Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-21 Leeward Exh F (Item 1 Chen PL-REZ-2021-000012) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 21, 2022 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of SITING CHEN (PL-REZ-2021-000012) was called to order at 12:31 p.m. in the West Hawaii Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, and via Zoom, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Barbara DeFranco, Michael Dela Cruz, Clement"CJ" Kanuha III, and Zaheva Knowles ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Mahina Paishon-Duarte and Faith"Faye" Yates EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: Robyn Matsumoto (Department of Public Works) ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Kekai, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Jeffrey Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Jessica Andrews (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Janice Hata(Zoom host), and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: SITING CHEN (PL-REZ-2021-000012) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a) to a Family Agricultural-1 acre (FA-la) zoning district for 14.968-acres of land. The subject property is located on the south side of Hualalai Road, approximately 0.6 miles east of its intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, Wai`aha 1st, Puapua`anui 1st, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-5-017:043. VITOUSEK: Next order of business agenda item 1. Applicant is Siting Chen, PL-REZ-2021- 000012. Application for Change of Zone from Agricultural-5 acres (A-5a) to a Family Agricultural-1 acre (FA-la) zoning district for 14.968-acres of land. The subj ect property is located on the south side of Hualalai Road, approximately 0.6 miles east of its intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, Wai`aha 1st, Puapua`anui 1st, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7- 5-017:043. Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow will represent the Planning Department on this item. The commission will take public testimony after the staff presentation. The staff presentation will be by Jessica Andrews. ANDREWS: Thank you, Chair. This is a Change of Zone application for Siting Chen. We'll start with the location map. The subject property is designated with a red dot there. You can see kind of in the middle lower portion of the slide it's located southeast of Kailua-Kona town on Hualalai Road. 1 EXHIBIT F The applicant is requesting a change of zone from an Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a)to a Family Agricultural-1 acre (FA-1 a) zoning district for 14.968-acres of land. The applicant proposes to subdivide the parcel into 11 lots consisting of a minimum of 1-acre each. The applicant intends to retain the largest lot consisting of roughly 3.5 acres for the purpose of constructing a single- family dwelling and planting an orchard with lychee, Tongan, mango, avocado, ulu, papaya, banana, and dragonfruit, and vegetable plots. The applicant will sell the remaining 10 lots. According to the applicant, the proposed change of zone will help address the need for greater diversity of housing choices in the Kona area by creating additional fee-simple lots to serve as housing while providing opportunities for diverse small-scale farming. The applicant hopes to begin a subdivision process immediately following approval of the proposed Change of Zone with the intention of securing final subdivision approval early 2023. And the estimated cost of improvements for this project is approximately $500,000. Here you see the zoning for the subject property which is outlined in red, and it's currently zoned A-5a, Agricultural 5-acres. Surrounding properties are, there's a mix of different zoning designations. There is RS-10 just makai or west to the property, to the north and east is A-1 a, some more A-5a, and further to the south there is a subdivision, Pualani Heights, I think it's called. Pualani Estates, excuse me, that is zoned RS-7.5, there's also RS-15, and some RA designation. The State Land Use Designation for the property is currently agricultural, as is most of the property, most of the properties to the north, to the east, and immediately to the south. There is, as you see in pink, urban designation to the south and some rural to the southeast. The General Plan designates the makai portion as urban expansion and the mauka portion as important agricultural lands as are the two, the two designations are most of this area. There is some rural and low-density urban designation to the southeast, and medium density is further, a field to the west. The Kona CDP map shows the TOD areas. The subject property is a little hard to see. It is outlined in yellow; you can see there. And the red designation is the Kona urban boundary, and the blue circles show the TOD designations. The applicant's site plan shows the proposed layout for the subdivision with the access point. As you can see from Hualalai coming from the very western-most point corner there from Hualalai Road. And there is also a proposed road reserve on the south portion of the property which accesses the neighboring property to the south. The aerial photograph here shows the property with a larger overview to the left and a blow up showing the property outlined in red to the south. And this shows Hualalai Road looking west on your left and looking east on the right slide there. The, the photograph in each of these pictures is taken from the approximate location of the main access road from Hualalai Road. And this is a little further mauka up Hualalai Road showing Hualalai Road looking west on the left and again looking east on the right side. 2 EXHIBIT F View of the subject property looking west with Hualalai Road on your right—that's on the left slide, and the slide on the right shows a view of the subject property looking directly on looking to the south across the property. The Planning, excuse me, the Deputy Planning Director's recommendation is to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council. And with that I'll turn the floor back to the Chair. VITOUSEK: Thank you. At this time, we'll see if there are any public testifiers for this agenda item. HATA: Yes, for-- VITOUSEK: Do we HATA: Sorry. VITOUSEK: Do we have any online testifiers? KAY: Mr. Chair? ANDREWS: Chair, sorry to interrupt. There, I just want to make sure that the commissioners all have the revised recommendation and revised conditions for this application? There were three conditions that were revised recently. VITOUSEK: Yes, I received those. Have fellow commissioners received those? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Yes. VITOUSEK: Okay. Terrific. ANDREWS: Thank you. VITOUSEK: To our, our host, is there anybody on Zoom who's waiting to testify for this? HATA: Yes, we have two testifiers for Item 1, Janet Matlock and Antu Harvey. VITOUSEK: Okay. Would you please unmute yourselves andoh, they're already sworn in? Okay. If you're already sworn in we're good to go. We'll start with Antu Harvey. HARVEY: [Inaudible.] VITOUSEK: Antu, are you there? I can see you but can't hear you. HATA: Antu, can you hear us? 3 EXHIBIT F HARVEY: Yes, I can. Can you hear me? HATA: Yes. HARVEY: Okay, great. So, I'm Antu Harvey from Holualoa, and I'm president of Pulama Ia Kona. Oh, you can't hear me. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: We hear you. We can hear you. HARVEY: Can all of you hear me? VITOUSEK: We can hear you. Can you hear us? HARVEY: Yes, I can hear you. VITOUSEK: Go ahead. HARVEY: Yes, I can. So, how about now? KAY: Yes. HARVEY: Okay. Okay, great. So, I'm Antu Harvey from Holualoa, and I'm the president of Pulama Ia Kona Heritage Preservation Council. And before I start, I wanted to make one comment about the last agenda item for clarity. I believe a commissioner asked if that, it was walkable to the urban, you know, commercial services and somebody answered yes it was. VITOUSEK: I'm going to stop you. We can't talk about previous agenda items. HARVEY: I just wanna point out that actually it's not walkable from Captain Cook Road south. VITOUSEK: We're going to have to pause that. I think there's a problem. HARVEY: There is no shoulder and from the dry cleaners north there is no shoulder. So, unless the implication-- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me, can you hear us? 4 EXHIBIT F HARVEY: --is that people are supposed to walk out on the vehicle lanes, I would hope respectfully that they check the facts and consider that and make sure that we're really talking about as-built. VITOUSEK: The commission will disregard this testimony regarding a previous agenda item. HARVEY: Okay, thanks. So, back to this agenda item, I actually have some odd comments and I don't know that they would be—they're in support but they're just comments about the approval, I think. So, this parcel is within, as the picture showed, the KCDP plan Pua'a Wai`aha Village TOD and it's not sure where the half mile diameter core village is to be located, or when it will be generally cited, but it looks like this parcel would be within a half mile of what would be the village core, and if it is that's in the secondary area in density for this TMK should actually be greater than FA-1. And so, it could be more equitable and affordable so, and should accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access