There is also some riding stables, and the applicant did request to legitimize the use of a riding academy at the stables, but that is a permitted use in the State Land Use Agricultural District; so that is not part of this request. And then this is the headquarters office building here. This is an aerial photo of the property. Again, you can see the racetrack, the driveway access. This is the maintenance building and the warehouse. The riding stables are in this location. And the office building. This is a view of the headquarters office building and the maintenance building in the back and the warehouse here. There is also some fuel pumps. This is a view of their riding stables on the other side. And the arena looking south. And a view of the arena and the entrance driveway onto the highway. This is another view of the driveway off of the, right side there, off of the highway. And IÓll end the presentation there. Are there any questions? HOUSEL: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: This is kind of Î can you hear me Î kind of an off-the-wall question. Do you know what year the office buildings were built? COTTLE: I can find that Î I want to say it was around the early 90Ós. Let me just check to see if we have that here. FUKE: Just, is that appropriate for me to introduce information? Okay. ItÓs 1994. BOWMAN: Nineteen ninety-four. Thank you. HOUSEL: Any other questions from Commissioners? Maija, I had a question. I guess the first thing was, thatÓs Mmalahoa Highway, right, that we are looking at? COTTLE: Yes. HOUSEL: Do you know what the speed limit is there? COTTLE: I donÓt -. PUBLIC: Thirty-five. 7 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Is that 35? Okay, thank you. And if you could go back to the layout. Now, they are asking for a permit for commercial office uses. Where would that be, the commercial offices? COTTLE: The office uses would be in the headquarters building. HOUSEL: And then the light industrial area, would that be the warehouse? COTTLE: That would be the maintenance shop and the warehouse building. HOUSEL: And the one road serves both those facilities? COTTLE: Yeah, there is actually the main driveway comes off in this area, loops around the arena, and then there is a little driveway that goes into the maintenance area and the one that loops around up to the office building. HOUSEL: And now, for the special events, would those be held in the arena only or other locations? COTTLE: In the arena. HOUSEL: In the arena only, okay. Is there parking for the arena? COTTLE: ThereÓs quite a bit of grassed parking around the arena. This is, here you can see the road, there is a large grassed area right front of the arena over in this area. The road comes off right about over here, and there is a large grassed area here. And then in front of the road on the other side is a large grassed area as well. So there is quite a few spaces around the arena that could be used as like overflow parking. SONG: Mr. Chairman, I think thatÓs an issue that itÓs premature to address at this time; that migh be one of the issues in this case. HOUSEL: I understand. IÓm just trying to get an idea of the premises right now. Thank you. And you will certainly be welcome to comment. Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: I have one more question. In your report, you said that the maintenance, the shops, the repair shops for other tenants Î so I assume that it would be just maintenance of vehicles for the tenants of the commercial building. Or should we ask the applicant that later? LEITHEAD TODD: Commission, I just think that today the real issue is the intervention, and the merits and issues about the application should really be reserved for the hearing. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you for correcting us, because I didnÓt know the other Commissioners will have a chance to review this next time. We will? COTTLE: I can give another presentation at the contested case hearing. BOWMAN: Okay, and then we could ask those questions. Okay, thank you. 8 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Okay, yeah, thank you. If we can continue, if we do get a chance to have the other presentation at the next meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Maija. COTTLE: YouÓre welcome. HOUSEL: Would the applicant like to comment on this application? FUKE: Not really. As the Director had indicated, I think we are just kind of waiting for the Commission to decide on the interventions request. And once thatÓs determined, then I guess we can move on from there. HOUSEL: Okay. Would you like to testify? SONG: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would like to say is my client passed me a note saying the speed limit on Mmalahoa Highway is 45 miles an hour in the area. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Now, are you, the intervenor, are you applying for the intervenor? SONG: My client is the intervenor in this case; the Hirayama family is the intervenor. They own property immediately adjacent, I mean adjoining, right across the road from the Parker Ranch arena. They are farmers who are actively engaged in food production. They, as we stated in the petition, we have certain concerns because when this arena has been used for special events in the past, people have parked near their property, people have damaged their property including their irrigation pipe. And because they are growing food, they are concerned about the health and safety laws, and they have to make sure that their farm land is protected. So thatÓs why they are asking to intervene in this case. HOUSEL: Would you like to, so the Commission can determine the standing of the intervenor, would you like to explain the basis for their concerns and maybe a little more details so we can understand that clearly? SONG: Well, I donÓt know how much more detail I can provide. I can tell you that in the past theyÓve had concerts, the Parker Ranch has had concerts and other events at the arena without having a special permit. There is, I can tell you that there is insufficient parking around the arena right now, and so people park along Mmalahoa Highway and they park along the farm lands. The Hirayama Farm lot is right on the highway. In one particular event people parked along the highway, they damaged their irrigation pipe, which caused a substantial, financial loss to them. There is also a fear, if these events continue and they are going to have more events like concerts, are there going to be restroom facilities, will people go and ur contaminate the crops Î there are all these concerns. But they are across the highway. They receive notice because they are within the 500-foot radius. Their interest is definitely distinguishable from the general public, and itÓs our position they have a right to intervene as a party in this proceeding. HOUSEL: Thank you. Maija, could I ask you to go to the layout again, and see if we can get the intervenor to show us where their property is? ThatÓs the property right there? SONG: Right. 9 EXHIBIT A FUKE: And Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the applicant, we have no objection to the request for intervention. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Maija. Commissioners, do you have any other questions? Are we ready to make a motion? BOWMAN: Yes. I move that the petition for standing in a contested case hearing filed by the Hirayama family Î is that correct Î be granted. The pre-hearing for the next agenda, I mean for the next meeting? COTTLE: So, right now you are just voting on whether to grant standing? HOUSEL: Yes. BOWMAN: Yes. COTTLE: And the motion is to grant standing? BOWMAN: Yes. HOUSEL: Okay, so we have a motion to grant standing. Do we have a second? NELSON: Second. HOUSEL: Seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Any questions or comment? Okay. Maija, could you do a voice vote, please? COTTLE: Sure. Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: Aye. COTTLE: The motion to grant standing passes, four-zero. SONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HOUSEL: Thank you. 10 EXHIBIT A th FUKE: Thank you. So we hope to see you on the 15 with some good news. HOUSEL: Just let you know, a little housekeeping here, if there is a settlement before December th 15, please let us know. FUKE: We will, definitely. SONG: Yes. FUKE: And with the understanding if there is no settlement, basically, you know, we just wait until January. GONZALEZ: Well, you let us know what -. HOUSEL: One way or the other. HOUSEL: Yes, let us know about that also. GONZALEZ: And Ms. Song, you are okay with that, right? SONG: Yes, thatÓs fine. th GONZALEZ: There is a hearing on the 15 for settlement. SONG: Yes. HOUSEL: You will receive the written deadlines for the contested hearing, so please expect that. Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 10:16 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 11 EXHIBIT A