Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2022/01/18 2020-2022 Committee on Planning 18th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawai i January 18, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at 1:31 p.m., ORDER: in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Vice Chair (via videoconference) Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) (came in later) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member (came in later) Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member (came in later) 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: Thank you. Seeing that there are no testifiers, I am closing public testimony and moving on to business of the day. Mr. Clerk, if you could please start with Communication 577. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 577: NOMINATION OF WAYNE K. DE LUZ TO THE WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated December 21, 2021, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 11, 2022 (Section 13-4(k), Hawaii County Charter) PC-18 January 18,2022 Vote on Comm. 577: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. Wayne K. De Luz to the Windward Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. 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, Mr. De Luz for your time with us today. Mr. Clerk, moving on to the next item on the agenda. Comm. 578: NOMINATION OF DAVID A. WISEMAN TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated December 20, 2021, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 11, 2022 (Section 13-4(k), Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 578: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. David A. Wiseman to the Board of Appeals. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. 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. Page 2 PC-18 January 18,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, have a great day. Mr. Clerk, if you could move on to Bills for Ordinances. 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 106: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-23 (VOLCANO —MT. VIEW 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, 20,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-20) TO VILLAGE COMMERCIAL, 10,000 SQUARE FEET (CV-10) AT `OLA`A SUMMER LOTS, PUNA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 1-9-004:051 (Applicant: Raja Daggula) (Area: 0.838 acre) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to construct a three-unit short-term vacation rental complex consisting of three one-story single-family dwellings and a six-stall parking area. The property is located on the north side of Old Volcano Road, approximately 335 feet west of its intersection with Wright Road in Puna. Reference: Comm. 572 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 572.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated January 5, 2022, transmitting the draft transcripts from the Windward Planning Commission's December 2, 2021, meeting. Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 106 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I see the applicant joining us via Zoom. I also see their representatives here in Council Chambers. Gentlemen if you could please come forward and introduce yourselves. Also introduce your client and provide us an overview of the request before the committee today. Thank you. Page 3 PC-18 January 18,2022 (Note: At this time, Planning Consultants Daryn Arai and Sidney Fuke came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. ARAI: Good morning, Chair Kierkiewicz and members of the committee. My name is Daryn Arai. I'm a Planning Consultant assisting the applicant, Raja Daggula. Joining me today at the table is Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke. And joining us online is, the applicant, Raja Daggula, as well as his wife, Shalini Kapoor. Your records before you show that the Windward Planning Commission in its actions, accepted the recommendation of the Planning Director in voting for a favorable recommendation on this Change of Zone request, along with proposed conditions of approval. And with the recommendation, both the Commission and the Director found that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the property for Medium Density Urban uses consistent with the Puna Community Development Plan, which identifies the project site as being located with the boundaries of the Community Village Center consistent with the draft Volcano's long-range plans which designates this area as the project's business district. And finally, they found that the project is also consistent with the County's short-term vacation rental law which was adopted in 2018. The applicant acknowledges the concerns that were expressed by the Volcano Community Association and some members of the community that largely focused on certain select areas. Those areas include that the proposed action would be a circumvention of the County's newly adopted short-term vacation rental law that short-term vacation rentals in Volcano is not needed simply because there are too many, and that short-term vacation rentals simply do not provide a benefit to the Volcano Community; that the proposal itself would result in the destruction of the existing `ohi`a forest canopy; and that there will be noise and traffic impacts associated with the proposed short-term vacation rentals, which at this time is being proposed as three units. On behalf of the applicant, we met with the Volcano Association back in September of last year in the hopes that we can continue the dialogue and find a mutually beneficial opportunity as well as solutions, but unfortunately the association felt no need to pursue any further dialogue as long as the short-term vacation rental remain a component of this change of zone request. Your records will also show that the applicant responded twice in letters to the Planning Director addressing the various concerns from the affected agencies as well as the comments expressed by members of the community. What those letters basically tried to accomplish is that—demonstrate that rezoning, as Page 4 PC-18 January 18,2022 proposed, is consistent—is exactly what the short-term vacation law was trying to accomplish, which is not to have these type of accommodations in residential and agricultural areas, but to be focused in those areas that are clearly designated for commercial and resort types of uses. The applicant also went through the expense of amending its proposed site plan to reduce the overall footprint of the three proposed short-term vacation rental units, in the hopes that doing