Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 056 2020/10/06 2018-2020 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING DATE: October 6, 2020 Re: Comm. No. 1077/Bill No. 200 PLACE: Council Chambers Hilo, Hawai‘i TIME: 2:36 p.m. Council Chair and Members Hawai‘i County Council Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Your Committee on Planning, to which was referred Bill No. 200, reports as follows: Bill No. 200, introduced by Committee Chair Ashley L. Kierkiewicz by request, amends Ordinance No. 05-115, which reclassified lands from Agricultural five acres (A-5A) to st Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) at Puapua‘aiki 1st and Puapua‘anui 1, North Kona, Hawai‘i, covered by Tax Map Key 7-5-017:001, the applicant is Pua‘a Development, LLC, Area 14.973 acres. The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its unfavorable recommendation for this amendment which would allow a time extension and revisions to 11 conditions of approval on the change of zone ordinance. The property is located west, (makai) of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Pualani Estates Subdivision, and 1,400 feet north of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway. Mr. Sidney Fuke, the representative for the applicant acknowledged the presence of the property owner, Brian Cook, and Ken Van Bergen of Spring Capital, the representative for the developer in the Kona Chambers. Mr. Fuke explained that Bill 200 and Bill 201 are one and the same; that Bill 200’s land owner is Pua‘a Development, owned by Brian Cook and Bill 201’s land owner is Suffolk Investment, owned by Jim Schuller, and the potential developer for both properties is Spring Capital. Both are seeking a time extension and other amendments to existing ordinances. Mr. Fuke gave a PowerPoint presentation on the history of the properties, an overview of the proposed project, and requests to amend the ordinances. Mr. Fuke referenced a letter sent to the Leeward Planning Commission and Planning Director that Chair Kierkiewicz transmitted to the Committee on his behalf, which further explained the proposed amendments to conditions. He noted that both the Department and Commission did not approve the request, thus an unfavorable recommendation made to the Committee. Planning Director Michael Yee explained the unfavorable recommendation from the Department as well as the Commission was a result of time pressure by the applicant to make a decision. He shared that the applicant was asked to put together a Master Plan, which the applicant found unreasonable, thereby an unfavorable recommendation was made by the Department and maintained unanimously by the Commission. He stated the Council should not make a decision PC Report No. 56 PC-56 Page 2 October 6, 2020 based on fear that the lots will be reverted back to five acre lots as they were originally zoned, because the Planning Director has the capacity to reasonably change the zoning. Committee Member Valerie Poindexter thanked the Planning Department and Commission for referring to the Community Development Plans (CDP) in their decision making process and counseled those bodies to consistently consider CDP’s in all future decision making. Committee Member Rebecca Villegas asked Mr. Fuke why the applicant didn’t apply for an extension when the ordinance expired in 2015. He explained that Mr. Cook did not have a developer willing to develop until 2018 when he filed the application for extension. Ms. Villegas asked why the applicant was in a rush to get through the process and not go through design review. Mr. Fuke shared his belief that this body must decide if the proposed use is an appropriate use of land or not, and that the design center approval is not what should be scrutinized at this time. Mr. Van Bergen clarified that while Spring Capital is not in a rush, it has the finances and desire to develop the project but they are unable to close on the land until they have the zoning extended. Ms. Villegas explained that in previous instances, developers would apply for entitlements, obtain them, and then not build what they said they would and that there is no legal requirement for them to do so. She asked for confirmation that this developer would follow through with what they are committing to in this proposal. Mr. Van Bergen confirmed that yes, the developer, Spring Capital, intends to develop a commercial residential mixed use project but the exact design is subject to change based on Planning Department’s comments, timeframe, and profitability. Ms. Villegas wanted it on the record that a large amount of her community is “diabolically against” any more development in this corridor due to issues such as traffic. However, she appreciates the alignment of timeframe, CDP’s, improvements to infrastructure and roadways and would like to see these affordable homes be for those that are already on island struggling and looking for affordable housing. She said Director Yee’s mention of the rush by the applicant led her to wonder if there is something happening within Spring Capital. She also asked Director Yee what is wrong with the Master Plan as submitted by the applicant. Director Yee said that the master plan presented to Planning was not acceptable. He shared that a Master Plan for the design center to review could expedite the approval process, but that the plan as presented did not include