Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2020/08/04 2018-2020Committee on Planning 27th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i August 4, 2020 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 10:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL Present: Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Ms. Karen Eoff, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Absent & Excused: Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The Chair called Dwight Vicente, who registered to comment regarding Res. 694-20 (Comm. 1013) and Bill 182 (Comm. 1019), and came forward when called. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much, I'll be closing public testimony at this time and moving on to business of the day. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. (There were none.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, Resolutions please. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions. PC -27 August 4, 2020 Res. 694-20: AMENDS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN CODE REQUIREMENTS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2011-1-38 OF THE HAWAII REVISED STATUTES, FOR WEST HAWAII SENIOR LIVING IN NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-5-017:005 Kuakini Highway 75-6099 Corp. seeks exemptions from Condition C and Condition P of Ordinance No. 06-78 and exemptions from certain permit and inspection fees and parking requirements to develop affordable senior housing and care campus rentals. Reference: Comm. 1013 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, can I get a motion to forward Resolution 694-20 to the Council with a positive recommendation? Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend adoption of Res. 694-20. Seconded by Mr. Chung. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I believe that we have a representative for the applicant joining us via Zoom, Ms. Alison Davidson. We also have members from the Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD), Duane Hosaka and Alisa Hanselman here in Hilo Chambers. This project is occurring on the west side. And so, do my colleagues in West Hawaii have any questions or comments on this project? Would you like me to call up Mr. Hosaka to provide overview of negotiations with the applicant? MS. EOFF: I'd like to hear the presentation first. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: By representatives of the applicant? MS. EOFF: No, all of thewhoever's standing by. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. Mr. Hosaka, do you want to come forward? (Note: At this time, Housing Administrator Duane Hosaka and JMY Law Group LLC Real Estate attorney Alison Davidson came forward to address the members of the Committee CHR KIERKIEWICZ: You want to just provide overview of this project and then we can also ask Ms. Davidson to provide some context for the request? MR. HOSAKA: Okay, this is a Kuakini project. The owners are from California. They want to develop on a 14 -acre parcel; provide 100 assisted living units in the Page 2 PC -27 August 4, 2020 first phase. The second phase will be 155 -bed skilled nursing and also provide some workforce housing for the project. I guess in 2014, the project was granted a 201H exemption to Resolution 281-14, and the developers are asking for some exemptions again. So Office of Housing does support this project and hope the Council also can support it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great, thank you so much, Mr. Hosaka. Ms. Davidson, did you want to add anything else? MS. DAVIDSON: I was just checking if Mr. Fuke is in either of the chambers. think he was also going to help present this matter. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, we do have Mr. Sid Fuke here in the Hilo chambers. MS. DAVIDSON: Okay, so I guess I can defer to him on giving some of the overview for the project, but I just wanted to kind of introduce the matter. I represent Kuakini Highway, the landowner. And basically, they acquired title to the property back in 2013 and had leased the property to the then proposed developer, via a ground lease. Just as a matter of background under the terms of that ground lease, it was actually terminated for the lessee failure to meet certain obligations. And therefore, you know, we took back, we cancelled the lease. The landowner did. Subsequent to that, litigation ensued between my client and the prior lessee, which kind of put things on hold. The litigation was ultimately settled in 2016 and my client is now the current developer and trying to move the project forward. So I guess I don't mind turning it over to Mr. Fuke who can kind of help give additional background. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: That's great, thank you Ms. Davidson. We appreciate you joining us today. MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you so much for the opportunity. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha Sid, good to see you. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Good morning Madam Chair and members of this body. As Ms. Davidson had mentioned, I'm here to provide some general land -use related type of background for this body. It's a 14 -acre property and it fronts Kuakini Highway. And I'm sure all of you are familiar with the Kona Hillcrest Subdivision and the Pottery Terrace. So the Page 3 PC -27 August 4, 2020 property is basically located immediately to the south of the Pottery Terrace area. On the makai side of the property you have the Kona Sea Villas condominium, and there's also the Kahakai Estates Subdivision. So it's kind of like within the developing residential area. Back in 2006, the property was rezoned into the RM -2.5 (Multi -Family Residential) zone, but the applicant then was called Lava Kuakini, LLC. And they had proposed 212 multiple -family residential units, 50 percent of which would be affordable. And as Ms. Davidson had indicated, the property was subsequently leased to West Hawaii Health, LLC. And they came in for a 201H exemption at that time, which was approved by the Council. What the West Hawaii Health wanted to do was to construct a 291 -bed facility, 147 of which would be affordable. Of the 291 units, they would have like about 96 assisted living, 160 skilled nursing, and approximately 35 employee housing. The resolution was approved in March of 2014, and as Ms. Davidson indicated, due to nonperformance, the lease was terminated. And so now it fell back to the original owner. So they're coming in with an amendment to that resolution. They want to take over the project, and basically the concept is the same. They want to do an assisted living. The one additional component is, they now want to add what is called like a Memory Care. So it would be an assisted living with a memory care facility and a skilled nursing facility. The number of beds; the 50 percent certified affordable rates would still apply as in the original situation. The planned project would be developed in three phases. The first phase would consist of the assisted living memory care facility, the 101 residents, more or less. The second phase would be the skilled nursing facility, 155 plus or minus units of beds. And the last phase would be onsite employee housing. The projected estimate for the entire project, less the employee housing component is about $54 million. From a purely planning and land use prospective looking at the infrastructure situation, for the most part from a drainage standpoint, the site is zoned X. Only a small portion is Zone AE. So essentially, it's outside of the floodway. They've developed a preliminary drainage plan which consists of the use of drywells and the current owner has revised their plans to show that all of the improvements would be outside of the floodway, the Zone AE. There is an existing sewer line fronting Kuakini Highway. The project would connect to the sewer line. Based on the traffic study that was done and completed in 2016, which was approved by the Department of Public Works, the Page 4 PC -27 August 4, 2020 recommended access would be a dedicated left turn lane into the property from Kuakini Highway. They have at least 50 water units which would be adequate for the project, both phases. The Water Department actually had indicated given the nature of the assisted living/skilled nursing facility, you know, the water consumption is not similar to like a normal residential unit, it's considerably less. So the developer submitted a Water Calculation Study, and that study was then used to determine the adequacy of the water commitments that the project is currently allocated. They did have like an Archeological Inventory Survey done. One burial was found on the site. That burial site will be preserved. The site plan was developed to kind of reflect that preserved feature. There was a Phase I Environmental Report prepared way back when, and that study basically concluded that there was no contaminants that would affect the development of this site, and thus, obviated the need for any Phase II type of study. In conjunction with the current amendment, the application was forwarded to all of the different government agencies ranging from Planning to Health, and Public Works. None of them have raised any adverse comments to the proposed amendments. So what the current owner is requesting is like exemptions from the conditions that were imposed as part of the original Kuakini Lava Lava project back in 2004. So the exemption would be, first of all, the construction timetable, which was already considered on the existing resolution. They wanted to modify the access from Kuakini Highway without being constrained by the proposed Alii Parkway. And that pretty much has been addressed, as I mentioned earlier, with the conclusion of the Traffic Study excepted by the Department of Public Works saying that, you know, having a dedicated left -turn lane from Kuakini pretty much addresses that issue. They wanted to have an exemption from the submittal of a flood study. And we noticed also, Madam