Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-04 HearingTranscript - David and Laura Rodrigues SPP 15-178 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 4, 2015 DAVID AND LAURA RODRIGUES A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (SPP 15-178) was called to order at 10:49 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Vice Chair Raylene Moses presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Raylene Moses, Donn Dela Cruz, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, and Donald Ikeda. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Myles Miyasato. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Danny Patel (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Amy Self (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Jackson (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And approximately 14 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANTS: DAVID AND LAURA RODRIGUES (SPP 15-178) Application for a Special Permit to allow a cinder and rock quarry operation on 5.003 acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The properties are located on the northeast and southeast corners of Kailua Boulevard and Lurline Lane, Hawaiian Ocean View Estates Subdivision, Kahuku, Ka‘ū, Hawai‛i, TMKs: 9-2-142:020, 021, 022 & 9-2-145:047, 048. MOSES: Okay, our next item on the agenda is David and Laura Rodrigues. Staff presentation? DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, our next applicants are, and area of this application is, is very near to our previous applicant and area. Our next applicants are David and Laura Rodrigues, and they are requesting a Special Permit. Again, the area of the subject application is within the Ka‛ū District of Hawai‛i. More specifically, we’re looking in the HOVE or Hawaiian Ocean View Estates Subdivision area. I won’t go into great detail on location ‘cause we just got through going through that. This is very close to our previous application. Our previous application was in this general area. Our current application is just makai of this. And, this is located along Kailua Boulevard and Lurline Lane. So, as I begin to—in the future of the presentation—represent where I’m taking photos from, it will be either from Kailua Boulevard or Lurline Avenue. 1 EXHIBIT C The application is for five acres. Because it is split by Kailua Boulevard, three are on the makai side of Kailua, and two are on the mauka side. Again, this is the aerial photo of the area. This is Kailua Boulevard, and we have Lurline Lane. The subject area of the application, this is approximately three acres here and two acres in this general location. And, again, it shows it identified in this area. The applicants are requesting a Special Permit to allow a cinder and rock quarry operation on 5.003 acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The applicants propose to remove approximately one to two truckloads of cinder from the project site on a daily basis. The operation will include an area to park dump trucks, trailers, and heavy equipment. This includes two loaders, two dump trucks, one Case dozer, backhoe, excavator, two trailers, a utility trailer, and spare parts. For reference, I am standing near the intersection of Kailua Boulevard and Lurline Lane looking makai with the subject property on the left side. So, this is the Lurline Road. The applicant accesses, this is the lower portion of the property, or the application, the three acres--this is the area that they access the lower three acres. This is at that area of access right here on the right looking mauka, and the intersection of Kailua and Lurline is right in this general location. So, again, the subject property is on the right side, and this is the one, the three-acre portion that’s below Kailua Boulevard. This is taken from the entrance, from Lurline Lane. It’s showing a portion of the quarried area. And, this is more towards Kailua. Kailua Boulevard is right in this general area, so you can see the area of cinder, and, again, moving more towards the intersection which is here. Lurline Lane would be in this general area. This is at the intersection again of Kailua and Lurline Lane, but I’m looking up Kailua Boulevard with the subject property, the three acres on the right side, and the two acres on the left side. This is on Kailua Boulevard looking, a portion of the property along the boundary of Kailua Boulevard. So, you can see that there is some trees being planted as well as some barriers in the area, and some setback area. You can see the property line of the three acres running on the up side. This is on Kailua looking towards the intersection of Lurline and Kailua, but I’m looking down Kailua now. And, this is the two-acre portion on the right side. And, so there’s a berm along the, the roadway. I am standing on Lurline looking mauka. This is kind of showing the larger area, the area that’s been quarried since for probably a 50-year period. The subject two acres is in this general area to the left. When we, in our conditions, we talk about bringing down the grade, similar to the surrounding properties on the two-acre side, that’s these general areas here. So, you can see the quarrying activity that’s occurred for some time. 2 EXHIBIT C This is the intersection of Kailua Boulevard and Lurline. We’re looking mauka on Lurline, and this is the two-acre portion that we’re going towards. And, again, you can see the bermed area, as well as trees that are planted along the boundary. It’s a little further up, Lurline—I’m sorry, that should have been changed from---this is the entrance area from Lurline for the two-acre portion, and this is from that entrance area looking towards Kailua Boulevard. There is a depression here, and this is the portion of the two acres, and this is—I’m standing in the same place but looking more mauka, so there’s another depression in this particular area. The Planning Director has submitted his Recommendation to the Planning Commission which is approval with conditions. I do have some housekeeping to take care