the Planning Department’s suggested changes. Ms. Villegas asked what the average timeframe for review is and Director Yee replied “months to years.” He clarified that the aforementioned expedited timeframe could have been 45 days and that the plan submitted was missing details about what was being proposed in phases and was not inclusive of a phasing plan. Ms. Villegas asked Mr. Van Bergen for his input and he said it was almost impossible to provide a detailed plan before purchasing a property. PC Report No. 56 PC-56 Page 3 October 6, 2020 Committee Member Karen Eoff expressed concern because the Planning Commission, which “understands the issues far more than the Council,” voted unanimously to transfer a negative recommendation to the Council, which does not happen often. She expressed a desire to see both sides work towards a solution, but was hesitant to add more traffic to the already inundated area. She wants to honor the CDP, acknowledging that there is only a finite amount of land to develop and takes seriously her role to make the right decision for the community to address the housing need as well as development, and understands that things change over time. Committee Member Maile David asked Mr. Van Bergen if Spring Capital could do the original proposal. Mr. Van Bergen could not say definitively, but noted Spring Capital liked the location and wanted to extend the commercial neighborhood zoning that was approved 10 years ago. Ms. David asked if Spring Capital could purchase the property and negotiate with the Planning Department as the landowner. He agreed that is generally how things are done, but that Spring Capital would not purchase land without entitlements. Ms. David acknowledged that the additional entitlements were what the body was trying to decide upon. She noted that so much time had passed and that this body usually sees developers asking for amendments and time extensions on projects that are further along. However, in this case, an administrative extension was missed and now further extensions were being asked for. She urged that the advising committee and department who are planners need to be heard in this. Mr. Van Bergen posed a question to the County Council, asking how much they want to see development in Kona “because this is a real project, with real players.” The developers hands are tied, he explained, because they do not own the property. Committee Vice-Chair Sue Lee Loy raised concerns over the Planning Department’s position and noted understanding how uncertain the applicant felt about what was being asked of them. She said that in reviewing the larger development plan this was in the development corridor and requested Director Yee help create conditions of approval that are acceptable to the applicant. Director Yee addressed Ms. David’s question of intention of the developer explaining that if the developer had the intention to create what was proposed the developer would have come in and accepted all of the conditions, but instead the developer is asking for relief from other issues. He provided further context to Vice Chair Lee Loy’s concerns explaining how the application process played out. Mr. Fuke expressed frustration with the process, noting the Planning Department wanted a Master Plan from the developer now. And the developer says they will produce it after the extensions are granted, which is allowed. Council Chair Chung asked Mr. Fuke to clarify what the two amendments were and what was taken off the table. Mr. Fuke said the amendments were related to affordable housing commitment and time extension. PC-56 Page 4 October 6, 2020 Vice-Chair Lee Loy expressed concern that the developer is being asked for a Master Plan as a qualifier for a zoning request. She stated that there is a concurrency law requiring water and infrastructure and is nervous for other developers who would be subject to these requirements not in the Hawai‘i County Code. Mr. Chung asked Director Yee if the Planning Department would be willing to work with the applicant and come to a compromise. Mr. Yee explained the frustrations the Department and Commission had during the negotiations noting time pressures. Committee Member Tim Richards stated the logic to fill this desperate need for affordable housing and its appropriate location for this development, however he’s puzzled by the timeline. He wants this project to move forward with correct conditions. Committee Member Matt Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder noted that the Carpenter’s Union submitted testimony against the project, Max Newberg of the Carpenter’s Union is on the Planning Commission, did not recuse himself and voted on the matter. Director Yee stated no issue was raised. Ms. Poindexter stated that this looks like the Planning Director holds all the cards in this situation and while the CDP is involved in this; it would be her desire to see the community hold all the cards instead. She expressed hope that the community would be at the table for these decisions because they will be the ones to live with this choice not the developer or the Planning Department. She stated that regardless of the unfavorable recommendation, the community needs to be considered and expressed her agreement with Mr. Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder for the Commission member to have recused himself. Director Yee did reiterate that it was a unanimous decision, and despite what one member voted it would have been the same result. Mr. Chung asked Mr. Yee if as Planning Director, he ever put forward an expired application and he confirmed. Mr. Chung said, personally, it makes logical sense not to push forward an expired application, but sitting on the council he understands putting forward expired applications so that should be off the table. He expressed the desire to have good communities and that we as a body cannot dictate as long as applicants meet certain requirements and that the public deserves to have a process they can see and understand. He asked Mr. Fuke and Planning to work together. Mr. Fuke asked that the contents of his letter, dated August 3, 2020, be accepted and used to amend Bills 200 and 201. Director Yee said the developer should also submit a timeline or phasing plan for what they are proposing. Ms. Eoff did a brief summary on how each side came to this situation but believes there is more than meets the eye. Director Yee confirmed that Planning felt that the applicant did not address the TOD \[transit oriented development\] concepts well enough to move forward. She confirmed that the CDP is not “set in stone” but was not comfortable making a decision to “finalize a sale” for the developer. Ms. Villegas expressed concerns to Mr. Van Bergen about granting entitlements then the property being sold at a “fat profit.” She expressed gratitude for Director Yee being able PC Report No. 56 PC-56 Page 5 October 6, 2020 to recognize that pattern. She recognized that the intentions of this property owner were truthful. Mr. Van Bergen explained that the discussion with the Commission was similar to this one. He shared that at the Commission meeting it came up that this is not a union project. However had he known that that was a topic of interest, he would have been prepared to explain Spring Capital’s collaboration with union workers on projects. Ms. Villegas acknowledged challenges with unions, especially during the campaign season and continued to express her concerns about the urgency of the sale but has hope that the best outcome for the community will result and understands the precedence being set. Mr. Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder confirmed with Mr. Fuke that the traffic study was done prior to “COVID traffic.” He expressed confusion for why the Pua‘a and Suffolk properties are part of one project, but being considered under different bills. He asserted that his observation was that the Land Use Commission was bypassed and “he does not like it.” He believed there was money to be made in the development and expressed his frustration that the message being conveyed is that it is not profitable. He also didn’t like the “partialization” of the two parcels. Mr. Fuke explained that the properties were purchased as is, and that the Land Use Commission was not engaged. He shared that the discussion took place at the Council level in 2005 and that the Council exercised their “home rule” and authority. Mr. Fuke emphasized the question before the Council was whether or not the zoning is appropriate land use. Chair Kierkiewicz expressed dismay over the Planning Commission’s decisions, pointing out Commissioner Newberg’s ties to the Carpenters Union, which submitted testimony against the project and that half of the minutes of the Planning Commission’s meeting were about the conflicts of interest from Commissioner Van Pernis. She expressed that the Department’s and Commission’s unfavorable recommendations were merely recommendations and that while this body would take them into consideration, the Council has the authority to make the ultimate decision and create laws. She noted that after such a robust discussion, as was done, the body’s role was simple: to decide on appropriate land use, not projects. Chair Kierkiewicz concluded that it appeared all entities involved want to strike a compromise, thus asked for a motion to move the bill forward while the Planning Department, the applicant, Ms. Villegas, and herself work together to amend Bill 200, utilizing the contents contained within Communication 1077.3 as a starting point. Ms. Poindexter asked for clarity on the vote. Chair Kierkiewicz affirmed that the body was voting on the bill and not the unfavorable recommendation by the Department and Commission. Ms. Lee Loy expressed interest in putting a stop on the clock when applications go to agencies and departments which often leads to projects needing to apply for time extensions. She asked that be considered here so the applicant is not penalized for a department or agency’s delays. The vote was taken on the motion to move this measure to Council with a positive recommendation and passed with Mr. Chung, Mr. Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder, Ms. Kierkiewicz, PC Report No. 56 PC-56 Page 6 October 6, 2020 Ms. Lee Loy, Ms. Poindexter and Mr. Richards voting "aye"; Ms. David, Ms. Eoff and Ms. Villegas voting "kanalua, aye." Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the purpose and intent of Bill 200, and recommends its passage on first reading. jb AYES NOES ABS EX Respectfully submitted, CHUNG X DAVID x COMMITTEE ON PLANNING EOFF X KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER X ` I KIERKIEWICZ X LEE LOY X POINDEXTER x ASHLEY L. KIERKIEWICZ, CHAIR RICHARDS X PC REPORT NO.: 56 VILLEGAS X ADOPTED: NOV 1 8 2020