Laserfiche WebLink
PC-56 Page 4 October 6, 2020 <br />Vice-Chair Lee Loy expressed concern that the developer is being asked for a Master Plan as a <br />qualifier for a zoning request. She stated that there is a concurrency law requiring water and <br />infrastructure and is nervous for other developers who would be subject to these requirements <br />not in the Hawai‘i County Code. <br />Mr. Chung asked Director Yee if the Planning Department would be willing to work with the <br />applicant and come to a compromise. Mr. Yee explained the frustrations the Department and <br />Commission had during the negotiations noting time pressures. <br />Committee Member Tim Richards stated the logic to fill this desperate need for affordable <br />housing and its appropriate location for this development, however he’s puzzled by the timeline. <br />He wants this project to move forward with correct conditions. <br />Committee Member Matt Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder noted that the Carpenter’s Union submitted <br />testimony against the project, Max Newberg of the Carpenter’s Union is on the Planning <br />Commission, did not recuse himself and voted on the matter. Director Yee stated no issue was <br />raised. <br />Ms. Poindexter stated that this looks like the Planning Director holds all the cards in this <br />situation and while the CDP is involved in this; it would be her desire to see the community hold <br />all the cards instead. She expressed hope that the community would be at the table for these <br />decisions because they will be the ones to live with this choice not the developer or the Planning <br />Department. She stated that regardless of the unfavorable recommendation, the community needs <br />to be considered and expressed her agreement with Mr. Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder for the <br />Commission member to have recused himself. Director Yee did reiterate that it was a unanimous <br />decision, and despite what one member voted it would have been the same result. <br />Mr. Chung asked Mr. Yee if as Planning Director, he ever put forward an expired application <br />and he confirmed. Mr. Chung said, personally, it makes logical sense not to push forward an <br />expired application, but sitting on the council he understands putting forward expired <br />applications so that should be off the table. He expressed the desire to have good communities <br />and that we as a body cannot dictate as long as applicants meet certain requirements and that the <br />public deserves to have a process they can see and understand. He asked Mr. Fuke and Planning <br />to work together. <br />Mr. Fuke asked that the contents of his letter, dated August 3, 2020, be accepted and used to <br />amend Bills 200 and 201. Director Yee said the developer should also submit a timeline or <br />phasing plan for what they are proposing. <br />Ms. Eoff did a brief summary on how each side came to this situation but believes there is more <br />than meets the eye. Director Yee confirmed that Planning felt that the applicant did not address <br />the TOD \[transit oriented development\] concepts well enough to move forward. She confirmed <br />that the CDP is not “set in stone” but was not comfortable making a decision to “finalize a sale” <br />for the developer. <br />Ms. Villegas expressed concerns to Mr. Van Bergen about granting entitlements then the <br />property being sold at a “fat profit.” She expressed gratitude for Director Yee being able <br /> PC Report No. 56 <br /> <br /> <br />