to the future village in transit. If the Kakalina Street extension is still planned to run across the Bolton parcel below this and connect Nam Kailua with the Puapuaanui Street, is that still expected to be the location for the TOD village? And by that picture it looks like it is, but I'm not sure where that aspirational thing hits the road as far as talking to these developments because if that's the case this development should actually be higher density. This parcel's adjacent to Hienaloli and the Hualdlai junction, and Hienaloli is one of the few natural multi-modal links across the kaluulu zone and should be planned and developed as a greenway for bicycle riding and walking. It could have been connected to the, connected the Konawaena schools to the Kealakehe schools, but no one planned it, and blocking developments are now sprouting up on top of the old Kona sugar railroad route. Threading around these is now necessary and the requirement for the subdivision to provide that roadway segment connector between Hualdlai and Pualena Street would really help. I also request that please require reserving a frontage strip along Hualdlai on the mauka side to accommodate this parcel, makai side of the roadway, to accommodate a wide pedestrian bicycle shoulder along Hualdlai. Note that the recommendation reports states on page 2 that the property directly adjacent to the south is currently undeveloped. Well, if this refers to 7-5-017-022, this is untrue. Even your picture shows that parcel has five buildings on it on the mauka edge, and a big formal entry gate and large stone wall running parallel along Hualdlai about 20 feet back from the pavement. So, this parcel also adjoins Hualdlai, and Hualdlai is a historic trail or road. So, we advocate for preserving its historic integrity. Widening the road for easier vehicle travel would result in faster speeds that's been proven over and over here, lower safety, and destroy its historic integrity as a rural narrow winding road. So therefore, please do not require the owner to 5 EXHIBIT F reserve and dedicate more frontage than is matching the neighbor's rock wall setback. As long as it's developed into a wide pedestrian bicycle shoulder separated pathway, that should be sufficient. Mahalo for your time and dedicated service. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. Next, we have Janet Matlock. MATLOCK: Aloha. I wanted to express my concern about the way this particular parcel is being marketed, if you will, to you as being a way to expand agriculture when, in fact, it, it's really just chopping it up into smaller parcels that are not intended, really, to be agricultural. They are intended to be sort of a gentleman's farm; they're intended to be 1- acre little oasis. And, and so, it's not so much the idea of going from ag to ag, it's the way it's being done. If you look at the map, there are some very long narrow driveways that lead to it and just to quote a little bit here, it says that leaving it an Ag-5a land "greatly restricts the potential of beneficial use of the property allowing at most two lots with limited association--associated farm dwellings." They argue that changing to family ag would offer diverse small agricultural pursuits, but it doesn't make any sense. How does chopping it up make it more [indecipherable]. And then when you look at what they really expect to do they say, so, "the commission on water resource management questioned if there would be water for this. The commission recommended conservation strategies and that Water demand that calculations be done, and I'm assuming that's because they can't actually mandate when they just request them. The response from the developer's agent was that they recorded some rainfall averages from 2014 and said they would do additional calculations if they were required. So, I guess that's up to you to actually require them. Because this is, you know, water is scarce, we are in drought conditions, the more people you add the more demand on water, the less and less we're going to have for agriculture. The response to recommended conservation strategies was to agree they were a good idea and it said they would encourage their use throughout the development. They said, "native drought tolerant landscaping would be encouraged in the proposed subdivision." I notice they're not encouraging agriculture. So, if you're going to do this, fine, but be genuine about it. I think it should be left to a larger agricultural zone that it is now, and actually use it for agriculture. We're trying to achieve food security as an island, as a state, so we don't have to barge everything in, but we keep chopping it up, and chopping it up into smaller and smaller parcels that are not going to feed much of anybody. So, that's, that's myI encourage you to consider that when you think about this rezoning. Mahalo. 6 EXHIBIT F VITOUSEK: Thank you. Are there any other Zoom testifiers? HATA: No, there are not. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. In-person testifiers we have Ken Van Bergen. VAN BERGEN: Good morning. VITOUSEK: Morning. VAN BERGEN: You need to swear me in, or no? VITOUSEK: I did already. VAN BERGEN: Oh, yeah. I'll just say I do. I do. VITOUSEK: Perfect. VAN BERGEN: Alright. Good morning, Chair, commissioners. I'm here in support of item one. You know, I'd first like to point out, everybody, all of you, myself, everybody in this room lives in a home, or condo, or land built by a developer or an owner builder that went through the planning process, subdivision process, and was constructed. And I just find it odd that seems like part of our community now think it's a crime to develop property. So, I support this project as first a local landowner. My parcel is two parcels away from Steve's. I think it's good infill. I think it fits the CDP perfectly. If you look at where the expansion line is, it's right in the middle of this property and to go from Ag-5 to Ag-1 zoning is not much of a stretch. You're not—one of the testifiers mentioned it should be more dense. Well, it can't be more dense because he only has 11 water units, and water is one of the biggest factors in developing in Kona now and will be for years to come as you all know probably better than most. So, so you're limited on what you can do based on water, and I think what Mr. Chen's trying to do with a 11-lot subdivision in that area fits the needs to develop more properties that can be sold and built, but also fits the CDP which I think is kind of the document to go to as you look to plan and move forward. So, for those reasons we're very supportive of the project. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Next is Mac McInnis. MCINNIS: I do. VITOUSEK: Perfect, thanks. 7 EXHIBIT F MCINNIS: Good afternoon, my name is Mac McInnis. I live in the Kona Orchard subdivision here in Kailua-Kona. There appears to be contradictory comments between the Planning Department's report on the parcel in question and the Kona Community Development Plan. The Kona Community Development Plan was ruled on by Judge Ronald Ibarra on April 25, 2013, as legal and enforceable. All of his parcel, the 14.9 acres-14.96 acres is not entirely within the Kona urban area. Half of this parcel is within the urban area. The other half is in the Kona rural area and is designated as improvement [sic] agricultural lands. I didn't write the Kona Community Development Plan, okay, I'm just repeating what's in it. It's shown on this map with the red line running right through the middle of the parcel. This LUPAG map, Land Use Planning Allocation Guide was used back in 2011. It shows the parcel in question as being entirely in the urban expansion area. I tried to find this map in the Kona Community Development Plan, and I couldn't find it. It doesn't exist. If it's in there, I'd like for somebody to please show it to me. What I did find was five maps all showing the delineation line between the rural boundary and the urban boundary. The first one is the official land use map, and it shows where the red line is that divides this piece of property. The second map, again is all part of the Kona Community Development, is the General Plan LUPAG map. The third map is the generalized LUPAG map. The fourth map is the generalized zoning map. And the fifth map is the concurrency zone map. Our five communities, Pualam Estates, Heights of Hualalai, Sugar Cane Lane, Kona Orchids, and Hualalai Colony went through this issue back in 2011. The citizens heard every comment from the assistant Planning Director at that time, right on down the line, and every imaginable excuse or reason why the red line delineating this property and rural district from the urban district was not really there. It's there. It's there and this critical policy statement that the County Council made back in 2008 is that rezoning for land outside of the Kona urban boundary, outside of the red line, is prohibited. That's stated in the Kona Community Development Plan under the land use section. Policy LU- 3.8 Rezoning Outside of Urban and Rural TODs and Outside of the General Plan LUPAG Urban Area. Thank you for your time. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Thank you. Any other public testifiers? Okay. At this point we will call the applicant. Oh, we'll do a motion to close public testimony for this agenda item. [Commissioner Franco raised her hand.] 8 EXHIBIT F VITOUSEK: Motion by KANUHA: Second. VITOUSEK: Okay. Motion seconded. All those in favor? ALL COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VITOUSEK: Any opposed? Okay. Testifiers on Zoom, now that we've completed, you can log off and watch on YouTube. Mahalo. Okay, applicant, please state your name and town you live in. Oh, I better swear you in as well. Thank you. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter before the Planning Commission? PIPAN: I do. VITOUSEK: Thank you. PIPAN: My name is John Pipan, Land Planning Hawaii, representing Mr. Chen, Dr. Chen, apologies. I live in Honoka`a. CHEN: Okay, I'm Siting Chen. I go by Steve. So, to introduce me a little bit, I'm very new to this process so, I appreciate your participation in this. Anya little bit about myself as a landowner of this, so the idea that I wanted this comes from that me and my family wanted to relocate to Hawaii. From Hawaii we have two kids, and we've been coming to Hawaii for almost 20 years. We come here all the time and one of the thinking was to come here to retire someday. Well, three years ago, on this facility on Oahu and the Kaiser facility that wanted some help, so it got me here to help them. Initially it was temporary, but I began to like it and actually got a chance to live on different islands. I helped them on Oahu and I helped them Maui, and I helped them here. And I also got the chance to work on Kauai for a few months. So, I got the chance to live on different islands and we decided we really like this area, so we decided to stay here. So, we've been on Hawaii for about three years now. My idea is to be able to retire here and live in the paradise. One of the most attraction is I want to stay healthy. I want to stay away from doctors, okay. So, that idea to stay healthy is to eat healthy diet. Healthy organic fruits and vegetables is one of the most important things you can do, to me. Okay. Some of my idea is to be able to have a place that I plant all of the fruit trees I want, grow vegetables and everything, and share with the community. So, that's my idea and that's why I get into this. And I hope to, and to one earlier testifier mention that there's a difficulty getting doctors and appointments many months away. Well, guess what, there's a reason that it's very hard on doctors to come here. It is difficult to find lot [indecipherable]. But guess what, I've at least two doctor friends that are willing to come here if they can find the right place. 9 EXHIBIT F So, I've spoken to them about it and maybe they'll be able to get one of those things to be my neighbors. Alright, thank you. PIPAN: Yeah, thank you, Dr. Chen. Thank you, Chair Vitousek, Planning Commissioners. You folks are so dedicated, you spend so much time not only here in person but at home, evenings, weekends revieing the voluminous reports we send to you. So, mahalo you plenty and again, thank you for your attention and care throughout this process. Thanks also to Deputy Director Darrow, the favorable recommendation, working hard with us on our conditions so they can be crafted so they are achievable, we can actually accomplish the things that we're setting out to do in a reasonable timeframe and not relying on the actions of others who we can't necessarily compel. So, the proposal is for FA-1 a on 14.9 acres and change. One of the recent testifiers bought up the difference and the line between the urban expansion and important ag on the LUPAG maps. That was settled in 2010 and reiterated that it was settled in 2013 by then Planning Director Leithead- Todd. So, I've included in my latest communication to the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and apologies for the late communication. I always try to wrap these things up well ahead of time. We had some late testimony come in last week that I wanted to also include in our response. But the determination of the LUPAG line and therefor the Kona CDP urban area line is settled as an attachment in that communication that was sent to you yesterday. I hope you all had a chance to see that. So, the first thing when Dr. Chen came to us last year that we looked at, his idea to rezone this to create 10 new lots. We look at the guidance. The CDP, the GP, the agricultural potential of this land, and everything checked out. There's a lot of history with this property. It had previously been put forward for RS-10, RS-15 development in that 2010 to 2013 timeframe along with State Land Use Boundary Amendment to bring it into urban to permit that higher density. And they got pretty far in the process. You know, a lot of testimony revolved around is this too high density, you know, the traffic impacts, and there were traffic studies done and updated throughout that process that showed that there were no impacts significant from the proposed 43 lots that would occur on this property. And this is after the neighboring lot to the south, to the west sorry, on the makai side 42 had previously successfully been rezoned to RS-10. So, we look at all these things as background and we say does this fit with the area? We've got Ag-1 on the mauka side and on the north side. We've got Ag-5 to the south, the neighboring smaller parcel. We've got RS-10 which is kind of funky because the ordinance has expired and has gone stale so that one will have to be kind brought up again to the Planning Commission to go forward and we got all the residential development to the south. So, this seems like a good fit in terms of complying with Ag-1 and being kind of transitionary between that higher density to the south. It's not within any TOD area. We can pull up a map from the Kona CDP if that's in question. But that is not true. I think that testifier was confusing this lot with the neighboring one. So, there's not a lot of adverse impacts here. This is 5-acre lots being turned into 1-acre lots. We're leaving the State Land Use as agriculture. So, agricultural uses are mandated by state law. So, any dwelling has to be associated with the farm in State Land Use Agriculture. Enforcement 10 EXHIBIT F of that is another question and is probably a larger discussion. But that is already in the law. Any, any home being built on these lots has to be associated with a farm. Plain and simple. Traffic impacts are negligible. Eleven lots, you know, this is, this is after the fact. The previous rezone attempt showed that 43 lots wasn't going to have a significant impact. We're more than happy to collaborate, cooperate with the development of the neighboring parcel. Whatever it may turn into, I understand it may be in escrow, it may be changing hands in the near future, but again those entitlements are stale, so they'll have to kind of re-present that project, whatever it turns into, so. We don't even know who the owner of that neighboring lot to the south that is important for coordinating access to Hualalai Road. We agree that one access is what it should be, and we agree that we'll establish that access such that they can connect and work with them on the best design. I think that's the best way it's been written in the conditions. We've reviewed the conditions. We agree with them. We appreciate, again, the hard work of the Planning Department in crafting those. One thing,you know, there's a lot of public testimony and not necessarily specifically relating to Dr. Chen's project, to this application, but we've heard a lot of public testimony this morning and there's a big emotional connection there. There's an angst that comes through. And a book I was reading not too long ago kind of addresses this topic. It's been known as solastalgia and this is, solace in Greek for comfort, for algia, pain. So, it's a form of emotional distress and it's caused by environmental change. And it's described also as a homesickness you feel when you're still at home. When your environment is changing around you in ways that you can't control. And so, you know, I don't say this to dismiss or qualify those testifiers concerns, but just future reading for me and it's an interesting, interesting and very deep connection. So, one thing we've also gone into depth in our application, we're trying to do more of is look at the watershed as a whole. So, Wai`aha watershed as a whole. So, Wai`aha watershed in this case encompasses over 10,000 acres of land going from the coast to very near the summit of Hualalai at 8,100 feet of elevation. And based on the General Plan, about 10 percent of that watershed is designated for urban uses, so low density, medium density, urban expansion. Ten percent. Approximately 37 percent is designated as conservation land, and approximately 53 percent is designated important ag or extensive ag and again, we go back to the Planning Director's determination. This is not important ag land, this is urban expansion land, it is within, therefore, the Kona urban area and its appropriate to consider for infill. So that's all, that's all settled. We also appreciate, there's a lot of additional new conditions here relating to protections for endangered species. Prohibiting, or trying to limit the spread of invasive species. Those are great and I think they're, they could be considered, you know,just a maybe a change of language from conditions on the development to these are like kapu. Right? These are things that we notice that are important for the `aina, for our endangered species here, and I think it's a good direction to go in. You know,just me, I'm, I'm thinking about these conditions as I'm planning to prune my, my trees on my place. I'm going to wait until September, until after the `ape`ape`a have their pups and do their thing. So, I think it can be educational for the broader public, too, to have these discussions and to have it out there more. I think that pretty much wraps it up. I'm going to try to keep it brief, but we appreciate all of your time and consideration. We would greatly appreciate your favoring, forwarding a favorable 11 EXHIBIT F recommendation to the County Council who would ultimately make the decision on this one. Thanks so much. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions of the applicant or of County Planning Department? KNOWLES: I think I have a question here. VITOUSEK: Sure, go ahead. KNOWLES: One of the concerns around the development of this parcel is the water use and the availability of water and the consultation that DLNR sought with the CWRM. I noted that in your response you indicated that you had made a telephone call to them but had not received any, any response to your call. I'm just, I'd like to get a sense of where that process is and, and what work you're undertaking to fulfill that concern. PIPAN: Yes, thank you, Commissioner Knowles. That comment from DLNR Groundwater Branch of the Commission of Water Resource Management was referring us to work with the Aha Moku Council on any potential impacts to cultural traditional uses relating to groundwater and the use of groundwater through the County system that this project might have. So, I did reach out on a couple occasions over the last six weeks or so to the Aha Moku Council, both on the phone and by email. I have not heard back from them. It's something that, you know, there are moku and folks who represent those moku. I don't see anyone on their documentation to reach out to for this area that would be like the go-to contact to, to you know. I'm open to suggestions, but we've, we've reached out to their main line on a number of occasions, haven't heard back. Groundwater is super important here and we rely on the guidance of Department of Water Supply and their long-range plans for this area and for the aquifers that underlie Kona. I should note that the Wai`aha water system and the agreement there would serve to increase the water supply to the entire Kona area to a tune of something like 2002 million gallons per day plus. And part of the water allocation for this project is from that Wai`aha agreement. So, you know, there's still a lot of work to be done to protect and preserve our super valuable natural resources, especially groundwater here in Kona. But this isn't, this isn't a property--and these aren't lots that are going to be conducive to row cropping that would use a lot of irrigation water. This is going to be like food forest, like edible landscaping, like citrus trees, fruit trees, mango trees. All of these things are really well-adapted to the climate there. So, we don't anticipate a whole lot of irrigation water will be necessary outside of just initial establishment of these plants. Also, there's great potential for reuse of water, both capturing your roof runoff or there's ways that Department of Health will allow you to reuse gray water, too. So, you know, those will all be promoted and really pushed for in this development. Hopefully that answers your question. Thank you. KNOWLES: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Anymore? Anybody, any more questions? DEFRANCO: What kind of doctor are you? 12 EXHIBIT F CHEN: I'm an oncologist. DEFRANCO: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay. I have a question for the County. In the determination by the Planning Director that the half of the project that is shown as being outside. Was that accepted by County Council also? DARROW: That HALL: Please use your microphone, sir. DARROW: Oh, I'm sorry. HALL: Thank you. DARROW: Oh, I'm sorry. Let me just introduce myself. I'm Jeff Darrow, Deputy Planning Director, supporting Zendo Kern, our current Planning Director. Back in 2013 when this went before Council, or Committee, there was discussion. The Commission accepted it, the Director recommended it because it's halfway in the property, correct? So, you gotta kind of make a determination. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map is broad-brush. It's not site-specific. Unfortunately, with the introduction of GIS, everything appears to be site-specific, but when it comes to the General Plan, it's general. And so, at the time, the applicant was proposing a residential development and was requesting from the Planning Director at that point, could this property be determined as urban expansion. And I think it was two different determinations agreed with that interpretation. When it came up to Planning Committee, there was discussion about the ability to make that interpretation, right? And that really wasn't clearly resolved because I think it's something that has to be clearly stated somewhere. And right now it's an assumption. The Planning Director was the one who helped create the plan. He's the one that provides recommendations to the commission, to the council, to the mayor on land use applications and planning matters. And so, at that point, they did accept it but what ended up happening was there was a lot more discussion regarding significant conditions that wanted to be placed on the property. So, the original application that came in, there was some issues that came up, they withdrew. They resubmitted, they made it all the way up as John had mentioned, all the way up to Committee, and at that point when it got to where these pretty extensive conditions were being, not placed but almost like trying to be placed on this, they ended up withdrawing at that point. So, now again, we're in this dilemma. We heard our first testifier saying, "Hey, this really should be an area of higher density,"right? But they're limited by water. Right now we can't. Back then maybe they could've, but right now we only have 11 units of water. When you look at—the other dilemma,just really quick on this, is because of that split on that land use pattern allocation guide map you've got to try to come up with a, an appropriate split. And it's, in my opinion looking at this, the appropriate split would be the road. It wouldn't be the property below. It seems like those are connected. And as you look to the south, you also see the residential land 13 EXHIBIT F use patter occurring. But when you look to the north and to the west, you see the agricultural 1- acre occurring. So, this actual, you know, we've gone through the residential proposal, it didn't pan out. Now we're coming back to the other side for the agricultural 1-acre proposal, and this appears to be a good compromise. An appropriate compromise. VITOUSEK: So, procedurally to finally establish the boundaries of the urban expansion area, that would be for the County Council once they receive this? DARROW: They can bring it up as an issue. I mean, right now the Planning—see, it's a difficult process. You don't normally go to the Council and request a determination. You come to the Planning Department before you submit, and the Planning Director will make a call. And again, we're fully aware of the lack of clear direction and so that's something that's being implemented as we talk. But that's the process that's been in place as long as I've been working with the Planning Department. VITOUSEK: The process for the split zoning, or split for the ag DARROW: For the process of determining a questionable land use determination. VITOUSEK: Okay. DARROW: And again, the reason why the request comes in is because with the introduction of GIS people look at things very site-specific. But again, it is broad-brush. The General Plan clearly says it is a broad-brush line. How broad that brush line is, it really depends on a lot of factors. And in this case, there are a lot of factors. VITOUSEK: Is there, is there specific language that we can reference that in the General Plan that establishes that it is open for DARROW: Broad-brush? VITOUSEK: Yeah. DARROW: Sure. Hold on. VITOUSEK: Not that I don't trust you, Jeff. But I'm just curious. PIPAN: Chair, if I may just add VITOUSEK: Yes, please. Go ahead. PIPAN: Potential clarification on one of the testifiers comments that rezoning is prohibited outside of the Kona urban area, and that's not technically true. It has to be consistent in scale 14 EXHIBIT F with transfer of land to family members. So, a single lot into a few lots is still allowed outside of the Kona urban area. It's not total prohibition. VITOUSEK: And is there anything in there about rezoning but maintaining the designation where this is agriculture to agriculture. Is there anything indicating that that's okay versus agriculture to residential? I'm ready for you, Jeff. DARROW: So, in the, this is in The Standards for the Land Use section in the General Plan. It states, "The designated land uses will be delineated on the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map. The broad-brush boundaries indicated are graphic expressions of the General Plan policies, particularly those relating to land uses." VITOUSEK: Thank you. Okay. Let's see, my next question. As far as the development goes, are you going to propose any CC&Rs that would dictate what people can do on the property? PIPAN: To date there hasn't been drafted CC&Rs and we'd like to keep it to a minimum, if possible. We believe people generally can, can behave themselves without additional rules, but yeah, no specific language. VITOUSEK: Is there anything that you would do that would basically require a certain level of home construction to be built? Like you'd require certain square footage, or a certain design that would drive the prices of the homes up to maintain property values? CHEN: I haven't thought of anything like that. VITOUSEK: Okay. CHEN: My big idea is to, everybody interested in it should be the ones like me,planting all the trees and fruits and vegetables. VITOUSEK: Would you mind speaking into the mic? CHEN: Oh, sorry. Yeah, so, I hadn't thought about those things. But my idea would be anybody interested in those lots would be somebody like me and they're interested in just planting a lot of fruit trees and in, you know, vegetable gardens like that. Healthy lifestyles. VITOUSEK: Terrific. No, we would love to have an oncologist farm up there. That would be fantastic. CHEN: I could do that. [laughs.] 