Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2021/08/03 2020-2022 Committee on Planning 12th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i August 3, 2021 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 9:30 a.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 Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (came in later) Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Absent& Excused: Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Jaime Funakoshi: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314); opposed. Sandy Komohana-Akaka: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314); opposed. Barbara DeFranco: Comm. 183, support. Nancy Carr Smith: Comm. 183, support. Keith Unger: Comm. 183, support. Ellen Greenbaum: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314); opposed. PC-12 August 3,2021 Maki Morinoue: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314); opposed. Kiyoko Nanni: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314); opposed. Janice Coe: Bill 53 (Comm. 314); opposed. Rachael Meisner: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314); opposed. Mike Vitousek: Comm. 183, support. Abraham Sadegh: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314); and Bill 57 (Comm. 331); comment. Dwight Vicente: Bill 52 (Comm. 314); and Bill 53 (Comm. 314); comment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Relley. Let the record reflect I am closing public testimony at this time, and I also just want to thank Relley and everybody at the Clerk's Office for providing our members of the public with so much support in accessing this platform so that they can contribute to the discussion. With that being said, Mr. Clerk, if you could please read in our communication. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 183: RECOMMENDS REMOVAL OF MARK VAN PERNIS FROM THE LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated March 29, 2021, requesting the Council's review and approval. Postponed: April 6 and May 4, 2021 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Lee Loy, to recommend approval of the Mayor's request.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Before we launch into discussion, I just want to take us through where we started and how we got here. In April, the Mayor's Office filed Communication 183 requesting removal of Commissioner Van Pernis from Leeward Planning Commission. Page 2 PC-12 August 3,2021 There was very comprehensive discussion at Committee level. And I think this body, as one of the commissioner's pointed out, were surprised by this request and really wanted to give Commissioner Van Pernis the benefit of the doubt that, you know what, he can do better. And I believe that many corrective actions and ways in which to support the commissioner have been instituted. And when we revisited this measure in May, we felt not enough time had really lapsed to see if these corrective measures had really sunken in. That being said, there was another motion to continue this measure for three other months. So we have this discussion back before us. In July, the LPC (Leeward Planning Commission) did agendize this particular item, and in their rule as an advisory body to this Council, had made a recommendation to support the removal of Commissioner Van Pernis. We've heard from commissioners themselves. There is also a copy of this recommendation and transcripts from that meeting in our pinkie folder, that's Communication 183.57. It is my hope that we can come to some kind of decision today, only because I justI feel so bad for Commissioner Van Pernis and members of the Leeward Planning Commission having to do this time and time again. So really hoping that we can make some kind of decision today to move forward on this issue so that we all have some closure. That being said, I know that our Mayor, Mitch Roth, is joining us and did want to provide some opening remarks on this discussion. Mayor Roth. (Note: At this time, Mayor Mitchell D. Roth came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MAYOR ROTH: Thank you very much, Chair Kierkiewicz and members of the Council. Yes you know, this matter has been going onI think there's been a lot said to try and make this a political thing. This is really not about politics. It's about the way we treat people in government. You know, looking at what has happened and listening to the testimony of the commissioners themselves, I think, you know, giving Mr. Van Pernis the benefit of the doubt time and time again showed that this is not the way we should be treating people in government. I understand that this last vote where the commission took, was pretty much unanimous, except for Mr. Van Pernis. You know, one of the issues is Mr. Van Pernis in ethics, as all of you know, if there is a motion that you're voting on and you have anything to do with it, you should recuse yourself. Mr. Van Pernis again showed his true colors by not recusing himself and putting himself into the situation. Page 3 PC-12 August 3,2021 Over the last couple of hearings and meetings for the Leeward Planning Commission that I've seen, I've seen him again go back to behavior that's not becoming of, you know, someone who's representing the County, including going after Ms. DeFranco in the last hearing. I just ask that you support the communication to remove Mr. Van Pernis for the sake of the people of the County of Hawaii, as well as, you know,just upholding our values of treating people with aloha and respect. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mayor Roth. I did want to open it up to discussion from my colleagues. Please know that we also have Commissioner Van Pernis joining us from Kona. And I am aware that the current Chair of the Leeward Planning Commission, Commissioner Mike Vitousek, is also on Zoom, should this body have any questions for him. Vice Chair Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: I actually have a question for Judge Strance, if you have a moment and can join me? I'm wondering where the Charter gives the Leeward Planning Commission authority to add or discuss personnel matters on the Leeward Planning Commission agenda. (Note: At this time, Corporation Council Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good morning, Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. Can you hear me okay? The Charter doesn't set up procedure in that level of detail. So if you're asking where in the Charter, the Charter does not direct what goes on the agenda of any commission or board. MS. VILLEGAS: So is that something that makes it part of the jurisdiction of the commission to talk about those things? Or does it then imply that it's inappropriate and that's not the place for that to be spoken about and voted upon? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Judge Strance, I need you to come a little closer to the mic. Folks are having a difficult time hearing you. Perfect. Thank you. MS. STRANCE: I'd have to look at the transcripts. I believe that there was discussion within this body about the commission position regarding this. As you well know by now, the Charter doesn't set out a procedure for removal of a commissioner. It only states that a commissioner can be removed at the request of the Mayor and with the consent of the County Council. The commission as an advisory role to this committee and to the County Council. And so, in as much as the matter is before this committee, I don't believe it would be outside the jurisdiction of the commission to provide some level of input. Page 4 PC-12 August 3,2021 I think the frustration that's being expressed is that there's not a procedure for removal other than what's stated in the Charter. And so, excusing the pun, you're in unchartered waters for this matter and you're working your way through the procedure that you've chosen to employ for this matter. MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, that we've chosen to employ for this matter? MS. STRANCE: Well, because there's no procedure, the Charter directs that the Council either approves the request of the Mayor or not. Within your own rules and within the rules of the Planning Commission, there's no specific procedure set forth. And so because the Charter directs that this is the process, without the providing the commission and the Council and the committees not having rules to specifically deal with it, it's awkward. And so I think it's awkward at this level, I think it's awkward at the commission level. I would not expect the County Charter to provide that level of detail on what can go on an agenda of a board or commission and what is not. