Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2022/01/05 2020-2022 Committee on Planning 17th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i January 5, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 9:00 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 (via videoconference from Kona) Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member 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: Mr. Clerk, if you could please start with Communication 552. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 552: NOMINATION OF KEALOHANUIOPUNA KINNEY TO THE HAWAII COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated November 22, 2021, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. PC-17 January 5,2022 Vote on Comm. 552: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Kealohanuiopuna Kinney to the Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by Ms. Kimball 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: Thank you so much for joining us. Mahalo nui. Mr. Clerk, if we could move on to Communication 563,please. Comm. 563: NOMINATION OF SHANE VINCENT TO THE LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated December 17, 2021, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: January 30, 2022 (Section 13-4(k), Hawaii County Charter) Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Shane Vincent to the Leeward Planning Commission. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Bartolome, if you could introduce the nominee? (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward to address the members of the Committee and provided a brief narrative of the nominee.) MS. BARTOLOME: I believe Mr. Vincent got the dates mixed up. He thought that he was supposed to appear yesterday. And so, he's not available today to be here. I did let him know that Committee review or Council would be in January on the 18'h I think; or 19'', which he said he would make time for if that's possible. Page 2 PC-17 January 5,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Bartolome, for letting us know. But, Mr. Clerk, you did note that we needed to make a decision on this by the end of January. MR. BROWN: January 301h. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: By January 301h. Going to put it to the pleasure of this Council on how we move forward. We would have to take action today at the Committee level. If not, if we were to hold it in Committee till Kona, it would be an automatic approval. Is that correct? MR. BROWN: That is correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: That is correct, okay. So there needs to be some kind of decision. My recommendation is we move it forward with the idea of making a decision at Council, so that we have an opportunity to talk story with the nominee. Mr. Richards, this is your district. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you Chair. I think, you know, it's a little bit unusual for us to have Committee on a Council day, so I don't totally blame Mr. Vincent for not being here. We all know our schedules get all screwed up, and it's not outside the realm of this Council to do exactly what you are suggesting. And since it's my motion to put him forth, I would suggest taking action today so we can discuss. And if Mr. Vincent can be in place on, it would be the 19'', I think, and we can have the conversation at that point. I think that's appropriate. And I would be supportive of that. So Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. I agree with Mr. Richards and feel we should proceed with forwarding this to Council today. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great, Council Members. Anyone else? Ms. Bartolome, could you please communicate with Mr. Vincent that we would appreciate his presence at the January 191h Council Meeting. We convene at 9:00 a.m. MS. BARTOLOME: Yes, sure. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And I'll work with Council Chair to ensure that he's one of the first matters that we can take up on our agenda. Thank you for ensuring that communication gets through. Thank you, Council Members. So we have a motion on the floor to forward this nomination to the Council with a positive recommendation all in favor please say "aye." Page 3 PC-17 January 5,2022 Vote on Comm. 563: The motion to recommend confirmation of the appointment of (Approved) of Mr. Shane Vincent to 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, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, and Villegas —4. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Ms. Bartolome, please remind Mr. Vincent that he should be present 9:00 a.m. on the 19''. MS. BARTOLOME: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, if we could move on to Bills for Ordinances, please. Bill 99. 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 99: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 11-73, WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM AGRICULTURAL—FORTY ACRES (A-40a) TO AGRICULTURAL—FIVE ACRES (A-5a) AT PU`UKAPU, SOUTH KOHALA DISTRICT, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 6-4-017:042 (Applicant: Cynthia Foster) (Area: Approx. 17.88 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment, which requests a five-year time extension to comply with Condition C (Time to Secure Final Subdivision Approval) with an amendment to Condition J(Inadvertent Cultural/Historic Finds). The property is located along the north side of Mamalahoa Highway approximately 750 feet west of its intersection with Kipahele Street in Waimea. Reference: Comm. 548 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Page 4 PC-17 January 5,2022 Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 99 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Will the applicant and/or the representative please come forward? Good morning Mr. Fuke. If you could please introduce yourself for the record and give us a quick overview of the request from the applicant. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of this body. First of all, Happy New Year and hopefully, by the end of the year, globally it'll be very happy, but we'll see. My name is Sydney Fuke. I'm here representing the applicant. Just to give you some background, Mrs. Foster is an elderly woman. She lives on Oahu right now. She owns this property and she has two children. The intent is to subdivide and create a three-lot subdivision. One of her sons is kind of responsible in doing the subdivision. He and his wife live in Kona. They have a very active coffee farm. Regrettably, he was quite busy with the farm. So he couldn't, you know, complete the subdivision within the allocated time period. When he was informed that he really had to get off his stuff and really finalize the subdivision—in the meantime the surveyor decided to move out of State. So he had a hard time finding a new surveyor. And this occurred right during the time of the beginning of the pandemic. So finally, he was able to retain the services of Wes Thomas Associates. Two years ago, they received tentative subdivision approval in September of 2020. And they were just about ready to get final subdivision approval. However, the time expired. So this is where we are right now. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that overview. I'm just noting for the record, we have Acting Planning Director Jeff Darrow here in the Gallery in case Council Members have questions. Questions or comments on this request? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yes, good morning, Mr. Fuke. And, Deputy Darrow, can you come to the table, please? Okay,just to clarify again, was an Administrative extension already granted for this? Page 5 PC-17 January 5,2022 (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Yes. MR. INABA: So this is going to be a total of ten years we're extending it if this is approved? MR. DARROW: The original approval was in 2011. And with the Administrative time extension, that brought it to ten years. So this would actually be an additional five years. MR. INABA: So one Administrative, now this is the extension that you folks are asking from us, right? MR. DARROW: Correct. MR. INABA: Okay. And Mr. Fuke, how long more till this gets done? I know it seems there's been progress made. So when is your client anticipating to have this completed? MR. FUKE: I would anticipate within the next couple of years, because there's some slight infrastructure work that needs to be done; installation of a water line and they already retained the services of an engineer to do that;the construction plans are ready to be submitted. So once that's done the improvements would have to be made, and very modest improvements. So my best guess at this point in time, would be probably within the next couple years, we should be able to finalize it, if not, sooner. MR. INABA: Okay, and the circumstances that require the Administrative extension are the same circumstances that has brought us here today for this request? Is that right? MR. FUKE: Correct, yes. MR. INABA: Deputy Darrow, Section J. I know this is a standard language it seems that we're changing in this bill. Is this going to be a standard change that we'll see in all bills moving forward? MR. DARROW: Maybe I should introduce myself, sorry. Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow. I hope that you folks had a very pleasant Christmas and New Year's holiday season. With that I'll answer the question. Page 6 PC-17 January 5,2022 The reason for this change was based on a comment from Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), requesting that they have an opportunity to review this particular subdivision application prior to approval. So that's the request for this particular case. So it doesn't appear at this time that this would be a standard language change. MR. INABA: Okay, that's all I have for now. Thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Anyone else? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thanks, Chair. I can understand things falling behind a little bit. And especially with the pandemic. I actually know it's difficult getting surveyors, especially if they move out of State. And I don't think it's unreasonable to grant an extension. Looking at this, technically this is in, Heather, your district. But this abuts right in that area that we have, you know, have common ground. And, yeah, where people get confused. And it is in line with the rest of the development going on in the area. So I can support an extension because it seems reasonable given all that's happened. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, anyone else? Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Deputy Director Darrow,thanks for that explanation. And do youI just have one question. The Condition J, the addition of that, did they specify why this condition for this parcel, specifically? What concerns did SHPD have? I mean I was trying to look for it while you were talking. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Chair David, if you look at Number 20 in the background report, there is note from SHPD about it being used for cattle grazing, and there was insufficient information regarding potential features. They didn't think there was any, but they just wanted to be sure that prior to any ground disturbance, that the situation be actively monitored. And they have a chance to review all that. MS. DAVID: Okay, great. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I know, it kind of got lost in everything but, Number 20. MS. DAVID: Okay. Thank you for that, Mr. Darrow and Chair. Alrighty, I yield. Page 7 PC-17 January 5,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Okay, straight forward request and to the point that Mr. Richards made about there being some progress made by the applicant. There's been significant progress. Oftentimes, we've seen things come before us for time extensions upon time extensions where very little has been done. But in this situation good intensions and movement forward. And happy to continue to support that, because it's going to mean homes for this particular local family. So really appreciate that. Deputy, I just have one sort of technical question about this, because we have in this term seen a couple of things come before us where there isn't any note about time extensions, either by the Council or by the Planning Director. Is there a reason why we are having that noted here? That if we need to go beyond the five years, it needs to come back to Council. Because I've seen a couple where there wasn't that option, that it was something that the department and commission both saw that the zoning was appropriate now and into the future. MR. DARROW: I mean, that's been the debate going on with the commissions as well as the Council. And at this point, we're still following the standard procedure that the original change of zone request will normally come with a five-year timeframe to complete construction or final subdivision with the allowance of an additional time extension granted by the Director. But after that, they come back to Commission and Council. And normally on those time extensions, there's no additional Administrative time extension. There have been unique situations where it's been allowed, but in this particular case, I don't believe it was requested. The applicant feels confident they can finish it. But again, it's been that debate going forward, and I don't think we've resolved it yet. It's something in this new year we can continue to try to get a decision made one way or another which way we're going to hold with that. But,just real briefly, you know, there's two sides of this argument. One is that, if the zoning appears to be appropriate, why are we placing in timing conditions? It's appropriate, you know,just when they get it done they get it done. But on the other side, Commission and Council Members feel like if something hasn't been done over a period of time, they want the opportunity to review and to see if there's been changes with either the General Plan, or the Community Development Plans, or with other issues that may arise for that particular request. So again, we're still holding firm to our standard procedure at this time. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director, I appreciate that. Just wanting to make sure that at some point there is consistency, but what I'm hearing is real dynamic situation that we have to take a look at on a case-by-case basis. Page 8 PC-17 January 5,2022 And is there a particular reason why we have Condition L in this ordinance regarding an annual report. It's not something I always see in ordinances. So just curious why an annual report is required for this one. Because we've seen other bigger subdivisions; other projects come forward that don't require this particular reporting. MR. DARROW: You know, it was the original condition. I think they're just keeping it in because it was; they chose not to take it out. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, and then internally we have systems in place to kind of track all that really well? MR. DARROW: Yes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MR. DARROW: Well we have, you know,there was a question, what sort of progress has been made? The applicant has received tentative approval for final subdivision—or for subdivision. And so, that is a huge step right there. And so they have their conditions to be able to comply with the tentative subdivision approval. Once they do that,they receive final, so there's that line going forward. They can just send us a real brief update yearly, letting us know what sort of progress has been made. So that way we can be up to speed with it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great,thank you, Mr. Darrow. Those are all of my questions. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair for the latitude. I start this every year when we come and we see time extensions. And I'm still going to request the department, oftentimes the clock is ticking, but the submittals are with the County. And the County is taking up a lot of those months. So when they have 60 months to get something done and they submit their various applications, but 24 more months are waiting on shelves at DPW (Department of Public Works), at Planning, at other agencies. I really would like to see the department advance some kind of language that stops the clock when it's with the County for review. Because it's really unfortunate and actually hurts the applicants' ability to accomplish what this body, previous bodies, and future bodies approve. Thank you for the latitude Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: No problem. I fully agree with that sentiment, and we've raised it for a number of times over the last few years. So hopefully, that's something we can take a hard look at and resolve this year. Thank you, Director. Page 9 PC-17 January 5,2022 Alright, we have a motion on the floor, all those in favor please say "aye." Vote on Bill 99: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 99 on first (Approved) reading 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: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. This is forwarded to Council with a positive recommendation. We'll see you at Council. Thank you. MR. FUKE: Thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if we could move on to Bill 100 when you're ready, please. Thank you. Bill 100: REPEALS ORDINANCE NO. 97-106, WHICH AMENDED SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL—20,000 SQUARE FEET (ML-20) TO INDUSTRIAL- COMMERCIAL MIXED —20,000 SQUARE FEET (MCX-20) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-2-032:023, 101, 102, 103 AND 104 (Planning Director initiated) (Area: Approx. 147,736 square feet) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation to repeal Ordinance No. 97-106, which would reclassify the property back to its original designation of Limited Industrial—20,000 square feet. The property is located on the southeast corner of Kalanikoa and Kuawa Streets in Hilo. Reference: Comm. 549 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 549.1: From Deputy Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow, dated November 29, 2021, transmitting the draft transcript from the Windward Planning Commission's November 4, 2021, meeting. Page 10 PC-17 January 5,2022 Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 100 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I just want to disclose for the record,the Principal of Chaqueaux, LLC is Jim McCully, I worked with his wife over ten years ago. But just wanted to note that for the record. Thank you. Will the applicant and/or the representative please come forward? (Note: At this time, Attorney Ronald Kim, applicant's representative, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KIM: Good morning, Chairperson and members of the Committee. And Happy New Year to everyone. This is Ronald Kim of the Law Firm of Yeh and Kim, and I'm representing Chaqueaux, LLC. And Chaqueaux is the owner of four of the five lots involved in this rezoning. And Chaqueaux actually did initially request that the Planning Department initiate the rezoning. The reason being, the ordinance passed in 1997. There hasn't really been any movement towards complying with the conditions of the ordinance. The client was not aware of the ordinance's conditions actually, until they went in for a grading permit for some site improvements and then found out about the ordinance and the conditions. And because of the conditions being not complied with, and the ordinance being stale, so to speak, my client was informed that they can't do anything with the property presently. So they're asking for it to be reverted back to the Limited Industrial, which is, you know, sort of a less intensive use than the Mixed Industrial-Commercial that we had. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Kim. And Director Darrow, I think we're going to have some questions about just the logistics around this one. We don't often see Planning Director Initiated. Council Members, would you like me to have Mr. Darrow kind of talk about why this particular pathway? Typically we see, and maybe this is not something that an applicant can request. It must be done. A downzone must be done. A reversion back by the Planning Director. MR. DARROW: We have actually had, not a lot,but a number of Planning Director initiated repeals. Normally, it occurs there's a condition at the end of each of these rezonings that said, "Should the applicant or successors not substantially comply with conditions therein. The Planning Director may either revert the zoning or change it to a more appropriate zoning." Page 11 PC-17 January 5,2022 And so in this particular case, the reversion was a more appropriate action. The Planning Director, again was approached by the applicant and requested and felt like that was, you know, again as Mr. Kim had mentioned, this was something that the applicant was unaware of It was really the responsibility of the previous applicant to be able to comply with these conditions. And so, it's not a very difficult process to do a reversion, so we took it upon ourselves to go ahead and initiate the reversion back to its original. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Any questions or comments? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Is the Director available? MR. DARROW: He is currently on vacation. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. DPW and Planning Director on vacation. Okay. Yeah, being that it was Director initiated, I was wondering if he was available for comment. If he's not, that's okay. We'll hear this again at Council. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Oh, yeah. Jeff, you might have mentioned it but I don't think you did. So what is the landowner's position on this? MR. DARROW: They requested the reversion. MR. CHUNG: Okay, so, you guys acted upon that? MR. DARROW: Yes. MR. CHUNG: Okay, okay. Alright, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. And thank you Deputy and Mr. Kim for being here. I just actually had a more thematic question. With these rezonings where there are requirements for the applicant to comply with, what sort of process do we use to actually check that those actions have been taken over time? Is it going to be this sort of thing where they come in for a permit later, and that's the flag? We don't actively go out and review whether or not they've been complying with conditions? Page 12 PC-17 January 5,2022 MR. DARROW: It's funny, we're asked that all the time. What are you guys doing, or how come this happened? You know, how come you didn't inform me? And unfortunately, we're very limited when it comes to staff availability to be able to follow-up on conditions of compliance. Our goal, hopefully, in the future, is to be able to create a division or a section that's going to be monitoring compliance as well as any type of enforcement actions that are required of an applicant. It might fall under that zoning inspector section where they would follow-up on conditions. But at this time, we just don't have the manpower. There are literally thousands of permits that have conditions. So it usually will happen as the process unfolds. And it happens all the time. I mean, probably every other day we'll get a call asking a question about, "Oh, can I do this?" And we'll look at the property and find out that there's an old rezoning or an old permit that wasn't complied with, and they have to bring it back up to its current status. MS. KIMBALL: Is this something that perhaps once EPIC (Electronic Processing and Inspection Center) is fully up and operational, like there'll be some sort of flagging that can come from that to the department? MR. DARROW: Possibly. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. MR. DARROW: I mean it's something, but again, it's the manpower to be able to, you know, follow-up and do the enforcement aspects. Sending out letters, doing that. A lot of times that's where the Annual Progress Report comes in. Yeah, so if we don't—all of a sudden we get a progress report saying, "We haven't done anything." And we look and we're like, "Well it's past your time. Sorry you have to come back in." And that's how we'll try to bring those back UP again to status. MS. KIMBALL: Right. Okay, thank you for that. I was just curious about how all that worked. And obviously, there's a little room for improvement. I know that a lot of thought goes into these conditions, and some of them are there for health and safety reasons. And so, we want to make sure that they are complied with. But certainly understand the challenges of not having enough staffing to make sure that happens. Thank you, I yield, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Inaba. Page 13 PC-17 January 5,2022 MR. INABA: I'm just following up on that. So I mean that's one of the conditions, right? So if they don't submit the Annual Report then to the wind it goes? MR. DARROW: We don't know, you know. And again, it could be as simple as putting in a tickler in the EPIC system that, you know, at this timeI mean, my thought is still, every day we'd be getting hundreds of ticklers, right; and like who's going to take care of those? So, we have to have more manpower to be able to take care of those and follow-up. MR. INABA: Okay. Thank you, Deputy Darrow. Mahalo, Mr. Kim, for being here. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you. A little unusual, but I definitely understand it. And so, they were trying to grade and realized that they couldn't comply? And yeah, I agree with you. If we get all that notification, you spend all your day trying to figure out what that is. But this is they're comfortable with this downgrading, because it's going to work with them going forward? Okay. Alright, okay well, I'll definitely support it. But thank you, I yield. MR. DARROW: And you know, unfortunately we hear this too often that, you know, people buy a piece of property. And through that whole process, they were not informed of this, you know, permit with conditions. And to me, that's kind of questionable. Like, I thought it was a very, you know, strict process that everything has to be made known. But unfortunately, that's not the case all the time. MR. RICHARDS: May I follow-up, Chair? I would think so too, but I know it's certainly not your job to notify everybody on everybody's transaction. That's not your function. So I think what we all want is the whole permitting process more efficient, and you guys are working on that. So thanks, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to the ownership? I had a question. I don't know who wants to answer, but it's owned by two different entities, the set of lots we're looking at right now? MR. KIM: Yes, Chaqueaux owns four of the five lots. And another entity, I think it's William Warren Properties owns the other lot. Page 14 PC-17 January 5,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And Chaqueaux is? Who's the owner of Chaqueaux? MR. KIM: The Principal is Jim McCully. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Jim McCully. Okay, thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Mr. Darrow, the designations, the use. What are some big differences? I'm trying to go in between, you know, two different sections of the Code right now. They're both Commercial, right, allowing for those kinds of commercial-industrial activities? So I'm just wondering if, off the top of your head, you knew if there were particular things that were not allowed in this downzoning? MR. DARROW: It's funny, in the background report we actually listed the permitted uses of each zoning district. And I didn't take the time to go through and look, but mainly it would be more Commercial-type uses. A good example is retail establishments. You're not going to find in ML (Limited Industrial). Offices, you're not going to find in ML. And I think those were the types of uses that the original applicant were looking at. Being able to incorporate to be able to service the airport, and the harbor, and the surrounding other industrial properties that were there. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, that's helpful to know. Yeah, I noted that aviation uses for the property from the prior owner. So just want to be clear, in order for the Principals of these parcels to be able to move forward on anything, they had to resolve the zoning issue? MR. DARROW: Yeah. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. And to the point that, you know, Mr. Richards brought up about being able to track that, is there a way these ordinances can be linked to real property tax records? I mean I just say that because in this situation and reading the background, this wasn't disclosed by the previous owner. Maybe they didn't know. Maybe whoever was in charge passed away and with them went that knowledge. And so, I'm just curious, right, there's like historical information that's related to each of these properties. Conditions of approval; things that weren't filed. Just wondering if there's a way that all of this information can be communicated to and connected to other agencies within the County. To tell a fuller picture about, if there is a, you know, decision or desire to acquire a property, they know everything that they're buying. I don't know, is that possible? Page 15 PC-17 January 5,2022 MR. DARROW: I mean, it could be. Right now with this change of EPIC, I don't know if you folks are aware of this, but there was a big change in Real Property Tax website information. It kind of links you back to EPIC. And people were very used to the way of finding information off RPT's website. And so we're trying to see if we can go back to that. You know, to make it easier for the public. If they're able to do that, it would seem like there's the possibility that they might be able to link ordinances that are associated with the property or even permits. I'm absolutely sure that they tax them for that. So, it would be good that they could provide that information. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, that would be helpful, more of that data integration. MR. DARROW: We'll definitely look into that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, sounds good. Anything else? Oh, Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. The original ordinance, does that still hold the water as far as the agreement between the developer or, you know, the owner and the County? Like Fair Share contributions, anything like that? Is there anything like that? MR. DARROW: Once the ordinance if repealed, there's no conditions. It just goes back to its original zoning. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And the owner has to comply with what aspects of an agreement with the County? MR. DARROW: Any standard requirements for construction, building permits, grading, drainage; any of that that they come in, they still have to comply with that. But there's no specific conditions listed on the properties that were part of the rezoning. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Interesting. Is that normal? MR. DARROW: Again, it doesn't happen all the time because most people are requesting higher density or better uses with that change of zone. So they're willing to do those conditions, those requirements in the conditions. In this particular case, they're not getting those Commercial uses because it's being reverted back to its original Limited Industrial MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Understood, so the zoning change occurs with our approval, correct? Page 16 PC-17 January 5,2022 MR. DARROW: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Or when we see like—and this isn't a subdivision, correct? Maybe I'm missing something here, and I might be off. But is there normally with anything else we see an ordinance that clearly defines agreement between the person that owns the property and the County. And I guess I'm asking Fair Share contributions? You know, I see connection to sewer and that kind of thing, but is all that out the window when an ordinance is repealed for the initial agreement that happened a long time ago, like in 1997? MR. DARROW: Yes. I mean just to elaborate on that. It's as if the rezoning didn't happen. That's kind of what it is. So, if they had bought this back in 1996, and it was Limited Industrial, they wouldn't have had conditions. But they still would be required to comply with standard County conditions for development. So they'd still have to do that. But there's no Fair Share condition. Even in this particular rezoning, there's a Fair Share condition because there's the possibility to put residential units there, but that didn't appear to be one of the requests of the requests of the original owner. So if they didn't build residential units, there wouldn't have been a Fair Share requirement. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Let's say that Chaqueaux wanted to build residential units, what would happen? MR. DARROW: Right now? They cannot. Yeah, there's no option for residential units in Limited Industrial. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, okay. MR. KIM: If we wanted to build residential units, we'd have to rezone the property again, and then we'd come before the Council. And then the Council could impose conditions on, you know, the applicant that are related to the impact of the rezoning, basically. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that makes sense. Thank you, appreciate it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Real quick question, and maybe along the lines of what Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder is asking. Since the original passing in 2011, what changes or alterations to the property have been made, that were granted under this zoning that we are repealing now? Page 17 PC-17 January 5,2022 MR. KIM: I think the ordinance actually passed in 1997 initially, but very little has happened to the property. There was initially, I think a restaurant-bar that was operational there, but it hasn't been operational for years. So the property just sat basically for years. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Yeah, I was going through this ordinance and noticed no conditions of approval. And it reminded me of just, I think earlier—not earlier, this year, only five days in. Last year, I think we had a couple of them. One of them was Kagimoto's, where they were looking to do some kind of rezone. And looking through and wondering, how come there's no conditions of approval? And I think just back in the day, there were certain areas of our community where there just were none. So appreciate you're kind of explaining to us, Director, why that is the case here. So it's not unusual. It doesn't matter. I mean it just happens to be, this particular property doesn't have any conditions. But as Mr. Kim said, if there needed to be anything done outside of the permitted uses, you'd have to come back to us. And we as Council would determine if the land use is appropriate or not. So, thanks for that. Alright, we have a motion on the floor, all those in favor with sending Bill 100 to the Council with a positive recommendation please say "aye. Vote on Bill 100: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 100 on first (Approved) reading 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 passes. Thank you, Mr. Kim, we'll see you at Council. MR. KIM: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if we could move on to Bill 101 when you're ready, please. Thank you. Page 18 PC-17 January 5,2022 Bill 101: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-001:168 (Applicant: Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation) (Area: Approx. 9.091 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment, which would allow the applicant to develop 90-units of affordable housing and other related services in South Hilo. The property is located approximately 1,600 feet west of the Mohouli and Komohana Street intersection in Waiakea. Reference: Comm. 550 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 550.1: From Deputy Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow, dated November 29, 2021, transmitting the draft transcript from the Windward Planning Commission's November 4, 2021, meeting. Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 101 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I believe we have the applicants on Zoom, Mr. Keith Kato and Jeremy McComber. Keith, Jeremy, if you can hear me? Hi Jeremy, I see you. Is Keith with you or in a different Zoom room? (Note: At this time, Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation Chief of Operations Jeremy McComber came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. MCCOMBER: He's in a different Zoom room. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Are you going to be presenting today? MR. MCCOMBER: I believe so, yes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, sounds good. Well, thank you for joining us. If you could just introduce yourself for the record and provide us an overview of the request. We also have Acting Director Jeff Darrow in the Gallery. MR. MCCOMBER: Sure. Aloha everyone, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. My name is Jeremy McComber. I'm the Chief of Operations for Page 19 PC-17 January 5,2022 Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation. And we are the applicant that's seeking the rezone process, which will allow us to do the proposed 90 units on the site that's indicated in the agenda. It's just mauka of our current Mohouli Senior Campus. It's above the County Fire site. So the Fire site is sort of in-between our two campuses, the existing and this proposed campus. We're looking at utilizing a pocket-neighborhood design, which is a more innovative approach to the design that utilizes sort of close-net design elements to promote social interaction between the residents. And we're also integrating seniors and families with children to this neighborhood. So that's sort of the look and feel that we're going for. So that's what we're seeking approval for from this particular committee today, is to be able to engage the proper zoning to do that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. McComber. Any questions, comments from my colleagues? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I have a few questions for you on this one. Thank you for being here today, Sir. This property we're looking at is going to be an affordable housing project, correct? MR. MCCOMBER: That's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: How many units is there planned to be built? MR. MCCOMBER: Ninety. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Was that always the original intention or what is more before? MR. MCCOMBER: It's always been in the ballpark of between 90 to 100. And I think we settled on 90 as being sort of a comfortable density for us. I think generally speaking, while we have the capacity to seek higher density, we're attempting a particular look for the community. So 90 is the comfortable number that we landed on. And then we balanced that with our ability to secure finance to be able to develop the project as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And the land itself is being leased from the County or the State, is that right? MR. MCCOMBER: That's correct. It's being leased from the State, or excuse me, Executive Order from the State to the County, and then the County in turn leases it to our organization. Page 20 PC-17 January 5,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Can I ask what that lease agreement is, or the price for that lease agreement? MR. MCCOMBER: I believe it's $10 a year. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Wow, that is a good deal. And we're going to put 90 units on nine acres, correct? MR. MCCOMBER: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I want to say, I remember this being closer to 200 units originally when it came in, or that was the intention at that point. But I could be incorrect. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I don't recall this matter coming before Planning Committee before, this particular property. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Chung, you had your light on. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, Jeff, what happens from here? MR. DARROW: I'm sorry? MR. CHUNG: Amending the State Land Use Boundary map, right? Now, is there something, you know, I don't know much about Planning issues. What happens next? MR. DARROW: So this is a process that HICDC (Hawai`i Island Community Development Corporation) is going through Office of Housing and Community Development where they apply for what's called a 201H application to be able to receive certain exemptions in exchange for doing an affordable housing project meeting certain criteria as far as the percentage that they'll offer. In this particular case, my understanding is that they will all be rentals. So what happens normally in this case is that we try to plan it so that the State Land Use Boundary amendment and the resolution come together. I don't think it worked out in this particular case. Do we have the resolution at this point? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: It's been filed with our office, and it actually is on track. So should this move forward today, to first reading at Council, everything will be moving forward together. Page 21 PC-17 January 5,2022 MR. DARROW: Okay, perfect. So what will happen is, previously I don't know if you folks recall. I'm sure you recall. The Council would exempt the State Land Use Boundary request as well as the County zoning through the 201H process. We were informed by the State Land Use Commission that we did not have the ability to do that for the State Land Use Boundary amendments. So, the applicants need to go through the State Land Use Boundary amendment, but for the change of zone, it will be an exempted request that is approved by the Council through resolution. And that will be coming before you at Council. MR. CHUNG: Which will still, yeah again, come before the Council via the 201H mechanism, correct? MR. DARROW: Yeah. And so my understanding is that they're going to be requesting Multiple-Family 4,000 square feet, which will provide the density they need for the 90 units. MR. CHUNG: So for this in hand, what happens? What is the next move on the part of the developer? MR. DARROW: After approval? MR. CHUNG: Yes. MR. DARROW: They're able to go forward and begin construction. MR. CHUNG: After the passage of this bill? MR. DARROW: You mean the State Land Use Boundary amendment? MR. CHUNG: Yes. MR. DARROW: My understanding is that they both will be approved at the same time. The State Land Use Boundary amendment as well as the resolution. MR. CHUNG: So this resolution is coming up pretty soon then? MR. DARROW: Right. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Next Committee meeting for the 201H. Everything's in parallel. MR. CHUNG: How do they move parallel if they're going on ? Page 22 PC-17 January 5,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: So the 201H application no it's a good question. We have a 45-day clock that we are under to approve. And so it comes to Committee on the 18''. And should there be a favorable recommendation and we are able to move it forward, on the 19'h this will be heard, if we move it forward on first reading. And the Council Meeting in February, we would be able to adopt that 201H application resolution as well as this bill before us. MR. CHUNG: Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to see, you know, what the procedure was on this. You know, Jeff, I've been receiving some phone calls on this matter. I live in the neighboring subdivision myself. But at the same time, you know, I've told those persons who have called me that, you know, providing affordable housing is really serving the greater good. It is an essential need for our community. But, having said that, you know, I've been also trying to work with the developers in trying to, you know, provide some mitigating measures. Because, you know, they want to be good neighbors as well, right? And I will say this, I'm going to really stick up for this development team. They do such a wonderful job. I mean what they did with the Mohouli Senior Center and other projects is just, I mean, incredible. And what I tell my neighbors is that, I would much rather have these guys come in and develop a project, and they're not looking for added density or anything like that, than if the State were to come in. Okay, I mean, you know, I'm not putting down the State or anything like that, but they just—you know, Jeremy and Keith do such a wonderful job. It's first class, yeah? And I don't anticipate any problems, you know, with the neighbors because of them running such a tight ship. But you know, we are still working on, you know, fencing issues and things that are just going mitigate the impacts, but reasonably so. Not unreasonably. And I think we're getting there. But I don't think it's appropriate to put it here, right? MR. DARROW: Correct. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, okay. I just wanted to make those statements. Thank you. MR. DARROW: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And Council Member Chung, it was very deliberate to move this forward today, because no sense introduce the 201H if we as a Committee did not feel we would move forward with this. Thank you for those questions. Vice Chair Villegas. Page 23 PC-17 January 5,2022 MS. VILLEGAS: Mahalo, Chair Kierkiewicz. I just have a couple of questions relating to this project and some of the timeline connections. Also to answer or just to put out, it's my understanding that based on the information that I have, that the lease for the property is at $100 a year. Can you confirm that for us? MR. MCCOMBER: That could be correct. Sorry, yeah, I was going off of other leases that we've had. But it's typically either $10 or $100. And that's pretty standard for projects that are slated for affordable housing. At least for leases that we have been involved in. They're typically a pretty nominal amount. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Now going back to the original resolution which was brought forward by Deanna Sako on January 4h of 2018, Resolution No. 476-18. In that resolution it states that HICDC proposed to construct approximately 200 affordable senior housing units, correct? MR. MCCOMBER: On this particular site? Is that for this particular site that you'reI'd have to look at the resolution. MS. VILLEGAS: So essentially my question just comes to the deviation here between the 200 and the 90, and perhaps on the desire for that greater number because we're looking for as much as possible. And so with the $100 a year,just what the difference is and is this that best use of the land if we're getting less than half of the units that were originally presented as an option. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Vice Chair, hang on one second. Deputy Director Darrow, is that resolution that Vice Chair is referring to related to this project? MR. DARROW: I don't believe so. I believe that was part of the original phases. MR. CHUNG: The lower project, right? I just want to make sure, you know, for point of information that we're talking about the right property, right? I think what's being referenced, I could be wrong. It's the Phase II or III of the Senior component which was more down towards Komohana which is fully developed already, right? MR. DARROW: Yes. MR. CHUNG: I mean, but you might want to correct me if I'm wrong on that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: No it's correct. I pulled up the resolution, I'm looking at it right now. It says Hale Ola O Mohouli Affordable Senior Rental. And I think that's the keyword there, is Senior. This one is not. So different projects. Page 24 PC-17 January 5,2022 MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you so much. That really helps clarify that for me. So thank you so much. I think that in essence then otherwise that takes care and resolves the other questions that I had. So thank you for that. MR. MCCOMBER: Sure. And I could just sort of give you some context just in reference to that number. So the existing campus has a total of 182 units. MS. VILLEGAS: Got ya. Thank you for your clarification on that and your patience and flexibility, as I got those differences straightened out. Mahalo, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. And I just want to reiterate what Council Member Chung said. You guys do a fantastic job, and really appreciate the attention to the pocket-neighborhood concept. I think that this is really going to be great demonstration project of that approach to this mixed use, mixed community. And in my mind in a good location, but I'm going to defer to Council Member Chung, as this is his district as we move forward. I did note in the packet, you know, the water issue. And I don't know much about water and whether this 12-inch line is going to be enough for the 90 units. And I'm just asking if you anticipate any problems there or having to reduce the number of units potentially, after that water study is done? Or do you think it's going to be okay? MR. MCCOMBER: We believe it'll be sufficient. Typically during the predevelopment process, we consult with, you know, those parties that could speak to capacity and access to utility. So water is one of the first utilities that we sort of confirm. Because, obviously without water our project can't move forward. So yeah, we believe it's sufficient. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, great. And then, can you speak to anything about the term of affordability on this? How long will these units—are they going to stay affordable in perpetuity? It that tied to your funding? Can you say anything about that? MR. MCCOMBER: Yeah, it's typically, we partner with an investor for the development. And typically the term is somewhere between 55 to 75 years. That's the term of the lease agreement. So that's sort of the technical parameters of time. But in terms of, you know, our mission focus, I mean, we're charged with administering only low-income housing. So our intent for as long as we possibly can, is to keep the project affordable in perpetuity. Page 25 PC-17 January 5,2022 MS. KIMBALL: Wonderful. The last question I had really was just around energy efficiency. And I know this isn't really pertaining to our decision making today, but just curious if you've got some forethought about installing EV (electrical vehicles) chargers; using solar? You know, anything like that to help reduce some of the costs for the future residents in terms of energy and access to renewable resources. MR. MCCOMBER: Yeah, so typically our approach is, and at this point it's a requirement of our funding, to provide solar to the extent that we're able. And we've been successful so far. We also include PV (Photovoltaic) in our projects. EV is sort of a new thing for us, so we're definitely open to the idea, and I think it's been brought up in the design process. I can't say we're able to commit to that yet, but it's certainly a design element that's on the table. MS. KIMBALL: Great. I'm glad to hear that, and FYI (for your information), we're going to be having a presentation in a couple weeks by HELCO (Hawai`i Electric Light Company) on some of their renewable energy programs including something they have before the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) right now, which is a make-ready program for residentials which would allow for a facility like yours to get the electrical built-out to the point of the charger for EV infrastructure. So hopefully, that's something you might be able to take advantage of for this particular development if it makes it through the PUC. Thanks Chair and thank you Jeremy for being here. Thank you, Director. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. And it's great to see projects like this coming forward. We as a Council and we as a County have to be very supportive of the true affordable coming forward. And Jeremy, to your statement about 55 to 75 years, terrific. And I really support that. And what we as a Council, you know, we get through the 201H process and get all of that stuff going. We have to be very supportive, because if we're not, we're not going to get housing built. And time is of the essence. So this is not a—any comment other than the fact that I'm very supportive of this, as I think we have to be very mindful to support a lot of any type of affordable housing coming forth. One quick question, Jeremy, your AMI (Area Median Income) for your rental, I assume it's probably a portfolio, from 50 up to 140 or whatever? MR. MCCOMBER: Actually, it would be 60 and below. Page 26 PC-17 January 5,2022 MR. RICHARDS: Okay so, terrific. That is really good. So anyway, definitely supporting this. And I agree with what Mr. Chung said about the quality of work you guys do, so thank you. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else, further questions or comments? MR. MCCOMBER: Madam Chair, if I could just add one more thing. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Please do. MR. MCCOMBER: Mr. Kato, I know he's on this call, but I just wanted to point out that he's really under the weather today. And I wasn't sure whether or not he was going to participate, but he's here. I just think he's not in the condition where he wants to speak. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for letting us know. Please send him our well wishes. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Follow-up question and this is more procedural for the affordable housing aspect. When you proceed with the projects for the affordable housing, and as it's a State lease or a County lease, how does that process work? Is it open to the developer to do what he or she wants? Is the requirements from the County—and this may be a little out of line for this particular bill. And I'm just trying to figure out how it's going to proceed once this is passed. And kind of understand that so I can get ready for future questions or concerns, whatever it might be. Maybe, I don't know, Jeff if you're the best person to answer? MR. DARROW: I think Jeremy would be able to. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Jeremy, what happens then? Does it proceed like a County project, is it a private project, what is the deal? MR. MCCOMBER: It's considered a private project that utilizes a County lease. So, you know, from the lease enforcement perspective, the County could insert restrictions or terms that speak to affordability and the populations to be served. And that's typically the general language that's in there. So the County will indicate that, you know,this is the population you're going to serve. These are the income levels that you can go up to. This is the term of the lease. But in terms of detail on, you know, density, how many units? The County doesn't really regulate that, and I think appropriately so, because when we have to secure financing for the project, it's oftentimes contingent on timing and availability of funding. And when we do pursue financing, we also have to Page 27 PC-17 January 5,2022 evaluate who our competition is. So we may provide a general idea to the County up front of, this is how many units we think we can develop. But then over time that could be scaled back or increased just depending on what resources are available. There have been times where we've been able to increase the density because we're aware of more financing, and we're confident in our ability to be competitive. But yes, to get back to your question, it's typically just a restriction on the term, the income limits, and the population to be served. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. That was very helpful, appreciate it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mahalo nui, Jeremy, for taking the time to join us today. I was just thinking about a few years ago, Council Member Lee Loy and I were invited to a conversation about housing. And I was new to the Council. And it was interesting because almost everybody that introduced themselves, they would say their name and they would say, "When I grow up I want to be Keith Kato." And ever since that moment, I've just watched Keith, and I've just been so humbled and appreciative of his leadership style. Quiet, but very, very effective. And he approaches with so much care and thoughtfulness. And I love the project that you guys have with the self-help housing helping families build each other homes. And not only are they building homes but they're building a community. And so, I'm excited about you folks piloting this pocket-neighborhood project. I think it's a very smart, efficient use of land. And I'm excited about where I could go. So happy to be supporting this project. With that,there is a motion on the floor to forward Bill 101 to the Council with a positive recommendation. All in favor please say "aye." Vote on Bill 101: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 101 on first (Approved) reading 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. Page 28 PC-17 January 5,2022 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Thank you very much. I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda. Mr. McComber, we'll see you at Council on January 19th. Hopefully we are going to be graced with Mr. Kato's presence then. MR. MCCOMBER: Thank you so much. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 10:21 a.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Inaba 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. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Committee is adjourned. Mahalo nui. Approved: nit„---- 1,,„, . ,, , ,o,2_ Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 29