15 EXHIBIT F VITOUSEK: But you know as, a problem with the proliferation of high-value homes which drives cost up for everybody is these proliferation of the CC&Rs which restrict people's ability to build a modest home and to keep lots more affordable. CHEN: Yep. Well, my idea is more affordable. VITOUSEK: Yeah. CHEN: Yeah, exactly. VITOUSEK: Okay. What are you hoping to receive on market for the homes? What are you going to be offering them at? Not homes, sorry. Lots. CHEN: I have no idea. As I said, I'm new to this and my main idea is to get the lot that I want, I get to pick and choose the place that I want. That's the bigger thing. So, everything else, I'm very new to this. I have no idea. VITOUSEK: And would you be, you'd be selling the lots as is and not building homes? CHEN: There are a couple of people that I talked to has mentioned that at least two doctor friends that are interested. So, they may be coming and view homes. VITOUSEK: Oh, but you'd be selling the lot and the buyer would be building-- CHEN: Right, right. Right. VITOUSEK: the home and selling a build CHEN: I don't plan to do that. Yeah, yeah. VITOUSEK: Okay. My last question is regarding sewer. Being that we are within the Kona urban area and that we are in proximity to sewer, obviously sewer is gonna be very much preferable from an environmental and health perspective than individual wastewater systems as well as preserving our aquafer and all of that, really, and that's the benefit of sewer. And I understand that there's sewer in the vicinity, but it's not immediately accessible. CHEN: Well, we tried very hard to look into that. I mean, personally, I would much prefer to be able to connect, right? VITOUSEK: Yeah. CHEN: There are beneficial, but, but [unintelligible] it was often, investigation was not possible unless we cut through all the people's property, which is not possible to do. 16 EXHIBIT F VITOUSEK: Right. And, and CHEN: We've already looked into that. PIPAN: If I may, part of that discussion relates to density. So, the cost per unit at the eventual sale, if you're having to extend a sewer line 1,000 feet and you can spread that cost over 50 or so lots, then it becomes affordable. But if you're spreading that cost the same amount of sewer line over 10 lots or 11 lots, then it kills the project. There's no way you can accomplish the subdivision. VITOUSEK: And that, that's for extending sewer to the project? PIPAN: So, yeah, the sewer line would have to come up another 500 feet across Lot 42 before even reaching the property boundary. VITOUSEK: Is Lot 42 RS-10 there? PIPAN: Correct. ANDREWS: Yeah. VITOUSEK: Okay. My question is whether, you know, one of the conditions of approval is that the water infrastructure be built and dedicated to the County for this area. Could we do something similar with sewer, where you're also building your own sewer within your project and then eventually when the neighbors have connected to sewer and built sewer out for their, we can connect onto them at that point. So that rather than locking ourselves into individual wastewater systems now and not being able to be flexible in the future when sewer does become available with RS-10 immediately next door. PIPAN: Yes, thanks for the question. That's, that's possibly the worst of both worlds if you're trying to make this make sense in terms of financially in the end. So, having to build the sewer and put in septic systems for each home that's twice the cost and, you know, there's no, there's no assurance that RS-10 property will be developed in the very near future. So, you've already got septic systems, why not keep septic systems? They're designed by civil engineers; they're approved by Department of Health. They look at the soils, they look at the infiltration and our aging undersized wastewater treatment plants are possibly not the best solution either. VITOUSEK: And did you evaluate the possibility of doing a small batch wastewater treatment system that was recommended by Department of Health? 17 EXHIBIT F PIPAN: Those, those are prohibitively expensive. Yeah. CHEN: It's a small project. PIPAN: Yeah, talking about maybe a million dollars. CHEN: Yeah. KANUHA: I'm just thinking about it, what about putting a condition in especially once you sell all your lots that everybody comes to fees putting in the system when RS-10 comes online and when Lot 42 comes online. Have you guys thought about that? PIPAN: Yes, I think the way the condition is written and proposed is if, if we can finish this subdivision before the sewer reaching the property then we can use septic systems. KANUHA: Yes. PIPAN: If we can't then we have to connect to the sewer. So, that's, that's a good way to say we're not having to do both septic systems and sewer at the same time. If the sewer becomes available, which is the way the County Code is written, if the sewer is available to the property, then you have to connect. KANUHA: Yeah, I don't see doing both of them at the same time. Like you said, it's definitely not feasible for anyone to do both systems if the system's not going to be connected. But I just wanted to know if you guys have thought about that, especially as you sell off the lots, you know, through this project. Looking at moving forward with what's going to maybe take place on Lot 42, and if that discussion, you know, have you guys discussed anything about that. And obviously with the County Code, like you said, if it's there and it's available, you are going to have to tie into it no matter what. CHEN: Exactly. So, the idea is that if 42 becomes available, connection becomes available, it'll be much preferable for me to connect it. Sure, I would like to have that opportunity, but we'll have to see if it's going to be available or not. VITOUSEK: So, but if, if you are developing lots and selling lots, then you wouldn't be financially responsible for creating the individual wastewater system for each home. That would be up to the builder, correct? CHEN: Except that nobody will buy your lots if you have that condition on it. Because it would be prohibitively expensive for them to build it and do both. I mean same thing, either me or the buyer 18 EXHIBIT F VITOUSEK: Yes. CHEN: Same thing. VITOUSEK: It would be, you know, but these are going to be expensive lots. Right? One acre in this area CHEN: I –I–I VITOUSEK: Will be, will be an expensive lot. There's no way around that unfortunately. Unless it's off market, unless there's a special condition that CHEN: But Ione thing VITOUSEK: You know, is limiting the value, which would be great. You know, we'd love to do that if that's an option. CHEN: I—okay. VITOUSEK: But, again, it'sas an upfront development cost, the developer would be putting in, developer, you would be putting in the sewer line that would have to be connected to. So, that would, sewer line would be running on the driveway access road, and then at that point when additional people are buying, if the lots are there, if the sewer's been connected already then, they can connect to the sewer. If not, if they haven't been connected yet, then they can put in the individual wastewater systems, but at least we've preserved our option and the developer has created the option to have sewer within the neighborhood and you don't have to take on the cost of providing both sewer and individual wastewater systems. PIPAN: One important aspect to keep in mind here is the entitlements, the zoning on Lot 42 is stale. They didn't meet the conditions of that ordinance, so they have to come back before the Planning Commission, before the County Council, to do anything like an RS- 10 development. And we've seen, you know,just in projects that testifiers have brought up today that time extensions are not a guarantee. They're not an easy thing. You know, people bring up brand-new, brand-new ideas, brand-new opposition. So, we have no guarantees, no assertions that RS-10 is going to be what Lot 42 remains. It is practically Ag-5 right now. So, we don't even know who the owner's going to be at the end of the year for that lot. 19 EXHIBIT F VITOUSEK: But at the same time, you know, like we said we don't know, and I don't see adding that minimal amount of sewer on your access road as being a terribly huge expense. PIPAN: It is. VITOUSEK: I mean