Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2021/07/20 2020-2022 Committee on Planning 11th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawai i July 20, 2021 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 1:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kona, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Vice Chair (came in later) Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We are closing public testimony time and moving on to the business of the day. Mr. Clerk, if you would be so kind as to read in our communications. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 318: NOMINATION OF ROBERTA KU`ULEI KEAKEALANI TO THE HAWAII COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated June 30, 2021, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. PC-11 July 20,2021 Vote on Comm. 318: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Roberta Ku`ulei Keakealani to the Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy 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. 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. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, next communication please. Comm. 319: NOMINATION OF MATTHEW CLARK TO THE HAWAII COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated June 30, 2021, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Vote on Comm. 319: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. Matthew Clark to the Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy 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. 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. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, our final communication. Page 2 PC-11 July 20,2021 Comm. 320: NOMINATION OF AARON SPIELMAN TO THE HAWAII COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated June 30, 2021, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to forward the nomination of Mr. Aaron Spielman to the Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission to Council with a positive recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Richards. (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward to introduce and provide a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Bartolome. Is Mr. Spielman joining us on Zoom? MS. BARTOLOME: Yeah, no, Mr. Spielman is not able to attend today because he had to report to jury duty. So we are requesting to forward him to Council confirmation. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We will take your request under consideration, thank you. Any questions, deliberations, comments from my colleagues? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thanks, Chair. I think the fact that the candidate is not here because of civic duty, in part starts the support. I do know him and I can see where this would be kind of a bridge of what we're looking for as far as going forward. Now that being said, we as a Council have agreed that we don't move anybody into a commission or committee without having them come before us. However, moving forward with the process, I think is a reasonable request and because I know him, I am very comfortable with supporting the request from the Administration to move him forward to Council with the stipulation, obviously, that he would show up for Council. Kind of hard to get out of jury duty to show up for this. So I think that is a reasonable request to go forward. So I would support that going forward. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. And I'll concur with my colleague, Mr. Richards. I do not know Aaron. He is in my district but only barely. The northern border is very strange between my district and Tim's. But we did have a chance to connect yesterday. It was initially going to be just a quick conversation and then we ended up talking for over an hour about various things. Page 3 PC-11 July 20,2021 I'm very impressed with his level of expertise, experience, and commitment to public service work. He also mentioned that he had done a significant amount of work in historic preservation on the East Coast,particularly with the VELS (Virtual Environment for Learning Surveying) environment there, but was born and raised here; has done cultural preservation work here. And at best, he has paddled around this island. And that was like, okay, deal sealed. So I would concur with my colleague. Let's move him forward to the next Council Meeting and hopefully he'll be able to join us then. Thanks Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. I just have a question for Ms. Bartolome. He will be available for our next meeting? MS. BARTOLOME: Yes. MS. DAVID: Okay, alright, that'll be fine. And I have a question for Mr. Clerk. Mr. Clerk, is the 45-day action ? MR. HENRICKS: This is one of the rare commissions or boards of the County that does not include any timeframe for appointment. MS. DAVID: Perfect, thank you. Then, thank you very much. We'll look forward to seeing Mr. Spielman and I concur with Mr. Richards and Ms. Kimball. Thank you, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball, did you have anything further to say? No? Any other questions or comments? Okay, I was really looking forward to speaking with this gentleman. His resume really screamed place-making, and I'm really into creative place-making. So, I had some questions and wanted to know more about his work with Parker Ranch and Kona Historical Society. Seemed really interesting. I do think Ms. Kimball and Mr. Richards are excellent judges of character. So I'm willing to take a vote on this today with the understanding, Ms. Bartolome, that we will get a chance to speak with Mr. Spielman at the next Council Meeting. Thank you for making that happen. MS. BARTOLOME: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, there is a motion on the floor. All in favor please say "aye." Page 4 PC-11 July 20,2021 Vote on Comm. 320: The motion to confirm the appointment of (Approved) Mr. Aaron Spielman to the Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission was 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. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. The nomination of Mr. Spielman to the Cultural Resources Commission is forwarded to the Council with a positive recommendation. Thank you. Moving on to business of the day. Mr. Clerk, could you please read in Bills for Ordinance. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 52: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT KALAOA 5TH, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-005:015 and Page 5 PC-11 July 20,2021 Bill 53: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA DISTRICT ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL—ONE ACRE (A-la) AND AGRICULTURAL—FIVE ACRES (A-5A) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—22,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-22) AT KALAOA 5TH, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-005:015 (Applicants: Timothy Joseph Ward and Kay Lynn Ward) (Area: approx. 3.992 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to the State Land Use Boundaries Maps and change of zone, which would allow the Applicant to apply for subdivision of the property into six buildable lots with a minimum of 22,000 square feet for each lot. The property is located at 73-4350 Hawaii Belt Road, south of its intersection with Kaiminani Drive. Reference: Comm. 314 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 314.1: From Deputy Planning Director Jeffrey W. Darrow, dated June 22, 2021, transmitting the draft transcript from the Leeward Planning Commission's May 20, 2021, meeting. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the of Business: following item was taken out of order: CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'm going to take up Bill 53 first because there's a lot more substance and meat here that we should be discussing. So I will enter a motion to forward Bill 53 to the Council with a positive recommendation. Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend passage of Bill 53 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I believe that we have the representative for the applicant here with us today, Mr. John Pipan. Is your client joining us on Zoom? (Note: At this time, representative for the applicant John Pipan came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PIPAN: Yes, thank you, I believe they are. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. And I believe we have in Hilo Chambers, Deputy Director Jeff Darrow. MR. BROWN: We do, Madam Chair. Our friends from Planning are here. Page 6 PC-11 July 20,2021 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Is that also Maija Jackson? MR. BROWN: It is. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. Thank you. Mr. Pipan go ahead and introduce yourself for the record and provide us with an overview of the request before us today. Thank you. MR. PIPAN: Aloha kakou. My name is John Pipan, Land Planning Hawaii. I live just outside of Honoka`a. The applications before us today include the State Land Use Boundary amendment up first, I guess we're talking about the rezone amendment, the change of zone. I hesitate to say that any application is perfectly straight forward because as always, there's wrinkles and the devils in the details. So from a land use and planning perspective, these applications make a lot of sense to me. These are—so this property is a perfect candidate for infill being consistent with the County General Plan low density urban designation and the Kona Community Development Plan urban area. They're served by adequate utilities and transportation. I think we've struck a good balance with the surrounding community in terms of providing mitigations for concerns they've expressed with safety regarding the new private access road that would serve the six parcels. We're committing to preserving the agricultural sites on the property. And unfortunately, this property had an unfortunate history of previous landowner illegally grubbing the property without the proper permissions; destroyed some archeological sites. But those that remain will be preserved in perpetuity. So with that, I'll confirm that the Wards have reviewed the conditions for the change of zone and state land use boundary amendment. And for the bulk of it, they agree. I would respectfully request your consideration in altering Condition "J" of the rezone which pertains to an additional dwelling on any of the lots. The existing condition would prohibit that, but seeing how there are seven water commitments available for this property, we would request this be amended. And I have language that we would suggest. This is language consistent with what Deputy Director Darrow stated at the Leeward Planning Commission meeting on this topic. So with that, I'm ready to answer questions you might have. Thank you much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Pipan. If the Wards are on Zoom, I would love to provide them an opportunity to address the Council. Page 7 PC-11 July 20,2021 (Note: At this time, Applicants Timothy Joseph Ward and Kay Lynn Ward came forward to address the members of the Committee, via videoconferencing.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha, if you could please introduce yourselves for the record? MRS. WARD: Sure. Kay Ward. MR. WARD: Tim Ward. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha. Wanted to provide you an opportunity to address the Council and share with us your intentions around this request before us. MRS. WARD: Sure. So, our intent was to purchase the land and then build homes on it that will be homes for rent, was our initial and current plan. When we were there it was apparent to us that there was not a lot of affordable housing or places for rent, if you needed to rent a home for a year. We're from Nebraska. We currently live in Omaha. We'll be moving to Hawaii first part of next year. But here we own some townhomes, and so we have those as our rental properties. And when we were in Hawaii, we realized there really isn't a lot of affordable rental property. So it was our desire to purchase this land; subdivide it, and then be able to build some nice family homes on the property and then rent them out like an annual kind of lease situation. And as he said, there's two historical sites on there that we had agreed to when we purchased the land, and still do, agree that they should be maintained in the correct manner that was in the document. I think it's a 10-foot and a 20-foot boundary around those artifacts. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for sharing that with us and being present today. I wanted to call Planning forward to provide them an opportunity to address the Council as well. And I also wanted to acknowledge the work that was put in by the Leeward Planning Commission, Applicant, and Planning Department to massage a number of these conditions in the ordinance before us today. Jeff and Maija you have the floor. (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow and Planner VI Maija Jackson came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 8 PC-11 July 20,2021 MR. DARROW: Aloha Chair Kierkiewicz and members of the Planning Committee, this is Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department, as well as Maija Jackson. We're here to answer any questions you might have regarding the application. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Perfect. Thank you. Alright, any questions or comments from this body? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Jeff, the applicant is requesting an amendment to Condition "J". And when I read through the condition, it's something that the Council would need to initiate. Can you provide the background and the thought process behind that? MR. DARROW: Normally in a change of zone where we're, you know, changing the density from a low density to a higher density, we will add in a condition. It's our typical standard condition, which in this ordinance, Bill 53, it's Condition "J". It's what we call our restrictive covenants condition. And basically it says that the applicant shall provide restrictions in their deeds limiting prohibiting the construction of a second dwelling or CPR (Condominium Property Regime) on each lot. In this particular case, Mr. Pipan makes a good point that they have an additional unit of water available. At the Planning Commission, the Planning Department did not have an issue with that request, although the Planning Commission did and did not move to approve that requested amendment. The Planning Department at this time still is supportive of the request if the Council is considering an amendment. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Mr. Darrow. And I'm a little rusty on this, it's been a little bit. And I know the deed restrictions specifically as it relates to the CPR's was on Ag. But we're going from Ag to RS (Single-Family Residential). MR. DARROW: Correct. MS. LEE LOY: So, help walk me through. Again, I'm a little rusty because I didn't think the Condominium Property Regime applied to RS. It only applied to Ag. MR. DARROW: A CPR usually, Condominium Property Regime is usually used in a multiple family or resort type situation where you're creating like an apartment or a resort where you have multiple owners of portions of a property, yet you're not subdividing. So you're creating separate ownership. Page 9 PC-11 July 20,2021 An apartment is a good example. So when you look at real property tax records, you'll see one TMK(Tax Map Key), but that TMK is broken up into multiple units that are owned by separate individuals. That is a process that's actually normally not done by the Planning Department, but it's done by the Real Estate Commission. They create the Condominium Property Regime. The way the Planning Department looks at it is it's basically one property with multiple owners. Previously, there was an allowance to do CPR's in the Agricultural District. That was changed, I'm just guessing maybe about in 2007 or 2008 with Director Yuen, where if you want to do a Condominium Property Regime in the Agricultural District, you have to comply with Subdivision Code, which basically means you need to have the land area. If the zoning is AG-1 (Agricultural) and you have two acres but you want three units, you cannot meet the Subdivision Code because you would need three acres to create those units. So at that point, basically if you're going to go through CPR, you might as well go through Subdivision, because then it creates separate ownership for each parcel. So that was a loophole that was in our Code and rules, and that's been eliminated. Right now, I think since that was passed, we've had maybe one that's come in through the Planning Department. You still have to go through the same process, but it's more appropriate to actually go through Subdivision and create separate ownership. I hope that answers your question. Sorry for being so long-winded. MS. LEE LOY: No,thanks, Mr. Darrow. Those things are moving along. I wanted to talk a little bit, because when I read the water,they have seven units of water which would allow for the seven dwellings. But after that, that pretty much caps them, right? MR. DARROW: Correct. Yeah, and so,just to kind of back up. The intention of this condition in not only this rezoning but previous rezoning, is when somebody's coming in from—and changing the zoning from, in this case, Agricultural 5 acres to Residential 22,000 square feet, you're already increasing the density, you know, from one property to six properties. If you allow second dwellings or `ohana's on that, it's going to double the density again. And so in the past, the Administrations as well as the Council, have not allowed that opportunity. In this particular case the applicant is not requesting to remove this condition, but to put an amendment in Condition "J" to allow the opportunity for `ohana on one of the lots, and to utilize that additional water unit. Page 10 PC-11 July 20,2021 MS. LEE LOY: Jeff, one more question. Part of the Conditions of Approval talks about, which is Condition "I"', the Affordable Housing, and we heard the applicant mention that they wanted to create some rental units. How does Condition "P" apply to that statement from the applicant? MR. DARROW: Chapter 11, which is the Housing Code, has the requirements to have to submit an Affordable Housing Agreement with the Office of Housing. In this particular case, because they are proposing six lots, it does trigger the need to be able to submit and get approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement with the Office of Housing and Community Development. So when they do go in and meet with them they can speak to them about the options. If they choose to do affordable rental units with their houses they could come up with an agreement with Housing on that particular possibility. MS. LEE LOY: One more question, Mr. Darrow. In the Conditions of Approval it talks about five years to get through the Subdivision process. Is that a manageable amount of time? And I'm asking because we see time extensions specifically around this particular condition, and the applicants trying to satisfy those conditions when the Subdivision process actually takes a lot longer. MR. DARROW: Well, we're hoping with our new EPIC (Electronic Processing and Information Center) system that that will change. But if it doesn't change and the applicants have difficulty meeting that five-year timeframe, we do have Condition "S"that allows for a one-time Administrative time extension up to an additional five years. So they do have the ability to have ten years. If they cannot meet that then they would have to come back before Commission and Council for an additional time extension. But I would believe at this point that they would be able to manageably meet that deadline of five years. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks for answering the questions. I'm going to yield at this time. I want to hear from the rest of my colleagues. You know, housing is so critical for everyone, and this is an opportunity. But I'm also really curious if through deed restrictions, there's a way to insure that we can keep some of it affordable, you know, not just on a yearly basis. But that's maybe something they can work out with the Department of Housing. Thanks Jeff for answering the questions. I yield at this time. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Mr. Richards. Page 11 PC-11 July 20,2021 MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And I'm not sure how to direct this question. You know, listening to my colleagues talking about the Affordable Housing component, actually any housing component for this County, but looking at six lots, and looking at your map, you know, it looks to be approximately all about the same size. Is there an interest of going for seven lots? And I don't know if that's a possibility. Because you have that water allotment that is, you know, valuable. And to not use it I think would be short-sighted for the community as a whole. Or if we haveI mean and this is not for me to decide, this is something for you to decide, but I'd sure appreciate the fact you're putting and enforcing and would like for you to be able to use this somehow. So I don't know if you are firm on this or you're just talking about it. Chair, can he respond? MR. PIPAN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Richards for the question. As for why we didn't pursue seven lots to begin with, we went back and forth with Planning quite a bit on the most appropriate zoning designation for this specific parcel. And as I recall part of that discussion was around the infrastructure requirements that would come into play when we did exceed six units. So at six units, you're allowed for a private non-dedicable right-of-way of 20-foot width with 16-foot pavement width. Above six lots you're stuck with a 50-foot right-of-way. So if we did pursue seven lots, we wouldn't be able to have seven lots because of the increase in right-of-way. MR. RICHARDS: One of the paradoxes. Okay, that answers that. I certainly am very interested in figuring out how to support you using that other water allotments. So, thanks Chair, I'll yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. How long have you folks owned this property? And perhaps I'll address you since you're here. MR. PIPAN: I will defer to the Wards. Please help me out? Do you recall when you bought this? MS. WARD: Yeah, I believe it's been about a year-and-a-half now, I believe. MR. INABA: Thank you. And then, do you folks own any other property here in Kona? MS. WARD: Yes, we're currently building a home on Hualalai Road. Page 12 PC-11 July 20,2021 MR. INABA: Okay. And your intention you say, is for rental. Realistically, what are we looking to rent as affordable, if we're talking affordable? MS. WARD: And I use the word, affordableI don't necessarily mean that. I think that word, affordable, might mean something very specific in Hawaii. Really, what we meant by it was to build anywhere from like a 1,700-1,800 square foot home, three bed, two bath kind of a home. A typical family home, not like a big multi-million dollar—million dollar kind of situation. At home a family—could support having a family rent. MR. INABA: Okay, yeah, and what does that family rent mean to you? MS. WARD: Honestly, I'm not quiteI'm not as familiar with the rental prices, especially now in Hawaii. I think they changed a lot from what we could tell from back here in Nebraska. After COVID (Coronavirus Disease) hit I think a lot of the daily rentals turned into monthly and annual rentals. And so it kind of shifted the market from what we could tell from here. And so I'm not sure where they've settled back to at this point. MR. INABA: For you folks what is the timeline you anticipate to complete this entire project from the subdivision to building of the structures? MS. WARD: It's our goal to start immediately. We've already purchased the land. We own the land already flat out, and we already have bank approval to provide us the funding to begin immediately. MR. INABA: Okay. And when do you anticipate to complete all of the work? MS. WARD: Certainly within the five years. I would hope closer to the three to four years. We've, again, our experience so far in building in Hawaii has been during COVID time. So getting to where we are on our personal home has taken longer than anticipated due to COVID and a lot of things around that. So, honestly, I'm hoping that once COVID is a little further behind us, that things will go a little speedier. MR. INABA: Thank you, Mrs. Ward. For the preservation plan, it says in the report, at least the part that I read,that it's not been completely carried out. When are we looking to have that completed? MS. WARD: Once we have the approval. It's my understanding, as soon as we have the approval, then we'll move forward with it becoming a subdivision and dividing it. That's when we'll have the archeologists and the appropriate people back out there to clearly define where that lava tube and the wall is and to clearly and define what that sizing around that would be. Page 13 PC-11 July 20,2021 Because that might cause us to even shift and make sure we preserve where the road will go. So again, that's something that as soon as we're approved, it's my understanding we can move forward with immediately. MR. INABA: Have those areas not been clearly defined? I