of. There’s two changes, just minor housekeeping we need to make to the Recommendation. This is on Condition 3 and Condition 4, and they’re just minor typos. One is, the first line of Condition 3. It says TMKs 9- 2-142:020, 021, and then 021 is repeated. That should be 022. On the second to the last sentence on Condition 4, it says the same grade as the adjoining properties on TMKs 9-2-145:46 and the, instead of 48, that should be 49. Additionally, as mentioned in the previous application, we have received a, numerous correspondence, mainly conditions from the applicant and the petitioner but again referencing rd the most current ones dated June 3, the one from the applicant would, would be received rd June 3 as mentioned. So, it would be time-stamped June 3rd, and the one from the petitioner is rd dated June 3. So, these conditions, my understanding, supersede the previous conditions submitted. And, again, we have received a petition for standing in a contested case from HOVE Road Maintenance Corporation. It has been received in a timely manner along with the filing fee. That concludes our presentation. Thank you. MOSES: Thank you, Jeff. Commissioners, any questions of staff? No questions? Will the applicant or their representative please come forward. Okay, I’m going to swear you in. If you could please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? DAHLBERG: [Nodded affirmatively.] RODRIGUES, L.: Yes. RODRIGUES, D.: I do. MOSES: Please state your name, the area you reside in, and proceed. Please speak directly into the microphone. Thank you. RODRIGUES, D.: I’m David Rodrigues. We live in Volcano. Our quarry is in Ocean View. 3 EXHIBIT C RODRIGUES, L.: Aloha, thank you for meeting with us. I’m Laura Rodrigues, and I live in Volcano also. DAHLBERG: Peter Dahlberg, Kona. MOSES: Go ahead, Mr. Rodrigues. Oh, are you going to speaking, Mr. Dahlberg? Go ahead. DAHLBERG: My presentation parallels that of, of Arrow’s. Couple notable exceptions. I mentioned that this is a family-owned business of over 30 years. David unfortunately got rolled up into this, a zoning violation for the activity. That was issued in 2014. David’s simply trying to rectify the zoning violation. It should be noted that in 1991 and 92, Department of Public Works of this County issued David a permit for grading, specifically in support and acknowledging the subject activity. RODRIGUES, D: Actually that was, it was issued to my father, and then he’s passed away, and we continued the business. MOSES: Anything further? If not— DAHLBERG: I’d just like to reiterate how HOVE RMC has all the powers they would like dictated through the Special Permit conditions to levy themselves at their discretion, collect money, issue liens, and ultimately has the power to foreclose on this, on these people if the lien assessments aren’t paid. MOSES: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant or its representative? You have more? RODRIGUES, D: I’d just like to say that we are willing to work with HOVE Road Maintenance, you know, as far as a fair and affordable assessment. There’s been so many changes to all the different conditions, that I’m not even sure if we have the latest. At one time, we were asked to re-pave roads, and we cannot afford that. You know, we are willing to pay an extra assessment fee for our trucks. I understand they do damage the roads. And, you know, I’m just hoping that we can work that out so we can go back to business, back to work. Thank you. MOSES: Thank you, Mr. Rodrigues. You may take your seats. Thank you. Public testimony? Okay, so we do have public testimony but we’re gonna hold. First, we’re gonna have the petitioners come up. I’m going to swear you all in again, all right? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? RAZNOV/FOSTER: I do. SELF/KANUHA: Yes. 4 EXHIBIT C MOSES: Thank you. Please state your name and the area you reside in. Speak clearly in the microphone. Thank you. RAZNOV: Good morning again, Commission, Madam Chair. Jill Raznov, representative for HOVE RMC; Laura Foster to my left who’s the Chief Operating Officer. FOSTER: And you’re from-- RAZNOV: Oh, excuse me, I’m from Orchidland, and I work in Hilo. FOSTER: Good morning. I’m Laura Foster. I reside in Ocean View, Hawai‛i. SELF: Deputy Corporation Counsel representing the Planning Director who is seated to my left, Duane Kanuha. MOSES: Thank you. RAZNOV: Thank you once again. We, HOVE RMC, basically argues or puts forward the same arguments that we made in our earlier petition for standing—that our interests are clearly distinguishable from that of the general public. We have a property interest in the lands affected by the activities. The action will cause HOVE RMC actual or threatened harm, impact, if not properly mitigated. Once again, I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but just to remind you HOVE Road Maintenance Corp. is tasked with repairing and maintaining this private road system. You know, just to point out, Mr. Rodrigues states that he’s been out of business. We empathize with that. We are not, we don’t try to put anyone out of business, but we did not, HOVE did not, shut Mr. Rodrigues down. He was shut down by the Department because he was operating illegally without permits. The case has been made that HOVE RMC has assessment powers to repair the roads. While that is true, we have no power to come in and dictate how the stabilization on the quarry sites is going to be done regarding setbacks, how the applicants repair or if they repair their driveways to minimum standards so that gravel and other debris is not kicked up onto the road so that if HOVE goes in and maintains and repairs those roads, that those roads are not further degraded. We don’t have power to do that. We don’t have power to determine how many trucks they haul on the roads and at the intersections where they make their turns and further disintegrate the intersections. And, these activities cause injury to these roads and threaten to do so. Basically, we’re just saying that without these conditions to maintain to comply for stabilization for mitigation, remediation, this is un--, presents—these activities present an unsafe situation, liability concerns and also for ensuring a proper control after these, after the applicants are, leave—after they cease these activities. So, once again, we say that this, these interests are met, and the standard is met. Thank you. MOSES: Thank you. Laura, are you going to say anything? 