we put in lots of sewer lines. I know the costs. CHEN: Yeah. VITOUSEK: It's not, it's not. This is a very short section of sewer line, so I'm ballparking, I've got an idea DEFRANCO: Mike, I'm a little lost. So, on this map, where is the sewer line that you're talking about? It's on the KANUHA: It's on the property in the subdivision. VITOUSEK: What I'm talking about—if you can pull up a map of the proposed subdivision. DARROW: Yeah, if I could chime in, Mike. VITOUSEK: Sure. DARROW: So that right now from a bird's eye view—hold on, Jessica. If you can go back real quick. The, the property or the cul-de-sac that is kitty-corner to the property, that one right there, is the closest sewer line. That's within 300 feet. Unfortunately, there's no direct line to get there. The only way is through the road that connects to the RS-10 to the north. Little further down, Jessica. Up [Brief chatter as the section of the map in discussion is located.] So, that's where the sewer line has to come out to connect to the RS-10, and then as John mentioned, it's probably about 500 feet up to his property. But I do understand where you're trying to go, Mike, and I'll have Jessica bring up the subdivision map so we can talk about the dry sewer line within the proposed road lot. ANDREWS: The proposed roadway. VITOUSEK: Right it would be 20 EXHIBIT F KANUHA: --infrastructure you gotta put a roadway VITOUSEK: --within the proposed roadway. [Unintelligible crosstalk] They wouldn't be responsible for bringing sewer to their property, but they'd be responsible for putting in a dry sewer line on their property in the roadway that others can connect to in the event that sewer becomes accessible to the neighborhood. And that would be a requirement the developer would have to make, but if, if there's no sewer at the time that somebody wants to build their home then they could build with the individual wastewater system. So, it would be increasing his costs and that would be a factor, but it would be providing a level of protection for the environmental resources. Being within the Kona urban corridor, I don't think we want the proliferation of individual wastewater systems. PIPAN: If I may? The Department of Health is kind of the authority on wastewater treatment. They've responded on this application that IWS, individual wastewater system, septic systems are appropriate. KNOWLES: I think, I think the concern is that as a commission we have to be thinking about the entire landscape. [Indecipherable crosstalk.] VITOUSEK: Sure. Sure. Fair enough. Well, my, my question on that line is, is whether that could be considered but it doesn't seem like it. So, we can get to that in discussion. CHEN: Can I just say real quick? VITOUSEK: Yes? CHEN: So, I hear concern, Mike, certainly it is a subject we discussed at length about it. I mean, if I will have to do an extension of the sewer like that, five hundred or anything like that, the project's not feasible. We're already stretching the budget; build a roadway to connect and then even for extension to the south, those are huge expenses. County dedicable for this small project is already a huge stretch and add to that anything to the sewer like that, basically the project is a no-go. Or rezone back to 5-a and build two houses on it. That's all, so. KANUHA: Are you going to have underground utilities? Is that roadway going to have underground utilities? CHEN: I think that's the intention, yes. 21 EXHIBIT F KANUHA: Yeah. CHEN: We'll talk about that. Underground, actually dig different, different digging so KANUHA: You'll do your conduit, and you can run the line through there. I'm just CHEN: They said you can't. You have to do it separately. VITOUSEK: So, it'd be a separate trench. [Unintelligible crosstalk] KNOWLES: Before we go to discussion, I did have one more question about the road improvements. VITOUSEK: Sure. KNOWLES: I also, it seems that a lot of the discussion, and maybe Jeff, you can speak to this too, is what the plans are for improvement of the, of Hualdlai Road. Sort of looking ahead and where we are with respect to this particular project and, and recommended improvements on the road there. DARROW: Sure, and that's the focus on the revised conditions that were passed out to the Commission. Revised Conditions G, H, and L Basically, at this point there's one access on Hualdlai Road that's going to be shared with Lot 42, that's the lot to the west, makai side. So that there's a connection, one connection to Hualdlai. If the applicant happens to propose a secondary action to the east, then they will be required to be able to improve the whole makai side of Hualdlai Road, half of, for the future road widening setback area. That, Hualdlai is identified as a collector. Right now, the way it is, is that if they keep with the one access, when they do their subdivision, they would be dedicating that future road widening setback piece to the County so that when the County comes in to improve Hualdlai Road, that's now their property and they have the ability. They don't have to come in—normally in the past you would put it on each individual property and the County had to come in and condemn it. That didn't seem to make a lot of sense. So, in discussing with Public Works, they agreed that we can go ahead and put that whole future road widening setback property to be dedicated to the County. 22 EXHIBIT F Again, in the past when we were talking about what happened at Committee, they were trying to impose the condition for them to do all the improvements. It was a project killer, basically. And this is one fourth the amount of lots. KNOWLES: And Mr. Pipan, it sounds like from your most recent correspondence to the Commission that this, even this revised requirement or condition to the permit is prohibitive for you. Is that true, or you're fine with it? Because it requires collaboration with the unknown owners of the neighboring parcel. PIPAN: No the, the revised condition is basically what we suggested KNOWLES: Okay, sorry. PIPAN: --to, to alleviate that concern with compelling action. Thank you. DARROW: Mr. Chairman? VITOUSEK: Yes. DARROW: Just really briefly, there was discussion about the property to the south. In looking at the aerial there appears to be some structures along Hualdlai on that property, but maybe development wasn't the correct word. The word we were looking for is something like a rezoning where if they came in to create higher density and there were conditions placed on that property, we could provide the connection to the adjoining subdivision and create connectivity. VITOUSEK: Okay. Now back to the fact-finding on the, the sewer. Have you actually received estimates for what it would cost for putting the sewer only within your portion? PIPAN: Yes, thanks-- VITOUSEK: What would that be. PIPAN: We reached out to Engineering Partners for estimates and obviously, a lot of it's going to depend on the exact design, the depth that the sewers have to be dug down to. I'm assuming we're going to hit some rock here. So, their ballpark estimate, cost per linear foot was somewhere in the $250 to $400 per linear foot range. So, if we're having to put in, probably not 1,000 feet, but you can see how that adds up pretty quickly to hundreds of thousands of dollars. VITOUSEK: Yep. Yeah, that's about what I would expect. So, do you, how much linear footage are you looking at on that road there? 23 EXHIBIT F PIPAN: Well, it depends if it's, if it's just talking about the on-site-- VITOUSEK and KANUHA: On-site. PIPAN: That's, that's probably about 500 feet or so. And again VITOUSEK: And what was the linear foot estimate? PIPAN: Let's say $400 to be kind of middle of the road. Four hundred dollars per linear foot. But again, this is shots in the dark, back of the envelope calculations VITOUSEK: Yeah. PIPAN: That's on top of building a septic system when you build a house. So that cost-- VITOUSEK: That would be for the lot there. PIPAN: Yeah, that cost is built into the cost of the lot, but they also have to then build a septic system. VITOUSEK: Perhaps, right? If it hasn't gotten there by then. Perhaps they would have to build it. PIPAN: Perhaps. VITOUSEK: The other option, have you considered what it would be like to, down the road, retrofit and upgrade to sewer? PIPAN: Well VITOUSEK: Digging through the road PIPAN: Yeah, certainly that wouldn't be ideal either. KANUHA: I think that would be a lot worse. VITOUSEK: Right. That would be a lot worse, right? So, that's the idea is that we look into what we could do before. CHEN: Yes, certainly Mr. Chairman, it's about the cost. You mentioned earlier, since we want acre lots available, but the reason that I wanted bigger lot on this whole entire 24 EXHIBIT F 15, 14 acres is because only that one lot has a good view. It's very flat. So, the whole thing—and then the other side is the big water tank. It very much blocks everything. So, the land is actually very flat and there's only one area that I chose to be my place with a pretty good view. So, you know. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay. Well, if there's no further questions, we can take a motion on the agenda item so that we can proceed with discussion. DEFRANCO: Okay, I'll move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for the application of the Change of Zone, docket PL-REZ-2021-00012 [sic] based on the Planning Director's recommendations which shall be adopted. The Deputy Planning Director's recommendation. KNOWLES: Second. VITOUSEK: Anybody? KNOWLES: I second. VITOUSEK: Okay. DEFRANCO: So, now we can talk about it. VITOUSEK: Yep. Feel free to discuss. DEFRANCO: Yeah, I, I, you know, value your great questions always, Mike. And I do think forward thinking, you know, if you're looking at that it's a couple hundred thousand dollars. Is that what you're figuring? And he just KANUHA: Two hundred. DEFRANCO: Huh? KANHUA: Two hundred. DEFRANCO: Okay, let's just say two hundred. That's a conservative estimate on not knowing what you're really doing and whether it's even going to go that direction. But it's still 200 thousand dollars you're putting in place, supposedly hoping that the other people get approved and do something. Right? And, and in the long run, and in the overview that may be where you can save money doing it that way, and be better for the environment, right? Putting in septic systems is not a great answer for anything. But it's 25 EXHIBIT F also spending 200 thousand dollars on something that we don't know, you know, for an investor that doesn't know what direction it's actually going to go. So, I can sort of, at this point, sort of see both sides here of what you're bringing up and what you're proposing, but this is what we have to do look forward thinking for our island and what we really want it to be. And we look at you and we go, this is a great idea, it's so much better than that high-density thing, which maybe they could do. This is nice acreage, its maybe organic farms, these are all really good and maybe you'll do water catchment. You know, those are all the positive things, right? And improving, dedicating that whole portion of the road to the, increase the roadway. Those are all really positive things. But this discussion for us is really important about trying to figure this out. So, I mean, if you looked at it like you were going to do 11 places and each of them pays an extra 10 thousand dollars when you sell the lots that would pay you back forI mean that's how you would have to think about it. Right? And then you would have something in place that has the potential of doing something a lot better. You'd be, you'd personally be a lot happier, as you said, connecting to a sewer. And why you couldn't just take the 10 thousand dollars and pass it on to the people buying your lots. I mean, we're just having a frank discussion here. I'm trying to understand. Yeah. VITOUSEK: Yes, I agree. And, you know, I'm not a real estate guy, but looking at 1- acre lot in this area, I would guess, there's probably people who know a lot better than I do what it would go for, I'd guess you're looking between 400, 500, maybe more, who knows in this day and age. Multiply that by the ten lots, excluding the one that you're going to keep, and you know, five million, that will allow you to build these kind of things that should be fairly standard in the Kona urban corridor. And so, I think passing on that construction of the sewer to have that connectivity and capability is a reasonable ask within the urban corridor and it's not pushing anything out of reach. It is adding up front costs. CHEN: Right. I hear you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, certainly I hear your calculations, but I'm not interested either, but I know, I know before I was trying to buy a lot before, and I know it was very close by. One-acre lots sold for not too long ago, 299. So, I'm not saying thatso, it's a wide, there's a wide you know, variations. You kind of project that, but the upfront cost is the real cost. I put it there and it's just buried with dirt with no use, potentially no use at all is a complete waste of resource for anybody. For the new buyer, make it harder for the new buyer because it'd be cost for the new buyer also. It'd make it harder for people to come here, harder to develop anything. So, it's upfront waste and without any potential. With very uncertainty, at least. 26 EXHIBIT F VITOUSEK: I hear you. I hear you. And, you know, if, if we were looking at development projects for nice doctors to come and live in, it's a slam dunk. You know? But we have to treat everything as if it's out of our control CHEN: I appreciate that. VITOUSEK: --and that you may sell it tomorrow to somebody else. So, we, we have no assurances of who we're dealing with, so all we CHEN: Right, right, right. VITOUSEK: --can deal with is the paper that's left behind and the conditions. CHEN: Right. I, likewise, I totally appreciate the committee and everybody in the community trying toI'm along with you. Trying to make the community better. A good place for our future generations. So, I'm totally with you. So, I really appreciate the work you guys do to try to make, you know, make it work, work for the community, make the place better. That's all good. I'm all for that. I'm very conscious about what's best for the environment and for the community. We're looking to that, how to, looking to feasibility. Otherwise, if it's not feasible, then we couldn't do it. As I said, we couldn't do it we'll just have to revert to the original A-5 zoning,just make it two lots. Which, I think is a little bit too much for me. I don't need that big a land. I only need one to three to do my thing, right? It's just a complete waste for the community resource, in my mind. So, I'm very conscious in terms of resource. I think that would be a complete waste for precious land for the community. Even if that's what I'll have to do and then it's not good for the community. DEFRANCO: Yeah. Mike, I just want to make a comment too. It's, he's not a developer. Right? I mean, this is, this is what is also different about this project. We're working with a gentleman who wants to move here, have a business here. Put in these lots, do something good. He's not a developer who thinks like that. Who's already thinking how to pass it on and, I mean, that's what we're being presented with. That's what we're being shown. It isn't Stanford Carr, it's not—nothing wrong with Stanford Carr, I'm not trying to say that, but I'm just using the name of a developer. CHEN: I'm using my real name. I [unintelligible] do anything. DEFRANCO: [laughs] I know, I know. But that's what's different here, too. We have to see that that's different here. Right? Go ahead. No, we're discussing. KNOWLES: I agree, certainly, but I also think that, you know, our obligation is to sort 27 EXHIBIT F of think about how the development is being planned for the future and put these things together in a way that works for the entire community so that we don't just keep kicking down the road these critical infrastructure concerns. And that, for me, is the constant dilemma when we are entertaining these ideas for developments, is that we do, if we're going to increase the density in this area so that there are more people, then we also have to think about how to serve those families and what the impact of those extra families means on the community infrastructure. So, I, it is this dilemma, and I DEFRANCO: Right, but we're also looking at the law that is saying that they've said that a septic system is okay. They're saying this to us. They've accepted that idea that the septic system is okay. VITOUSEK: Yes, after, after quite a bit. Initially they said that they must connect to the sewer and then they said that they should do it in the small batch system, and then after a long period of time they agreed to that. So, it was clear to me that the preference was not for individual wastewater systems, but rather DEFRANCO: Right, as ours isn't either. VITOUSEK: Yep. DEFRANCO: Right? Okay, we're all on the same page there, but we're also talking with the person who's like putting up the money to do it and he's saying to us that that is prohibitive. So, you know, we—okay. PIPAN: If I may. Department of Environmental Management from the start said require connection to the sewer. And we pushed back on that requirement showing the difficulty and the distances involved and having to go through someone's living room and bedroom to get to the property on the shortest 300-foot route. They replied to that with, "okay, if you don't connect to the sewer, Department of Health says you have to connect to a wastewater treatment plant of your own design and construction." That's not true. We went to Department of Health for their first comment on this project, which they hadn't yet submitted, and they said, "No, we don't require wastewater treatment plant. Septic systems are okay." Department of Health is the ultimate authority here. If I could allow a little bit of latitude here, please, Chair. Earlier this year, the UH Economic Resource, UHERO Research Organization, they published a study measuring the housing burden regulation, sorry, it's a mouthful, of land use regulations here in Hawaii. And they showed that applying this Wharton Index, which is a way to measure the extent of land use regulation in an area in their government drives up the price of housing in that area. We've got over two and a half times the national average median house price here in Hawaii. And of the Hawaii 28 EXHIBIT F County surveyed for this Wharton Index, Big Island was top of the list, and nationally top of the list in land use restrictiveness on developments. So, it's a very, it's a very brief paper, couple pages. Good read. Now they can't say there's causal connection