know you folks already have MS. WARD: They have, but it's my understanding that it would be in our the correct thing to do is to hire someone again to completely spot, GPS (Global Positioning System) wise, exactly where those are. Currently there's some kind of fallen down, or there's some fencing that's around it. But I think it's our intention to hire somebody else to go back out there and clearly define where it is. MR. INABA: Thank you, Mrs. Ward. Your representative here might have something to add. MR. PIPAN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Inaba. The AIS (Archaeological Inventory Survey) does give positions with GPS accuracy and they explain some ways that they're able to increase that somewhat from a regular ten meter,plus or minus to somewhere in the range of five meters. However, that's not survey- grade accuracy. So as one of the conditions of the preservation plan, a survey will be conducted of the preservation areas and recorded with the deed. Then the interim 20-foot preservation buffer will be erected and confirmed. That will be in place throughout the subdivision development and construction process. After that's completed, there will be a permanent 10-foot buffer where no activities will take place, basically. MR. INABA: Okay. And question for our staff in Hilo. For the affordable housing component being that it triggers Chapter 11, is it correct that the landowners will only need to earn one credit for this development? MR. DARROW: Council Member Inaba, I'm not absolutely sure if it's one credit. I know that being that they are requesting more than four lots that it does trigger the requirement for them to be able to do the housing agreement. My understanding that it would be 20 percent of the project. So in this case, it's going to be 1.25 or 1.2 around there regarding affordable, but I'm not sure in regards to credits. MR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. I'll stop here and open it up to the rest of my colleagues. Thank you. Page 14 PC-11 July 20,2021 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Aloha. Thank you for being here Mr. Pipan and Mr. and Mrs. Ward. Council Member Inaba asked one of the questions that I was going to ask in what you considered affordable renting prices. We do have an extreme shortage of long-term rentals, especially now. We are being inundated by people moving here, buying homes cash, sight unseen for hundreds of thousands of dollars over asking price. I appreciate you saying that, you know, you're not necessarily aware and you don't intend to build mansions or million-dollar homes, but shacks are selling for $1.2 million in normal neighborhoods right now. So I have serious concerns about our community and the state of our housing market and this. I mean I went to a restaurant the other night and the immediate question that I got from three people that I knew at the restaurant was, "What can you do about helping us to endure and survive this onslaught?" And my response was, "Well, you know, what part of the constitution do you think I should not have to abide by when setting that policy for our County?" And the gentleman said, "Well I think we have a great constitution." And to which I laughed and appreciated that bit of joy in an otherwise really, really tragic circumstance. Because we keep getting pushed to build, build, build, because we need more housing. But I question the valid, authentic design of this housing to be affordable to anybody who actually already lives here. Because we find ourselves in a perpetual cycle of building for those who don't live here yet. Because when they come there with big money and big promises, yeah it puts money in our coffers as a County from taxes, but we end up in the same circumstances we've always been in. I thank you for answering one of my questions, Mrs. Ward, about if you planned on living in one of these homes. It sounds like you already are building somewhere off of Hualalai Road, so you'll have a different residence. I guess for me this is the overall principle. I also have to say, Mr. Pipan, I've received a number of very concerning emails from people that had complaints and stated that they felt manipulated and bullied into potentially changing their testimony in order to play the game of, if you give this then we'll give that. And something else that I talked to some friends about the other day when people say, "Hey, so you're into politics?" And I like to say, "No, I'm in public service." Because the definition of politics is actually the science of government. But we have somehow accidentally got into this point where the term politics becomes a disclaimer for the shucking and jiving, and the Page 15 PC-11 July 20,2021 backroom deals, and we'll just ignore that and we'll give you this, and how about the other? But when we look at the overall broad spectrum of the needs for our community, to me it doesn't necessarily mean perpetuating this—you know, it's hard we live in a capitalist society. We live in a, you know, free country. It could be contested whether or not Hawaii I'm going to digress here but I find some real concerns on the issues related to this property; to the purchase; to its one-year or ten-years or any amount of time,just turning into another big investment where somebody comes, you know, subdivides; builds six homes and the avoidance of utilizing or building and creating seven lots to use all seven water credits in order to not then put in the infrastructure required with six versus seven concerns me. We've just seen it over and over and over again. So I'm not feeling comfortable with this. I'm not feeling that the community that this is going to—would land directly in the middle of, and I grew up on a half-acre Ag lot on Ahikawa Street and Ahulani Street right there. It was very different than it is now, and people are hanging on by their fingernails to even get into a housing market if you already live here, and I don't think this helps that paradigm. I think this perpetuates identifying Hawaii as a commodified resource where our land—you know, deals can be made for culture to be overlooked or not overlooked based on the parameters or archeological surveys. And our resources are too cheap. We let it go too cheap. And I want to hold us to a higher standard of that because our infrastructure cannot sustain the onslaught that's already here and is heading our way. And there has to be more. There just has to be more. So with that I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. Yeah, you know, I agree with Ms. Villegas and we're all concerned about the cost of housing on our island. And I think it'll behoove all of us to do whatever we can from a legislative standpoint to make sure that the cost of housing, particularly with materials and construction. And we do have something coming up tomorrow that's going to be vitally important to the future of our island, I think. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Chung, so sorry, having a difficult time hearing you. MR. CHUNG: Okay, thank you. Anyway, I'll just get to my question. And maybe this is something for Corporation Counsel or Jeff. You know, we've heard representations from the applicant. I think, if I heard correctly, that they Page 16 PC-11 July 20,2021 want to provide some rentals in the Kona area just as they have seen in, I think it's Nebraska where they're at. I'm concerned about, you know,the proliferation of vacation rentals, however. And I'm just wondering from a legal standpoint, I kind of looked briefly through the ordinance and, you know, the supporting materials, but I'm just wondering if, you know, I want to take people for their word that they're going to try to create more rentals. But would it be possible to put a restriction where by, if the rezoning is approved, that it cannot be put into the vacation rental inventory. Possible? Corporation Counsel, Jeff, anyone? MR. DARROW: Aloha, Council Member Chung. Looking at the situation in this particular zoning that they're requesting is residential in a low density urban area. It's not one of the areas that would allow Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVR) as a permitted use, but we do have our Condition "J"which does allow for restrictive covenants. Right now, focusing on prohibiting second dwellings, but it could also be easily added in there, prohibiting vacation rentals as well. MR. CHUNG: So, and I really do appreciate that, Jeff. So as it stands right now, the zoning that they're