5 EXHIBIT C FOSTER: I think all I could do is reiterate what I had said before. We have a lot of roadways to take care of, and it’s a very big concern about the use of general roads. We did win the battle of truck routes, but we hadn’t won the battle of these heavy haulers using those truck routes, so, you know, that doesn’t have really have anything to do with this case in standing, but we’d like to work it out, but I think it’s appropriate for us to be involved in what we stated here. MOSES: Thank you. Corporation Counsel? SELF: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Amy Self. The Planning Director has no objection to the intervention. MOSES: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Seeing none, thank you. You may return to your seats. RAZNOV: Thank you. MOSES: Okay, so we have two testifiers. Mark Jernigan? Laura Foster. FOSTER (from audience): I pretty much said what I needed-- MOSES: --Okay-- FOSTER: --thank you. MOSES: --and Mark is gone. Okay, so we have no testifiers. Let’s go on. Okay, so Commissioners, we need a motion to grant or deny standing to petitioner. Do we have a motion? HENKEL: I move that we grant standing on Special Permit 15-000178 to the HOVE RMC. HEAUKULANI: Second. MOSES: So, it’s been, a motion has been made by Commissioner Henkel and seconded by Commissioner Heaukulani. Discussion? HENKEL: Possibly, I might have to amend it to, the motion to include both agenda items in the same contested case hearing—consolidate, and we haven’t done that yet, right? PATEL: I think that can be done after as a, as a matter of adjudicatory procedure in the proceeding by agreement— HENKEL: --okay— PATEL: --of the parties. 6 EXHIBIT C HENKEL: Okay, and I, you know, I do believe that the HOVE RMC has standing in this, and I hope this is an incentive for both parties to quickly, you know, work it out, and the sooner, the better for everybody so-- DARROW: Question? MOSES: Yes, Jeff. DARROW: Just a question for Commissioner Henkel. Would you like to include the same type of wording regarding the last motion? HENKEL: Yes. DARROW: Okay. So, each Commissioner would have an opportunity to—thank you. HENKEL: Yeah, thank you for bring that up. MOSES: Any further discussion, Commissioners? If not, call for vote. DARROW: Okay, just for clarification, second was Commissioner— MOSES: --Heaukulani. DARROW: --Heaukulani. Thank you. So, just to reiterate, the motion before us is to grant standing to the petitioner, HOVE Road Maintenance Corp. with the understanding that each Commissioner has the opportunity to accept or decline being a part of the contested case. Agree? PATEL: I think we need to handle that separately. DARROW: Oh. PATEL: First, we need to figure out if granting is going to be, I mean standing is going to be granted. DARROW: Okay. PATEL: Then we can have a separate motion. DARROW: Okay, separate motion. Okay, so the motion before us is to grant standing. Okay, with that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Heaukulani? 7 EXHIBIT C HEAUKULANI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: And Madam Chair. MOSES: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to zero. MOSES: Okay, so we’ll need another motion, correct? PATEL: Yeah, to decide if you’re gonna refer to a hearings officer or for the Commission to handle it on its own. MOSES: Can I get a motion, Commissioners? HENKEL: I move that the Commission handle it on its own with the, with each Commissioner having the opportunity to accept or decline. PATEL: So, the motion is for the Commission as a whole to act as a hearings officer in the contested case proceedings subject to each individual Commissioner accepting that role? HENKEL: I couldn’t have said it better. MOSES: Do we have a second? DELA CRUZ: Second. MOSES: It’s been, motion by Commissioner Henkel and seconded by Commissioner Dela Cruz. Any discussion? Seeing none, call for roll. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? 8 EXHIBIT C DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: And Madam Chair. MOSES: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to zero. PATEL: So, as to the, the continued date for the contested case hearing, Commissioner Heaukulani previously mentioned that he would like to see the previous agenda item and this agenda item consolidated. So, with that, perhaps the Commission wants to consider continuing rd this application to the same date on September 3. MOSES: Do we have a motion? HEAUKULANI: Sure, I’ll move. Do we need to formally consolidate the two matters? PATEL: I think that can be done between the hearings officer once the, once the body is composed and settled upon, and, in agreement, or in consultation with all the parties involved. rd HEAUKULANI: Then, I move that this matter be continued to the September 3, was it? rd September 3 date which we now have also scheduled matter number two, with the applicant, Arrow of Oregon/Hawai‛i, LLC. MOSES: So, we have a motion by Commissioner Heaukulani. Is there a second? HENKEL: Second. MOSES: And seconded by Commissioner Henkel. Any discussion? Seeing none, call to vote. rd DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair. The motion is to continue until September 3, 2015 Windward Planning Commission hearing. With that, we’ll take the roll. Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. 9 EXHIBIT C DARROW: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: And Madam Chair. MOSES: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to zero. MOSES: Thank you. You will be notified of the Commission’s decision in writing—and the deadlines. Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 10 EXHIBIT C