Chair, that you had proposed an additional amendment. And I think that the additional amendment is fair, because obviously the 201H or the County cannot exempt any of the federal statutes, and the existing conditions right now calls for if you're going to do anything within the floodway, then you'd require a CLOMAR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) amendment, and you know, you can't override—and CLOMAR is a federal statute, so you can't override that, so I think that's totally acceptable. The existing resolution also exempted the set-aside of a one -acre active park area. And obviously, since the project is going to be geared for a skilled nursing facility Page 5 PC -27 August 4, 2020 that kind of activity is not really needed. There's also the exemption from the fair share requirement, and also the future impact fee if one is developed. Those are all conditions of the existing zoning ordinance that the applicant is proposing to seek exemption from. The other things that were already expressed in the original resolution was to, you know, exempt the RM -2.5 zoning designation to an RM -2 to allow for the additional density. The other amendment was to gain exemption from the concurrency requirements of the Kona Community Development Plan, and specifically as it relates to the Zoning Code, to exempt the height requirement from a maximum of 45 to 48 feet; to relieve the parking requirements for the skilled nursing facility from 78 parking to 50, and to exempt also the requirement for Use Permit, you know, for any medically related type of activity. And lastly, was of course, obviously the exemption from the standard fees like grading, grubbing, and building permit fees. There was, you know, after having reviewed all of the different conditions, I had discussed with the owner -developer that there was probably like another exemption. It's more like a superfluous exemption, and that would be from Condition E of the existing ordinance, which right now requires the submittal of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report prior to the issuance of plan approval. Because normally, you know, the Zoning Code requires that when you have a traffic study, that there's a "shelf life" of one year. That's if plan approval is going to be applied for like today, and given the fact that the traffic study was approved in 2016, there is a possibility it could be interpreted that you're going to need to have an updated traffic study done. Quite honestly, I don't believe that's needed because the study was done, you know, based upon the perceived impact of the former project as well as this current project, which is essentially the same in concept. And the conclusion then was just a dedicated left turn intersection at the Kuakini Highway. So that should be sufficient. But just to make sure that in the course of review for planned review, that the Planning staff, you know, doesn't take it upon themselves to say that, "Oh, you're going to need to have an updated traffic study." So we just wanted to make that for the record that it would be cleaner. I think if the other requested exemption was from Condition E. So having said that, if there are any questions that the members of the Council have, I'd be more than happy to answer. Otherwise, Ms. Davidson is there also. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Do we have any questions or comments? Page 6 PC -27 August 4, 2020 MS. EOFF: Madam Chair? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, go ahead Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Well, first this is just technical, but in the reso that we're looking at, about the third "Whereas" down. It references the property as being originally rezoned by Ordinance 281-14. Everywhere else it's referenced as Resolution 281-14. So I think that might be a typo. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, thank you. I was talking to OHCD earlier, and it actually should read Ordinance 06-78. So yeah, I'll be submitting an amendment. Thank you for also catching that. MS. EOFF: Okay. And then okay, so in 2014, I do remember approving this 201H project, but somehow, and I think just need a little memory jog, I thought that the location was designated over by the Pines at that time. There was some kind of confusion between the two sites. It's two separate projects? MR. FUKE: I'm sorry, you know, I don't know anything about that original application, but my review of the zoning ordinance, you know, Ordinance No. 06-78, it specifically pointed out to the site. And the site is basically immediately adjacent and south of the, you know, the Hillcrest Subdivision and the Pottery area. MS. EOFF: Okay, so I guess—Annie's shaking her head, so I think the other one that we also approved was just for a different project; different site, but similar senior living and skilled nursing facility. Okay, thank you. That clears that up. And okay, well thank you, that's all I had for right now. I think we have to just determine whether these exemptions are all okay or if there's any issues with any of the exemptions from a department. I'll yield at this time if anyone else may have questions. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Anyone else in Kona? Go ahead, Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, and I'm not sure who would answer this, but you know, looking at these exemptions being requested right now, as much as those of us who live here knows that Kuakini Highway floods like gangbusters when there's a heavy rain situation. And what's the justification of no exemption from a flood study? Because it says, "No structure is built in or along the floodways not disturbed." But what is the reason for, I think that's kind of like a general requirement when you're building a house, the first question is, "Are you in a flood zone?" So that's my one question for now, is the reason for the flood study exemption. Page 7 PC -27 August 4, 2020 MR. FUKE: Yeah, Condition P right now in the ordinance reads as follows, "The applicant shall submit a flood study prepared by a licensed professional civil engineer for the Waiaha Drainageway within the subject property to the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any construction permit." I guess the question over there is that, you know, whether you need to prepare a drainage study. You know, specifically dealing with the Waiaha Drainageway, because the Waiaha Drainageway is an extensive drainage system that's mauka-makai. And if you're proposing no activity within the identified drainageway, then the question becomes, do you necessarily need to do a study specifically of that? I think what's important is to have a drainage study to make sure that your project does not adversely impact or contribute to the drainage system. So having said that, under normal—you know, because this is not a requested exemption that the developer must still apply for a plan approval. And as part of the plan approval process, there is a requirement that you submit a site drainage plan that has to be approved by the Department of Public Works. And the rationale behind that is just to make sure that your project doesn't generate any adverse impact to properties, you know, to your project itself as well, and more critically, to properties downstream of yours. So there is no absolute way of getting away from preparing a drainage plan, you know, for the project. The issue, however, is whether you need to have a drainage study that addresses a broad, you know, like a drainage system. And that might be a little bit too onerous for a project of this nature. MS. DAVID: Okay, thank you, Mr. Fuke. That kind of answers my question, but looking at the comments received from the Board of Education, there was a question in there that they were not sure whether—or the application did not indicate whether families and children would be allowed to live in employee housing. So they couldn't comment regarding the impact on the schools that currently serve the area. Meaning, I guess, if they are intending to have the 35 to 40 family units to include children, then you know, the question would be impacts onto the existing schools, Kahakai, Konawaena Middle, and Konawaena High. So there was no reference in the that was not answered. So do you have an answer to that? The multi -family units including children? MR. FUKE: Oh sure. Yeah, as I mentioned earlier, the projects as conceived would be developed in three phases. You have the assisted living memory care facility would be the first phase. The second phase would be the skilled nursing facility. And the third would still be optional, and that would be the housing for the employees, you know, up to 35 units. Page 8 PC -27 August 4, 2020 The project, however is constrained by the amount of water commitments right now. The site is allocated only a total of 50 water units. And that 50 water units based on studies done by the developer and submitted to DWS (Department of Water Supply). The water commitment can support only up to the first phase and the second phase. It cannot support the additional desired, you know, employee housing on the site. I would imagine, you know, having said that, if the water situation should change such that the project would be able to develop employee housing on the site, I am just guessing, but I would image that it would be hard to discriminate only singles to live in the apartment. Or at least if you're married and not having any children. So the short answer to your question would be that if apartment units for employees are constructed on the site, that "yes" there could be children also living on the property as well. MS. DAVID: Okay, thank you. Well, there's quite a few questions that I have, only because the exemptions being asked for is pretty much—quite a few. And my question is how come they're asking for all these exemptions, grading, grubbing; flood study. I can understand the park and stuff, but yeah, the site improvement stuff, like the grading and grubbing permit, I'm not sure what the explanation is or would be for exempting a project on 14 acres for grading or grubbing permits. So for now, I'm just going to listen to some of the other questions from Council Members, as I digest the slew of requested exemptions. Chair, I'm going to yield for now, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, great questions. Thanks, Ms. David. Anyone else in Kona? Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Aloha. Yeah, what an interesting opportunity to make some comments about this list of exemptions. You know, my first term in office I had the opportunity to meet with a number of different people about a number of different issues that are vital to District 7. And this property actually lies, not only right within District 7, but kind of right smack dab in the middle of a lot of the issues that people have come to talk to me about. One of them, were the residents of the Kona Sea Villas, which is kind of a condo townhouse project. But actually, it's just across on the makai side of Kuakini Highway. Residents of this development came and were extremely concerned. They've had massive flooding incidents with storm water rolling down Kuakini Highway and through the property that I believe we are looking at right now. And it exceeds the capacity of the Waiaha Drainage system, and has caused severe damage already to their units. They came to me for some help trying to figure out how to mitigate and move that water so it didn't come directly through their residences again. So I find it incredibly concerning that we have a Page 9 PC -27 August 4, 2020 development here asking for an exemption to not have to participate in a study that looks at that. On the mauka side of the property, just across the highway, there's currently a major FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) floodway project happening that has been under construction for over a decade now with unfortunately, we're having trouble getting any responses or any deadlines put on that project in requirements that it be completed. And there's grubbing and grading happening on that property. There's industrial uses and Ag zoning. There are all kinds of challenges that are affecting neighboring residents, both mauka and makai; and north and south of that property. And it's all connected to this Waiaha Drainage area, which does not unfortunately, Mr. Fuke, currently have the capacity to withhold and withstand the amount of water that's currently running there. In fact, last weekend my phone and email blew up with videos from concerned constituents as they watched raging waterfalls full of mud and rock and dirt come down through that Waiaha Drainageway all the way up from Hualalai Road and through this FEMA project that was not mitigating that flow; was not slowing it down and was not stopping the debris from flowing into the ocean where we currently have the Alii Drive Culvert project, thankfully almost in completion. But I have video and photos of the amount of soot and residue that was deposited directly into the ocean, directly on our reefs. So there's still some research into figuring that out. Thankfully, we didn't get hit by a hurricane in the last week because that too would have forced more pressure on this drainageway area. So I have serious concerns about any project coming in and asking for any kind of exemptions in this capacity because not only does it have the potential to harm structures already built in that areaI just think it behooves us to take a look at and I apologize you said that the drainage study and any of the flood studies were done most recently, but I think it doesn't take much following the news that we are having unprecedented rainfall here on west side of the Big Island, and it's putting extra strain on our drainageways. And yes, we need affordable housing; yes, we need long-term care for our kupuna, and yes we want to take care of all of them. But I don't think we want to set ourselves up to put projects or allow projects to be created in areas without taking a good hard look and considering water goes where it wants and we all know how much damage water can do. And so, I think it behooves us to take into consideration the wisdom in allowing for exemptions for grading and grubbing and stockpiling. Page 10 PC -27 August 4, 2020 I'm already in District 7 dealing with big challenges with other residents in surrounding areas who are being consistently and unendingly it seems, affected by grubbing and grading permits that just continue to be extended, as well as flooding. And our kuleana and our responsibility to make sure is that we take a look at things before we approve exemptions. So that's my mana`o in this right now and being a representative for District 7 and having heard hours and hours of concerns from people that live in that area. And I'm happy to share photos and videos from the most recent flooding that came through the Waiaha drainage area. And you know, it will happen again. So I have serious concerns here. With that I yield. MS. EOFF: Madam Chair, I just have one more technical question I forgot to ask, while I have Mr. Fuke here. Mr. Fuke, is the name of the project Kuakini Assisted Living or is it West Hawaii Senior Living? There's two different names. MR. FUKE: Ms. Eoff, I'll defer that to Ms. Davidson. MS. DAVIDSON: I think the name of the application that was submitted is Kuakini Senior Living. That's the current name for the project. MS. EOFF: Okay, I think it says, yeah, Kuakini Senior Living. But the reso says West Hawaii Senior Living. I thought I also saw a Kuakini Assisted Living title somewhere too. So I'm just confused. MS. DAVIDSON: No, you have a good point. I think the clarification in the reso needs to be corrected to conform to the application. MS. EOFF: Okay, let's see. MR. FUKE: Ms. Eoff, before you leave that, I'm just looking at the 201 application package and the reference on that, the project name is Kuakini Senior Living. MS. EOFF: On the reso? MR. FUKE: No, on the 201 application that was submitted by the applicant. The project name was identified as Kuakini Senior Living. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Eoff, are you referring to what's in the title of the resolution? It does say West Hawaii Senior Living. MS. EOFF: Yes. Page 11 PC -27 August 4, 2020 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, we can make the change to Kuakini, because that would be appropriate. MS. EOFF: That should be changed in the current Res. 694. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Correct, to Kuakini. MS. EOFF: Okay. MS. DAVIDSON: I can also make the clarification on one of the requested exemptions with respect to the grading and grubbing. I think what we're looking for actually is an exemption that is applicable to the fees involved. Not necessarily going through that permit process, but the fees just to make the project, you know, able to pencil out financially. So I think the request is for an exemption from the related fees on those permits. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: That is correct. Thank you, Ms. Davidson. Ms. Eoff, anything else? MS. EOFF: I'll yield for now. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. Here in Hilo, I just want to check with my colleagues. Any questions or comments? If I could call up Director Yee to maybe provide some context around the 201H process? There's some questions around, you know, requested exemptions. And it's just really interesting because these resolutions are tied to a preexisting ordinance. So if you could just provide some context because this is my first 201H that I'm reviewing. Just some context around the process. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Michael Yee came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to enlighten you much more. I haven't had a great experience with 201H either. So, what's your specific question? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Questions have been raised around exemptions for a development. And it's my understanding per the statute that because it is an affordable housing project, developers have the ability to seek exemptions from you know, various County codes and statutes and other agency requirements. MR YEE: Which is not uncommon for most jurisdictions throughout the U.S. to want to provide incentives for the building of affordable housing, right? So you create some relief from certain costs. So you drive down the cost of the project, Page 12 PC -27 August 4, 2020 so that the end result will be it's more affordable for the residents, right? That's the goal. So in our 201H Code it does provide plenty exemptions that can be asked for by a developer. Again, I want to highlight that they can ask. They should provide, you know, reasons for them. I often have a lot of folks just kind of want to cite that they should get these exemptions without providing a ton of explanations for them. So I often will push back for the explanations why should be given relief. You know, I wasn't around for this specific ordinance. I think it's always a give and take around what's the benefit to the public. It can't always just be, it's a cost savings, right? Then we're going to have every cost savings, you know, questioned brought forth to want to be exempted from to lower that cost. You know, I find it a bit disturbing in our Code that it only requires a 20 -year time commitment. I'm not sure you're always going to find that short of a time commitment in a lot of other jurisdictions. And so when you ask for relief from costs that may only—you're only committed for 20 years. You know, so if there are impacts of that project, let's say a fair share has to do with the impact. You're going to have lasting impacts, so should you be given relief to all these things if you're only committing 20 years? That's philosophical kinds questions that we should, you know, certainly ask at time. So those are some of my just general reflections. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great, thank you. You know, Mr. Fuke, the director actually went to a place that I wanted to ask a question around. You know, affordable housing is an issue, and in taking a look at a number of the affordable housing units that would be available for this particular project, it's 102 out of 256 units. And it's only committed for 20 years. And so I wonderI'd like to negotiate here, would the landowner be open to having all of these units remain affordable in perpetuity? We are providing a lot of exemptions and exceptions here. MR. FUKE: I can't answer that question. Maybe Ms. Davidson can, you know, on behalf of the landowner. But I think that, you know, if you're looking at the project for which this 201H is requesting, is not a conventional residential project. If it were like a conventional rental housing project, because under the current County Affordable Housing Code, if you're going to commit to an affordable unit, then you need to maintain it for 20 years. So if you're seeking an exemption for a conventional multiple -family rental housing, for example. Then I can see it would be appropriate to say, like okay, it has to be not 20 years, but 40 years, or something along those lines. In this situation here the 201 application is specific to the request the proposed use Page 13 PC -27 August 4, 2020 rather. The proposed use is for an assisted living/skilled nursing facility. That's what you're looking at. So to have a condition that would be like in perpetuity, I really don't know how to address that. It's like saying, like Life Care Center or like Hale Anuenue. If you're coming in for a permit, you have to assure us that it has to be there in perpetuity. The question becomes, you know, how long is perpetuity? Is it a minimum of 20 years, 40 years? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Life of the project? MR. FUKE: Yeah. I think it's difficult. Again, you know, if you're doing a conventional affordable rental housing project? I can see, you know, like maybe increasing the limitation from 20 years to 30 years, or whatever the case might be. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Davidson, do you want to weigh in? Only because I'm taking a look at the monthly rents for this project, and granted it's for assisted living. But market value is about $3,900 a month. And when you factor in area and medium income, you know, it's a lot less for folks to have to pay, and that ranges betweenI think I saw $700 to $1,900. And so that's certainly a lot more affordable. I don't know how many kupuna could afford $4,000 a month. Do you want to weigh in? MS. DAVIDSON: I think the decision's ultimately going to be my clients, the landowners. But I think, I know that they're working hard to try and get the project to actually pencil out and be profitable. Even at the current, you know, 50 percent the number of units that are set aside to be affordable. So I think, you know, it's extremely challenging to get the project to actually be feasible for them. And so I think any additional burdens on that, you know, feasibility and affordable requirement I think it is going to be very challenging for them. But you know, that's definitely something that we can discuss with them. But I know at this point, the numbers are very hard to pencil out looking at the project as a whole for them. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. MR. FUKE: Can I just follow-up on that question because are you referring to that clause on the "Whereas"? It states that, "No less than 50 percent of the total residential accommodations..." Are you referring to that? Because if the concern is like, you know, like to have it in perpetuity, my only suggestion is probably keeping it 50 percent affordable for the life of the project. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, thank you, Mr. Fuke. Page 14 PC -27 August 4, 2020 MS. VILLEGAS: Ashley, sorry, just when you're finished I just had a couple more questions. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, of course, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Returning to the traffic study, Mr. Fuke, did you say that they are going to do a traffic study or they already have one? MR. FUKE: There was a traffic study done in conjunction with the 2014 201H, you know, subsequent to adoption of the 201H package in 2014. And that traffic study was prepared subsequently after a number of iterations were approved by the Department of Public Works in 2016. And the study concluded that for the nature of the project, a dedicated left turn lane in from the Kuakini Highway was sufficient to mitigate any traffic impact associated with the project. If members of this body want to receive copies of the report, I would be more than happy to download, print and provide it to this body. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. So there is no access from the upper highway then? It's just from Kuakini? MR. FUKE: That is correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So another one of the amazing meetings I got to have with constituents of District 7, who happen to also live in the complex that would be across the street from this project, is their challenges at Kona Sea Villas there's the Kona Sea Villas that went in there, and there's a Wyndham time share project that also have access to Kuakini Highway. And according to people that live there, they can sit for a half hour trying to get out. Because when Kuakini Highway is up and rolling in the morning and in the afternoons and evenings when people are coming and going, that's one of our major thoroughfares. It's one of the only ones without stoplights until you get further into town. But the intersection that's there right now is also—it has been quite a hazard where Walua Road comes up and intersects. Then we've got another Pottery Terrace area. And Hillcrest, which is going to be just north of this project. So we're looking at a roadway that is already a big challenge when it comes to those that already live there. For getting off and on that road. So I have real concerns about adding another project and more traffic at this point, without infrastructure improvements. And a left-hand turn only, that's going to further back traffic up there. So I have a lot of concerns about the feasibility of—you know, traffic is all different right now, right, because we don't have the people that we do at other Page 15 PC -27 August 4, 2020 times, but it also makes this a really opportune time to improve infrastructure. And I just have serious challenges about putting something like this in this area without improvements to the infrastructure, because I think this is going to very negatively impact, not just those that live in the already existing projects and neighborhoods around there but there are serious safety concerns already with the kind ofI think it's a five -way stop. There's one at Hillcrest. Anyway, there's a lot of challenges. I don't know if you're familiar with this area, but there's a lot of challenges already there. So I have reservations about the approval of just a left-hand turn entrance for this project. I'm grateful that they weren't putting an entrance or exit up on the highway, because Lord knows that highway has its own set of issues, until we can execute infrastructure improvements and widen that road as well. So, thank you. I just respectfully would disagree with DPW's report on that traffic study and what that road is capable of actually handling, and speaking, you know, for my constituents and those that sit in the area. That's why I would disagree. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, please Mr. Fuke, go ahead. MR. FUKE: I think that there's couple of things, I think. One, we need to understand that the site is already zoned for multiple -family, and so the existing RM -2.5 zoning with these conditions which were already entitled, the developer then proposed to have 212 conventional multiple -family residential units over there. When the traffic study was done, the traffic study was done predicated upon a lesser traffic impact type of use. That is to say, having like an assisted living facility or a memory care facility; skilled nursing. And so it was based upon that, you know, a project that would generate less traffic than a conventional apartment type of unit. And thus, the conclusion was if you're going to do that, then the mitigation would be only a left -turn intersection would be required. I live up in the Kaumana area and recall when the Regency skilled nursing facility that permit was going through, there was a number of concerns raised by the surrounding property owners, as well as people who live in the upper Kaumana area. Like, they were fearful of the traffic. And the argument was made by the developer, and I'll confess, I was the consultant for that. Kind of making the case that, it would be nice if the traffic were really heavy, because then that way, people who really needed to see, you know, social contact or interaction with family members, you know, that would happen. But you know, the fact of the matter is like people very infrequently visit those who need to be visited at the skilled nursing or the assisted living facility. Page 16 PC -27 August 4, 2020 So the amount of traffic generated by that facility in Kaumana, the Regency, you know, I travel up and down that road a number of times and very rare, you know, there is a conflict. There's a dedicated left turn in that area which works. All I'm saying is that by background if you were to look at what is already entitled and having 212 conventional multiple -family residential units versus the project of this nature, which has a lot of demand—not only demand but services the community in a different form, and the type of traffic generated would be significantly less in my opinion than a conventional 212 apartment type of unit. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. I appreciate that perspective. I think, you know, because this project is coming back with a significant list of exemptions and requests, we're having this conversation again. And if some of these things have already been decided, you know, I understand that this would be less traffic than a regular multi -family kind of unit complex. However, you know, we have the opportunity now to talk about this. And so, you know, I feel it's my job to represent the concerns of my constituents based on the current status of that road. And you know, ideally there could be a collaboration between State, County, and you know, this private development to improve on that road and have some forward facing impact fees. And we have models of that here on the west side of developers taking the initiative to be responsible for putting in improvement of roads or access ways to better the community as a whole. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that that's, you know, whether or not the project can pencil or not, that doesn't seem to be the nature of this project as there's so many requests for so many exemptions, and once again, reduction in costs being listed as a reason. Mr. Yee are you still in the room? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, the director is here. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Director Michael Yee. You're very familiar with the flooding at the Waiaha Stream and the FEMA project, and all of the challenges that have been surrounding that property, which lies directly mauka of this property. And your experience, and you know, through the last couple years, all the conversations we've had about that property and the flooding and mitigation work and the challenges in that area. Do you think it's wise to approve exemptions for this project when it comes to flooding and drainage in the Waiaha streambed area? MR. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. Good question and I'm afraid I'm not probably the right one to answer that. So I've seen videos over the years, not specifically to this property, but certainly in the area with flooding. And so there's certainly problems with flooding but I can't say specifically what I know of this property. Page 17 PC -27 August 4, 2020 I will add that when it comes to 201H exemptions, you cannot exempt health and safety issues. And so it does raise the questions around the need of a flood study, if there's truly a health and safety issue. I'm not the authority to make that call. You know, that would come out of probably DPW (Department of Public Works). So that would be my comment on that, Council Member. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Director Yee. I appreciate it. So you won't give me just your personal opinion? MR. YEE: No personal opinion. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you, Mr. Yee. With that I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Duane, I was looking at the submittal from your office, and I don't know, I looked at my board, Exhibit 15 Special Site. I believe I'm missing the attachment. Is that the case of my colleagues? Okay, Special Site Classification is the title on the exhibit. So just hoping we can get a copy of whatever that might be to aid in our decision making. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you everyone for being here. Just scanning over this document we have in front of us which is fairly large. And I appreciate Mike Yee's comment regarding an investment group coming in to ask for cost-saving benefits for their project. I ran through the units. Thirty-four of the units are under $1,500 a month and Ashley touched on this as well. Sixty-seven of the units are $3,250 or more. So we can call this affordable because 34 units are under $1,500 a month. But the reality is that 67 units are $3,200 plus. I don't know who that is affordable for especially people on a set budget, our kupuna. And it also makes for a very profitable 20 -year endeavor by the developer. Exhibit 12, there is a discussion of the Waiaha Drainageway and floodway; and also a proposed Alii Parkway Alignment. And Exhibit 18, there was a discussion with the community to develop plans. This were actually the words that were put in by the developer, and it's a question and answer discussion, that they would be developing plans to mitigate water during flooding and work with the County to mitigate that water. But it sounds like the plan now is just to remove the discussion about flooding instead of mitigating water flow. So I find that interesting. They also referred to looking at the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit to help with that floodwater mitigation. But again, it sounds like we're more worried about removing and creating an exception for Page 18 PC -27 August 4, 2020 having to deal with the flood water than we are with dealing with it. My question for anyone who can answer this is, is this development group a nonprofit? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Davidson, did you want to handle that question? MS. DAVIDSON: Sure. The development group is not a nonprofit. They're actually a real estate investment fiduciary manager for Union Labor Pension Trust based out of California. And so, I guess, it's Labor and Construction Engineers' Pension funds that the landowner is the investment manager for. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Included in these exhibits is the—I've got to find it, sorry. Yeah, Kuakini Highway 75-6099 is an exempt organization. Is that right? MS. DAVIDSON: Yeah, for IRS (Internal Revenue Service) purposes, that's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so their tax exempt on this project? Or explain that to me. MS. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry, I'm not able to explain specifically what on this project they would be exempt from in terms of their income tax. I need to check on that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, but there's a lot of questions about this, and there's actually some missing information that we seemed to have come across very frequently. I will definitely be yielding to my Kona counterparts as far as traffic flow and traffic studies. I know there are flooding issues in this area, and we obviously have a drainageway already assigned to this area. I think giving exceptions again based on the cost impact to the developer versus the actual impacts on the residents of the area would not be beneficial, to say the least. And I think there's some outstanding questions that need to be addressed that have been raised today by the Council. I yield for now, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Any other questions or comments? MS. VILLEGAS: I do, Ashley, but I believe Maile would like to speak first. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, one second, I just had Chair Chung turn his light on, so I'm going to give him a turn. MR. CHUNG: Thanks, yeah. You know, I'll just tell you how I look at this thing. And you know, really it becomes a balance. You have, trying to develop Page 19 PC -27 August 4, 2020 affordable housing or senior assisted living facilities versus what could happen if we don't go that direction. Basically, you have the underlying ordinance, right? And what can be built there. So it's just a matter, and you know, that's what we're paid for. You know, it's a policy decision. Where do we want to go and how much are we willing to give up? And you know, a lot of good things have been brought up today. Particularly as they relate to public safety. I think we cannot overlook those things. But there's some other things that we can give up. You know, maybe impact fees and whatever you call those things. What are they? Not impact fees but fair share, right? I mean, you know, we can kind of consider those things. But what I'd like to see maybe going forward, and I know it was provided in some of these—well some information was provided in these exhibits. You know, as they relate to operating costs and the balance sheet. But really, how much are they looking to save with all of these exemptions that they're asking for? And, you know, how it plays into the whole development cost? I mean, of course, it all comes down to their representations, right? And, you know, we trust you, Sidney, because you've been before us many years, but this outfit, they could fudge the numbers. We really don't know, right? But I sure would like to see something like that to give me a better idea. Because they are making representations that they need to lower the cost in order to make this project feasible. So that's just my thoughts right now. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair Chung. Sorry, I was just clarifying with the Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD) about Exhibit 15. And maybe this is a question for Ms. Davidson. OHCD does not seem to have that file in their records. Is that something you could furnish their and my office with? MS. DAVIDSON: Sure, I'd be happy to. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. Thank you. Ms. David, go ahead. MS. DAVID: Oh, thank you. I thought I saw Ms. Lee Loy—did she want to say something, because I know we already spoke and I didn't think she did have a chance. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great, thank you. I just see her light on. I will call on Ms. Lee Loy, and then you, and then Ms. Villegas. Thank you. Go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair and thank you, Ms. David. And I am listening very carefully to my Kona counterparts also. But I did have a couple of questions because everybody seems to be hovering around this flood exemption. Page 20 PC -27 August 4, 2020 Now, Sidney, when the applicant applies through plan approval, plan approval could also place conditions on plan approval, right? Because I also know plan approval also provides conditions for parking, right? Or landscaping? Would it be on the Planning Department to provide a condition of approval to provide a flood study? And then we also talked about the LOMAR or the CLOMAR. And I know that that cannot be exempted because it's a Federal requirement. And I know there is a long timing requirement for the preparation of a LOMAR and a CLOMAR. And then the letter that gets accepted by DPW. Can you help walk us through that piece a little bit? And I'm not trying to provide a safety net. It's a very complex process, and I'm just wondering and speaking to something Ms. Kierkiewicz said, is maybe there's a way to refine some of these exceptions and exemptions to provide the clarity that the community is looking for. And then I just have one concern related to the application fees because we're in the process of updating our building permit process. And so, you right up front, number one, exempt from building permits fees required under Section 5-31 and 5-35. And we're actually going to be moving that to a whole other section in our Admin. Code. So I'm just trying to wonder how we bridge that, you know, but I had a few questions in there, Sidney. So, the plan approval process and then the LOMAR and CLOMAR process. MR. FUKE: Sure. You know, in response to your question about the plan approval process. Assuming that this goes through. Now, before the developer would be able to apply for a building permit, they need to get the Planning Director's approval on what is called a plan approval. And that's already written the Zoning Code. The application requirement for a plan approval calls for a site drainage plan approved by the Department of the Public Works. So that's needed before you can even apply for a plan approval. So in terms of the drainage issues, there already is like this so called safety net review by the Department of Public Works. Then the approved plan then, you know, incorporated in the plan approval plans, given to the Planning Director. The Planning Director reviews that plan, you know, against all of the pertinent conditions or all of the exemptions. And then, and only then, the Director would grant it; approval, you know, subject to conditions or maybe no conditions. And based upon that approved plan approval, with or without conditions, then your next step is to apply for your building permit. When you apply for your building permit, that's another review process where the department would now see the construction plans. They will take out the plan approval sheet and make sure that your construction drawings match up with what's been approved through the plan approval. Page 21 PC -27 August 4, 2020 As far as the building permit fee, my suggestion on that is, you know, just say whatever is the prevailing. You know, whether it's the—right now, you know, it specifically identifies Section 5-31, or whatever. I would just say just whatever prevailing permit fees may be. MS. LEE LOY: And just to clarify, through a plan approval, a flood study would be prepared just for the project, right? And the anticipated flood issues related to the project and not a collective. Because what I hear our Kona Council Members talking about is there's just a bigger flooding issue in the Waiaha Stream area that takes into consideration, like a totality of the area. MR. FUKE: Yeah, so the site drainage plan that has to be approved by the Department of Public Works, you know, they would look at, you know, the engineer, and it has to be prepared by a registered civil engineer, so that engineer would have to look at what's being proposed, look at the existing drainage system, in this case you have the Waiaha drainage system, and then come up with the drainage program that shows how the water generated by that project would be captured on site, and not spread off and impact adversely to adjoining properties, or to increase the flow or the volume of the Waiaha Drainageway. So usually what happens in situations like that is that the developer has to, based on the site drainage plan, you know, it would project you would have like "X" number of water to be generated on the project through your parking area, the roof, and so on and so forth. And then, he would have to come up with, "How do you address that." You know, maybe through a system of dry wells, catch basins, whatever have you. So that's the responsibility of the civil engineer. That plan or study is then given to Public Works. They review, they concur, and if they concur, then Planning Department is happy from the drainage standpoint, I would imagine, yeah. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you, Sidney. And like I said, I'm listening to my Kona colleagues. There clearly is an issue with the drainage, and then traffic. And, you know, Kaumana has Regency. And you're absolutely right, but I think there needs to be more conversation about that. And I just to my Chair, I think there are ways to provide some exceptions, but I think there still needs to be more conversation. Because I am trying to find a balance between providing senior living, affordable housing, and then addressing the impacts to the community. I've seen it done successfully, and I kind of want to see how they did it with the exemption process. And balancing all the different factors that the community is asking for. So with that, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. David, go ahead. Page 22 PC -27 August 4, 2020 MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz for that. Okay, couple questions. The first one, speaking of flooding, so I'm going to ask that question first. And I think, and I probably will need either DPW or OHCD to look into this, I understand and I don't believe 201H process can exempt health and safety. And that raises the question in my mind whether a flood study should be required. So I'm not asking OHCD or DPW to come up with that answer today, because that's unrealistic. So I would just like them to maybe when this comes back, to be prepared to address that question, number one. My second is really not a question as much as it's an observation. Going back to what Ms. Eoff had asked regarding the name of the project on our resolution. Project name on the 201H application reflects Kuakini Senior Living which was confirmed by Ms. Davidson, I believe when that question came up. And then I believe Chair Kierkiewicz, you mentioned that the change to the current reso before us would be amended to reflect Kuakini Senior Living as opposed to West Hawaii Senior Living. Because West Hawaii Senior Living was the project name on the 2014 Resolution 281. So that brings me to my question. Resolution 281-14 with the project name being West Hawaii Senior Living, on the last "Whereas" it states, "If for any reason, an affordable housing project is not constructed on the Property, all conditions of Ordinance No. 06-78 shall thereafter be in effect for the Property." So it would revert back, I'm understanding, without the exemptions. So my question is then is a procedural one. Why are we amending the 2014 resolution that is a totally different project name? And I believe from the explanation on the cancellation of the lease from the lessee and then the owner having to take back the property; and now is coming forward, to me I see two different projects, and my question would be whether—why are we amending an old ordinance when the parties are different; the applicant is different and not starting from this point forward with this applicant and this project meaning the Kuakini Senior Living Project. So that's a procedural question. I don't know, I will probably be asking someone that question, maybe Corp. Counsel. But I find it confusing that we're being asked to amend an old resolution where the players are different. And with this application we're assuming or implementing a whole 201H process that was granted to an entirely different applicant under entirely different situations. And 2014, that's a long time ago, and a lot of things changed in Kona within that period of time. So that's my question. I can't understand how we can actually amend something with different players when the players are not the same. So, I will probably be reaching out to Corp. Counsel and hopefully we can get an answer to that because if there is an issue with that, then this whole process that we're considering today, we might be spinning our wheels. And that's my Page 23 PC -27 August 4, 2020 question, so with that I yield. And I hope we can get more answers the next time we see each other, okay. I yield, mahalo. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I agree. Thanks, Ms. David. I texted Corp. Counsel to let them know that we have some questions and if, you know, Joe or Renee is available that they should come on over to Council so we can ask them some questions. Thank you. Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, thank you, Ms. David, for bringing up that question. Because it actually, well it adds another layer to my next question. And, you know, in the interest of time in this process, and as you know, my colleagues have mentioned, the desire to work collaboratively and to—we've got to find compromises. And the community does need affordable housing and we do need senior living, you know, I would be willing, if you are Mr. Fuke to connect, you know, maybe my recommendation would be to keep this in committee. Since there's going to need to be some amendments to this related to the name. You know, we'll see when we hear from Corp. Counsel about whether or not this is a completely different project based on the differential of names over the years. But we're going to need to do some amendments anyway because the name has to be succinct throughout the documents, is my understanding. And Mr. Fuke would you be willing to sit down with me? I mean I've touched on, you know, the exemptions that I am most concerned about and to talk about those and the potential of removing them. But you know, allowing for some of the other ones. Is that something you would be interested in doing? MR. FUKE: In response to your request. You know, regrettably I'm like one of those "Johnny come lately" cases. I know one of the principles, you know, he used to live in Hawaii and now he's on the mainland. And so he had given me a jingle about a couple weeks ago to say, "I can't come to Hawaii because of this COVID situation so can you come and help out, you know, Ms. Davidson?" And so, you know, the last few days I was just looking through all of that. And quite honestly, this is the first time that I'm going through any 201 applications, so I'm from that standpoint relatively greenhorn. But hearing all of the comments raised, you know, like my friend, you know, his name is Byron Fox. If he were here, I would probably whisper in his ear and tell him like I think that, you know, there are some technical things that still need to be addressed. And so why don't we keep it in this committee and address some of these technical and procedural things. And kind of move it from there, rather than trying to clean it up at the Council level. And in the meantime, what I would like to discuss also with Mr. Fox would be two items. One is, you know, it's like the for real question. For real, you want to get exemption from not doing any drainage or flood study as stipulated in the Page 24 PC -27 August 4, 2020 existing ordinance? And secondly, I realized that you did a traffic study, but maybe you we can concede to do an updated one. You know, or maybe Planning can consider relative to the one you already developed to be sufficient. And you know, have those kinds of conversations with him. You know, I cannot make that commitment. Maybe Ms. Davidson on Oahu, she can probably speak better to your question. But specifically, if given authorization, yes I'll be very happy to sit down. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. So, if I understand correctly, Mr. Fuke what may be best to do today then is to make a motion for postponement for things to be reassessed. And for you to have an opportunity to speak to your client and Ms. Davidson and for these logistical errors to be fixed. And perhaps to, after you speak to your client, you know, for us to be able to talk about some of these exemptions. MR. FUKE: Yeah, perhaps on the substantive, planning related type, probably that discussion would be with myself. But if it relates to questions relating to affordability percentage, and so on and so forth; some of the questions that the Chair had raised, you know, regarding the viability of the project, so on and so forth, I'm going to have to defer that to Ms. Davidson. So having said that, you know, a deferral to just your next committee meeting, I think hopefully between now and before this matter get agendized, that we're going to have a lot of these issues identified and hopefully resolved. MS. VILLEGAS: Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. So do I need to make a motion to postpone? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, I would love to entertain the motion. I just want to make sure we've exhausted the conversation on this before we have the motion. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? Any other questions or comments here in Hilo? I believe Ms. David and Ms. Eoff have provided their comments. Oh, Chair Chung, he'd like to make a statement. MR. CHUNG: Oh, did we make a motion yet? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Not yet. Just seeing if anyone has comments. MR. CHUNG: Okay, I'll just wait. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Villegas moved to postpone Res. 694-20 to August 18, 2020. Seconded by Ms. Eoff. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, Chair Chung. Page 25 PC -27 August 4, 2020 MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I just wanted to make the comment. You know, Mr. Fuke, I really appreciate that imaginary conversation you had with your client. And, you know, I did state earlier we've known you for a long time, so we trust you. And again, I reiterate, you know, that only enhances my standing of you in your sensible approach to all of this. So, thank you very much. MR. FUKE: You're very welcome. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions or comments on the motion before us to postpone? Ms. Villegas, I would just ask that you keep in communication with the Office of Housing and Community Development as well, as I'm going to be leaning on them to be making the updates to the resolution that is before us. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, will do. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Anyone else? Okay seeing no other questions or comments, we have a motion on the floor to postpone. All in favor, please say Ic aye. Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Res. 694-20 to August 18, 2020, to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote. (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Poindexter and Richards — 2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Resolution 694-20 will be heard at the August 18'h Planning Committee meeting. Thank you, Ms. Davidson we will be in touch. MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if we could move to Bills for Ordinance. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Page 26 PC -27 August 4, 2020 Bill 182: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 09-159 WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM AGRICULTURAL — 5 ACRES (A -5A) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — 30,000 SQUARE FEET (RM -30) AT KEAUHOU, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-8-010:101 (Applicant: Kona Country Club, Inc.) (Area: 51.058 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment, which would allow a five-year time extension to Condition D (Time to Complete Construction). The applicant plans to develop 29 single-family dwellings, including a recreation center. The property is located mauka of the Mamalahoa Highway Bypass, between the highway and the Kona Country Club mauka golf course. Reference: Comm. 1019 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) ; and Comm. 1019.1: From Planning Director Michael Yee, dated July 16, 2020, transmitting the draft transcript from the Leeward Planning Commission's June 18, 2020, meeting. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you Mr. Clerk, can I have a motion to forward Bill 182 to the Council with a positive recommendation? Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 182 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Chung. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Would the applicant and/or their representative please come forward? (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha, Sid. MR. FUKE: Hi again. This is like Sid Fuke Day, I guess. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: To make up for all the months we haven't seen you. MR. FUKE: You know, it's pretty a straight forward situation. The property was rezoned back in 2009, and you know, we know that came in the throes of the so-called major recession in 2008. And we're still trying to recover, and Mr. COVID sticks his head out again, and so we don't know when we'll come out. But, anyway since 2009, the applicant did almost all of the soft things. They got approval of an archeological inventory survey. They got an approved data Page 27 PC -27 August 4, 2020 recovery plan; burial treatment plan, preservation plan, so on and so forth. They paid the fair share. They fulfilled affordable housing. They did everything. They got an approved plan approval. And then when they're ready to do it, they didn't have enough money. And so actually, you know, the project was designed to be like a high-end multiple -family, single-family residential type of project. No more than 29 or 30 units. And they were going to do; some of it was going to be timeshare. And then in the meantime, short-term vacation rental, because it's just mauka of the golf course. Well, the ordinance passed, and now he learned that unfortunately, vacation rentals are not allowed in that area. So I think that, you know, he's kind of like reassessing what's best for the property, but nevertheless I think he wants to do a project even if it's going to be a single-family or multiple -family; 29 units on the property. So he's requesting an additional five-year time extension, actually to the year 2024, to be able to start and complete the project. The Planning Commission and the Director had both recommended approval. There is no Administrative time extension associated with this proposed amendment. So if the developer can't make it within the allocated time, then he has to go through the same process again. So we ask for your favorable consideration of this extension request. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Director Yee is also here from Planning if there are any questions for him. Any questions or comments from my colleagues? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, please. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. This is another fun one in my district. Mr. Fuke can you confirm? So I'm just having a little bit of trouble with the map here, and if I'm gauging this correctly, this was actually the mauka golf course, correct? MR. FUKE: No, it's not the mauka golf course, it's sandwiched between the mauka golf course. So if you look at the zoning map, you know, that's attached to the ordinance. You know, those areas that's designated as Open would be where the former mauka Kona County Club Golf Course is situated. MS. VILLEGAS: So this is over by the Holua Slide? MR. FUKE: No, it's kind of considerably south of that. You can see the Holua Slide. Again, if you're looking at the same map, there's like a finger that runs Page 28 PC -27 August 4, 2020 mauka from Alii Drive, just kind of close to Kaluna Street. That's the Holua Slide. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, got it. MR. FUKE: So if you traveled, you know, that so-called bypass highway, the access the property has already been improved by the developer. You can kind of see it's a new road with curb -gutter -sidewalk leading from the bypass to the property. So that's how they're going to secure their access. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, and it's surrounded by the AG -5 on the makai side? MR. FUKE: Open on the mauka, yeah. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, and I'm sorry, you said the Open was the MR. FUKE: Used to be the former golf course. I said former Kona County Club mauka golf course. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, and I apologize, it's hard to hear you on this side, especially with the mouth covering. So I apologize for asking the same question that you may have already gone over with. Okay, I'll yield right now, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else in West Hawaii? No? Anyone here in the Hilo Chambers? If not, I'm going to move straight to a vote. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, I have more questions. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, go ahead, Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, Mr. Fuke, now in this ordinance, the things that are being changed; B is crossed out, "Prior to the issuance of water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant, it's successors or assigns shall submit the anticipated..." So basically, it's giving an extension of time, so you don't need to have all that until the charges are paid in full. Is that kind of, you know, there's a lot of things that have been marked out in here. And I, excuse my glean over, but there are a number of important things here like a waste management plan, archeological inventory. MR. FUKE: I think those are very pertinent questions. And the reason why a lot of these conditions are being proposed for deletion is because they've already been fulfilled. And so, you know, leaving them on the books would be kind of like, you know, it's more editorial. So, you know, it's just trying to do a cleanup. Page 29 PC -27 August 4, 2020 So relative to the water, the commitments were already prepared. So they're kind of like good to go. What this condition basically states is that, you know, if your project changes such that you're going to need additional water, then you have to go back again to the Water Department and secure your additional water before the Planning Department will review and approve a revised plan approval. And if you look at Condition M, you know, on Page 3, Solid Waste Management. Well, that's already been done. The AIS (Archeological Inventory Survey) has already been done. And (Conditions) N, O, P, they're already completed. The fair share impact fee was already paid. This provision is just left there, because in the event there is an adjustment in terms of the number of units; maybe from 29 to 30, then it makes clear that you have to pay the balance. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you for that. So to put it in layman's terms, so essentially, this is requesting a time extension for another five years for this project before it has to go, you know, basically happen? However, I'm seeing here in (Condition) T(5). It says, "If that the applicant(s), successors, or assigns should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Department shall submit the request for the amendment to the change of zone and the SMA Use Permit to the Planning Commission and the County Council for appropriate action." Because this has already gone through a number of extensions, correct? MR. FUKE: What that condition is saying is that, if you can't complete it within the five years of extension that this Council hopefully grants, then if you need more time, you're going to have to come before us and put your hands out again for an extension. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, how many times has this project been extended? MR. FUKE: This will be the second time. The first time was an Administrative extension granted by the Planning Director in 2014 to December of 2019. MS. VILLEGAS: So it expired a year ago? MR. FUKE: Yeah, the application was filed prior to its expiration, however. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, that's great to hear. Thank you. Because that's been one of the challenges, is that their extensions expire and then they're coming back, and it becomes there's that gap in-between that seems to create a lot of questions and concerns. Thank you, Mr. Fuke for explaining that and for your patience with me. MR. FUKE: You're very welcome. Page 30 PC -27 August 4, 2020 MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sid, I just had a question about, it looks like there were some archeological sites found there. Have they taken care of the work that was supposed to be done in regards to the burial sites and other archeological finds that were found there? MR FUKE: Yes, they have. And so, a lot of it is like, it's related to the construction period, like with—during the they do have the fencing around like the sites that require to be preserved. You know, the orange -colored fencing. And then any further work required pursuant to the preservation plan, such as in terms of whether it's going to be a permanent wall around that area; and you know, the appropriate buffer. Those will all be implemented in conjunction with the actual development of the plan. They will also need—you know, an approved monitoring plan also approved by the State too. So when the project actually starts construction, they're going to need to have a certified archeologist to also be on the property to monitor the project's archeological features on the property. So as to assure the preservation plan, the buffers and all that stuff are complied with. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, what is the total project's size for this? MR. FUKE: You mean the property size? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Fifty acres? MR. FUKE: Fifty-one acres. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What is the study that's required? Or is it required in this case, when you're over 15 acres? MR. FUKE: Well, it's already within the State Land Use Urban District, and the site is already zoned multiple -family. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So it doesn't need, yeah? Okay, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? MS. EOFF: Madam Chair? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Eoff, go ahead. Page 31 PC -27 August 4, 2020 MS. EOFF: Hi, so I was just kind of reading through the transcripts from the Planning Commission and it looked like they were pretty thorough in their questions to address all of the issues that we're kind of touching on, too. I'm just wondering if—and it has a positive recommendation after all of their discussion. I'm just wondering if Director Yee had any further comments or if the Planning Commission kind of did a good job sorting through this? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Michael Yee came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. This application was heard on our new online platform. I would generally say that the online platform has its pros and cons. But generally I would say this application went through with very little controversy. I think at face value, seeing that they're trying to match the water requirement 29 units, it made a lot of sense for what they were requesting. So no, I think the Planning Commission, were very comfortable with it. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? I just want to comment on something, because we have seen a number of time extensions come before the Commission and the Council. And I think it was last year, we had talked about taking a look at how we measure time extensions, because oftentimes developers would like to take action and move forward on projects. But rightly so, there are reviews that need to be made by State Historic Preservation, and so the clock is still ticking. And SHPD often will take years on end to review plans that are, you know, very appropriate and necessary for many of these projects. And so, I think at some point, Director Yee, we need to just kind revisit how we are starting and stopping the clock to ensure that, you know, there's fairness and that developers have actually five years to kind of complete a project. Just, you know, setting ourselves up for success. MR. YEE: Yes, as you recall, we did come do a presentation on time extensions. We've had several distractions, but it still sits at our forefront of our minds to address it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Agreed. And Mr. Fuke, I want to thank you and the applicant for making a lot of progress on many of these plans and mitigation measures. Just want to make sure your client is fully aware and accepting of the conditions. I was going through the transcripts as well, and you seem to be fine with the additional recommendations that Leeward Planning was asking of the Planning Director. Page 32 PC-27 August 4,2020 MR. FUKE: Right. All the Commission was asking is that like, you know, this is also within the special management area. And however the conditions were kind of tied into the zone change. And so, it was really like, no need to amend the SMA application. So that was the conclusion. And so, all the Commission was just saying is that, if there's going to be a need for an additional extension, make sure that the SMA application also comes in. Because they want to be able to review the specifics that's associated with any SMA type of application. So we said, that's fine. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Great, thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments, we have a motion on the floor to forward Bill 182 to the Council with a positive recommendation. All in favor please say "aye." Vote on Bill 182: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 182 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz— 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Poindexter and Richards—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: And that takes us to the end of the agenda. Can I have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 12:11 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Chung and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Poindexter and Richards—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Committee is adjourned. Approved: 9 I zs4o Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 33