Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2021/02/02 2020-2022 Committee on Planning 3" Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i February 2, 2021 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 3:03 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Vice Chair (via videoconference from Kona) Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (came in later) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member (came in later) 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 following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Wendy Laros: Bill 11 (Comm. 51), comment. John Knox: Bill 10 (Comm. 50); and Bill 11 (Comm. 51), comment. Bo Kahui: Bill 10 (Comm. 50); and Bill 11 (Comm. 51), comment. Jessica Thompson: Bill 10 (Comm. 50); and Bill 11 (Comm. 51), comment. Chuck Flaherty: Bill 5 (Comm. 17), in support. Walter Kunitake: Bill 10 (Comm. 50); and Bill 11 (Comm. 51), in support. PC-3 February 2,2021 Dwight Vicente: Comm. 97; Bill 197 (Comm. 1075); Bill 198 (Comm. 1075); Bill 5 (Comm. 17); Bill 10 (Comm. 50); Bill 11 (Comm. 51); and Bill 12 (Comm. 52); comment. Jacqui Hoover: Bill 10 (Comm. 50); and Bill 11 (Comm. 51), in support. Rick Robinson: Bill 10 (Comm. 50); and Bill 11 (Comm. 51), in support. Carolyn Pellett: Bill 197 (Comm. 1075); and Bill 198 (Comm. 1075); and Bill 5 (Comm. 17), comment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you, we'll be closing public testimony at this time and moving on to business of the day. Mr. Clerk, if you could please start with Communication 97? COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 97: NOMINATION OF MATTSON DAVIS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated January 8, 2021, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 21, 2021 (Section 13-4(k), Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 97: Ms. Villegas moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. Mattson Davis to the Board of Appeals. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba— 1. Excused: None. Page 2 PC-3 February 2,2021 Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Chair Kierkiewicz informed Mr. Davis that he does not need to appear before the full Council for final confirmation. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions. (There were none.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, moving on to Bills for Ordinance. If we could start with Bill 197? BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 197: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE COUNTY (2018-2020) OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT WAIKOLOA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAII(TAX MAP KEY: 6-8-002:057) (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Mr. Richards,to recommend passage of Bill 197 on first reading.) ; and Bill 198: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-7 (NORTH & SOUTH KOHALA ZONE MAP), (2018-2020) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM OPEN(0) AND RESIDENTIAL & AGRICULTURAL—ONE ACRE (RA-la) TO VILLAGE COMMERCIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (CV-10) AT WAIKOLOA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 6-8-002:057 (Applicant: Danny Julkowski [Pua Melia LLC 1)(Area: 11.707 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its unfavorable recommendation for these amendments to the State Land Use Boundaries Maps and change of zone,which would allow the applicant to build a proposed affordable housing development, three lots of commercial development, and five lots to be sold for commercial development. Reference: Comm. 1075 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed: October 20, 2020 and January 19, 2021 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Mr. Richards,to recommend passage of Bill 198 on first reading.) and Page 3 PC-3 February 2,2021 Comm. 1075.1: From former Planning Director Michael Yee, dated September 23, 2020, transmitting the draft transcript from the Leeward Planning Commission's August 20, 2020, meeting. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I wanted to call Deputy Director Jeff Darrow forward to provide us an update on where we are with this particular applicant. I know that we've been dialoging with Mr. Julkowski as well as the council member for that district. So if you could just provide us an update so we have a sense of how we proceed? (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Good afternoon, Chair Kierkiewicz and Planning Committee. Yeah, we lose track of time these days. We've been actively working with the applicant in this case as well as another applicant along with Council Member Richards on this matter and are trying to find a path forward that can—looks like we might be able to resolve a number of issues. So we have laid out some options for Mr. Julkowski and I believe he's identified the option that he wants to go forward. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair and thank you, Mr. Darrow for being here. As it's been articulated, we have been in conversations and Jeff, I do want to say I appreciate all the work you've been putting into this to try and get this resolved. In conversation with Mr. Julkowski, it would appear the clearest and best methodology of going forward is to withdraw what we have before us and retool it. I have a commitment, and Jeff please reaffirm this, I have a commitment from Planning, specifically Mr. Darrow,that we'll be working with Mr. Julkowski to solve these issues. And yes, we had some very good conversations as far as resolving the concerns and some of the issues. And this is kind of a—it's a goofy one. So there are some things we need to attend, but I think we made a lot of progress so far. And so, I'm going to be asking to withdraw this, and then we will resubmit after we work with Planning. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I'm going to have to ask Ms. Lee Loy to actually do the formal withdrawal, because she did make the motion to pass this measure. MS. LEELOY: Thank you, Chair. With that, I withdraw my motion for Bill 197. I know, Ms. Kierkiewicz, you introduced by request of the Committee Chair, so maybe Mr. Clerk, you can provide us the bright light of where we go from here. Page 4 PC-3 February 2,2021 MR. BROWN: So the motion was made by Ms. Lee Loy to forward both Bill 197 and 198 to Council with a favorable recommendation, so we'll have to deal with both the bills, 197 and 198. But because you made the motion, Ms. Lee Loy, you are the one who could withdraw both of those bills. Withdraw Motion: Ms. Lee Loy withdrew her motions to approve Bills 197 and 198. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Let the record reflect that Ms. Lee Loy has withdrawn both Bills 197 and 198. Jeff, I want to thank you very much for working in the spirit of collaboration with the applicant on this. He feels really good about working with you and Council Member Richards. So thank you, and I'm here to be of support in any way possible, thank you. Mr. Clerk, moving on to Bill 10. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the of Business: following items were taken out of order: Bill 10: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 09-131 WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM PROJECT DISTRICT (PD) TO INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL MIXED — 20,000 SQUARE FEET (MCX-20) AT KAT, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-2-005:001 (Applicant: Palamanui Global Holding, LLC) (Area: 29.920 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment, which would allow a five-year extension to comply with Condition E (Secure Final Subdivision Approval). The property is located northeast of the Kona International Airport at Keahole, between Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Makalei Estates Subdivision. Reference: Comm. 50 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 50.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated December 16, 2020,transmitting the draft transcript from the Leeward Planning Commission's November 19, 2020, meeting. Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 10 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Will the applicant and/or their representative please come forward. And I just want to check with the Clerk's Office, is there a slide deck that the applicant is going to be taking us through? If so, could we please set that up? Let me know if a recess is necessary. Whenever you're ready, go ahead and introduce yourself for the record. Page 5 PC-3 February 2,2021 (Note: At this time, Representatives for Palamanui Global Roger Harris and Steve Colon came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. HARRIS: My name is Roger Harris and with me today is Steve Colon. We both are with Palamanui Global Holdings. Steve is the Senior Manager here in Hawaii. And this item is a time extension for the industrial. We have a MCX (Industrial Commercial Mixed) area down at the bottom of our project. So it's simple. I'm glad to answer any questions. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, Mr. Colon, did you want to address the Committee? MR. COLON: Aloha, my name is Steve Colon, and I'm the Hawaii Division President for Hunt Development Group here. I live in Honolulu. And as Roger just said, this particular item, I don't have any comments. I think I'll have more to say for the next item. So, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, opening it up for questions or discussion. Also noting the presence of members of the Planning Department. No questions? Checking in with folks in West Hawaii. MS. DAVID: No Chair, not at this time. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, well, there is a motion on the floor to forward Bill 10 to the Council with a positive recommendation, all in favor please say Ic aye. Vote on Bill 10: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 10 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries, thank you. Please move on to Bill 11. Page 6 PC-3 February 2,2021 Bill 11: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 09-132 WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM AGRICULTURAL—3 ACRES (A-3a) AND OPEN (0) TO PROJECT DISTRICT (PD) AT KAT, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-2-005:001 (Applicant: Palamanui Global Holding, LLQ (Area: 695.284 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation to amend conditions of approval. The Palamanui Development project includes 1,116 residential units, a 70-acre business park, 230 acres of open space, a 74-acre dry forest preserve, and a 30-acre university village town center with a 120-room hotel, retail shopping, commercial amenities, and a 20-acre regional public park. Reference: Comm. 51 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 51.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated December 16, 2020,transmitting the draft transcript from the Leeward Planning Commission's November 19, 2020, meeting. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, can I have a motion to forward Bill 11 to the Council with a positive recommendation? Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend passage of Bill 11 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Colon, when you're ready. MR. COLON: Thank you. Aloha, Chair Kierkiewicz and Members of the County Council Planning Committee. Mahalo for allowing us to present our request to amend the Conditions of Zoning related to the Palamanui project. Again, my name is Steve Colon and Roger Harris is here with me. We're also represented by Guy Lam who's part of the project ownership and I believe, we have Sydney Fuke here. Okay, so, what is Palamanui? As the gentleman who read the bill already mentioned, Palamanui is a 725-acre proposed Master Plan community no a property that is located about a mile-and-a-half north of the airport on the Kona side. And again, the zoning which we actually secured in 2006 ultimately called for the ability to build up to 1,116 mixed income units. This is mostly mid-level, mid-market housing; a 70-acre business park; roughly a 30-acre what we call a University Village Town Center, along with a 20-acre regional park, and finally a 74-acre dry forest preserve. And I believe you have some materials that the Planning folks, Jeff(Darrow) and Maija(Jackson) have handed out that show you some additional site and project information. Page 7 PC-3 February 2,2021 Okay, so why are we here? As I indicated, originally, entitlement was secured a number of years ago. Right after we closed on the property the recession hit. Timing. Even though we were in the midst of the financial crisis in 2008 we still went ahead with the project. And we actually put in what we call, you know, pioneered the roads; we did extensive grading. So we really did quite a bit of work on the project. We recognized, though, as things continued to get worse, that project—we just weren't going to be able to continue. Now, one of the obligations that came with the original zoning included, you know, significant obligations on us to provide both infrastructure and actual cash for the University to be able to build a new campus; relocate the community college, which at the time was down in Kealakekua in a facility that was completely inadequate for their needs, up to an area adjacent to where our property is. Our commitment was to fund $22 million to build that campus. And that was a combination of infrastructure and direct payments. Then over the last couple years, have done extensive community outreach. We've reworked our master plan and now here we are today requesting to amend the conditions of zoning. So, since 2010, we have put in again, $22 million in infrastructure. Now, of that $22 million, $5 million was towards actual cash payment to facilitate, to augment the money that was needed to actually build the campus. Four point four million ($4.4 million) was to build the road. The road that exists right now and is used every day from the Ane K(Ane Keohokalole) Highway to Ka`iminani Drive. And then in order for the campus, for the college to be able to operate,they needed water, and they needed electricity, and sewer. We provided the entire water capability by putting in a water system on our property running it all the way down connecting it into the University. And then finally, we put in the electric system so that the campus could function. Around that time, in order to make all this happen we presented a check for $9.68 million. That was to fund the building portion which I just described, as well as the road. You can see how far back this goes. That original check presentation to the university was nine years ago. So, the result of all of this is right up there on the screen. The U.H. Hawaii Community College, Palamanui, opened in 2014, and that college is up and running. It's been up and running since 2014. It's been serving the residents; it's been serving the students who've been seeking higher educational opportunity in the County, on the Big Island, and specifically for the west side of Hawaii. By all means, this has been, you know, a great community benefit. Page 8 PC-3 February 2,2021 What else have we've been doing over there? We talked about a dry forest preserve. So working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, we took a 55-acre dry forest preserve; increased that by using some additional property. We added to it, a 74-acre dry forest preserve. We've been working with Hawai`i Community College, Palamanui professors as well as students to implement a very robust dry forest maintenance program. And we've also worked with that organization and others to do, you know, ancient trail maintenance. So again,just a few examples of some of the good things that have come out of the work we've done over at Palamanui. So now, we're going to actually talk about what this specific request is, and then we'll get into any questions that you may have. And so to do that, Roger, can you take over? MR. HARRIS: My name is Roger Harris. I'm a planner working with Palamanui for many, many years. Anyway, this will be very brief. We're seeking approval to amend our zoning ordinance Project District to allow phased-in development, which would mean we would start with Phase 1 in the town center area. Build up to 250 residential and possibly a 60-room hotel; and 30—some commercial to get started. This is based on a traffic study that was done by Austin Tsutsumi that said that we could start the development by just utilizing the Ane Keohokalole road that was built for the college by us. And they're sufficient capacity. If you've out there, there's hardly anybody on the road. It's a great walking and jogging path. But it gives terrific access to the project. Our current conditions would require us to build a highway intersection at Queen K(Ka`ahumanu) and connect all the way up to the town center prior to building any housing or any commercial development at all. So we're asking for relief and to phase in the project. Well in the first phase we developed ten acres of the County park. We have a 20-acre County park right in the middle of the project. And we have that ready to be dedicated to the County at the end of Phase 1, which will be 250 units of residential. That park is pretty close to the college and has good access for everybody. The second phase of the park would be dedicated to the County on their request. The last part of the project would be down to the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. We would do a new traffic study, and we'll do that right away. And we have a full design for a fully channelized signalized intersection that was approved by DOT (Department of Transportation) before. They want to reapprove it after a traffic study, so we'll be submitting upgraded engineering plans and go ahead with that. Page 9 PC-3 February 2,2021 We have to build a sewer treatment plant. The water system, continued through the project we've got to build a brackish water system because the water is there for irrigation;probably handle some de-sal (desalination). And that's our proposal. We would have for affordable housing, the 20 percent requirement. We've been working with Keith Kato and his group on implementing the first couple phases that. Our idea is to build that along as the project goes. It would be a mix of rental;possibly rental housing for students. And some for-sale housing that would grow along with the whole project. Thank you very much. Excuse me. Last thing, we're in support of the Planning Director's recommendation. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Harris and Mr. Colon. At this time, I'm going to be opening it up for questions or comments from my colleagues. Holeka, you have the floor. MR. INABA: Mahalo. Aloha Roger, Mr. Colon, Planning staff. Alaka`i's there. Mahalo for being here. Let me just start off, this is in my district, District 8, and I want to start off by saying that I do want to see this go through. I do want to see homes around the college. I want to see a park around the college. And I think it's really good and would help to develop what the college is trying to do, and hopefully it might attract more of our local kids to stay home and to pursue their education in Kona. This is a massive bill, as you folks probably see on your boards, and I've had multiple meetings with the Palamanui representatives. One of them being just yesterday. And I guess, let's get to the point. I take value with the Planning Director and the Commission's recommendation. There is a third part and that's where we are today. And for me it's to advocate a little bit more for what I think my community needs. And this is really boiled down, so thank you. It helps us to kind of get our heads wrapped around what's before us. But, let me start off with the hotel. I know they are in Phase 1 and Phase 3 of what you're proposing. They're these up to 60-hotel rooms. And all of this, let me say, I've had discussions with Palamanui about already, and they kind of know where I stand. But I do have a hard time seeing another hotel being put up in Kona when the college could partner with the existing hotels to offer students, whether it be the culinary, any kind of hospitality, accounting kind of related courses, and make those partnerships with the existing hotels. I don't see where there is a need there, especially in light of COVID and the vacancies we're seeing across hotel rooms on Hawaii Island. So I'll start with that. Do I think it should be taken out of the plans? No, what we need in Kona is something more along the lines of a performing arts or a cultural center. Something that the whole community would be able to use. The closest thing we Page 10 PC-3 February 2,2021 have right now is in Waimea, the Kahilu Theater. So, I'm just going to go down my list and share my points. Second is the park. The park has been mentioned in the existing ordinance. It was 20 acres of developed park. What was proposed was 10 acres prior to the Commission hearing this was 10 acres of developed, and then 10 acres of raw, unimproved land. I think it was Commissioner (Michael) Vitousek who asked to put in grading and basic kind of landscaping for the second 10 acres. Based on the bill right now, I don't see enough detail for the second 10 acres, when it was supposed to be a total of 20 developed acres of park. I'll probably run out of time, so you're going to have to come back, but that's on the park front. So I would like to—and let me say this right now, I will work and I want to work with the developers to see this through and to make these amendments. So I'm not just spouting out ideas, I'm willing to come and work with you folks. Third point is affordable housing. We talked about affordable housing multiple times throughout today's meeting. Right now, this development is only going with 20 percent, which is the minimum required by Chapter 11 of our Housing Code. I'm okay with the AMI (Area Median Income)percentages, but when this is before us right now and there is potential for 1,116 units coming up in this district, I think we can do better than 20 percent. And I have no number to provide right now as to an estimate, but I'm not asking for a lot, I'm asking for more than the minimum. And moving on to Road One, which is the mauka-maka`i connection. It's my understanding that Palamanui is requesting to postpone the building of this connector road from before the first unit of housing right now to build or bonded prior to the 901" first unit. That's a big, big difference and I'm proposing something more along the lines of having it bonded by prior to 501 and built by 900. And this is so that our community—we're not adding 1,116 homes with just Kaiminani as our closest mauka-maka`i connection, which is Palisades for those of us not in Kona. So that's kind of the main points and I'm not asking for more than what was originally here. I'm asking just for a little bit more than what's being asked to be removed or amended in these conditions. And I would really appreciate support from my colleagues when we really are trying to get affordable units for our local families, who, hopefully like one of the testifiers said, they hope to see grandmas walking around. They hope to see families biking in that area. And I think we really got to make sure that we're getting our local families who can afford those units into those homes. So that's my overall mana`o here and I don't have any questions because we already talked about this, but I do want to say that I would like to meet with you Page 11 PC-3 February 2,2021 folks prior to this going to Council. So that we can work together and map out and see what's really possible and what's not. So,with that I yield, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you Mr. Inaba. And I did want to provide the applicant with an opportunity to address any of the four points that have been made. And also call up the Planning Department to weigh in where it makes sense. Because I know that it has been a collaboration between you folks as well as the Department and the Commission. MR. COLON: Could you call Planning first? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Sure. Director Kern, Deputy Darrow, Ms. Jackson, feel free to come forward. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Good afternoon Madam Chair and Members of the Planning Committee. Planning Director Zendo Kern here and Deputy Director Jeff Darrow to my right. I'll left Jeff Darrow take this over. I'd say overall, though, the points that were brought up by Council Member Inaba are more related to how you folks are going to deal with this and a little less related to the Planning Department policies and procedures, Chapter 25. I'd say that's up to you folks to kind of discuss. I don't think there's anything that goes against what we've as far as policy goes, General Plan, etcetera. Jeff would you like to add to that? MR. DARROW: Well, I mean I think a little history might be good to talk about. This is, as the applicant had mentioned, this project's been going on for approximately 15-plus years, and they've been actively trying to get this project off the ground. They've put a lot of money into the university and into the improvement of Ane K. In this last amendment, there was an amendment in 2009. The original approval was in 2005. In this last amendment, we've been actively working collaboratively between the different departments as well as the Council member from the Kona district prior to getting to this point. And so there's, you know, with the change of Administration, there's always this new situation that we find ourselves in. And that's why we're here today, is with this change of Administration now we need to step back and look at all of these new matters that are before us and try to see. Again, I agree totally that it could be a collaborative effort to come to an agreement and move forward. It's just we haven't had that opportunity to kind of get to that point where we're all on the same page yet. But, we not that long Page 12 PC-3 February 2,2021 ago, I would say two months maybe, I thought we were, you know, ready to go forward and stuff. And so,just got to back up a little and try to see how we can come to resolve these new questions and stuff. MR. KERN: Are there any questions related to the Planning Department's staff? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball, you have the floor. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, I just have some clarifying questions. Some of the affordable housing is proposed to be developed as multi-family units or multi-dwelling units, and I was curious as to like the various threshold that triggers the various phases. Are those permitted individually or as a whole? My question being, you know, the triggers between phasing is based on these counts. And if you were to do 50 of these affordable units, that's a big facility. Is that one permit or is that 50 permits? MR. KERN: Building permits? MS. KIMBALL: Yes. MR. KERN: It'll be 50 building permits. MS. KIMBALL: Because that's the trigger for the phases. MR. KERN: Yeah generally, residential permits would be individual permits. However, if it was a multi-family housing project, that'll be one permit for the entire complex, with each unit having their CO (Certificate of Occupancy). MS. KIMBALL: So we could have a scenario where you would have a 50-unit apartment building, for example. And that's one permit, and that's not going to part of the count that triggers the next phasing. MR. KERN: No, because the count is based off of residential units. So once it exceeds those units regardless of how many permits there would be attached to it, it's a unit count. So if you were to do 250 single family residential homes, let's say with 250 individual permits, that'll be 250 units. If you were going to do, you know, five buildings with 50 units each to get up to 250 units. That would be 250 units regardless how many permits there would be. MS. KIMBALL: Alright, thank you for the clarification on that. And then this is probably more of a question for you, Mr. Harris. You mentioned Keith Kato is looking at probably facilitating the affordable housing. Is he going to be looking at—is there additional subsidies coming from coming in from HUD or anything to do that? Or that going to be 100 percent funded by you folks? Page 13 PC-3 February 2,2021 MR. HARRIS: Mostly funded by us, but it would be tax credits used to they're very strong in using tax credit financing. We would certainlyinitially, we provide the land. We're talking about five acres initially, and another five acres, and then another five acres. We want to bring the housing in. Let's say we were to do a 50-unit project; 20 percent of that would be affordable units. So things are integrated and mixed in. MS. KIMBALL: Are there opportunities for some—to bring some subsidies in? Just because we know that the thresholds of 140 percent for affordable is pretty high still, is there any way we can bring that down a little bit through some other cost-saving measures or some subsidies from Federal funds? MR. HARRIS: Well yeah, the 140 is very high. We're much more likely to do 100 and below. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. MR. HARRIS: And Keith and their projects are all below 100. But things evolve over time. And this area is not, you know, intended to be a fancy resort or upscale community, really. It's not on the ocean or anything, and we want to keep all the housing units in a reasonable price range. And so if we have to provide more subsidized units or more free land, that kind of takes away from everything else. And the cost, you know, you hear this from developers all the time, but we have to develop a sewer treatment plant, we have to do a de-sal system, a couple irrigation wells; not to mention our potable water,which has been dedicated to the County and it needs work all the time. So it's, we don't mean to be a cry a blue river, but it's money, money, money. It's incredible how much this takes. MS. KIMBALL: Yes, I can appreciate there's a significant amount of investment ahead of you. I'm curious about, and this would be a Planning Department question. The amendment to allow some of the affordable housing to potentially occur in that mixed-use, that's really not anything of consequence, right? I just want clarification around that. It's just the placement across the whole planning area. MR. DARROW: Yeah, the condition was trying to avoid have the developer use off-site credits be applied to this. So all the affordable housing has to be done on site with the allowance of whatever credits they received from the MCX portion of the project being able to be applied. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. So is there an intention to develop some housing in that area? MR. HARRIS: No, not at this time. No. Page 14 PC-3 February 2,2021 MS. KIMBALL: You're just putting that on the table as a possibility through this amendment? MR. HARRIS: Well, it's the whole 725 acres is under a Project District and within that area we have to meet the affordable housing requirements. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, that answers my question. I just wondered if there was a major consequence that I wasn't seeing to that. MR. DARROW: Council Member Kimball? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. MR. DARROW: Just for clarity, in that particular zoning, the Commercial Industrial Mixed, it doesn't allow you the option of any type of units. MS. KIMBALL: Got it. MR. DARROW: But it still has a requirement to take care of affordable housing. MS. KIMBALL: Got it. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification, I do appreciate it. I also wanted to express that I share the concerns about doing the last 10 acres of the park as just, you know, hand off of open space. And I kind of got lost in all of the information in front of me, including the Planning Commission's testimony, which I was telling Council Member Kierkiewicz, there was a lot of, "Can you hear me? I can't see you, the slide's not up." I guess that's how minutes are going to look from now on. But are you providing some development of it? Some improvement or plans for that? I'm just worried about, if you hand off 10 acres and there's nothing to it, it has the potential to become a blight of sorts, right, without any planning associated around it. So can you clarify what you're planning to pass over at that stage at this point? MR. HARRIS: Yeah, we're required to provide a 20-acre regional park, which came up with the Pete Hoffman idea way back when. Anyway, and the Kona Community Development Plan. There are what's called civic spaces, these are mini parks in the different neighborhoods. There's about seven or eight, you know, different walking neighborhoods. So we have to do that. The County will not take those as park land and manage them, but we have to take care of them; build and landscape, and take care of them as we develop. The 20-acre park, so in light of that we asked the Parks Department if we could phase it in the same thing, as we kept adding up our front-end cost. And they Page 15 PC-3 February 2,2021 said, yes, we'll go along with the idea of—we have a Master Plan for the whole 20 acres and the first 10 acres is a little bit mauka, closer to the town center. And the adjacent 10 acres down below is the second phase. And the compromise was, we could build the first 10-acre park fully improved with a ballfield, soccer field, and the dog park, parking, and support facilities as stated in the condition. And that would be conveyed, dedicated to the County fully improved at unit number 250 or the end of Phase 1. The second 10 acres, we would provide, and they accepted this idea, the ten acres adjacent raw land undeveloped for the Parks Department to develop later in time. At the Planning Commission that condition got amended that we would study with the Parks Department more. Can we do some rough grating or initial grating, and possibly some landscaping to make the 10 acres somewhat usable in the interim until it's decided what the facilities are. And so the condition says, we meet with Parks Department and nail that down. And we've just been assuming that grading and grassing would be about a million dollars. Phase 1 of the park is about $3.5 million, not including the landfilling. So in talking to Councilman Inaba, he wants us to really grind down on that, with the Parks Department I'd say, and come up with something that is a little more specific. We're required to do that by the condition. If you pass the ordinance as it is, that's what's going to happen. MR. COLON: I think it's also important to point out that the original entitlement, your predecessors imposed on us, a 10-acre park. That was the desire. That's what the Parks Department wanted. And the additional 10 acres was imposed by one council member a few years later. Even though at the time, the Parks Department did not want those additional ten acres. So the way we viewed this is that this is what the original entitlement was. The 10 acres that we all along had committed to, and that the additional 10 acres, we feel is just not reasonable to impose that additional burden of cost on us when we're already doing a 10-acre park, which is what we were asked to do originally. MR. HARRIS: Yeah, but having said that,to clarify, we have agreed with the condition of the Planning Director, which is to do some work on the second ten acres working with the Parks Department. And we can work with Councilman Inaba on that as well. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you both, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And I just want to point out Exhibit 11 in our packet. It's a letter from Parks and Recreation which kind of provides some context around, why the 20 acres, why 10 is developed, why 10 is passive open Page 16 PC-3 February 2,2021 space, and the desire to work with the developer to move forward on that. So just some additional context for all of you. Roger, Steve, I did want to provide you with an opportunity to address some of the other points that Mr. Inaba did bring up. I believe the College Inn was one of them. We did talk about the parks and affordable housing as well as the mauka-maka`i connection. MR. COLON: Let's talk about the hotel first. The hotel was under the existing ordinance. It's supposed to be a university themed hotel. What does that mean? That means the concept, which was put into the zoning originallyI hate to keep harping on history hereby the land use commission was there's going to be a university there, there should be a university Themed hotel there. And what was that supposed to be for? The idea was it would be for visiting professors. It would be for families who don't live on the Big Island, who would be coming to visit their kids; you know, sons, daughters who were going to the campus. It was a place that would be able to maybe hold academic symposiums, seminars which, you know, would be perhaps because the capacity to do that wasn't there particularly on the initial phases of this campus. Remember this is only supposed to be the first phase of ultimately a much bigger campus, if the university's plans, you know, ultimately are realized several years from now. And Roger, I thought it was a 120-room hotel. Was it 60? MR. HARRIS: Yes, it's a total of 120, but according to the Planning Director's recommendation, and our proposal, and the traffic study, would be to start with half or up to 60 rooms. And yeah, their theory was to make it like a teaching hotel. MR. COLON: So I mean, again, this was something that your predecessors agreed with and required us, and put in the zoning conditions. I mean we thought it was a good idea. Everything, you know, I just mentioned seemed to me like it would be good. It's certainly not a big hotel. It's certainly wouldn't be a resort. I don't see how anybody who would be going to use that would be the kind of person that would be going up the K6hala coast at one of the big resorts there. But again, that was the intent. And we as the master developer, you know, we've had a few discussions over the years with potential hotel companies. The Outrigger was one that was interested in doing something like that. But it all along was just supposed to be a, you know, pretty modest facility. And our role in it would be to put in the infrastructure, land, and then you know, bring in the hotel developer to actual build that facility. Anything else Roger? Page 17 PC-3 February 2,2021 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, and I think the other item was the mauka-maka`i connection. MR. COLON: Okay, and so, you know, we recognize we're here. Of course, went to the Planning Commission. And as you saw from the timeline, this is, you know, it's been a long time to get here. I want to tell you, it really has been a long time to get in front of you folks. And you know, you saw the date of the check, the presentation. And back then is when we started having those discussions about wanting to get in front of this. So you know, this all gets down to how much is enough? You know, I mean, what is enough of a commitment to a community? Is a $22 million commitment enough? Did we do our part? It's the fact that there is a campus up there right now with kids who have been using it every day for the last six years, is that enough? And some may feel that it's not enough, and say, that, "Hey, you were required to do it." And my response would be, well yeah, we did it. And that's not always the way these things go as you know. Promises like this aren't always fulfilled. And, you know, like it or not for us,the world did change a lot. When the financial crisis hit and you know, again, not to belabor history, but the ordinance actually contemplates us on sharing 50 percent of the cost of that road with the landowner that the road goes through. And the County is required to get the right-a-way for that road. Not us. Not the applicant. So the original idea on that road was, we'll get the right-of-way. You guys put the road in. And actually it was, I think, on the portion of the land that's private, that's not State, you'll share that cost 50 percent with that landowner. Well that landowner is long-gone; went bankrupt during the financial crisis. But as part of trying to come to an agreeable arrangement with originally the Mayor Kenoi Administration; then with the Mayor Kim Administration, now with this Administration and with this Council, was that we would take on that obligation to provide the right-of-way, and which we've done. We bought that property. It's called Makalei Ranch, I believe. And we have an application in right now to the County, to the Planning Department to get that right-of-way secured. So, you know, in terms of our position on, you know, is 500 acceptable? We really feel strongly that the Director's report is appropriate here. You know we feel strongly that we'd done some good things for the community. And we also feel that it's important for you folks to recognize that a failure for this project to ever go forward is not going to be a good outcome for anybody. It Page 18 PC-3 February 2,2021 certainly is not going to be a good outcome for the university. I mean that's not what they signed up for. When they signed that development agreement with us, they were certainly not planning on being on their own way up there with nothing around them. I know they don't want that, and you've read the testimony from the U.H. President Lassner and others. So that's not a good outcome. And I certainly don't think that's a good outcome for the kids or for the community. I mean this was all supposed to be a University Village. So my response is, okay we can keep talking, but this project will not—it just won't be able to go forward with that kind of a condition around our neck right now. Roger, what else? MR. HARRIS: Well, we need to do a new traffic study right before we build the Queen K intersection. And then we think it might be a good idea to say, before we hit around 500 units, we should do another updated traffic study and see how things are looking. The whole world out there has changed a bit, but we're willing to have that put in. The idea that we move the deadline date to bond or build it in completion by 500 units rather than the 900, we can't agree with that at this time. It's too much of a burden. But we think there will be quite a bit of discussion in the coming years about the exact final configuration of the road improvement. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you gentlemen. I see some lights on here in the chambers. Ms. Lee Loy, you have the floor. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you everyone for being here. I actually wanted to walk back to some of the stuff that Ms. Kimball was talking about. Specially, as it relates to the conditions of approval. She asked the question about some timing elements, because one of the conditions in here is the State Land Use Docket and meeting those conditions of approval. And maybe if, you know, Roger or Zendo, if you guys have an understanding on the satisfaction of the various conditions of approval in the State Land Use Docket and how that dovetails into the way these conditions were written. MR. HARRIS: Yes, really the one that's germane is the mauka-maka`i connector road. And the State Land Use Commission doesn't have any deadline in there for it. And our position has been that we want to go after—we get through the County Council; we will go to the State Land Use Commission and request an amendment to be consistent with what we did here. Other than that there's nothing that we're not in compliance with. Page 19 PC-3 February 2,2021 MS. LEE LOY: That's great. The other thing I had is, a lot of times just haven't been around the industry. The Department and us, we're a part of that, we write conditions of approval, right, but they're rigid. You've got to complete all this very expensive stuff before you can build one thing. And so, it's kind of an orchestra that you've got to play they've got to play nicely together. And so, when I listen to the concerns of my colleague along with, you know, all of the things that have been completed, I'm just wondering how we make this play nicely together, kind of achieving everything while still allowing some balancing for you folks, you know, moving this project forward. It's a really needed project, and that's why listening to my colleague here to say, you know, he completely supports it. This cannot fail. This cannot fail. And so how do we dovetail some of the concerns that we have along with these timing elements of the conditions? Is that something you guys can kind of work together on? Is that possible? MR. HARRIS: Well sure, but we worked a long time with Planning and the concept is pretty simple. Right now we would have to build all the infrastructure from the Queen K Highway up to the college before we could get a building permit for anything. And that's since we built the road, you know,the Ane K extension and the traffic is very light. The new traffic study which we had done said we could come in and start up there and that could accommodate up to 500 units. The way the conditions read, we couldn't build anything in the business area down by the highway where the MCX and the Project District are until we have completed the Queen K intersection and connected up to town. So there's flexibility in there because we could start in the town center and then if something got hot lower, we could, under these conditions we wouldn't be in violation by coming in and connecting up to the Queen K. I mean from the Queen K up, and that would allow us to do some development in the business park as well as continue with the residential, and the park, and the common area. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. The other thing that constantly talked about, and we heard it all day, affordable housing. And you mentioned Keith Kato, and I think Ms. Kimball touched upon it. Is there some timing elements because often times these concepts are moved forward to secure other funding. You know, is that going to lapse? Is that funding going to lapse? I think she asked it, but I just want to hear very clearly, what money is on the table that we need to secure right now so that we can start really infusing some affordable units into our community? MR. HARRIS: Well, our position all along has been that we're going to build affordable housing commensurate with the normal, the regular market development, which is hopefully very affordable too. Although it has to cover the cost. And so we start—we have to do a housing agreement with Housing and Page 20 PC-3 February 2,2021 Community Development. We've met with them and with Keith and his group. We're not required to fund anything now other than the studies and provide, you know, commitment to provide the land free and clear with all utilities in place. And so that's where we are on the affordable housing. Our intention, and it'll be in our housing plan and we've stated it many times, is to as we build an increment of market units, we would build affordables along with it. And we're willing to look at, you know, dormitories. Our experts are saying they don't see a big demand for dormitories right not but in the future there could be. Now the State has a lot of land around the college where some could go, but some could go on our land as well. And we think maybe some small rental apartments is something that could be done and would be very supportive of the college. MR. COLON: There's also funding out there, you know, through HHFDC (Hawai`i Housing Finance and Development Corporation) tax credits. My firm is very, very involved financing affordable housing projects throughout the State. We've done numerous here, Hilo, Kona side, Waikoloa; working on providing what we call the tax credit financing for that; we build it as well. And the way this process works is once we, you know, we have a project that we can actually finance. We can do—we can design it; get the permits;put in the infrastructure. You know, and then we go to the different affordable housing developers who do this, and there are numerous ones out here. In fact, we financed three of them who are very active in the County right now. And so in terms of, when you talk about what money's actually on the table, there is no money right now on the table for it, but there are very active and successful affordable housing developers. You know them. I could name them who are very, very good at securing rental housing trust funds both, you know, from HHFDC and there are numerous other State sources. And those same players we've talked to,this is the spot to be doing this type of housing. It'll fit in well with not just the university component, but the fact that Palamanui all along is planned to be a mid-market type of location. MR. HARRIS: And what they all want, and I think you probably know it too, is land that has water,power, sewer—is ready to go, zoning; and is flat, you know. And that's more rare then you think. I mean I know you hear it all the time, but getting all those systems in is what's got to be done or nothing can happen. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, they like it plug and play. It makes it much easier. And speaking around the affordable housing, is this based on, you know, Chapter 11? But has any consideration been given to keeping those affordables in perpetuity? And I ask that question because I know that oftentimes the affordables are there for ten years or, you know, and then they get sold off at market. And so just as Page 21 PC-3 February 2,2021 we pour affordable housing units in, you know, some of them are kind of being sold off. Has any consideration been given to that? MR. COLON: Again, that's, you know, the individual affordable housing developers here, depending on the funds on the financing. The financing will dictate the amount of time that they have to remain affordable. They remain affordable for a certain amount of time that they use rental housing trust funds. But there are other sources of funding that are used here. Different HUD (Housing and Urban Development) funds, both you know, mostly Federal, but some State too. That will all impact. So unfortunately, this is a non-answer to that. You know, A, it depends on the financing. And you know, it depends on the individual developer. So we couldn't really give you today, at least a firm answer on that. MS. LEE LOY: No just throwing it out there. You know, who knows, somebody might pick it up later on. MR. HARRIS: Yeah, personally I'd say, that's one of the big bugaboos. I mean it takes so long getting anything done. If all of a sudden it's not available after 20 years, geez, you know, what have we been doing? MS. LEE LOY: And then the hotel. You know, I hear what my colleague is saying and I envisioned it very different also; not a resort, more a two or three-star hotel, like a visiting hotel. Parents coming to watch their kids graduate to play a game. And then a training kind of hotel. And the other thing that really piqued my curiosity about this space was as we look at climate change, we're going to see a lot of our hotels along our shoreline kind of have to retreat back. And so some of these very expensive hotels that are on the shoreline now, you know, they might not be there 20, 30, 50 years from now. And so having anchor of a two or three-star teaching hotel or university-type hotel actually is very forward thinking for me. And so if there's ways to kind of think that through a little bit more and keep it at a price point that visiting families could utilize for, you know, our kids there. And then I just have to say, you know, you keep pointing back to that check. There's picture in here with Billy Kenoi, who we miss terribly, but Rocky Freitas is in this picture too. And I've known Rocky all my life. And so, I'm sure, him too, he's like "Let's get this done." So I'm willing to hear what my colleague has to put forward as far as working, but this is something the community needs. We really need to move this project forward. With that, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Good to see you, Roger. You know, first comment you started out with was your timing. And you went into the great Page 22 PC-3 February 2,2021 financial crisis and now you're coming with this at this timing so I find that just timing is not good. But being said, I completely agree, especially with my colleagues, Mr. Inaba, we do need this go forward. I want to go back a little bit and talk about the intersection at Queen K. And one of the challenges, one of the problems, one of the concerns that we have that we have all heard is that, okay this was promised by a developer and then it got waived; and then it disappears. And that has been stated time and time and time again. To borrow what Heather Kimball had said, lot of information in front of us, and lot of history, and lot of change, change, shift, shift, shift, shift. So trying to get through all that. If I'm distilling it down, what we're talking about is trying to adjust some of the timing and the requirements. And you've got to get the cash flow going so that we can help fund the next increment and I got that part. But I am concerned about the timing of the intersection. Can you expand on that a little bit, either of you? MR. HARRIS: Well the intersection, the way and conditions read is we can start development by building in the town center area, what we call Phase 1, up to 250 units with the park and things. And then we can either jump down to the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and put that intersection in and start development, add development down there once we've connected from the Queen K up to the town center. And there's an intermediate option which is what we call Phase 2, which would be we could build another, I think it's up to 200 units coming down from the town center, before we hook up to the Queen K, but we could not exceed 500 units total and 30,000 square feet of commercial without building the Queen K intersection. So I think, I guess, would we build just the middle part and never build the Queen K intersection? We think that's totally not likely at all, but there will be a bit of drag before that is built. And we anticipate it to be about five years. MR. RICHARDS: Roger, you've been around long enough. You know what I'm talking about. MR. HARRIS: Yeah, it's just that in our view and the realtors we're talking to, the business park, they're running out of commercial lots in Kona. There are very few left and they need more commercial development sites. So putting in that intersection and building to the business park, that means connecting to the town is we feel a very viable part of the whole project and then it will be done. I don't know what kind of condition you could put in. You know, any thoughts that would really tie that down more. MR. RICHARDS: I'm raising the concern and, you know, I'm going to echo, and we don't have to solve the issue today, but we want to raise the issue today and talk story. And I too am interested in what Mr. Inaba's going to put forth and get Page 23 PC-3 February 2,2021 some take on that. Concerning the hotel site, though I think it's intriguing what Mr. Inaba said. I do hear what you're talking about;teaching hotel, and if you have visiting professors or whatever, you want them on campus. You want them so they can walk to whatever and engage, so I definitely understand that. But I'm curious to see what Mr. Inaba brings forth, because I'd like to see some of that. Regardless, I think we need to move the project forward and work on the details but as quickly as possible because—let's get this done. Chair, I'm going to yield CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Checking in with our colleagues in Kona. Any questions or comments for the Planning Department or the applicant? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes please? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, Ms. Villegas, you have the floor. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. I just want to thank the gentlemen that are here today sharing and explaining. You also took the time to meet with myself and go visit the property and see what's already been built and what the original plans were and kind of to go over the variances and the exemptions being asked for. I want to honor my colleague Mr. Inaba's diligence in looking through each and every requested exemption here. And he's really taking the time and energy and connecting with constituents and looking at there's a balance and a flow with developments that come in with incredible promises and incredible plans and parameters and commitments. And unfortunately, we have a history, especially here on the west side of as things get going and the years proceed, those same people coming forward and asking for exceptions and exemptions, and it's seems to me that we will always have cycles of economic downturn. Hopefully, not more cycles of global pandemic crisis. But and correct me if I'm wrong, but this project is owned by Chuck Schwab correct, and his business enterprises, Charles Schwab? MR. COLON: The ownership, there's three members of the owner's group. Chuck Schwab is one of the owners. The Hunt Companies who I work for has an equal share. So exact same percentage that Charles Schwab personally has. It's not his company, but it's him personally. And the remaining, then there's one other member. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you. No, it's my understanding that Charles Schwab's company is quite large and quite successful when it comes to money management and finance. I'm also under the understanding that the Hunt organization is one of the largest land developers in the country and most successful at such. So there's got to be a balance in here ofI understand there's some hardship and some challenges as we navigate the current economic terms Page 24 PC-3 February 2,2021 and things change. However, I also feel I would be remis not to point out that this has been part of a negative pattern of requirements and continuing to hold to the prior agreements and allowances for variations and exceptions and exemptions. And I feel like we have an opportunity to move in a direction where we continue to require those same commitments from our partners and from the relationships that have been established. When it comes to the specific parameters of this specific development, you know, I see the wisdom and the rationale in postponing the building of the road to go mauka to the upper highway. But I really appreciate the diligence that has been put in to creatively identifying ways for the parts that are still really necessary for our community when it comes to, you know,the difference between a 20-acre park and a 10-acre park. And when and how those pieces come together, and I have great appreciation and respect for Council Member Inaba's insights on that and his suggestions and recommendations. So for myself, it doesn't make me incredibly popular sometimes and I've been called, you know, anti-business which I think is ironic when I, you know, worked with Mattson Davis and 14 years with Kona Brewing Company and very successful business and have worked with developers to create alliances and working groups. So I think the era of us surrendering to the impact fees that need to be paid for by those doing business and expanding their businesses here. And it doesn't come from an ungrateful heart. It doesn't come from recognizing and appreciating the tremendous amount that's been shared with our community and the intentions to really do good here, I just don't think that it eliminates the need to continue to do so. And I would defer to the wisdom of my colleague with this residing within his district and ask that my fellow colleagues do the same as we move forward. So thank you gentlemen for being here; for all the work you've done; for all the resources you've contributed to our community. And thank you for your continued commitment to our community. Yeah, with that I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Ms. David,just checking in. Did you have comments or questions? MS. DAVID: At this time, I don't believe so, but what I'd like to note is that I believe Mr. Inaba's vision on how to approach this is something I would support, because I think—and also the developers and the representatives, on trying to keep this conversation going. Because realistically it's in Council Member Inaba's district, but this very important school or college represents and serves the entire leeward coast for the West Hawaii, if not, the whole island. So I think this is very important and I would really support a continued dialogue so that this, Page 25 PC-3 February 2,2021 however it works out to everybody's satisfaction, we need to get this done for the community. So thank you gentlemen and thank you, Mr. Inaba. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. David. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, you have the floor. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thanks for being here today guys. Guys and ladies, sorry. So just fill me in a little bit, what roads have you completed so far? I'm looking at your Exhibit A-1 that you guys submitted to us. So completed so far, what roads are done? MR. COLON: The road to the college. So the road that connects from Ka`iminani Drive that goes to the college. That was completed. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So what you consider Main Street? MR. HARRIS: Yes. It's now Main Street. As it goes through our project it's Ane Keohokalole Highway. And eventually at really in recent months Public Works wanted it to connect up to the mauka connection at that location. So that Main Street has been graded in partially and some of the town center area around it. There's a future road in there called Road 2 right-of-way that goes by the park now, that's been graded and the area down by the highway has been graded with, you know, Pioneer Road, and a small bit of pavement. But we really needed to go full on the highway section down below and connect up to Main Street as it goes through the town center. That's what we're trying to get to. We're just saying, we would start up above. MR. COLON: And let me clarify the reason for that. Because the existing zoning right now requires us to put everything in up front again before we can do anything. But what you have here, for those of you who've been on that road know, it's a really nice road. The road that goes to the University, it's a great jogging road, you know, it's a walking road. I see families with, you know, kids in strollers. I mean it's become a community benefit. It hardly has any traffic on it as you know because it only goes to the University. So in order to try and get this project going, for us it just, you know, taking a look at what we can do to try in getting this going? You know, it makes so much sense to use the existing roadway infrastructure. I mean it's barely being used right now. So from a planning standpoint it only makes sense to activate. Let's try and get—and that's why the Phase 1 is this University Village area. I mean it makes no sense for us to be starting from the bottom, from the Queen K when we already have a road that's built. We have infrastructure, the college is there, and we had done, you know, some grading work to already, you know, start creating that town center. So it just, for us,the logical Phase 1 would be to utilize the existing roadway infrastructure to create this University Town Center area Page 26 PC-3 February 2,2021 with a first phase of think 250 residential homes. Something like that. Anyway, that's the why. Now the Queen K, and Councilman Richards, you know, you're right. I mean it's a good business park location. We'd certainly like to see that get activated. We've had a lot of inquiries. The reality—so putting in an intersection on the Queen K Highway is, it's not a simple little intersection, especially over there. And so it is really going to be a very sizable number. And, you know, while I would really like to see that go in right away and get that business park going, I think the reality is we're first going to have to try and get this going again by getting the University area going. Prove that. Get that community going, and then I see us being able to get going from below. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay so you have one road completed in and there's no other access in and out of this area. MR. HARRIS: You can drive up and down a graded road to the Queen K. intersection and there is a gate down there on a dead-end paved apron. So for emergency access or construction use, that is usable right now. But no, it doesn't have water, power, sewer, blacktop on it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay so ambulance, fire truck,there's one way in, one way out,that's what I'm getting at? MR. HARRIS: Well two ways. The ambulance and fire truck could come in from Queen K and get into the town center now. Or they could— MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: They have keys? MR. HARRIS: I beg your pardon? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Do they have keys to the gate? MR. HARRIS: No. I don't think they do. But we can make that available. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And that electric and water to feed the campus, you've put all that in for the campus? MR. HARRIS: We did. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: At your own expense? MR. HARRIS: Yes. Page 27 PC-3 February 2,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I think the park issue was touched on already. The intersection improvements are parallel with Phase 3 correct, for Queen Ka`ahumanu to the campus, that road? MR. HARRIS: Yeah. The intersection, before we can build in the business park, which is Phase 3, the intersection has to be done, which is a signalized intersection, DOT (Department of Transportation) approved. The last estimate we had on it was $6.5 million to put that in. Then the road up to the town center has to be contacted before we can work in the business park. So that would service all three phases whichever, you know, whichever level of development is going on at the time. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And that's your timeline for Phase 3 to complete? Is our roadway completed? You would do the intersection improvements when Phase 3 is completed or when you begin Phase 3? MR. HARRIS: We cannot begin Phase 3 until the intersection is in and tied into the town center. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So when are you going to finish Phase 2? MR. HARRIS: Well as I said before, we're allowed to overlap between Phase 2 and Phase 3 depending on what's going on, on the market. But I would say we'd hope to have the intersection in and Phase 2 ready to go way before 10 years and ideally around five years from the beginning. We'd start on the town center and get working on the intersection and Phase 3. Phase 2 is kind of in the joint in the middle. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So we can look at seeing this intersection improved within five to ten years? That's what I'm getting at. MR. HARRIS: Correct. Right. The sooner the better for us. We would like to do it as soon as possible. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think sooner the better would be good for everybody because then you have two ways in, two ways out. And it's just a better connection route than through Ka`iminani. Rental units versus for sale units. So all these units that you're planning on building that are residential units, these are rentals, these are for sale? MR. HARRIS: Mixture. We've had third parties who want to do rental units. And we, Hunt has done many rental units but of course we want to provide fee simple housing for regular people as well. Page 28 PC-3 February 2,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So percentagewise? MR. COLON: That's a tough one. I mean we're one of the biggest rental property, you know, developers in the country. And so our business motto is rentals. The reality for making a project like this work is you certainly have to have a big for-sale component. If I were to guess, I'd say maybe 80 percent for sale, 20 percent rental. Something like that. That's just a guess. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then of that, you know, you're saying affordable-wise, you're looking at 20 percent of the houses you're going to build or units you're going to build are going to be affordable? MR. COLON: As per the affordable housing ordinances. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Wastewater treatment plant is done, completed, working? MR. HARRIS: No. We have approval for some disposal pits, but we have—and preliminary comments from health department on a, you know, multi-phase treatment plant which is sometimes called a package plant. But something like you have at Hokulia and Ka`upulehu. So we have to build it. We have preliminary, you know, feedback from the health department. But it's been years that we've been quiet. But we don't have any drainage problems on the site and the lava is buildable. We're anticipating building a first-phase plant closer to the town center, between the highway and the town center to start. We have on our master plan a permanent long-term plant down closer to the highway about 600 feet mauka from the highway. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This is an open style or closed? MR. HARRIS: Pretty much closed. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thinking smell wise, you know, you're building on a walkable community in some sorts. So what is the—has that been planning out? Have you thought about that? MR. HARRIS: Yeah. We thought about it a lot. If it smells, we're dead. Okay. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's where I was going. Okay. And then talk to me about the mauka-makai route. I think that sounds important and I understand that—where exactly are you? Because when we asked it, you went kind of back on a history of. But where are you at with mauka to makai? Because obviously you're not going to go through the Makalei private gated Page 29 PC-3 February 2,2021 community? I've been in that community. I don't think you're going to enter there so. Where are you at with the mauka to makai? MR. HARRIS: Well, you know, unfortunately that road was too steep and a little bit too narrow to practically utilize. So we bought some land next door, mauka-makai of the Makalei Golf Course and we've carved out a 300-foot right-of-way that takes us into the State land. And then that state land on your map there, that big section of State land goes down—we've done a preliminary archaeology on a lot of that or about half of it to get us down into the State land and close to Palamanui. We would continue that planning work with the State and the County and get it ready to go. There's some, you know, possibility that the road was way shorter. We were going to tie in way up above at Palamanui before. So now the long road is a big burden and a big serious thing we have to work on. And that's why we need the time, and we need the recommendation to bond it or build it up at the 900-unit level is very favorable for us to let us get going. Mr. Inaba's thought let's bring it down to like 500 units and that's a burden for us. We could do a new traffic study, you know, near 400 or 500 units and determine what the best outlook is and what may be the best construction time, bond or build is now. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. COLON: And you know, the theory behind the traffic study is, have the traffic study take a look at how much traffic is being generated by Palamanui. Because we think it's fundamentally unfair for us to be shouldering this entire obligation if our project is not, you know, producing, you know, a significant portion of that. And that's one of the things that a traffic study would accomplish. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I think Mr. Inaba is trying to balance what your think is fair and what we think is fair. So I'm going to leave that to him because it's his district. I think my one comment would be you are very close to the international airport. So a hotel does stand to gain you some significant usage of people looking to be close to the airport and utilize a hotel at the same time without having to go all the way into Kona and back. And currently there are no hotels in that area. So you'd be one of the few that could be accessed near the airport. Is that correct, you know, is that a correct assumption? MR. COLON: No question, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So I think that's beneficial to you, and I understand that. Although it may look like a school or university-based, you know, hotel system, you know, it definitely gives you a leg up on all the competition in Kona. So I'm not going to bend too much there and argue about Page 30 PC-3 February 2,2021 whether, you know, whatever the purpose of it. But I can see there's a, you know, it's a very smart move to do. But you're not going to gain any points from me for going down that road. MR. COLON: Fair enough. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I really have to say, this is Mr. Inaba's district. I'm going to back whatever he's looking for here. I support the project in full just like everyone else on this Council. But it's going to be a balance between what this Council wants and what you want, which is obvious. But that's the man you're going to have to work with. When he's happy, I'll be happy. So I appreciate your guys' time. Thank you for coming today. And I don't know if you have any comments on anything else I said but thank you for clarifying my questions. MR. HARRIS: Thank you. MR. COLON: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Okay. I'll keep this short. I just want to thank, again, the Planning Department. You folks have been really helpful in helping me to try and be fair. So thank you to you folks. Also to Housing Administrator Kunz with regards to affordable housing. I know you folks have contributed a lot to our community already and there's no disregarding or not recognizing that. So mahalo to you folks for those contributions. Yesterday when we talked, at the end of our conversation, Mr. Ross Wilson, who is with current events and represents you folks, in the end he said, you know, you folks need to see if this is even feasible at all financially. Is that true? And when I ask that I'm talking about what's before us right now. Is that with the economic turn due to COVID and what's going on, is that statement true? MR. COLON: We still believe that it is financially feasible. If the package that's in front of you as recommended by the Planning Department that we have accepted the conditions of, if it were to be worded, we believe that yes, we could activate the project. We have done, you know, a financial analysis specifically on the first phase and by no means is it a, you know, a very robust financial proposition. But it is at least financially viable. MR. INABA: Okay. Mahalo. And then, I don't want to go back and forth with regards to the hotel. That's why I want to talk to you folks on the side. Let's not waste everyone's time here today. We can do it there. And there is a hotel I Page 31 PC-3 February 2,2021 believe in the Kona Onizuka Airport master plan that was approved right before I got on the Council. So I do want to recognize and point that there is a hotel that would be within potentially five minutes from the college already approved. And lastly, I told you folks this yesterday. And I said, Hamakua Council Member Kimball's district has I think, I don't know, over thirty something parks and rec facilities. And in my district I have one and it's the West Hawaii Veteran's Cemetery. So all of the keiki and the makua of my district have to go down to old airport. That's our only major facility on the west side especially for North Kona. And that's why I'm kind of harping on the park. And like I said, I'm not asking for 20 acres of full development. I just want it. That's why we gotta talk story. And with that, Chair, I don't know if I can make a motion to defer this at this time? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Not yet. I haven't made my remarks. MR. INABA: Okay. Kala mai. I yield for now. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, gentleman for taking the time to be here today. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? I apologize, Ashley. I just had one more quick question if I could? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Go ahead, Rebecca. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. It's me. I just had a quick question about the water treatment plant and the capacity of that. Does it include injection wells? I guess to just be very blunt because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Maui case. MR. HARRIS: Yeah. We've talked about that. I mean I've looked at that one strongly. The plant was originally approved back in the concept, and you need UIC (Underground Injection Control)permits for injection wells. Down, about 150 feet mauka of the Queen K Highway, which is about elevation almost 200 feet, we got permits for two disposable wells which are overflow. In case the plant dies, you have to have an overflow area. We've been advised that those may not be approvable forever. And so we have—at the University we paid for a constructed wetland that is the disposal area there. I can see that we would end up with that or we have to create R-1 water. And so we will be using the normal effluent into our irrigation system. We would phase in any sewer treatment plant that we build. And we may build two plants rather than one. Some of the smaller plants are better. And then you have less of a disposal problem. But anyway, we're mindful of the requirements. And we would have to meet health department requirements at the time we get finished. Page 32 PC-3 February 2,2021 MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. I really appreciate your clarification on that. And we'll look forward toI mean we all want this project to proceed, and we are all very grateful for Palamanui and the education that's being provided to our youth here in our community. And I just thank you, thank the Planning Department. Also, I'm really excited, our new Director of Environmental Management is very savvy when it comes to wastewater treatment facilities. And I'm also very grateful to the community in Maui that took that case to the Supreme Court which creates new standards of excellence for the treatment of our waste. So thank you for your continued diligence in exploring healthy options and alternatives for that wastewater treatment facility. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Gentlemen, I had a question. I was reading through the background materials in the transcript, and I noticed that you had filed materials and began working with the Design Center in 2013. It's 2021 and so I'm just looking for some insights into what your experience was. You know, some months ago we did have another set of projects, Pua`a and Suffolk, which also was working very diligently, trying to, with The Design center. So just, you know, please enlighten us. I'd love your insights. MR. HARRIS: You want to go there? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: For the record, Mr. Harris chuckled. MR. HARRIS: Yeah. Well, you know, the Kona Planning staff, I mean the Design Center is part of the Kona Community Development Plan. The Kona Community Development Plan was passed as an ordinance. I think it still is. It's been very hard to get kind of a universal understanding of what it means. And the Design Center has been—in the ordinance is charged with expediting projects and project review. And it took a long time. I mean the first, as you say, we've met with them in 2013 and then things changed a little. And then we met again. And then once the Design Center is finished and we had basically Nancy Pisicchio and Bennett Mark and then the other agencies involved. And we got along great, Michael Ream and I, but we did go numerous changes, changes, changes. And in my view as a planning guy for many, many years, it's gotten way too specific and way too complicated. It's just I think, you know, this is an urban area or you decide that you want to have this area developed in general. Every year,just like Councilman Villegas mentioned, new things come up. There's new lawsuits, there's new things you have to comply with, disposal. And all of it has an impact on everything. But the General Plan for Kona and the Community Development plan, generally speaking, this is what they call for. In our case, of course we realized the UH (University of Hawaii) was planned next door to us so we immediately made Page 33 PC-3 February 2,2021 friends with the UH and did everything we could because we saw great symbiotic relationship. But some of the minutia that gets involved and trying to figure out what is a master plan under the CDP (Community Development Plan), it's too much. It should be much, much more flexible. And I hope, I think the wording is okay now. But if all plans are going to be changed, there all going to change. And if you can keep in mind that if it's in the spirit of the Kona Community Development Plan, generally fits, then it's conforms and let's get it going. That's my conclusion. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I really appreciate you being upfront about your experience. Thank you for all the investments you've made in our community. No question that we all support the work going forward. I do want to thank Planning for working with Council Member Karen Eoff to get us to this place so that we can get a positive recommendation from the department and the commission. I also want to honor and respect the fact that Council Member Inaba now represents the district and would like to work in partnership with you to see if there are some things and conditions that we could refine. So I do want to provide you time and space to be able to do that. So I will take a motion to postpone the measure to the February 16 meeting, and I'm hoping that's enough time for us to work in partnership with the applicant to make any changes. MR. INABA: Chair, I was wondering if I could postpone to March 2, one more, just to give us time to work because this is such a big bill. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Harris, Mr. Colon, that's the request that's being made, the second. MR. COLON: We were ready, Council Member Inaba. We are ready to engage with you on a daily basis on this. If I have to come over, I'm happy to do so. RogerI mean, we'd really like to keep the momentum going. Like I said, it's taken us since 2013 to get here. Roger? MR. HARRIS: Yeah, of course we want to go as fast as we can. If we can't get it done by the next meeting and it slips the meeting up, we're going to agree with Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Chair, March 2 if I can, please. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: How's about we work really diligently and do a check-in on the 16''. Because it's very possible you can make a lot of progress in the next two weeks. I know Council Member Villegas were able to do that with Pua`a/Suffolk, so why don't we postpone to the next meeting,just get a pulse check on where we are. Page 34 PC-3 February 2,2021 MR. INABA: Okay, sounds good. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 11 to February 16, 2021. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion on the postponement? Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: If I could ask Mr. Inaba, I want to get clarification on the issue regarding the park. What is your concern? MR. INABA: Chair? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, by all means. MR. INABA: It's initially 20 acres was going to be developed, and it was really, really clear how it was going to be developed. And looking back this round was just 10 acres of clearly developed and 10 acres of raw land. Through the Planning Commission, we got some grading and landscaping but it's not clear enough. And when we don't have any parks and the Kealakehe Regional Park is not where we are on the budget right now, and I know Director Messina is working with me on the Kealakekua Regional Park, I think we need to be clear on what we're getting with the second 10 acres. So that's where I'd like a little bit more clarity and precision on what's going to become of those second 10 acres. MR. CHUNG: Okay, because I'm hearing—and I'll support the postponement but what I'm hearing from some or if not most of my colleagues is that they want to see this project go. Then on the one hand we have the developers saying it's cost prohibitive to put in infrastructure prior to other things being put in—and you know, a lot of times we don't trust developers. But at the same time, we don't know. We've never been developers either, right? But I'm going to say, you know this thing about the park, because I was looking at what was taken out and what's being put in, and it's not real different. Maybe you're taking out one pony field and doing this, but you know, these types of one baseball field and one soccer field, that's kind of passe already. Look what we've got over there on bayfront. You know, with the soccer field and the baseball field. I know we had some problems with the soil and stuff, but nobody's really using it. You've got to focus—you know, I'm not telling you what to do but my suggestion is you've got to put all your focus on the regional park. That way you can have tournaments. That's where people are congregating nowadays. That's the think nowadays. I mean really. And if you've got to fund it with bond float money, well do it because it's appropriate for Kona to have a first-class regional park. But this think, I'm going Page 35 PC-3 February 2,2021 to tell you, Holeka, might not be that good. Passive parks now are really the thing in that kind of area. Just think about it. I don't want this kind of stuff to be a hang-up that's why. Really, it would be an awful shame quite frankly. But that's just my thoughts. But I'll support this though. MR. INABA: Mahalo for your thoughts, Mr. Chung. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, there is a motion on the floor to postpone Bill 11 to the February 16 meeting. All those in favor,please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 11 to February 16, 2021 was to Postpone: carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. This is postponed to February 16''. Thank you, gentlemen. I'd like to do an 11-minute recess. We'll be back at 5:45. Please get your caffeine. We're in recess. Thank you. Recess: At 5:34 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 5:45 p.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. We're out of recess, back on the record. Mr. Clerk, if you could please read in Bill 5. Bill 5: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 6, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO USE PERMITS The Windward and Leeward planning commissions forward favorable recommendations for this amendment to the Zoning Code, which would decrease the applicable planning commission's time to approve or deny an application for a Use Permit from 90 to 60 days, and also clarify certain procedural matters. Reference: Comm. 17 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) ; and Page 36 PC-3 February 2,2021 Comm. 17.1: From former Planning Director Michael Yee, dated December 1, 2020,transmitting the draft transcript from the Leeward Planning Commission's October 15, 2020, meeting. ; and Comm. 17.2: From former Planning Director Michael Yee, dated December 1, 2020,transmitting the draft transcript from the Windward Planning Commission's November 5, 2020, meeting. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Can I have a motion to forward Bill 5 to the Council with a positive recommendation? Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 5 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I'm glad we're able to finally able to take up this measure. I wanted to call forward Director Kern, Deputy Darrow, to provide this body with an overview of the request that is before us. (Note: At this time Planning Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Because this bill originated before my involvement—while I understand it well, I'd like to have Jeff give the history on it. MR. DARROW: Okay, Bill 5. Again, good evening—are we in good afternoon, good evening—Chair Kierkiewicz and members of the County Council. Bill 5, this came about, recently we had Use Permit hearing with a telecommunication tower, and it was denied in the process and they appealed to court. One of the sections that they sited was a section in Code saying that a decision needed to be made within 90 days from the acceptance of the application. It was a surprise to us, because we had been operatinga number of the other sections, in Code and Rule give us, is worded the way that you see it currently that we receive an application, we have 90 days to bring it to hearing, and then the commission has 60 days after close of hearing to make a decision. But this one hadn't been changed. So they were arguing that because the 90 days lapsed it should have been automatically approved. But the hearing was actually continued with no objection, so our argument was you didn't object to the continuance. But they said, "We didn't agree to it, either." So anyway, lesson learned, we decided that, hey, we've got to get in there and change this section of Code. Page 37 PC-3 February 2,2021 So this, on the face of it, it actually looks like you're actually shortening the time, but in actuality, we're lengthening the time to make a decision after the Planning Commission closes the public hearing. There's been some testimony talking about this, and I'll kind of address the different issues. One is the term "public hearing." We kind of feel "public hearing" speaks to itself. I don't think we need to identify Planning Commission/public hearing, because this is specific to that. It's been a Board of Appeals or a County Council public hearing. It's specific to a Planning Commission hearing. Additionally, under Subsection (c), there's been talk about the automatic approval—or I'm sorry, the automatic approval section is the first one (Subsection (a)). This comes out of HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes), Section 91-13.5, and in the years I've been working with the Planning Department and Planning Commission I've only seen this happen once. And you know, people think that this must happen all the time. It actually happened—for this to actually happen, you have to be in a situation that you have a split vote, and you can't come to an agreement at the time that a vote needs to be taken, especially when the applicant isn't willing to continue the hearing. And so you're faced with this automatic approval. If the applicant agrees to a continuance, we'll continue. So this issue came up about written objection and contested case. Well if someone files a written objection, the automatic approval should be off the table. In that particular case, there was written objections from the neighbors. But a written objection doesn't do anything other thanI mean when I say that I meant legally it doesn't extend the time, it doesn't call for a re-vote or a change or anything. It's written testimony just like written testimony of support. At the time that this happen, the Corporation Counsel at that time said that the written objection spoken to in Chapter 91 was really referencing the contested case hearing process. Because that process will extend the time. It does legally change that particular automatic approval section where we're not stuck. Right? It goes to another process. So at that particular case, there was no contested case, although we had written objections. The application got approved automatically with not conditions. So we want to avoid that at all costs and since then we haven't seen that happen. Again, in the law there is a section that says that the County can create an ordinance to exempt them from this, and we have spoken to Corporation Counsel about this. They need to look at this, because Section 91-13.5 is not just specific to our permits and our licenses and processes. It's applicable across the board. So that's something to keep in mind. So they need to look at it in relationship to other permits and licenses that exemption may affect. Page 38 PC-3 February 2,2021 Lastly, we're trying to simplify the process as well. So when we have an applicant submit a letter saying, "I want to revoke my permit," normally we would agendize it and take it to hearing. But if it's we asked the Planning Commission, you know, are you guys amenable to this change, where someone comes in and says, "I want to revoke my permit,"that the Planning Director can just send a letter saying, "Your permit's revoked." And they agreed with this. They forwarded a favorable recommendation. Other than that, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Deputy Darrow. That's very thorough. Any questions or comments? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you for that explanation. You know, I think this and others continue to Band-Aid Chapter 25. MR. KERN: I agree. MS. LEE LOY: Continue to Band-Aid Chapter 25. Go ahead, say it, agree, right? MR. KERN: I agree too. MS. LEE LOY: Together. And you know, it gets more and more challenging because as we try to provide a bright line of expectation; you put it in, you're going to have an answer within 60 days. Right? You know, this beganI'm frustrated, right? Because this begins that process where when you put it in, there's no bright line of expectation, especially as it relates to agree—"or within such longer period as agreed to by the applicant." Having been on the other side of the counter, right, I've put in applications, we know we're reaching the deadline, the department—I'll go ahead and write and say, "Hey, I know you guys are coming up on the deadline, I'll give you guys another 30 days." Right? And I'm just speaking very clearly about—we've got to figure out a better process to hold everybody accountable on both sides of the counter. I know there's that other piece about automatically approved, and maybe if we had those two pieces together, we could see that they're working together to hold both sides of the counter accountable. But this continues to muddy the water. My knee-jerk reaction is to say "no,"because we need a comprehensive audit of Chapter 25. But if we need this Band-Aid because we saw an application and the courts rule how we had to kind of refine this language, you know, I don't want to have the County liable or have this very arbitrary decision making, right? We want bright lines of understanding. You know, I'm justI'm really putting it out there Page 39 PC-3 February 2,2021 because when we talk about economic development, we're working hard on our construction codes and holding people accountable to get their building permits on time, we also need to hold the Planning Department and our zoning opportunities, which drive that economic engine, accountable too. We just heard an applicant who's been working on a project for years. And every time a new administration comes in, every time we move the needle, that uncertainty hurts us. So I'm just putting it out there. I'm going to say "Yeah," this time, but my "yes" is going to turn into "no" if I continue to see these Band-Aids come together without a real plan on how we fix Chapter 25, Chapter 23, and really become take these complex families of codes and make it understandable. Chair, with that, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. And I couldn't agree more. I also recall Director Kern saying at his hearing that he would making it a priority to do a comprehensive audit and refresh of(Chapter) 25, because it's very critical to the economic and revitalization of our community. Thank you. Any other Director Kern. MR. KERN: I'll respond really quickly to that. I agree with you, you know that. I will say though Band-Aids do have their place at times, and this is one that I think needs to be supported for sure. But we're working on that bigger picture. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes? MR. DARROW: Director Kern and I have been having a lot of bigger discussions, higher discussions, and one of them is the discussion. We're just as frustrated. We don't like to have to come in and do these Band-Aids. We'd rather do a comprehensive code change. But before we can actually do this, we have to wait for the General Plan to finalize. That's going to drive a lot of what changes in the code, in the Subdivision Code and the Zoning Code. So we're working right now on those changes in the General Plan to help guide those changes that are going to come down in the two comprehensive codes. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Darrow, Mr. Kern. Just acknowledging, you know, this is a long time in coming. And the General Plan with the crosswalk of all the codes that have to change to fit the General Plan, I'm really excited about that. Chair, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I'm just thinking back, you know, Cory Harden wrote us an email, and I think she actually quoted you, Jeff, as saying you didn't want to be subjected to automatic approvals if you lost, Page 40 PC-3 February 2,2021 you know, if we went past a certain amount of time. Is that right? Am I not remembering that conversation correctly? MR. DARROW: I do have a copy of her testimony. She was referencing comment I made at the Planning Commission relative to the option that we have to opt out of automatic approvals. And that's what I was mentioning earlier. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It was positive, though, towards getting out of the automatic approval process? MR. DARROW: Correct. I mean we have automatic denials in our code, and so there's also automatic approvals. The automatic approval right now is trumping us because it's coming out of State law. So the only way we can get out from that is for the County to create an ordinance to exempt us out of that State law. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Which State law is that,that requires us to automatically approve? MR. DARROW: It's Section 91-13.5. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm looking at it right now. It says, "Unless otherwise provided by law, an agency shall adopt rules that specify a maximum time period to grant or deny a business or development-related permit, license, or approval; . . . " MR. DARROW: Or it's automatically approved. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Well it's to grant or deny. I don't see that we have to automatically approve it. MR. KERN: Well the way Chapter 25 is written right now is that it is an automatic approval after the 90 days. So what happens when you're in the Planning Commission hearing and you need to maybe vet something out more, you basically have to get the applicant to agree to continue it. If they don't, it's an automatic approval. So it kind of forces the commission's hand at that point in time. Where this still makes it so the Planning Department has to move it forward to Commission within that 90 days, but gives that 60 days where it's, "Hey, we need to work this out." Gives the body, which would be very similar to the County Council, the opportunity to say, "You know what, we're going to time out for a minute, we're going to step back, we're going to work this out without having to force the applicant's hand or the landowner's hand on that. Having to get them to agree." MR. DARROW: So, I'll give you an example. The one I was using earlier. We came to our timeframe of 90 days. And the Planning Commission could not grant Page 41 PC-3 February 2,2021 or deny the permit. They were stuck because it was three-three. So that's where this kicks in because they did not make the decision to grant or deny within the timeframe to make that decision. So that became the automatic approval. MR. KERN: So with this code amendment, they could say, "We'll postpone, we'll wait." Then they could work it out and it doesn't move into that automatic approval. It's definitely a two-way street type of code change. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It almost sounds like we're saying that our County law is trumping State law. But it's the other way around, correct? State law trumps County law. If I just read 91-13.5 again—and correct me. Just correct me when I'm not getting it. But this is State law now, that we have to grant or deny within a certain amount of time. So it's up to us, but you're saying that it goes to automatic approval after that. Which I understand from before, it's something we've always talked about. MR. KERN: So it's grant or deny. So it's up to us, in Chapter 25,that we made it up to us, says it's an automatic approval. MR. DARROW: So in this particular case, we're extending the time. So the maximum time that we had previously was too short to be able to actually give that flexibility to the Commission. I don't want to bring up other issues that the State law is putting pressure on us as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So this State law right here requires that we approve after the set amount of time? MR. DARROW: No, it requires us to make a decision within a particular time period, or else it's automatically approved. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Understood, but where does it say in here that we have to automatically approve it. That's what I'm not seeing. MR. KERN: The State law says we have to make a decision, right. Then we chunked down into our County Code, which is a finer stroke. So in our County Code it says you have to do it within 90 days. There is us complying with that State law. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so we set the time required by this HRS section, and then we set the approval. MR. KERN: And we set the approval. So the approval was previously or is set to that 90. Page 42 PC-3 February 2,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But previously we don't like the automatically approved within the time constraint,right? That's what we stated before, Jeff, yeah? MR. DARROW: If I could read this, maybe it will bring a little bit more clarity. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What section is that? MR. DARROW: It's 91-13.5, subsection (c). MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I've got it all right in front of me. No need read it. MR. DARROW: So it says, "All such issuing agencies shall take action to grant or deny any application for a business or development-related permit, license, or approval within the established maximum period of time, or the application shall be deemed approved; . . . " MR. KERN: So our established time right now is the 90 days. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So do not(a) and (c) kind of contradict each other? Because the beginning says we can either deny or approve. It doesn't say we have to approve. MR. DARROW: Within that maximum time period. But then (c) says if you don't do that, you're automatically approved. I think number (2) is the best way which is let's get an ordinance to exempt us out of this. MS. KIMBALL: Chair, if I may just interject here? I think the simple answer to where you're going, Matt, is we can fix this at the County level by changing our ordinance to reflect the fact that we would do an automatic denial as opposed to an automatic approval. That would be in alignment with the HRS. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Does it say in here that we can automatically deny then? MR. KERN: The way I understand it, it gives the County the authority to do so. And how that code is written, in certain applications it's an automatic denial. In other applications it's an automatic approval. So it gave the County the opportunity to do that and it was codified as an automatic approval, and this is housekeeping to make it work better. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Well I never did like the automatic approval, so I'm glad that we're headed in that direction. I just was trying to figure out in this section of code why we're able to do that. And there's a Page 43 PC-3 February 2,2021 following bill, too that I brought up to Mike (Yee) and asked him about, and he kind of told me no, but now I'm looking it, it's allowing for the opportunity. So I'm just interested in why we're able to skirt around it when needed. And I like learning this, so thank you for kind of clarifying and working through it with me. MR. KERN: And I think this is another opportunity where a comprehensive code audit will certainly be beneficial. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. Okay. Thank you guys. MR. DARROW: Since we're on this subject, either a denial or an automatic approval puts pressure on somebody. The automatic approval puts pressure on us, right? The automatic puts the pressure on the applicant. So we have to kind of keep that in mind, you know, when we start using these automatic approvals or denials. Somebody's on the hook there, and it puts pressure on somebody. It's better, I think, for the public if it puts pressure on us so that we do our job in a timely manner, or else that's taken care of. You know, they don't have to wait. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I agree with you. We had that issue with building permits. That was a discussion we had a year or two years ago, was building permits have no end date. They can just go on and on. There's no requirement by that agency to issue. But Planning didn't. So when I first became aware of that, it's like, "Oh, interesting." MR. KERN: Well interestingly enough, we have various applications that have no time conditions on them. They could go on for perpetuity. We have other ones that are automatic denials, that they don't occur. We have other ones that are automatic approvals that occur. We have a wide array of various applications with varying degrees of approvals. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But it's up to us via this section to set that date and the approval or denial? MR. KERN: It gives us the authority to do so, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And we just became aware that we can do this? Corp Counsel just realized that? MR. DARROW: This has been ongoing. This has been in the code for a long time. So we've been dealing with these for some time. But again, the clarity that we're trying to get is Section 2, what does that mean? Like Council Member Kimball was saying, that it could just be a simple change in our code and that would suffice for creating an ordinance. And that's the clarity we've been trying to find. Is it an ordinance, a special ordinance that we've got to create to exempt Page 44 PC-3 February 2,2021 the County from this entire law, or is it specific to each development, permitted related, permit or license? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But the State law kind of trumps everything we do. It's already there. It's built in. MR. DARROW: But again, they gave us the right to exempt out of it. So it would be good to take advantage of that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, well thank you for clarifying and helping through that. Appreciate it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, do you yield? Okay,just making sure. Thank you. Mr. Inaba, you have the floor. MR. INABA: I just want to point out real quick, I did talk to Maija about this, and I was also concerned with the automatic approval. But I'm not necessarily now. I don't know the whole story, but Maija assured me that in her 14-plus years with the department, I think only two automatic approvals happened. So it's not to normal of an occurrence. So just wanted to put that on the record since I had that conversation, and it was a concern of mine. MR. KERN: I also think that helps kind of clarify why it's here now, because it's only happened a couple of times. Typically when you get to that place with the 90 days, the applicant, the landowner says, "Sure, I'll continue it. I'll give you more time." It's very rare for them to push up against it. So it's not much of an issue and then you run into that odd situation that Deputy Director Darrow just explained and then you get pressed. So that's why this change is critical. But it's not commonly needed. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Richards, I saw your light on earlier. MR. RICHARDS: I'll just jump in. This is that balance that you're talking about, and I agree with what you said, Jeff, it's better that the activity, the onerous activity, is on the County, not on the individual. So I'm not as concerned about the automatic approval because it pushes our side, especially in the face of the building permit situation we are in right now. So I think by going forward Now I hear you as far as putting a Band-Aid on it, and it sounds like there's a gaping wound in Chapter 25, but that being said, again, conversation, communication going forward to get things to the goal line. But we do have to have the pressure being put on us that we are performing. That's closing down that window as far as dragging on and on and on. Page 45 PC-3 February 2,2021 So I will support it because if this is one way we can start the healing of Chapter 25 I am willing to go there, but we've got to go forward. So thanks, I'll yield. MR. KERN: If I may just kind of add a little bit of more light to that. So in a variance application, if the action isn't taken within a certain period of days, it's an automatic denial. So when the department will be behind, overloaded with applications, start getting behind, they'll actually send the applicant,the consultant, whoever it is, a request to say, "Will you please give me a time extend so we don't automatically deny you." Because the intention is not to automatically deny or automatically approve. Everyone's trying to work with everyone generally, but that's kind of the opposite of it when you have staff saying, "Can you please give us a time extension?" So that's the opposite side, that has automatic denial. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that. Checking in with folks in West Hawaii. Any questions or comment for the Planning Department? MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Everything's been explained quite well. Thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great,thank you. Ms. Lee Loy, you have your light on. MS. LEE LOY: Just one more question. We're doing 60 days here, right? From 90 to 60? MR. KERN: No. I think the clarification is that the Planning Department, once they accept it,they have 15 days to accept the complete application. From there, 90 days to get it to the Planning Commission. Now the 60 days gives it from that 90 forward. It essentially gives two hearings that the Commission can say, "Whoa, let's time it out." So it's still the same basic process that everyone's used to, it just opens up that window once it gets to Commission. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. However, I think what's utterly confusing is 15 or 30 or 45 or 90, or another 60. And if we could have some consistency on 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, I think that would go a long way in our comprehensive audit of Chapter 25. MR. KERN: See the little twinkle in your eye? I'm excited about that. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball. Page 46 PC-3 February 2,2021 MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I support this piece of legislation when we vote for it, but since you guys brought up the comprehensive plan review, I'm just going to make a note about it. And it's really about language in connection with the `Aina Aloha Futures conversation that we had yesterday with Vibrant Hawai`i, which is let's not only think about the comprehensive Chapter 25 revision as economic development, but also as that triple bottom line: social justice, environmental change. Part of what we discussed in our Vibrant Hawaii meeting is to normalize this `Aina Aloha process. We need to be using the language in all the settings, in all the places that we serve. So as we talk about this, we want to be careful and making sure that as we do the revisions our goal is not only economic development, but that triple bottom line that we all want for our community. So mahalo for the leeway to make that statement. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Did you want to address that, Director Kern. MR. KERN: I kind of just want to make a comment on that. I feel very similar. That's why the General Plan is so critical, you know, to get that complete sustainability picture, which then comes down into our code and does need to address all of those. This is a great opportunity. There's been so much change. I was just thinking about it earlier that when the last General Plan was amended, we didn't even have an i-Phone. I mean just that alone, and we live in such a different world now in so many ways. Sea level rise, et cetera; more data, more information. So I think the Planning Department is very much behind that. Thank you. CH. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Just because we're talking about Cory Harden's email, she did say—what was the difference between a contested hearing? Because I also feel like this is designed to protect the public and give them ability to have, say if they want to hold the process up and they want to participate and they want to get in there and say, "No, we don't want this to go forward,"to give them the ability. But in that case, as a contested case hearing, is that something that is very difficult for members of the public to begin? Is it simple? I mean, how does that work for the public? MR. KERN: It's actually relatively simple. So the applicant when they're giving out their notice to surrounding property owners, they have to give out two notices to surrounding property owners, within that they actually have to provide the form and the language for a contested case hearing. So the difference is some people sometimes say, "Oh I want to do a contested case," and they just want to give testimony. So people can come and give testimony, right, it's a public hearing. Page 47 PC-3 February 2,2021 The contested case, so "No, I want to file a contested case. I believe I have standing." So they file that in a timely fashion and they pay their fee for that,then they can go in front of the Commission and request standing for a contested case. So if they're an immediate neighbor, if they are somebody that is going to be affected, the Commission will give them standing. Now if the person say lives in New York City and they just decided to file a contested case, there's really no standing there because there's no affect to them. So this doesn't change. That contested case stands there. It's basically put in front of everybody within the surrounding property area. It's not something that is hidden or shied away from. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So regardless of the outcome of the hearing by the Commission, the contested case hearing documents have been signed and sent in and it's done. So in that case it is not happening, and then MR. KERN: The contested case has to be filed before it goes to Commission. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So as long as it's filed thought, by the people who want to file it, then that creates the hold for the automatic approval? MR. KERN: Yeah then it creates—well, depending on if they get standing. So again, the person's going to file their contested case, so they're going to go in front of the Commission and let's just say it's the immediate neighbor for example, right? I have an issue with it. They're going to get standing, the Commission will grant them standing, and now it kind of moves into a different realm. We're not worried about timeframes anymore. It needs to go through its course. Sometimes it happens that day, sometimes it goes to a hearings officer. For example, Hu Honua. For that SMA (Special Management Area Permit), there was a contested case filed by multiple people. The Planning Commission granted them standing, and then the Commission instead of doing it themselves, they got a hearings officer. They went for months around that. They came back to the Commission with their conclusions, law, and findings of facts. So once you move into a contested case, it can take a life of its own, which can be that day or it could be six months down the road. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So it depends on the circumstances, but as long as they're standing to that contested case hearing application that was filed, then no automatic approval. MR. KERN: Correct. Page 48 PC-3 February 2,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. MR. KERN: You're welcome. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions or comments? No? MR. INABA: Oh yeah. Real quick. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: With regards to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder's question, does the 60-day timeline stick? Does it pause and resume? Say it was—no? MR. DARROW: Sorry about that. I jumped the gun. But when the contested case is filed, basically the whole process shifts. There's no timing at that point. MR. INABA: Okay. I understand. MR. DARROW: So that's where the automatic approval is out. There's no 60-days after a public hearing. It can take sometimes as along as like what Director Kern said, months and sometimes even longer. MR. INABA: Thank you. MR. DARROW: Just to also note, there was a revision not that long ago to the contested case rules that now to try to see if they can mediate. There's a mediation process prior to having the County hire an expensive hearings officer. To see if they can mediate the concerns before going down that road. So that's been very helpful. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for sharing that. Okay, and thank you for your work to ensure that this section of the code is consistent with Commission rules and procedure. We have a motion on the floor to send Bill 5 to the Council with a positive recommendation. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 5: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 5 on first reading (Approved) was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 49 PC-3 February 2,2021 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great job, everyone. One more to go. Bill 12, Mr. Clerk. Bill 12: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE 4, ARTICLE 5 AND ARTICLE 7 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR MEDICAL CLINICS AND MASSAGE, ACUPUNCTURE, CHIROPRACTIC AND OTHER SIMILAR HEALTH SERVICE FACILITIES The Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions forward favorable recommendations for this amendment to the Zoning Code, which clarifies the definition of medical clinics and personal services establishments, and to identify zoning districts where such facilities would require a Use Permit. Reference: Comm. 52 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed: January 19, 2021 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Mr. Richards, to recommend passage of Bill 12 on first reading.) ;and Comm. 52.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated December 30, 2020,transmitting the draft transcripts from the Leeward Planning Commission's October 15, 2020, and November 19, 2020 meetings. ;and Comm. 52.2: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated December 30, 2020,transmitting the draft transcripts from the Windward Planning Commission's November 5, 2020, and December 3, 2020 meetings. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Director Kern, Deputy Darrow, want to provide us a quick overview? There wasn't a lot of discussion in Commission. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Sure. This is a relatively simple Band-Aid. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: It's part of the healing process, guys. MR. KERN: It is. Well essentially, I know this kind of came through conversation through me and the department, through quite a while ago, and basically this section of the code wasn't really updated to include, you know, massage, chiropractic, acupuncture and similar health services that are very Page 50 PC-3 February 2,2021 mainstream right now. Basically it wouldn't allow that in certain areas. Wouldn't allow that through a Use Permit. For example in a residential where you could get a Use Permit, it would say you could have it for care for the elderly, convalescent and whatnot, but it wouldn't specify any of those. So this is just an area, to actually include those areas. It will be permitted in various zonings, RCX (Residential-Commercial Mixed), V (Resort-Hotel), CN(Neighborhood Commercial), CG (General Commercial), CV (Village Commercial); in other areas it would either be a Use Permit or a Special Permit depending on the zoning and the State Land Use. Relatively simple Band-Aid. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for the overview. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This is what I spoke about previously and I couldn't touch on it because we weren't there. But a long time ago, I asked Mike (Yee), "Mike, my constituent's reaching out to me, and if you go on Google Maps and you go and zoom in, you find massage clinics, all kinds of things, all over Puna." But what I learned was that it's not allowable in Ag districts. So it was a fight and then I let it go because it came down to I can't amend State law, I'm a County officer. Okay, and I was new so I was learning. Then I went down the road of, "Well fine, I'm going to amend the fee for a Special Use Permit.? Because that's one thing that's under our control via the County is the fee that we charge, to make it easier. But I didn't. But I'm just wondering, although I love this, because a lot of people in my district that ask me to approve or to make it more possible and more easy for them to do massage, chiropractor work in Ag districts, it didn't seem like it was allowable. But this medical clinic definition is listed now as being a permissible use in an AG district. MR. KERN: No. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It is. It's in here. MR. KERN: It's a permissible use by way of a Special Permit. If it's State Land Use Ag, it would be a permissible use by a Special Permit. Just like you'll see in there that a bed and breakfast could be by way of a special permit. So you could still, before this, go on State Land Use Ag and ask for an acupuncture, massage, chiropractic clinic, and that's a Special Permit, which gives you a lot more room. You can ask for a lot of things with a Special Permit. A Use Permit however, is much trickier for like a Residential use. It only list's those things, that's it. You can't ask for anything else. So I think it will help on the Ag side because it will be there, you're not asking for something kind of not permitted by way of by way of a Special Permit, but it will actually open the doors up to allow people to request a Use Permit in a Residential area. Which Page 51 PC-3 February 2,2021 still has to go through the public process, the hearing process, notification and everything else. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I just realized, yeah. I probably should eat more lunch. It's still by Special Use Permit, but the definition has been widened for a medical clinic. MR. KERN: Correct. And that's something that comes up frequently. If somebody will look at the code and they'll see, "Oh I can do this," in there and they think that they can because it says, you know, "permitted" and they missed that fine area, "permitted by a Special permit." MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Special Use. And is a medical clinic allowed by Special Use Permit in an Ag district under State code? MR. KERN: By way of a Special Permit, yeah. Because right now you can always ask for anything with a Special Permit. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But not on Ag though. Ag is different. That's what I wanted to MR. KERN: On Ag. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: On Ag? MR. KERN: It has to be unusual, it has to meet all the criteria, and not to say you're going to get it, but what you can ask for is very broad. Where on a Use Permit it's very narrow. It's specifically what's listed there. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. DARROW: To bring a little clarity is that—and this is kind of what Zendo is saying, is that in a Use Permit, you have very limited uses you can ask for. It doesn't have a section that says, "and any other use that meets this criteria." Special Permit has that section that says, "and any use that meets the criteria for a Special Permit." So it opens the door to a number and variety of uses you can request. Maybe we can add that one day. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: We're you going to say something? MR. KERN: As an example if you look on page four, Section 5, it'll say that"In addition to the uses permitted under subsection (a) above . . . "which are just the regular permitted uses within the RS (Residential) district, "the following uses may be permitted in the RS district, provided that a use permit is issued for each Page 52 PC-3 February 2,2021 use." So that list right there, (1)to (11), is what you could apply for a Use Permit. Anything not on that last, you can't apply for. It's out of there. Now if this State Land Use Ag, you could have that list and then you could say, "I also want to do something completely different."And again, not to say you're going to get it, but you're allowed to have that ask. MR. BROWN: Excuse me. I'm sorry Chair. I'm getting a message that we might have lost audio for a little while. Do you mind taking a very short recess? Recess: At 6:29 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting was reconvened at 6:30 p.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Director Kern, as you were saying? MR. KERN: I believe I was just giving the example of what would be permitted versus the Ag side which gives a lot more latitude. Again, all of this comes down a Planning Commission decision. The Planning Department makes a recommendation and background report, and then the Planning Commission approves. So that Use Permit situation that we just worked with is what you would work with for this section. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so if someone in my district wants to open up a massage clinic, they still have to go get a Use Permit. MR. KERN: If it's in MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It's in Ag, almost everything is in Ag. MR. KERN: If it's in Ag, it'll be a Special Permit. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So same instances, same everything applies basically? MR. KERN: In my former life, yeah, I'd help you (inaudible). MR. DARROW: You know, one of the comments than came in from Mrs. Stephanie Bath, she had come in to—and she is in your district. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, she is one of the people, I had helped her. Page 53 PC-3 February 2,2021 MR. DARROW: So she came in for a Special Permit to do a massage clinic. I believe that's what it was. And this has been, you know, this is what happens in our line of business. We think everything's going well, and then we send out for comments, and we get comments from different agencies. We get left hooks sometimes. So apparently the Department of Health has changed their rules to say that if you're doing a massage clinic in a residence, you have to separate it out from the residence. So that's kind of thrown a wrench. Then to get a building permit for a separate structure not associated with the residence, is difficult. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It is. MR. DARROW: So that's what unfortunately happened with Mrs. Bath. So we're learning that as we're going. We're trying to inform people before they come in to go check with certain agencies before they go down the road of a Use Permit or a Special Permit. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Thank you guys very much for that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mr. Richards, your light is on. MR. RICHARDS: Thanks, Chair. Just a through look at the gaping wound of Chapter 25, here you have a definition of medical clinic. It's not species specific. And there's one section here that refers to veterinary establishments. But it's looking like anywhere that we mention medical we can put in a veterinary because it's a medical and it complies with this definition. MR. DARROW: Are you going to do it? MR. KERN: No, I was going to move to continue. MR. DARROW: So the way the code works is it has this section, which I learned very well as an inspector, Section 244, which says, "Uses not listed under the permitted uses are prohibited." So there actually is a veterinary establishment in the code. So if you want to do a veterinary establishment or a veterinary clinic, just look in the district you want to do it and see if it's listed. If it's in the Ag, guarantee Special Permit. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, I just—as we strive to fix Chapter 25, it's not, I guess, species specific. So not that I'm not going to support this, but I don't know if it's—okay, I won't ask that question any more then. Okay Chair, I'll yield. Page 54 PC-3 February 2,2021 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Well I was just going to help Mr. Richards. It's definition. Definition, definition, definition. So if you look at the front end of Chapter 25, veterinarian clinic is defined. So if there is no definition, which is kind of where we're at with this particular piece of legislation, they're defining it and allowing it in the various sections. So you've got to start at the very beginning of Chapter 25 and look for the definition. Chair, I think we can go home. Can I please call for the question? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I'm just going to check in with West Hawaii. Ladies, any questions or comments before we go to the vote? MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. No. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to send Bill 12 to the Council with a positive recommendation. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 12: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 12 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Gentlemen. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 6:35 p.m., Mr. Inaba moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 55 PC-3 February 2,2021 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: We are adjourned at 6:35. Thank you. Approved: ' 12-2—EtY) 1 Ms. Ashley L. Kier iewicz, Chair ( te) Planning Committee AK/cit. Page 56