seeking would not allow for vacation rentals anyway. MR. DARROW: There was a period of time that allowed—when the STVR law came into fruition, it allowed a period of time for people that wlere operating in residential zonings and different zonings to come in and be grandfathered, what we call Nonconforming Use. And that particular time is long-passed. There are only particular areas that are allowed as permitted uses now. For residential type zoning, you have to be in the General Plan Resort Node to allow that to be a permitted use. And this particular area is in the General Plan LUPAG (Land Use Allocation Pattern Guide) Map Low Density Urban, which would not allow that. MR. CHUNG: Thank you very much, Jeff. Next question, and you know, this is not real germane to this particular rezoning, but it does have some applicability, so I'm going to ask it. You know, we've heard many, many times from people who are faced with some violations of restrictive covenants. They've been told by some people within the Planning Department I think, that the Planning or the County does not enforce restrictive covenants. I don't know how true that is, but given this Condition "J"that you talk about regarding—requiring the landowner to create these restrictive covenants, does that now put the duty on the County to enforce the restrictive covenants? Page 17 PC-11 July 20,2021 MR. DARROW: In this particular case, I mean, overall as far as the first statement, the Planning Department does not normally enforce restrictive covenants that are created by a subdivision or an association. But if there's a specific condition that is in the ordinance that limits or prohibits a particular use, and even in their restrictive covenants and it's not complied with, the Planning Department can get involved and issue a violation for violating the condition of the ordinance. MR. CHUNG: Okay, very interesting. Thank you again, Jeff. I really, really do appreciate your wealth of information. You know, in this situation, of course there's a larger picture here rather than just these localized issues. I don't normally do this, and I don't even know whose district this is in. Whose district this is in? Holeka's? I will tell you this. In this particular case, I'm going to be looking to him for guidance, and in all probability be voting the way that Council Member votes on this matter. I'm not saying that I would do that every time, but for this particular case, and others that may be similar to it in the future, I will be looking for guidance from that Council Member. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you Mr. Chung. Anyone else? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you Chair, and thank you all for being here today. And Mr. and Mrs. Ward, I want to just say that I concur with the statements of Council Member Chung and Council Member Villegas. And I'm not sure that you're aware to the extent that folks come to us with the promise of affordable housing, and those promises are not kept. And I hate to be unfair or anything, but I do want you to know that that's the history. So some of us come with a little bit of a lens of that history. I want to ask first and foremost, you guys do have townhomes in Nebraska. Why was multi-family housing or something like that, not pursued as an alternate in this case? MRS. WARD: I guess we hadn't really considered it. Knowing that when we purchased the property or when we were looking at the property, the person before us was already looking to have it subdivided into six. And that just seemed like the reasonable thing to do with that piece of land, especially since it was surrounded by and it was already zoned as Ag. I guess we hadn't even considered that it could go to something so much higher density like townhomes. That wasn't what we had even considered. MS. KIMBALL: Did you (Mr. Pipan) have something to add to that? Page 18 PC-11 July 20,2021 MR. PIPAN: Yes, thank you, Ms. Kimball. It pertains particularly to the water availability and the particulars for this site. Seven units and the kind of long, thin layout of the site doesn't lend itself well to multi-family development. Plus the entire surrounding area is single-family residences. It doesn't really fit in with the surrounding area. So, A, there's no water available for any more than seven units and building a seven-unit condominium single building doesn't really fit with what's around it. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, thank you. Deputy Darrow, I had a follow-up question to my colleague's about STVRs. While these units would not be eligible for the Nonconforming Use permit, if the properties were later sold, they could become available as hosted STVRs. Is that correct? MR. DARROW: Aloha, Council Member Kimball. You're touching upon a tough area. We're in the process right now, I mean, there's been a lot of talk about hosted vacation rentals. And there's been different messaging put out to the public regarding this. We're actually currently in the process of being able to collaborate with our staff and be able to come up with a consistent message of what a hosted vacation rental is. You're not going to find that term in our Zoning Code or in our rules. It's basically a term that was created when they created non-hosted vacation rentals, which is the STVR bill that we have before us. So the difference between the two is that non-hosted is one where somebody does not reside in the home, yet rents out the entire home. That's the un-hosted or non-hosted vacation rental. A hosted vacation rental has been used to identify homes that are being rented with the owner or occupant living inside and renting out a portion of a home, similar to like a Bed and Breakfast or those types of things. The way, I mean please take it with a grain of salt, and again we're trying to get together currently to come up with a very strong message. At some point in the future, we either need to codify it and go through the whole process as we did before or we make it an unpermitted use. But basically, the way it's looked at right now is when somebody is in a single-family dwelling and lives there, a family, they have the opportunity of renting their home or a portion of their home to individuals living in rooms. We don't monitor whether they rent those rooms short-term or long-term. So that's where this term, hosted came about. There is a big difference between a hosted vacation rental and what we call a Bed and Breakfast, which is very similar but there is a big difference. A single-family dwelling limits the home to a single family or up to five unrelated individuals. A Bed and Breakfast allows for family to live in the home, but also to rent up to five bedrooms, and to allow an additional ten Page 19 PC-11 July 20,2021 people to rent out that particular home. So there is a big difference when it comes to occupancy. Again, I caution using the term, hosted vacation rental right now. I would just look at it as somebody renting out a portion of their home if they're living in there, whether they rent it out short-term or long-term. And yes, that is a possibility. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. The last few words there were the crux of what I was trying to get at. Please, I understand how important words are here and the semantics, and I do encourage the department to move forward and quickly on these semantics around STVRs. The hosted vacation rental in my district is one of the key challenges, I'm sure you know, people are calling you all the time from our office on that. But I hope that clarifies to my colleagues that there is still a potential for vacation rental in my mind with this particular approach to this property. I wanted to, and I know this was covered in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, but I want to be clear myself on this with respect to the preservation plan and what was required, and ways around that requirement. It sounds like—let me find the appropriate location here. The preservation plan required the formal survey and then they would have to put in some mitigation measures. However, the owners could go back to the Preservation Society and try to get around the preservation plan. Am I correct or incorrect on that? It must proceed in this way. They must get the survey and must do the mitigation measures. Thank you. MR. DARROW: If I could answer that? If you refer to Condition "L" it's very clear that the applicants are required by this ordinance to comply specifically with that condition, which speaks to the metes and bounds survey as well as the buffer to preserve the preservation sites. They don't have another option. There was a previous option of data recovery or preservation. In this case, the only option is to preserve in place. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Deputy for that clarification. I wasn't entirely clear that had been dealt with. MR. DARROW: I'm sorry, Council Member, if I could interject. My colleague brought to my attention one difference between what we had been speaking about, hosted vacation rental and Bed and Breakfast. There is one big difference, and that is that a Bed and Breakfast also requires a use permit. And so that's the other part. In the future, that is something that can be considered by the department. And in moving forward with trying to figure out how we're going to identify and figure a pathway for these, possibly, that Page 20 PC-11 July 20,2021 may be an option that we require a use permit for so-called hosted vacation rentals. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you Deputy, appreciate that. That's all for me for right now. I do want to hear from the rest of my colleagues. But I can assure my colleagues, like Council Member Chung's position, that I'm going to take Council Member Inaba's lead on this. I feel like this is a maybe not fully-baked product and maybe it needs a little more time in the oven before we make a decision on it. Thank you, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you Ms. Kimball. Anyone else? I also did want to mention that Mr. Pipan had put forward to the Council the request for that seventh water commitment. So I wanted to make sure we had that discussion, in the event that paperwork needs to be done in order to, you know, discuss and entertain that potential amendment. So,thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: One more thing. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Mr. Darrow for your clarification of Ms. Kimball's questions. And just as further clarification, to make sure I've got it straight, so this is all archeological findings stay in place is not a data recovery, correct? MR. DARROW: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay great,thank you so much. And then I just had a quick question for the Wards. I just wondered if you had any other large pieces of property or, you know, tracks like this that you were looking at in the Kona area for current purchases. It sounds like this property is completely purchased and taken care in that capacity, so now you're navigating the development portions. But I wondered if there were other properties in escrow at this time? MS. WARD: We have looked at another property, but had not pursued it. We're not pursuing any other property. MS. VILLEGAS: Did that property happen to be on Walua Road? MS. WARD: Yes, exactly. And it just—it was bigger than a project that we are capable of dealing with. MS. VILLEGAS: Got it. Thank you for confirming that. Yeah, that property was going to require much broader investments and infrastructure. Page 21 PC-11 July 20,2021 MS. WARD: Yeah, and it has a lot of archeological sites on it as well. My husband can attest, when we were there in May we hiked a lot of and it was able to see a lot of it. And so, it just would be more than—we're not big developers. We own some townhomes here in Omaha, but they were already built homes. So we're not—and I know it's hard to try to express who we are to you in a meeting like this, but we're just average hardworking people and we have bought some townhomes here in Omaha. We have seen that it is a good income stream, not making us rich but providing affordable housing for people. We have elderly people that rent some of our property, and to be honest with you, there's one woman in particular, we haven't raised her rent in three years now. She's on a fixed income. She's sweet as can be. She takes very good care of our townhome. So, you know, our intent is not to come there and make loads of money. Our intent is to come there and create an adequate income stream for it. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Mrs. Ward. I appreciate you sharing that. And yeah, it is awkward to be on Zoom, but at least we get to see you. And I appreciate your humble sharing of those intentions. And I'm sure you are hardworking people. The Nebraska and Omaha area, I mean that is kind of salt to the earth in the center of a lot of activity. Hawaii is very different in many of those ways. I also, you know, it breaks my heart and it seems a cheap fine to have paid, for the prior property owner to only been fined $10,000 for bulldozing this property and destroying architectural sites that were there. To no fault of your own. You know,that's just something that has happened. Unfortunately, it's happened a number of places. And so, it's one of the travesties. MS. WARD: To the vacation rental thing, I mean we have no plans of doing that, if that becomes part of the approval process of this work, completely fine with that. That is not our intention at all to ever do anything, less than—here all of our townhomes are yearly based. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, yearly rental agreements? Okay. It's just we are in a rental market where if you can find a long-term rental, the amount that's being charged so far supersedes what our ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) families are making that there's no way they could afford that even. I know many people. And so you understand, as Council Member Kimball shared, you're kind of experiencing the challenges—I'll say for myself from a personal experience, a Kama`aina girl now sits in this role, who hasI feel like many of these stories continue to be told. Page 22 PC-11 July 20,2021 And it relates back to real estate speculation. And so the sensitivity of the people that live here based on that is very heightened right now. So thank you for listening and for understanding, and I agree that this probably isn't completely baked. And so I want to make sure that everybody operating on this kind of an investment paradigm gets held to the highest standard of impact fees and contribution and participation in an authentic manner with the land that they would then be stewarding. They own it. So thank you. MS. WARD: I will say, if I could also interject,that here in Nebraska, obviously land, we have a lot of it, but it's also part of—owning land is something that is valued here. It's in our DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), our grandparents owned farms, etcetera; and my husband's parents and my parents. And so us pursuing looking at land is something that we do not—as seeing it as like to be developer type. It's more of that's just who we are. Owning land and preserving that is just part of what we're doing here. MS. VILLEGAS: Mrs. Ward I totally get that. And so you know, historically our host culture didn't own land. MS. WARD: Right, true. MS. VILLEGAS: So there's a lot of differences and as we navigate in the 21st century, those value systems are very heightened right now. So thank you for your understanding on that. MS. WARD: I do. I appreciate that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz. For clarification, I think Deputy Director Darrow, I heard you say, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this application will strictly be based on the archeological recommendation, the report, and that the data collection is not an option. Is that correct? MR. DARROW: Correct. Again, if we could refer to Condition "L". Previously, there was the option for data recovery or preservation. At the Planning Commission, there was a Condition "M"that was for the data recovery. That was removed. And the only option at this time is preservation in place. And so that's our Condition "L". Condition "M"was revised to include all the measures regarding the fencing and the speed bump, stop sign, and a mirror that would be placed. So again, it is not an option. MS. DAVID: Thank you for that clarification, because I'm going back and forth from the transmittal and what was discussed in there. And then thank you for putting out the specifics on that preservation plan requirement. And Page 23 PC-11 July 20,2021 so, right now I'm going to yield. And I really respect Council Member Inaba's position and comments on this application as well. So I yield, mahalo. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. You know, I just want to circle back. I've had numerous discussions with the neighbors on Ihumoe. And I just want to point out that Kaiminani is the main drive through Palisades, which is shown here in our map which is small properties, whereas Ihumoe is part the Kona Acres Subdivision one-acre lots. And the current zoning and the way that this property is, is in line with the rest of Kona Acres. So I do think that there needs to be more conversation. And the neighbors did have a big part to play in the Leeward Planning Commission meeting and testifying there. So coming here with the request to, you know, this is something that they wanted in there, this Condition "J". Having it removed, I don't think it's something we should just vote on today. I'm going to be asking for a postponement to work with the applicant to further discuss how we can best work with neighbors and the overall community to make sure that there's a benefit to this community. Because the average hardworking person is not able to get a place in Hawai`i, and we need to be mindful of that. We all have value and love to own land. Most people here can't afford it. So when the opportunity presents itself like this, I think we can have a fruitful discussion and I'll be asking for the postponement, but I'll leave it to maybe after, if you have any comments, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Ms. Lee Loy, you had your light on. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I was going to speak to the postponement, but I know you haven't had an opportunity to share your thoughts around this. So I wanted to speak to the postponement. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, thank you. I think everyone has already covered it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Oh, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Hi, you have the floor. Page 24 PC-11 July 20,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes, I exist. Thank you. I was waiting. I appreciate the conversation so far and thank you for recognizing me Chair. I just have a few questions. A lot of it was covered already. There was a mention in the notes that there is a well that DWS (Department of Water Supply) maintains, and it touches on lot number six, I believe, which is closer to the access road. But there's no sewer to be built, sorry, there's no sewer in the area. Is that correct? MR. DARROW: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And so that lot has a restriction that you cannot put—my question is can you put an individual sewer system on that lot? Or just cannot be within the 1,000-foot radius? MR. DARROW: It's within the 1,000-foot radius. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so they can still put an individual sewer system as prescribed by the engineer outside the 1,000-foot radius? MR. DARROW: Outside. Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. And then being that it's a subdivision, is there any park space, community space required? I know it's a six parcel and under subdivision which has its own rules as far as I know. MR. DARROW: I don't believe so for this. It's usually a much larger subdivision that will trigger park requirements. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. DARROW: They do have the requirement for Fair Share, which is Condition "0"which does part of that payment goes to Parks and Recreation. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But not within the individual subdivision being created. Okay. And then just for the owners, you are aware that you have a lava tube and the remains of a structure there. I mean, are you aware of what's in the tube? I can see the plan to keep that safe and fence it off, but—and there's mana behind that area, which is why it was recorded and fenced off by SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division). MS. WARD: Yeah, we've read the report and seen the report. We've seen the pictures. It's fairly dense in there now, so the times that we have been Page 25 PC-11 July 20,2021 there we haven't actually crawled into—close up to it. But we've read all of the reports that were done prior to our ownership. MR. WARD: The opening is very small to the tube. I have actually looked at it. It would be very difficult to crawl into it, it's very tight. It's a very small space. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MS. WARD: We're aware of the significance of it, but the fact that there was evidence of a fire, some nuts—what do you call it? Burnt wood. I'm having a brain-freeze right now. But we did read all the reports, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Those kinds of places have a lot of meaning, and so it's very important to protect it. MR. WARD: Absolutely. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But if someone was to build a house on the lot, and I saw this in the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting, as far as protecting it, GPS accuracy, the fact that there's a lava tube, and then creating access to an individual lot from the access road being created and working around that,there was a lot of discussion over whether that lot number five would even be able to have a house that had access from the road and how that would work and fit while maintaining that perimeter around that area. I thought that was interesting. I'm just saying it because I'm reading through the minutes and it's in there. How you go about that will be on you, but it's incredibly important that you do everything you can to protect it. And there's a lot of—there's just been too many times, as we've seen on this particular lot as well, where it's been bulldozed, flattened, or has been knocked down or the fence has been removed. And people just don't respect things the way that they should. So I'm just saying that not for you to defend anything, but just make sure that you are very understanding of what it is and the potential meaning that place has. MS. WARD: Yes, absolutely. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, and hearing the concerns of my Council Members, we are in a housing crisis. It's a mess. Property values are crazy. Property taxes are up. And I appreciate you saying that this is going to be rentals, but once you create seven different parcels, that's what's happening with this, correct? MS. WARD: Six. Page 26 PC-11 July 20,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Six parcels. I mean what happens after, that is up to you. And we lose control after that. So, I appreciate that you're saying this is going to be rentals going forward and long-term rentals, but in today's market and given you may or may not have children, we are not here forever. Anything goes after this ordinance goes. I'm just saying that because we can talk all day about rentals and affordable housing, but in reality, the owners of the parcels can do whatever they like with these parcels once they're created,period. And after, that I don't think that we have any control over what happens. Is that true, Mr. Darrow? MR. DARROW: Unless there's a particular condition placed in the ordinance. But in this particular case, that hasn't been spoken to or even discussed. Normally when a developer comes forward that is proposing an affordable housing project, it's pretty clear that's what they're going to do. They have an agreement with Housing that they're going to be meeting a particular AMI (Area Median Income) and that's what the project's going to be for. But in this particular case, again, I think, similar to what the applicant said, the word"affordable" is a little different. It's being, you know, spoken about differently in one context, as the other. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, this is not an affordable housing project. MR. DARROW: No, it is not. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: The "want"to provide affordable housing is there, but again, I mean, they can sell the properties in a year-and-a-half if it was done in that timeline. Or they can rent them out. It's open game. And I think Aaron Chung asked that earlier, but has there ever been ais there a way to restrict the selling of a property in the future? MR. DARROW: I appreciate that you brought that up again, because I wanted to address Council Member Chung's question earlier. When I was answering it, I was answering it in light of un-hosted or non-hosted STVRs. As Council Member Heather Kimball brought up, there is the ability or possibility of doing a quote, and again, I'm using the term loosely, "hosted vacation rental," if somebody lives or rents in the house; lives there and rents out a portion. So if the intention of the commission is to prohibit vacation rentals across the board whether it's hosted or non-hosted, that can be placed as a condition in Condition "J". Page 27 PC-11 July 20,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I guess my question is more—and thank you for that. But my question is more, can the County restrict selling a property in the future to maintain it as a rental property? MR. DARROW: I don't know about selling it but the use, regardless if it's sold, I mean I hope I understood you correctly. Because this condition is in this ordinance related to that property regardless of who owns it, they would not be able to use it for vacation rentals. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But there's nothing stopping them from selling the property in the future? MR. DARROW: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Is there a way to restrict that? MR. DARROW: I've never seen that. I mean, normally an ordinance for rezoning, we don't want to get to where we're doing conditional to the point that it's a conditional use, to where, you know, you cannot sell the property, right? The whole point is zoning, is this appropriate zoning for this particular area? If it is, let's approve it. If it's not? Let's not. But if we end up conditioning the use of the property down the road to the point that the current owner can't sell it, what would they do? Would they come back here before they sold it? I mean that's a tough thing. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Agreed. No it's just in light of everything's that happening and you can see it across the state, it's just trying to wrap MR. DARROW: I mean normally in this particular case CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'm sorry to interrupt, but the five minutes have lapsed. And so if you could just wrap this up. You'll have another opportunity to talk story about this measure at the next committee meeting. Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Appreciate it, Chair. Go ahead, finish what you're going to say, Jeff. MR. DARROW: I was just going to say that, I mean, it's only because the applicant had mentioned that her intention is to do rentals. Normally, somebody coming in to create six lots, they normally have the intention toI mean they can keep them all for their kids or family, but normally their intention is to sell the lots. Page 28 PC-11 July 20,2021 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you, Mr. Darrow and Ms. Jackson. I appreciate the latitude, Chair. And mahalo for the applicants and for the discussion so far and for heeding the concerns or wants of our Council Member for the area. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much. Just a couple things. I'm glad Jeff brought up our role, which is to make a determination on what is or isn't the proper use on the matter before us. So I just want to make sure that is continuously guiding our work. And oftentimes what infrastructure assets that exist or don't really begin to hone in and prescribe what is actually doable on the property. You know, I wanted to share with the Wards, this is my second term on the Council. I was able to Chair Planning last term, but I will tell you we had dozens of applicants come before this body looking for time extensions on projects. And so, there's frustration and a little bit of alarm when we have new folks coming in with these sorts of requests saying that they're going to be able to meet these timing elements. And one of the things that I want to request Planning Department, Jeff, is if we can begin to build into these ordinances some sort of accountability around filing of annual reports, or something of that nature. Because oftentimes we pass these ordinances; don't know what happens unless there is a request that's coming back before this body, such as a time extension or rezone. So I do want to request that be part of the discussions, potentially that Mr. Inaba is going to be having with you and the applicant. I know that there have been a couple of ordinances that have come before us that do prescribe reports being submitted to the Planning Department, but I'd just like to see without it being overly burdensome, if there are ways in which the Council can stay informed on progress of these various developments. Don't need a response now, but just want you to know that this is something that I'd like for you folks to consider. Thank you. I appreciate you, Mr. Inaba, willing to champion your community and work in partnership with residents in this area. I know that they have done quite a bit with the Leeward Planning Commission, and I do want to acknowledge that Mr. Pipan and the Wards have worked, I think, pretty diligently to hear concerns and address them. And we can see all of that reflected in this particular ordinance. But there is a little bit more massaging to do, and I just appreciate your willingness to step up and to kokua in that way. So, I know you have a motion. Page 29 PC-11 July 20,2021 MR. INABA: Thank you, but real quick Chair. Sorry for that. For the record, Jeff, could you please share Director Kern's connection with this project for the record? Being that he does have a relationship with the applicants. MR. DARROW: Are you referring to the fact that he's conflicted on this particular application? MR. INABA: Yes. MR. DARROW: So it would be because Land Planning Hawaii is representing the applicants. I'm not sure beyond that if there's a relationship between Director Kern and the applicants, but anytime that Land Planning Hawaii will represent an applicant, then at that point, I will represent the department. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. And Land Planning Hawaii is Director Kern's former firm? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: No,that's incorrect. MR. DARROW: Yeah, it was Kern and Associates, but it included several of the current employees. And then, Kern and Associates became Land Planning Hawaii under Mr. Pipan and several of Mr. Kern's previous employees. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you, Deputy Director Darrow. I think every once in a while it's good for us to point out, because sometimes we just think you're here representing the department, but I think it's good for us as a body and for the applicants, they know, but for the public to know when there are professional relationships between the applicant and the Director. So thank you again, Jeff. And with that I'll make a motion. Vote on Motion Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 53 to August 3, 2021. to Postpone: Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy, and carried by the following (Approved) 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 30 PC-11 July 20,2021 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bill 53 is postponed to the August 3rd Planning Committee meeting. Do I have a motion to forward Bill 52 to the Council with a positive recommendation? Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend passage of Bill 52 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: MayI have a motion to postpone Bill 52 to August 3rd meeting? Motion to Postpone: Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 52 to August 3, 2021. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? MR. INABA: I just want to mahalo again Council Members—or everyone who's voting in favor of this postponement in acknowledgement of the work that can be done again. So thank you to my colleagues. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mahalo nui. There is a motion on the floor. All in favor please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 52 to August 3, 2021, to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote. (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz–9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bill 52 is also postponed to the August 3rd Planning Committee meeting. Thank you so much everyone. May I have a motion to adjourn? Page 31 PC-11 July 20,2021 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:04 p.m., Ms. Kimball moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Villegas and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, motion carries. Planning Committee is adjourned. Approved: (_..) A I / g` Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (0 ate) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 32