REP PC 056 2020/10/06 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PC-56 Page 5 October 6, 2020 to recognize that pattern. She recognized that the intentions of this property owner were truthful. Mr. Van Bergen explained that the discussion with the Commission was similar to this one. He shared that at the Commission meeting it came up that this is not a union project. However had he known that that was a topic of interest, he would have been prepared to explain Spring Capital’s collaboration with union workers on projects. Ms. Villegas acknowledged challenges with unions, especially during the campaign season and continued to express her concerns about the urgency of the sale but has hope that the best outcome for the community will result and understands the precedence being set. Mr. Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder confirmed with Mr. Fuke that the traffic study was done prior to “COVID traffic.” He expressed confusion for why the Pua‘a and Suffolk properties are part of one project, but being considered under different bills. He asserted that his observation was that the Land Use Commission was bypassed and “he does not like it.” He believed there was money to be made in the development and expressed his frustration that the message being conveyed is that it is not profitable. He also didn’t like the “partialization” of the two parcels. Mr. Fuke explained that the properties were purchased as is, and that the Land Use Commission was not engaged. He shared that the discussion took place at the Council level in 2005 and that the Council exercised their “home rule” and authority. Mr. Fuke emphasized the question before the Council was whether or not the zoning is appropriate land use. Chair Kierkiewicz expressed dismay over the Planning Commission’s decisions, pointing out Commissioner Newberg’s ties to the Carpenters Union, which submitted testimony against the project and that half of the minutes of the Planning Commission’s meeting were about the conflicts of interest from Commissioner Van Pernis. She expressed that the Department’s and Commission’s unfavorable recommendations were merely recommendations and that while this body would take them into consideration, the Council has the authority to make the ultimate decision and create laws. She noted that after such a robust discussion, as was done, the body’s role was simple: to decide on appropriate land use, not projects. Chair Kierkiewicz concluded that it appeared all entities involved want to strike a compromise, thus asked for a motion to move the bill forward while the Planning Department, the applicant, Ms. Villegas, and herself work together to amend Bill 200, utilizing the contents contained within Communication 1077.3 as a starting point. Ms. Poindexter asked for clarity on the vote. Chair Kierkiewicz affirmed that the body was voting on the bill and not the unfavorable recommendation by the Department and Commission. Ms. Lee Loy expressed interest in putting a stop on the clock when applications go to agencies and departments which often leads to projects needing to apply for time extensions. She asked that be considered here so the applicant is not penalized for a department or agency’s delays. The vote was taken on the motion to move this measure to Council with a positive recommendation and passed with Mr. Chung, Mr. Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder, Ms. Kierkiewicz, PC Report No. 56