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for clarifying the unclarifiable. I appreciate that. And I just want to also ask you a question. When it came to the ethics complaint against Mr. Van Pernis, which Mayor Roth just mentioned, that was deemed nonviable and it wasn't relevant, correct? MS. STRANCE: I don't know what the specific findings of the board were. There were two Ethics complaints that were filed. My understanding is that one of them, there was a finding that there was not a violation. And there is one that is still under consideration by the board. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you. Thanks for answering those questions. In my humble time of serving in this role it's concerned me some of the variability in procedures, processes, or what's permitted based on different perceptions and different parameters of authority. And so I'm trying to get some clarity on that so that we can have some consistency, which provides stability and trust from our community in our processes and the way that we navigate this tough job of serving our community through issues like this. So thank you for your words, appreciate it. And if you'd like a copy of the transcript, this is a copy of the transcript. MS. STRANCE: I have the transcript of the commission that was part of your agenda packet. What I don't have is what was said at the Board of Ethics. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, but thank you. Appreciate it. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Chair David. Page 5 PC-12 August 3,2021 MS. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Strance, could you please stay, thank you. A follow-up to a question from Ms. Villegas, there's no specific process that addresses this sort of thing, right, this sort of action? But what is specific is that according to my understanding, the Charter says that the, "Commissions are advisory commissions and their duties are to advise the Mayor's Office, this body and the director on planning and land use matters pursuant to law and charter." So that's specific. The fact that we don't have any provision for getting someone off a commission—and that is basically the duty of the Mayor when he makes that request. We as a body can support that, confirm that or not. And I think that was my concern at the very beginning of this, is because what we've been asked to do is something I believe process and procedures allow this body as well as commissions to handle these types of issues. And I point to Robert's Rules which is what the commission is bound by. Whether they had the appropriate or the necessary in depth training or they had a specific person like we are very lucky to have our staff. Our County Clerk is very well versed in procedures and Robert's Rules. And according to that in my opinion, that's where the instructions and the process of procedures rest in how to deal if a body needs to discipline a member of its commission or whatever it is. And in my reading and understanding, it just says according to Robert's Rules, a body can discipline its own members, including expulsion if can be or need be. And the commission can do that on its own. The commission can also complain or reach out to the Mayor's Office, or court. But I don't think reaching out to us and making that recommendation is a process that I can totally support because I have a real conflict. Because I know when we have issues before this body, we take care of it. And I know that the Charter says, the Mayor can request and we can either confirm or not. And that's where my position lies. My personal position is, I don't believe that we are the only option. I believe there is other methods that the commission as a body has in their rules and in their processes. Especially since their rules adopts and includes Robert's Rules in their procedures, right? So given the fact that, you know,there's a lot of community support or community outreach to this body via email that has basically supported Mr. Van Pernis' perception. His behavior, everybody knows Mr. Van Pernis. If you're in Kona, you know, he has a personality that maybe is not likable. But I think they have an option to deal with issues before them in their own way. So that's just my point. I know people in Kona really support his advocacy for the community as a whole. In Kona, we all, you know, Mr. Inaba, myself and Ms. Villegas are all included in the Leeward Planning Commission, as well as Mr. Richards. So this is just my opinion. Thank you Chair, I yield. Page 6 PC-12 August 3,2021 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. If I could just clarify one thing. So what I'm hearing is, and correct me if I'm wrong, I just want to get it clear for the record. You're saying that the Leeward Planning Commission should vote to remove Mark Van Pernis, and that is a decision we as Council Members should not be making. I just want clarity. Thank you. MS. DAVID: I didn't say they need to vote him out. I'm saying that they have rules that they can take action when he becomes unruly. You know, they can have him sit out of meetings, which I think he's been threatened to, and handle it in that systematic way. It seems likeI'm reading the transcript, it just seems like they've given up in trying to deal with this. And I really think that there are options. Whether they want to take it or not, that's their choice. And they've chosen this route. And in my opinion, I don't believe that the route is appropriate. In my opinion. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you for the clarification. The only reason why I ask is because in April, and you know, I reviewed the Planning Committee transcripts ahead of this meeting and what caught my attention was a comment you made about, we want LPC to handle this themselves and then come back to this body. And in the mind of commissioners that have testified, and you know, Chair Vitousek is on Zoom if we want further information, they have. And they've used every tool in their toolbox through Robert's Rules, to in their mind deal with Commissioner Van Pernis. So just wanting to get clarification because I don't want to ping-pong back and forth in terms of what we are asking LPC to do. And they do it and then we are now figuring out, you know what, we want to go a different route. Thank you. MS. DAVID: Can I just say something? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, please. MS. DAVID: I think back in April we felt that they needed to give him a little bit more time. Given the comments that was heard from this body that you folks have some processes and procedures that are open to you, including Robert's, in keeping people under control or if they get out of order. And that's what I meant. And so if they feel like they can just make that decision then I believe it's the Chair's decision if they feel that way. Expel him, right? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for the clarity. And the reason why, is that we're just in uncharted territory. There's no clear process. This is really messy. This is so awkward to be doing publicly. So I appreciate you bearing with me for the clarifications. Thank you. Page 7 PC-12 August 3,2021 MS. DAVID: No problem. MS. STRANCE: May I? I think part of the concern is Robert's Rules does not trump the Charter, okay, and Section 13-4 of the County Charter reads that, and this is dealing with boards and commissions, "Members shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council and may be removed upon recommendation by the Mayor and approval of the Council." And so, what I'm hearing you say, Chair David, is that your reading of the Charter is that that's not the only way that removal can be accomplished. But the Charter doesn't provide any other means by which a board or commission member can be removed. And so, I hear what you're saying, that if it's silent you default to Robert's Rules, but there is a specific Charter provision about removal of boards and commissioners. And so, here I think that as distasteful as it might be for this body to consider a request, it's something provided for in the Charter. And if the, you know, the Council does not believe that it's within their authority to set standards of conduct, which essentially this is, for board member or commission member behavior, then that needs to be clearly provided when some process is being set up. But you know, whether distasteful or not, it is a procedure that is provided for by the Charter. It is the method by which the matter was placed before you. And so, you know, the wish that it had been handled different, I'm not sure matters that much because the Charter empowers this process that you're currently in. And I haven't been asked and haven't done the research on whether the use of the words, "may" in the Charter means that the commission has other authorities to act. But that would be my concern is that the only mention in procedure for it is set forth in the Charter. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Strance. And I totally understand the power of Mayor to recommend, and we as a body to either support or not. That is definitelyI understand that. What I was referring to that despite that, it's our choiceI was explaining my rationale on how I view that in having somebody go through a process that we requested him to go and try to resolve it in a way that is a respectful procedure. But that apparently has gotten to the point where the commission believes all else has failed. So I recognize and respect the fact that the Charter provides us the authority to do that. And that's just explaining what I believe. In addition to that, I have an issue on trying to realize that this is more than that because it involves a lot more than just a request from the Mayor's Office. So just trying to sort through this very complicated and very sensitive issue in a way that we don't set precedence that in the long-run, whenever someone is behaving not according to one person's perspective on how they should behave, there are Page 8 PC-12 August 3,2021 rules that can address those. And I'd just hate to see that this process we're going through becomes a process to deal with people that do not appear to comply or appear to behave a certain way. We're all respected and we're all professionals and we're supposed to be mindful of that. So, that's all. Thank you for the latitude Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. You know, I believe Mayor Roth is raising his hand in the Zoom room. Is that correct, Relley? If so, Mayor please unmute yourself? MAYOR ROTH: Thank you. I'm looking at this and we actually are setting a precedence. We want to change the way the process goes. We need to either change the Charter, because it is set out by the Charter. If what you're recommending is that the commission take action, they've taken action. They were pretty decisive in their action. If you look at the vote the way it should have went, it would have been unanimous. Mr. Van Pernis knows he shouldn't have been voting on a matter including himself. I don't think any of you would vote on a matter including yourself. But that was the process. We went through the process the way the Charter sets it out for us. But you gave it to the commission to take their own process. They went through that process. So you know, we're setting precedence here on how County commissioners and others treat people. And I think, you know, the way we treat people is paramount to the way we do business. That's all I had to say. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: I thought my question was answered by, you know, your statement earlier, this thing has gone too far afield and it's become discombobulated, quite frankly. It's very clear. This is how it goes. The Charter says, the Mayor can recommend removal of a commissioner with the approval and then it's the Council that approves. All this stuff about Robert's Rules, the commission; all sort of red herrings. I think the commission made a mistake when they took action. I don't reallyI mean I guess it gives us some kind of indication as to how they feel, but it doesn't help me in my decision making. What we asked the commission to do, well what I asked the commission to do and maybe others, was to just handle the order of how things are conducted in-house. That's what I was intending for them to do. Not to come up with an affirmative statement as to, you know, whether a person should or should not be removed. But you know, I've got to say, Maile, it was kind of confusing when you said there's no specific procedure. There is a specific procedure. And we're kind of getting lost in all of this with all of these different things going on. Very clear, Mayor recommends, we either approve or disapprove, and that's it. Let's just stick to that already, okay. Thanks. Page 9 PC-12 August 3,2021 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Richards, you had your light on. MR. RICHARDS. Thank you Chair, and thank you Mr. Chung for clarifying that. I agree, I think this is very specific. And I don't agree with you, Chair David. I believe it's very well laid out in the Charter, and it clarifies as Judge Strance has articulated that we do have the authority. And the commission has come to us repeatedly with an issue. And whether or not we like having to make a decision, we were elected to make decisions. And this is the process that the Charter articulates to go forward. I don't think that we are listening to one person. You know, I find it very stalwart and articulate that we have four Planning Commission Chairs, current and past, and then the whole Planning Commission speaking a concern. I remember very clearly when current Chair Vitousek said, "We need this resolved." And this has gone too long, so we need to make a decision today. We're here to make decisions. We have to do that. Thank you Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other remarks from my colleagues? Vice Chair Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: I just want to clarify that it's not in any way my intention to shuck the responsibility of making the decision. I think the questioning and the line of questioning brings up the issue of whether or not it was appropriate or in the jurisdiction of the commission to make the decision and then send their decision to us. The Charter outlines that the Mayor brings his request to us. And so once again, I will state that I have concerns about making precedence. If we are to abide by the Charter. The Charter doesn't say that right now. And Charter amendments are voted on by the residents of this island and shouldn't be made by desires to set precedence. And too many of the statements that I feel have been made are subjective in that capacity. This is really challenging. You know, I have respect for other members of the commission. And I have respect for having to work with people that you don't lack of a better term,jive with. Or you know, communication styles are different or relationship interactions are different, but as Mr. Richards said, our job is to make a decision, and I don't believe it was the job of the commission to take a vote. Nor do I believe that it was the job of the commission to take a vote. Nor do I believe that it was inappropriate for Mr. Van Pernis to vote. I think he got put on a chopping block, and without any real guidance of precedence, nobody told him he couldn't vote or shouldn't vote. And the man has endured quite a bit. Page 10 PC-12 August 3,2021 In my mind I come back to what Chair David said about, no,the commission doesn't have the authority to vote him off, let's say. But they do have the authority to suspend him orI'm sorry, what was the term Chair David said? Expel, expulsion, and it just seems that since this came to us through the Mayor's Office which is the proper channels based on the Charter, that the commission's gone back and there haven't been the other avenues that might reside within the rules and process outlined by Robert's Rules So it brings us back to where we are today, which means we have to take a vote, but I am grateful that for the record we're questioning the process that was followed because it causes great concern. And I have concern for setting precedence for things that don't abide by our Charter and without the voting of our constituents and those that trust us to follow the laws that have been placed before us. So with that I yield. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you Chair. I appreciate all of the comments from my colleagues here. I do think that is clear that the Charter gives this process authority. When we first heard this I certainly felt that this was the nuclear option without as much time given at the commission level to engage in using parliamentary procedure to keep things under control and under wraps, which I think is a little bit of what you were saying, Chair David. What really flipped the switch for me was watching the second hearing after we had had our meeting and seeing that even though parliamentary procedure was used, Robert's Rules was used the commissioner still went outside the bounds, particularly with one of the applicants. Whether or not Mr. Van Pernis is an advocate for the environment for, you know, smart development, all of that and that's great and I support all of those things, but as a commissioner you also have a responsibility to abide by a certain level of decorum. And that is what I'm basing my decision here on. I think that we need to be thoughtful and mindful of who we choose as our champions. And I'm just going to say, I'm going give this take this opportunity again to say to Pomai who is here, Ms. Bartolome from the Mayor's Office and to the Mayor who's hopefully still listening online, my colleagues from Kona have made it expressly clear that they want to see diversity of opinion on the Leeward Planning Commission. They want to see representation from the cultural side and the environmental side. I cannot and I realize Mr. Richards that you are part of the Leeward Planning Commission as well, but I cannot support another nominee for your folks if this opening becomes available that is not supported by the Council Members from the west side as well. So I'm just encouraging you now if this becomes a vacancy, to be mindful about who you select as a replacement and make sure that you've consulted with my colleagues from the west side and Page 11 PC-12 August 3,2021 gotten them on board with your nominee prior to submitting them to this body. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. I hope you guys give me a little bit of leeway, I'm going to use some of my experiences in life to explain, you know, how I'm going to vote today. As you or may not know, I deal with a lot of drug addicts, right? You know, in my work in the Child Protective Services area. And also I represent them as, you know, some of them are my clients. Sometimes I represent their children as a guardian ad litem. But I always tell them, and I'm in no way suggesting that Mr. Van Pernis is, you know, like a drug addict. I'm not saying that. But you know, I tell all of these parents, you know, there are a lot of people who have strong prejudices or biases about their ability to change. And I tell them, "Look,just try your best and prove these guys wrong. And that is going to be the best thing that can happen for you and your kids, proving people wrong." You know, I voted"no," and I don't know how I voted, but I know I voted on two occasions in this matter to allow Mr. Van Pernis to have a chance. And even after our last hearing, I just happened to see Mr. Van Pernis, I was going to the restroom outside, and you know, he was there and he thanked me. And that was very nice of him. I just told him, "Mr. Van Pernis, you don't have to thank me. Just do what you promised you were going to do. You made a representation to the Council that you were going to follow the directives of the Chairperson. And just do that." And it's akin to what I would be telling other people. Just prove people wrong. I had my staff devote their time to watching the Leeward Planning Committee meetings. And you know, the first meeting after that first time that this matter came up, Mr. Van Pernis was actually on good behavior until the very end and then something came up. But this last one was just untenable. I don't know what to say, but I think, you know, Mr. Van Pernis from my perspective, has been given every chance to remain on this board. But it hurts me to, you know, cast a negative vote against a member of the legal community, but he just had his chance over and over, and he didn't make good use of it. So I have to vote for his removal today. It really hurts me, but I'm going to have to go that way. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing no other comments, we have a motion on the floor to send to the Council a favorable recommendation, the removal of Commissioner Van Pernis from the Leeward Planning Commission. Roll call vote please, Mr. Clerk. Page 12 PC-12 August 3,2021 Vote on Comm. 183: The motion to approve the Mayor's request to remove (Approved) Mr. Van Pernis from the Leeward Planning Commission was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, and Chair Kierkiewicz—5. Noes: Committee Members David, Inaba, and Villegas —3. Absent: Committee Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Moving on to the next matter, Mr. Clerk. If you could please read in Bill 53. 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: BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. 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) Postponed: July 20, 2021 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Lee Loy, to recommend passage of Bill 53 on first reading.) ; 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. Page 13 PC-12 August 3,2021 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I wanted to call the representative for the applicant forward. Noting for my colleagues that John Pipan is here and available to answer any questions, but I did want to turn it over to Council Member Holeka Inaba. I think at our last meeting we talked about your work to engage community and the applicants on this measure and you'd want to provide us with an update. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so just a summary of what happened since our last meeting. I had a meeting with Mr. Pipan here on July 22nd and on July 281h. At neither of those meetings did the applicants appear, so it was just working with Mr. Pipan, though they were invited. At our first meeting, in light of our conversation here in the Planning Committee, there wasn't anything prepared to present or discuss on the applicants side, so I did ask for an additional week and allow them to talk story and we could speak again last week to see what we can talk about based on our conversation last time. So you know, we talked about affordable housing which was mentioned by the Wards. There was concern as well from the community regarding the `ohana units requesting to be—or having Condition J removed, I should say. And the preservation efforts for those archeological sites on property. So in speaking with Corporation Counsel, you know, similar to what we had with the Hilo Ironworks rezoning. You know, making sure that we don't place burdens on applicants that are not placed on others with that type of zoning. I was careful and thanks to Corporation Counsel for that advice and with that there really was no amendments to be had for this bill. Specifically, on the affordable housing front we had, if they're granted an `ohana, the primary unit at the one-credit level, which is 100 percent AMI (Area Median Income); the `ohana unit at a half credit, which is 110 percent or 120 percent AMI. If they are not granted the `ohana and the bill passes as it is, they will not build affordable at all and they will purchase a credit somewhere. And lastly in the meeting, it was stated that if the bill doesn't pass, they will build a monster home and probably sell it. So that's where our meeting was and there's really that's why we don't have an amendment today to bring forward. And I'll leave it to Mr. Pipan if he wants to share anything else about those meetings. I yield at this time, Chair. Page 14 PC-12 August 3,2021 (Note: At this time, representative for the applicant John Pipan came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PIPAN: Aloha, Chair Kierkiewicz and County Council Members. Yes, I very much mahalo Council Member Inaba for taking the time to work through this process and help us to craft this in the best way possible. And I think what we've come up with as he described is an original bill as proposed by the Leeward Planning Commission. Leaving Condition J as it is, prohibiting `ohana dwellings on any of the lots;just using the six available water units. The remaining unit will go to another project in the area that could use it. I think we've been very diligent in working with the community, going above and beyond what was required through the application process and hosting talk-story events with them to try to get a sense for their concerns before coming to you, before coming to the Planning Commission. And trying to craft mitigations. And we've included those mitigations in the conditions. We've agreed to them in terms of preserving the archeological sites. Data recovery is no longer an option. They will be preserved and not touched. The access roadway, the private driveway will have safety improvements including a fence, a speed bump, a stop sign, a convex mirror. And this project isn't just asking, right? It's giving back. It has fair share contributions as a part of it; $15,000-plus per unit. That's over $90,000 for the subdivision. And this is sorely needed housing. You know, the shortage of inventory helps to drive up prices. And although six units is a drop in the ocean with respect to what we need, and especially in terms of affordable housing, this can help to alleviate that somewhat. The applicants will comply with Chapter 11 and affordable housing requirements. Whichever way this goes, as Councilman Inaba said, without the additional `ohana unit, it's harder for them to budget for an affordable housing rental. Two units on one lot made that more feasible. So they would pursue buying the credit to satisfy the affordable housing requirements. Yes, with that if you have any questions I'm happy to field them. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, maybe if I could ask Mr. Inaba a question. Can you tell me about that statement that if this wasn't approved, they're going to build a monster home? How was that—maybe I'm reading that the wrong way. Page 15 PC-12 August 3,2021 MR. INABA: Those were generally exact words, so I don't know. I'm just repeating those were the three options provided in the meeting. And that's what I had my staff there in the meeting with me and writing down notes. So that's what was said. MR. CHUNG: Can you explain? MR. PIPAN: Yes, thank you, Council Member Chung, for the question. So the Wards have options and their preferred option is what we're speaking about today with the rezone, the residential subdivision building rental units. This is something they do in the mainland. They're moving here. MR. CHUNG: Right, we know that. But what about this monster home? MR. PIPAN: So if this bill fails, they're not able to subdivide. They're left with the option, what are they going to do with this land? And most likely they're going to build a home. I'm not sure I used the word "monster home,"but it'll probably be a higher end home, a multi-million dollar home. And then sell that. And that's not going to help. There's going to be no affordable housing commitments with that. There will be no requirement to pursue preservation MR. CHUNG: Okay, so it wasn't a threat or anything like that. It was just the reality. It's a high-end luxury home, okay, alright. You know, it sounded like, okay if you guys don't approve this, then what we're going to do is just build a monster home. And monster home has negative connotations in the state of Hawaii, right? But I think, you know, based on what you told me, I'm okay. Alright. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Vice Chair Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: I just have to go back to the term real estate speculation. And what we are suffering under right now on the west side. And this continued statement that adding homes increases the inventory. And it's the lack of inventory that's increased the prices. And I think, as a matter of fact, that can be denied right now because a global pandemic has actually increased the prices most drastically, most recently. It really concerns me to have continually, "If you don't give me this, then I'm going to do that,"kind of a thing. It just doesn't feel very authentic for—when you buy Ag land and that's the zoning, that's what you have. And if you plan to subdivide and change, that doesn't go through, then you just don't get anything. I mean that whole mentality to me is quite repugnant. And it's gotten us kind of where we are accidentally by a fear-based, if we don't give people or developers or investors what they want, then they're going to take their money and go away Page 16 PC-12 August 3,2021 and we won't get what we need. And I'd like to see that transitioned in our land use planning for this island as a whole, but especially for the west side. We do not have the infrastructure for the urban growth that had been slated. Until we have urban infrastructure, I have serious concerns about any rezoning of Ag land, especially when it's not for something authentically aligned with affordable housing. We have zero legal standing to require, once this is passed, that these people do or live up to any of the promises. And as seen historically decade after decade, even the largest of developers with the rosiest of pictures of impact fees that they would pay, contributions to the community, whatnot, as the decades go by and the Administration changes and your Council Members change, they consistently come back for exemptions. "Oh, we can't afford that." "Oh, we can't do that anymore." And they get variances at the cost of the community. It's unfortunate for the Wards that this is so mind bogglingly undeniable at this time. I listen to the voices of the constituents in my community and I listen to the continued voices of people begging for agricultural regeneration and for us to have some viability to actually produce food to support our own island. You know, we've gone back. We've kind of started heading back to a more normal living with the coronavirus kind of dissipating. And with that a lot of the conversations prioritizing, recognizing our overreliance on external resources being shipped in. And here we are again with our numbers rising and with uncertainty in what's going to happen in the world. And it brings up once again to me, we are still reliant on 80 percent of our food being imported. And yet we still take Ag lands. Whether or not this Ag property is viable to be growing food on or whatnot, it's the principle of continuing to rezone Ag lands when we don't have a regenerative agricultural economy here to support our people, nor do we have the infrastructure necessary to support urban growth. And I can't support this rezoning measure for those reasons. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I'm going to disagree because this is, I think, the direction we do need to go. I completely agree with the agriculture side. No one's more supportive of or proponent of agriculture. And I look forward to this Council supporting some of the stuff that we'll have coming forward when it comes to infrastructure for agriculture. Now to the point, our population continues to grow, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was any—we say affordable housing, which means something very near and dear in this County. But housing that is affordable, Page 17 PC-12 August 3,2021 sometimes gets mixed in there and misconstrued. And so I don't think we talked about this being an affordable housing development. If we look at the abutting properties to this property, they're zoned urban. And I completely agree with the direction that this is going. We do need infrastructure built to support more population growth. The thing is the population has continued to grow and we are in desperate need of all housing. So I think it is the right direction to take this. I understand, you know, could have been left in agriculture? Perhaps. I just wonder if someone came in and wanted to build a piggery in this area, how the community would be supportive of that, being it is agriculture. So I think it is the right direction. I appreciate Council Member Inaba. Holeka, thanks for getting together and trying to work things out. That truly is trying to seek the way forward and represent the community. Not everybody is going to be happy with every decision we make, and I get that. But trying to seek the way forward is what we are supposed to be trying to do. And so I will be supporting this because I think it is the right direction. I hear the concerns and believe me I understand the concerns. But this adjoins urban zoning. And compromises that have been struck, if I'm understanding correctly, I think they're livable. So I will be supporting this going forward. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. I just wanted to circle back. But the reason we had those meetings was because of the statements made by the applicants about affordable housing. So that's what triggered us meeting, you know, outside of our committee here. And I want to just circle back to our last meeting where I mentioned, when you look at that map, like Council Member Richards said, there are neighbors that are zoned urban. And that's along Kaiminani. This property is not on Kaiminani, it's on Ihumoe. It's part of the Kona Acres subdivision, which are all one-acre parcels. I spent a lot of time there in my own childhood, not very long ago. And you know, that's where my tutu's house was. And this is in my district, so I'm very familiar with, especially that neighborhood. So with that mana`o and what Kona Acres is and was meant to be; and what people built and bought there for, I'll have to vote "no" on this rezoning. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Council Member Kimball. Page 18 PC-12 August 3,2021 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you, Council Member Inaba for taking the time to meet with the applicants. I'm curious, do you think there would be any additional benefit to additional conversations with the applicants given that the applicants themselves did not attend either of the meetings that you had? MR. INABA: I'm not sure. After the first meeting I was a little surprised that they weren't there, so I specifically invited them. And asked Mr. Pipan to invite them for our second meeting, and they weren't there. So I'm not sure if it was a scheduling thing or they were just trusting to have a representative handle their matters. But they were invited twice. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. Mr. Pipan, any response to why the applicants were not in attendance at these meetings with Mr. Inaba? MR. PIPAN: Yes, thank you, Council Member Kimball. It may have been my misunderstanding that they were requested to be present. I didn't understand that. That they were invited to partake, yes, I understood that. If I understood that they were requested as present, then I would have requested their presence. Otherwise, I invited them, "If you'd like to attend, please do." They have reservations. They're, you know, mainlanders. They don't want to put their foot in their mouth. They're not completely akamai, they're not completely aware of what affordable housing means here. They rely on professionals like myself, like their property manager, to help them navigate those waters. So I did not make it clear to them that their presence was requested. And for that, I'm sorry if that was your expectation. I'm sure they would be present if it would be beneficial. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you for that response. I guess the question is, would it actually be beneficial had they given you full authority to negotiate on their behalf? Are these the only things that they're willing to consider? One lot with one big home or six lots; or six lots plus an `ohana. You know, part of the area is already zoned Ag-1, which they could get three lots out of this. And you know, is that—so my initial question is the one I want to start with, you have full authority to negotiate on their behalf with Council Member Inaba. And if not, is there benefit to continuing the conversation to see if there's an alternative, given that he doesn't support it at this time? MR. PIPAN: To your first question, no, I do not have absolute authority to negotiate on their behalf. And secondly, I do think there is benefit to continuing this conversation with the Wards present. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Council Member Inaba, are you willing to postpone this yet again to have an attempt at additional conversation? Page 19 PC-12 August 3,2021 MR. INABA: I am not in support of a postponement today. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, that's all I have, Chair. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, real briefly. The last time I said that I'm going to defer to what Mr. Inaba thinks is best for this district. Not saying that I would do this every time. I don't want to lock myself into that kind of box, but for this particular one, I did say I'm going to be deferring to his wisdom, and I'm going to vote "no." CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Inaba,just any consideration on postponing this measure to the call of the Chair? Which means over the next year-and-a-half, there could be potential opportunity for your office to directly engage with the applicant and potentially find a solution. MR. INABA: I'm not interested in a postponement, Chair. If the applicants still want to meet, I can meet with them prior to first reading. Yeah, because we send a recommendation today, right? So, I can meet with them, but I don't want to postpone. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay,just want to make sure that we are crystal clear for the record on what the desire and intentions are. We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote please, to send Bill 53 to the Council with a favorable recommendation. I just want to point out for record that, you know, this was thoroughly reviewed and vetted by the Planning Commission and Planning Director, but here we are. And I also want to recognize Council Member Inaba for trying to find a way forward with the applicant in partnership with community. Vote on Bill 53: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 53 on first Failed reading failed by the following roll call vote. Ayes: Committee Members Lee Loy and Richards —2. Noes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—6. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. An unfavorable recommendation on Bill 53 will be forwarded to the Council. Mr. Clerk, Bill 52. Page 20 PC-12 August 3,2021 Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions (There were none.) 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 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Lee Loy, to recommend passage of Bill 52 on first reading.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any discussion needed or okay to go straight to the vote? Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Mr. Clerk, roll call please. Vote on Bill 52: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 52 on first Failed reading failed by the following roll call vote. Ayes: Committee Members Lee Loy and Richards, and Chair Kierkiewicz—3. Noes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kimball, and Villegas —5. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, Bill 57. Bill 57: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 13-98, WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM AGRICULTURAL—3 ACRES (A-3a) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-003:PORTION 021 (Applicant: Kristilee and Henry Correa Jr. Trust) (Area: 6.003 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for approval, which would delete Condition C (Time to Secure Final Subdivision Approval) in its entirety and amend Condition K(Fair Share Contribution). The property is located along the north side of Kawailani Street, adjacent to and east of the Life Care Complex. Reference: Comm. 331 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Page 21 PC-12 August 3,2021 and Comm. 331.1 From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated July 12, 2021, transmitting the draft transcript from the Windward Planning Commission's June 3, 2021, meeting. (Note: Comm. 331.2, from Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz dated August 3, 2021, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 57, was circulated.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, motion to forward Bill 57 to the Council with a favorable recommendation? Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 57 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Correa, if you could please introduce yourself for the record and provide a quick overview to this body as to the request before us? (Note: At this time, representatives for the applicants Henry "Hank" Correa II and Hank Correa III came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. CORREA III: Hi good morning, my name is Henry Correa. I represent the Kristilee and Henry Correa Trust. Essentially, we're looking to get an extension on the rezoning to allow for the subdivision of a six-acre parcel. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for being here. I also want to note the presence of Planning Director, Zendo Kern and Maija Jackson from the Planning Department. Going to open it up to discussion from my colleagues. I also have a housekeeping amendment that I need to put forward. So I need a motion to amend Bill 57 with the contents of Comm. 331.2. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 57 with the contents of Comm. 331.2. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And you know, reading through the transcripts from Windward Planning Commission, they had removed the timing element for when the final subdivision plan was due. And so I don't think that they went through the entire ordinance to remove any conditions that may be related to that particular condition. That was Condition C. And so this is just a simple housekeeping measure to insure that the intention that was brought forward by the commission, there is alignments throughout this ordinance. Page 22 PC-12 August 3,2021 I also brought this to the attention of our Planning Director, and he apologized for the oversight. You can come say that for the record, Zendo Kern. I just want to make sure that our conversation was accurate. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern and Planner VI Maija Jackson came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Committee. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. That's correct. During our conversation, it was very much a housekeeping item that should have been taken care of at that time. I apologize for not catching that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: No worries. Thank you. Any questions or comments for Planning Department or the applicant? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you Chair. Thank you, Zendo for being here. Okay,just so I'm oriented, right? This is a parcel right adjacent to Life Care Center. Is that correct? MR. KERN: Yes. MS. LEE LOY: How long? We started this process it looks like as far back as 2013? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Actually 1992. There have been three instances where they've come back to this body, 1992, 2005, and most recently 2013, requesting for a time extension on this rezone. The reason why the commission wanted to remove Condition C was they wanted to make a determination. Is this land use conducive to this area or not? Because if it is there's no need to continue to come back and ask for a time extension on this particular zoning. Sorry, Director, go ahead if you have anything else to add. MR. KERN: No that's a very accurate statement. And good on the background. MS. LEE LOY: You know, Zendo, we've had this conversation when we've been on both sides of this counter. And time extensions, right, to ensure that if it's good 30 years ago, it's good now. I think I continue to be challenged if these conditions of approval, the barriers are so high to be met that we're actually not realizing what the intensions are. So this will be the third time extension request. Correct? MR. KERN: Yes, to the fourth through the Council, yes. Page 23 PC-12 August 3,2021 MS. LEE LOY: Have we gone through all of the conditions of approval to insure that they actually meet real-time actionable items or clarity? MR. KERN: My understanding is yes, the applicants had a chance to review it as well, and they feel that they're all actionable. I don't see anything that doesn't appear to be actionable. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. MR. KERN: We did just receive, though, this letter of testimony that I would like a quick chance to review. MS. LEE LOY: Sure. And that's actually where I'm leading. So you know, there is one particular clarifying internal road. And you know, for me, Life Care, which is right adjacent. They're using that easement for parking right now. And so, I just want to make sure that we're handling all of this to help everybody realize. I mean it isn't a residential community. It is a good fit. I'm just having a lot of heartburn around how long this is taking. And yeah, maybe we can get into that other testimony, Director. MR. KERN: Sure. And as far as the length of time it's taking. You know,the applicant could speak on that. I can only go back through the background on what was done. So if they want to share that. I'm also, you know, looking at the proposed conditions. I'd like a minute to look at those. I'm basically looking at them while I'm walking over and then here. And I would also suspect that the applicant would have these as well. And then some dialogue with them about how that would happen. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I think some of the suggestions really does bring a lot of clarity, and I could support that. But I always get this wrong. Aaron and I share Kawailani Street. He's on one side and I'm on the other. And so, I believe, this is actually in Council Member Chung's district. And so I'm going to actually wait for him and his direction on this. Chair, I yield at this time. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kern maybe if you could enlighten this body. You know, it's pretty clear to me in your presentation to the Planning Commission that there were multiple partners involved in this particular property. And over time they just weren't able to continue their kuleana related to this project. And so now there's a single owner which is the Correa Trust. MR. CORREA IL Hey good morning. Can everybody hear me? This is Hank Correa,the dad now. So you know, I can give some background and some history. Back in 1992, I represented the group who originally started this rezoning application. And I think they initiated the first extension. And for whatever reasons economically they fell short. Page 24 PC-12 August 3,2021 I ended up coming in with a partner; bought the property. And sadly enough, my partner few years after that, he ended up having some financial difficulties as well. And we ended up buying him out. And now, you know, it's a family-owned property. We've actually started. We got, you know, grubbing and grading permits. We've done the grubbing and grading already. So we're committed to seeing the project. So its length of time, you know, unfortunately, was not due to our involvement but prior partners. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that. Any other questions or comments from my colleagues? Director Kern, maybe if you could just apprise the Council of the testimony that's come forward? MR. KERN: Sure. Received a letter from Aileen and Thomas Yeh. They're adjoining property owners. They basically have some issues with the access, as it's coming off an easement and looked like they weren't notified properly. I take full responsibility for that. It was with my department to review that. We looked at it. It wouldn't make this go back to it but I want to certainly bring this up and give it the time and attention that is needed to go through this process. So essentially—you folks all received this letter, correct? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I don't have that in my packet. MS. LEE LOY: Chair, if I may, it was in the link of all the testimony that we received for committee. So it's in the electronic file. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Got it. Thank you. MR. KERN: And I think it would be more prudent for Council Members to actually read it because there's some content here, then to have me reading it on the record. But essentially it equates to some clarification on the conditions, related to Condition D which would be the access. Again, I'm not sure if the applicant has a chance to look at this because generally speaking when we do a background report, recommendation, and conditions, the applicant has a chance to review, agree or disagree with the conditions, but at least make a stance on it. I'm reviewing and digesting it at the same time. Off my initial look I'm not seeing a major issue with it. Looks more like clarification. But again, I think everybody should take a look at it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, and I also want to make sure that the applicant has had a chance to review that testimony as well. Attorney Tom Yeh? MR. KERN: That's correct. Page 25 PC-12 August 3,2021 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I have high regard for Mr. Yeh. And I would entertain postponement of this measure to the next Planning Committee meeting, so that there is an opportunity for Mr. Yeh and the applicant to talk story, so that everything is clarified for the record,that my colleagues all have an opportunity to review this and fully understand the requests that are contained in this letter. Mr. Correa, would you be okay with that? You know,the discussion is around postponing your request for one more committee meeting. So our next meeting would be Tuesday, August 17''. We just would like a little more time to review what's come before us and ensure that you have a chance to engage with Mr. Yeh. MR. CORREA IL Yeah, that's no problem. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. And really I am in full support of this project. I think when we know more and we know better, we can do better. And we do better it provides clarity and we can met expectations. That's what this whole exercise really is about. And I do understand that DPW has some concerns about the property taking access off of Kawailani Street. And that's why they want to continue to use the easement and then build that internal road, which makes a whole lot of sense, because, you know, Kawailani is Kawailani and there's a number of homes up there. And so whatever we can do to facilitate safe movement through there, good turning radiuses. And then even for the applicants, you know, managing that expectation and the timing elements. Because I think what the Correa's have described is, sometimes when you have a lot of partners, everybody's pulling and tugging at a different rate. But now it's all singularly owned. And so that's actually extremely helpful. So Chair, thank you for letting me elaborate. Yeah, I know you also have an amendment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Right, I want to make sure we take up the amendment first before we talk about any postponement of this measure. So anymore discussion on the amendment before us? Okay, motion on the floor is to amend Bill 57 with the contents of Comm. 331.2, all in favor please say "aye." Page 26 PC-12 August 3,2021 Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 57 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 331.2 was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz–7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder–2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Now we are back to the main motion. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. With that I'd like to make a motion to postpone to the next Planning Committee meeting scheduled for August 17, 2021. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Lee Loy moved to postpone Bill 57 to August 17, 2021. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion on the postponement? MS. LEE LOY: No, but just again Director, if you could meet with the applicants, I think—it's all really right there. It's just a matter of just dusting off some nice clear language. And then we can pick this right back up, and we'll get through this process. MR. KERN: Yeah, no problem with that. MS. LEE LOY: And for Hank and Henry. You know,just make yourselves available to the Director, and they can share with you the concern about clarity around the internal roadway. MR. CORREA IL Yeah, no problem. We sure appreciate it. Have a great day, all. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I do believe that the request before us is reasonable, the project, and do think a little bit more time with the applicants and Mr. Yeh would be most helpful to the situation. Director Kern, is your office going to take a lead on convening those conversations or do you need my office's support? Page 27 PC-12 August 3,2021 MR. KERN: No, we'll take the lead, no problem. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, perfect. Thank you. Motion to postpone Bill 57 to the August 17'Planning Committee meeting. That motion is on the floor. All in favor please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Comm. 57 to August 17, 2021, to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote. (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Clerk final item on the agenda, Bill 58. Bill 58: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL—7,500 SQUARE FEET (CG-7.5) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-2-024:022 (Applicants: John Wagner and Charlene Iboshi) (Area: 19,295 square feet) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicants to formalize the existing commercial use of the property as general office space and allow for future land uses permitted in the General Commercial District. The property is located at 1290 Kino`ole Street, southwest corner of Kino`ole and Lono Street intersection. Reference: Comm. 332 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 332.1 From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated July 12, 2021, transmitting the draft transcript from the Windward Planning Commission's June 3, 2021, meeting. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. May I have a motion to forward Bill 58 to the Council with a favorable recommendation? Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 58 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. Page 28 PC-12 August 3,2021 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Yeh, are you the representative for the applicant? Great, if you could come forward and introduce yourself for the record and a quick summary of the request that is before this body? It's very straight forward. We're just labeling it officially, but in your words,please? (Note: At this time, representative for the applicant Thomas Yeh came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YEH: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tom Yeh. I am the attorney, representative for the applicant. The Planning Department and Planning Commission provided a very thorough background report. Essentially, it's to legitimize the existing uses and allow for potential future uses for commercial purposes. In the event that that occurs,then there will be additional improvements to Kino`ole Street, sidewalks and road-widening, etcetera. The applicant is already currently—we're looking at getting quotes to do the sewer line installation. So, that's in a nutshell where we're at at this point. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any questions or comments from my colleagues? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Just as the representative for the district, this is a really good fit to everything else that's going around in that area. And I do urge my colleagues to support this going forward. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? I do want to disclose that I know Charlene Iboshi. I've known her since I was maybe 12 from Youth Builders. I'm also a member, as is she, with the Zonta Club of Hilo, but I believe I can make a fair, impartial, and balanced decision today on this matter. But I do want to make sure that our relationship is disclosed for the record. Thank you. Ms. Kimball MS. KIMBALL: Chair, since you're making that disclosure, I should as well. I don't know her, and we don't go back as the two of you do, but certainly Zonta and many years of advocacy with her. So thank you, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. Page 29 PC-12 August 3,2021 MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you for that. Thank you for bringing that up. Absolutely. I have to disclose the same, not only for Charlene, but John Wagner. He was actually our County Clerk when I used to work here. So that's how far back that relationship goes. But I can make a fair and impartial decision. Thank you Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And again I want to recognize the hard work that was put into this ordinance by the Planning Department, by the commission, by the applicants. I think it is a solid body of work. And it's very clear that if there are any extensions to the building or in the use beyond what it's being used for now, a lot of triggers in place that would require the applicant to invest in certain improvements. So I feel very comfortable moving this forward. Any other discussion? Okay, there is a motion on the floor to forward Bill 58 to the Council with a positive recommendation. All in favor please see "aye." Vote on Bill 58: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 58 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. We are at the end of the agenda. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Page 30 PC-12 August 3,2021 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 11:38 p.m., Mr. Richards moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. And with that, Planning Committee is adjourned. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 31 PC 12 August 3,2021 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 11:38 p.m., Mr. Richards moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. And with that, Planning Committee is adjourned. Approved: CYA ._i "."-- \ , Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewi , Chair (D te) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 31