there, but there's a strong correlation in their statistics. So, all of the decisions that you make here, be it well-founded and well-thought out, they affect housing prices beyond here. So, that's just my two cents. VITOUSEK: Yeah, and I completely understand that. Imy perspective is that in instances of affordable housing and attainable housing where you're trying to create a product that median income people can buy. That's where you can make those concessions in order to limit the, the upfront costs that would then limit the price that median income families would have to pay. But a median income family's not going to be buying a one-acre lot in H61ualoa. That's just market-driven truth. It's not going to happen. So, in this case where if a lot's going to be sold at market value, my personal perspective is that we should be following our, our fullest ability to bring that development up to the compliance necessary for the future for environmental management, which would be the minimum requirement of putting in sewer lines and I looked up our sewer line costs a couple years ago, so it's different than it would be now. It was $230 per square foot, or linear foot, sorry. CHEN: Some building costs are now five to seven times [inaudible] now. VITOUSEK: They did. They've gone up. That was, that was couple years ago. CHEN: So, on the cost issue, if I may, one more thing, an actual road to the south part, so the south part neighbor, I know him, he's a very nice guy. He bought that land. He's not going to sell for another—until he dies. He got a probably another 30 or 40 years to go. He's not going to sell ever. And he's using that to develop an eight-acre for avocado trees. He's going to have a farm there. So, he's never going to develop any of these. So even that piece of road is a complete waste. But [indecipherable] to help County [indecipherable] okay, we're going to build that road or, you know, is actual waste but we accepted that. But you have all the waste and adds up with the extra sewer, then it becomes the project is a no-go. PIPAN: So, we've got additional water commitments at 6,000 apiece. The water infrastructure, the road infrastructure, the fair share contribution at $15 plus thousand dollars apiece. It adds up really quickly. VITOUSEK: Such is the nature of development, right? I mean, yeah. 29 EXHIBIT F PIPAN: And, and if VITOUSEK: That's what it is. PIPAN: --if this project can't proceed because it needs sewer, then it has to be a higher density like the previous attempts. We feel like this is the Goldilocks situation where it's very low density, farm lots, many, many people in Hawaii are still on cesspools and that's atrocious. Septic systems are much, much better at treating wastewater than a cesspool. And just given the state of affairs with the County's Department of Environmental Management, the lack of maintenance on the Hilo wastewater treatment plant, putting our whole-hearted faith in that department may be misfounded [sic]. No offense, but it is what it is. VITOUSEK: I will circle back to one thing un-sewer related. There was something that you brought up regarding conditions R through W. About the environmental requirements and the restrictions on what can be done during different seasons, which is something that I am not in favor of including as a condition. I think that, especially on agricultural property conditions are too restrictive on what can be done for agricultural purposes. DEFRANCO: I agree. I'm a farmer too. VITOUSEK: Let me pull up Condition R, to protect any hoary bats in the vicinity of the project, barbed wire fencing shall not be used and woody vegetation over 15 feet in height shall not be removed during bat breeding season, June 1 through September 15. I think those are too restrictive. The language is too restrictive. It doesn't provide enough leeway for agricultural practices, and I think that it is unenforceable. So, I would recommend removing those conditions in favor of language we've used previously about if endangered species are encountered, then proper land and natural resources would be notified and KANUHA: Department of Forestry and Wildlife. VITOUSEK: --a mitigation plan would be created with them. DEFRANCO: Didn't we do that for that other farm up there? VITOUSEK: We did. We've used that language before. DEFRANCO: Yeah. 30 EXHIBIT F VITOUSEK: So, I would, if that's okay with you folks, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion on the floor. Make a secondary motion that those conditions be removed and replaced with the similar condition as was used in Kaloko about, and maybe Christian still has that language. DEFRANCO: That was in May. VITOUSEK: About the if endangered species are encountered then they'd be, appropriate authorities will be notified, and mitigation plans would be KNOWLES: Is this a standard template being put into JACKSON: We have that condition because we crafted it the last time. I don't have it right on hand, but it's a very general condition that addresses the same thing. So, we can use that. But do you want all the endangered species conditions removed? VITOUSEK: I would JACKSON: Could you name off which ones, please? VITOUSEK: R through W. JACKSON: R through W. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Yep. KANUHA: There's no ohia on that property. VITOUSEK: Yep. DEFRANCO: But my question was is that a standard restriction that you put in all things? Like-- DARROW: It's a standard, these are standard comments that we receive from Fish and Wildlife, so. We're just reiterating those comments. JACKSON: I can add on to that. So, typically we don't include it in permits or rezones when the property is somewhat built out, but if it's untouched land, if there's a lot of native vegetation or heavily vegetative property, then we do include this specific conditions. 31 EXHIBIT F VITOUSEK: Okay. And for me, the problem isn't with the initial usage by the developer of when they're going to clear and all that kind of stuff, but what these conditions are maintained down the road then the individual lot owner wouldn't be able to trim their mango trees in July. So, so that's the issue. JACKSON: I understand. So maybe we can reword the standard language to be specific to construction phase? VITOUSEK: Yes. JACKSON: And have some different language for ongoing maintenance of the property. VITOUSEK: Yes. I think that would be the most appropriate. JACKSON: Okay. VITOUSEK: So, that motions made. Is there a second? DEFRANCO: I'll second that motion. VITOUSEK: Okay, all those in favor of amending the original motion? KNOWLES: Aye. DEFRANCO: Aye. KANUHA: Aye. DELA CRUZ: Aye. VITOUSEK: Should we do roll call or is it just affirmative? I think we do roll call, usually, right? ANDREWS: Typically. Yes. May I ask who was the second on that one? VITOUSEK: It was Vice Chair DeFranco. ANDREWS: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay. I guess we're not legally required to do a roll call motion and the vote was unanimous, so a roll call won't be necessary. 32 EXHIBIT F ANDREWS: Thank you, Chair. VITOUSEK: Okay. DEFRANCO: So, further discussion, are we VITOUSEK: How is everybody feeling on, on proposing conditions for requiring the construction of sewer within this project area. Is that something that we want to advocate for now, or is that something that we're going to punt to the County Council? KANUHA: I think the Council should take it up. DEFRANCO: I do, too. KNOWLES: I agree with Kanuha. VITOUSEK: Okay. Okay. Well, the County Council will have a record of our discussion, so they will hear that, and they can make that determination. So, at this point I think we're okay with moving forward with the roll call vote for the primary motion. ANDREWS: Okay and let me just verify that I have recorded what this motion is. Because originally it was a favorable recommendation to County Council, but VITOUSEK: Yep. ANDREWS: --should I alsoMalia this is a question for you, should I include in this motion that it also included amendments into the conditions? HALL: [inaudible] To the amendments-- DEFRANCO: Yes. [Unintelligible crosstalk.] HALL: --previous motion, yeah. VITOUSEK: The previous motion amended the motion on the floor. So, we can just take the ANDREWS: Put it all into this one single motion. KANUHA: Yes. 33 EXHIBIT F VITOUSEK: Yes. ANDREWS: Okay. So, we have then a favorable recommendation with amendments to remove conditions R through W. VITOUSEK: And replace with, but yeah. ANDREWS: And replace with VITOUSEK: It doesn't need to be restated. The motion is for a favorable recommendation. ANDREWS: Okay. VITOUSEK: And that motion's already been amended, so. ANDREWS: Got it. Thank you. Okay. So, Commissioner DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Aye. ANDREWS: Commissioner Knowles. KNOWLES: Aye. ANDREWS: Commissioner Dela Cruz DELA CRUZ: Aye. ANDREWS: Commissioner Kanuha. KANUHA: Aye. ANDREWS: And Chair Vitousek. VITOUSEK: No. And I vote no because I personally believe that it should be established at this time that a sewer should be built in place, but I understand everybody's perspective and wish you the best at the County Council in working out the issue. CHEN: Mahalo. PIPAN: Thank you. 34 EXHIBIT F ANDREWS: With that, the motion does pass four to one. The hearing ended at 2:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kim Tanaka Secretary to Boards and Commissions 35 EXHIBIT F