so and orienting it properly would result in minimizing any potential impact to the existing `ohi`a forest canopy. The applicant even offered to provide an onsite living accommodation in addition to the three units, thereby converting it to a hosted short-term vacation rental. And again, by having it hosted, you have a person onsite that can address any potential concerns regarding the way the property is being operated, as well as any noise that could be generated from the operations. So, with the approval of this requested rezoning, as conditioned by the Windward Planning Commission, we hope that it will provide a regulatory mechanism that would ensure that the project is consistent with the Village Design guidelines, minimizing disruption of the important `ohi`a tree canopy, and manage land-clearing and construction activities in order to minimize the effects on listed bird and mammal species that have been identified in the area. A denial of this proposed resorting would leave the property without these types of regulatory requirements and would leave the existing zoning of RS-20, which could allow for a single-family dwelling as proposed `ohana dwelling on the property. It would allow both dwellings to be operated as a hosted short-term vacation rental law which is not governed by the County's new STVR law, and it would basically provide no regulatory oversight for land-clearing activities. So we believe that the request represents a proper commercial land use pattern in this particular area of Volcano, consistent with the findings that supported a similar change of zone that occurred immediately adjacent to the subject property that was part of a proposed expansion activity by the adjoining Kilauea Lodge Complex. And for these reasons we believe that this proposed change of zone request is an appropriate land use pattern within this particular area of Volcano. So with that, we stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Arai. Mr. Fuke, anything to add? MR. FUKE: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Council. As Mr. Arai had indicated, I mean first of all, the reason why we're both here is like, we're just trying to help each other out. And you know, it's not necessarily that Page 5 PC-18 January 18,2022 the nature of this project, like it's a big project, so on and so forth. But it's a relatively small project. So I guess, to amplify on what Mr. Arai had indicted, I just kind of want to share with you, like how when I look at applications, what are the considerations that going to, you know, the so-called thought process. And one of the first things that we do, is that we look at what's the regulatory guidance? And the regulatory guidance in this particular situation is the General Plan and the Puna Community Development Plan. So obviously, if you have a project that falls outside of the LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide)parameters, or let alone, is deemed to be consistent, in this situation with the Puna Community Development Plan, then from a regulatory standpoint, it becomes very difficult to make the case that it is consistent. So in this particular situation, the General Plan is Medium Density. The Puna Community Development designates this property to be within the Village Center as they did with the adjoining property right next door. So, from a regulatory standpoint, when we look at it, we say, okay, you've passed the major test. Then the other test you look at is like, okay, what are the concurrency provisions, the infrastructure things? Can you address water? And yes, you can address water in this particular situation. What about wastewater; what about the sewer? What about the roadway? Those are all infrastructure questions that have been asked and they've been answered. I can go into detail about how they've been answered. Then the other things you look at are, well, what about the archeological, cultural things? You know, and sure it was deemed to be not archeologically significant, culturally significant, by the State Historic Preservation Division. And then you at like, well, is the ground—is the quality of the property such that you can't develop the land? No, you know, it's not steep. It doesn't have a lot of caves, so on and so forth on the property. So then, you know, over and beyond that, then you start to look at, what are the concerns that if you were a neighbor, or you were living in the community? What are the things you would think about? And so, we had that meeting with the Volcano Community Association. And you know, a number of them had raised the issue of short-term vacation rental—that they don't want anything more, to which we were saying that, but as Mr. Arai had indicated, that was what the intent of the short-term vacation law was all about. To say specifically where they can or cannot occur. And in this situation here, if it's commercially zoned, then yes, it would be permissible. Unless the County Council or the Administration declares a moratorium on short-term vacation rentals in Volcano or any other place, then presumably you could not make the case, like why short-term vacation rental is not permitted in that area. Page 6 PC-18 January 18,2022 The other thing that, you know,they had raised would be, well, you know, we want to save as much as possible, the stand of`ohi`a trees. So, as Mr. Arai had indicated, we went back and forth to the developer; made some concessions in terms of the footprint of the building. And over and beyond that, if you look at the conditions that the Planning Director and the Commission have recommended, they deal specifically with that. We would have to address those kinds of mediation. Then the thing is like, well what about the things related to the fauna aspects of maybe a forested area. You know,the hawk, the owl, the hoary bat; the petrels and Shearwater, Newell's (Newell's Shearwater), you know, those birds. Well, if you like all of those Conditions L, M, N and O, they specifically deal with that. All I'm saying is that you're looking at the regulatory standpoint, you're looking at the infrastructure standpoint. And you look at like, you're here and understanding what some of the neighbors are saying. And then you ask, yourself, "How can we mitigate it?" And I think that the way that the department and the Planning Commission have structured the conditions, they deal as much as possible with mitigation. So, over and beyond that, we don't know what else we can say. Here we have a project that totally conforms with all of the things that we're asking for in terms of the bodies. The policy makers are asking for: "This is where we should direct our growth. These are the considerations we should be mindful of whenever you consider zone change or special permits," or whatever the case might be. So from our perspective, this kind of checks all of the boxes. So maybe we didn't check it really well. So, we're in position to respond to questions that this body may have of us. The applicant is also here on Zoom, and he can speak to things that, you know, we can't perhaps directly respond to. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, Mr. Fuke, Raja Daggula, aloha. Thank you for taking the time to be with us today. Would you like to address this body in terms of the request that you are making before the committee? (Note: At this time, Applicants Raja Daggula and Shalini Kapoor came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. KAPOOR: Hi, this Shalini Kapoor and I'm Raja's wife. And first off, thank you so much for this opportunity to talk to you all. And I'm a Naturopathic physician, and for me my longest dream has been to come and move to Hawaii at some point. And so Raja said, "What about, you know, how are we going to make our living there?" I said, okay, let's look at avenues which would be revenue-making as well as a place for me to come and practice. So that's the background I just wanted to share with you. And I'm really grateful Page 7 PC-18 January 18,2022 that I had this chance to speak to you all. But I'll let Raja pick up from here and share with you his vision for this place. MR. DAGGULA: Hi, this is Raja. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk to you folks. I think we actually started with a plan and we changed it, I think, three or four times. And then we came to a plan where we felt that it will actually be in—gel well with the community there, with the trees and the forest canopy and everything. And if you look at the plans, the footprint was really quite small, and you know, we worked with planners as well as the drafters to come up with that particular plan. We also have a lot of things that are actually in the plan that, you know, for mitigation and other things as well. So, if you have any questions, please let us know and myself or Sidney or Daryn will be able to, you know, help you guys understand better. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Opening it up for questions or comments from my colleagues. Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz. I just have a question either for Mr. Arai or Mr. Fuke. As it stands right now, as far as short-term vacation rental, at the RS-10 (Single-Family Residential) and they build a residence and you said that maybe an `ohana would be possible with the current zoning. Would they still be able to do a hosted vacation rental under that circumstances? MR. ARAI: Yes they would. As long as someone resides on the property, yes. MS. DAVID: Okay. Because I'm looking at this. This is under an acre piece of property. And then there's three different buildings, right? Three structures. MR. ARAI: That's correct. MS. DAVID: And at a minimum, I think I saw some square footages here. Three originals: 2,200, 700, and 700. That pretty much kind of takes up the area almost completely. And the reason I'm asking that is because I'm looking at all the letters from the Volcano Community Association, and their concerns was basically the `ohi`a forest. And as we all know, our `ohi`a forest is taking a beating from invasives and other things. So that's why I'm asking. They could still do short-term vacation rental as it exists right now, if they live there, right? And so I think in my remembering the discussions on hosted and non-hosted,the proposal to build three units, and then have someone, not the applicant themselves, right? Someone that they will hire to live there. MR. ARAI: Yes, and they were contemplating having someone else live there, and eventually if they do decide to move to Hawaii, then they have the option to also residing on the property. Either way, it'll be hosted. Page 8 PC-18 January 18,2022 MS. DAVID: Okay. Yeah, there's a lot of things. I'm sorry, I haven't been able to really delve into this as much as I wanted to. But I'm just reading the gist of what, you know, you've reviewed. And the fact that I think, given the current situation, and the fact that the Village Association people already are concerned about the number of STVRs in the Volcano Village area, it doesn't preclude, in my opinion at this point—it doesn't preclude the applicant from actually from actually doing a STVR when they actually decide to move here. So, I'm sure what I'm going to do about this right now, but I'd like to hear my other colleagues' input as well. So for now I'll yield, Chair. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. David. Before I call on someone else, I just wanted to make note, based on Chair David's comments, so the request before us would allow the applicant to build three hosted units. If they did not move forward with this particular request, they would be able to do two hosted units with the current zoning. Is that correct? So the request before us is to increase capacity? MR. ARAI: Yes, in a nutshell, you're absolutely correct. It would allow for increased capacity, but I should also note that the distinction of securing a Commercial designation for this property would allow for unhosted short-term vacation rental, which is prohibited unless you have this type of commercial zoning. So this proposal in response to community concerns, especially regarding noise impacts, was to provide the option for having it hosted, which would work in either the Residential or the Commercial Zoning district. MR. FUKE: So I can just kind of amplify a little. When we had met with the Volcano Community Association, the different members had expressed different things. Some had said that, you know, we like the commercial, but we don't like the use. So, if you have maybe, for example, a coffee shop; you have like our unequivocal support. It's just that the vacation rental that, you know, they were adverse to. So we tried to point out,that under the existing zoning, it's conceivable that you could have like two dwellings on, and you could have like two hosted short-term vacation rentals. Alternatively with the zone change, you could have like in this case, the proposed three short-term vacation rentals, and they can be either hosted or non-hosted. But if in a Residential Zone, obviously it has to be hosted. So we explained to them further that, based on the existing zoning and you can have two hosted short-term vacation rentals. There are no prohibitions relative to possibly denuding the whole property. Page 9 PC-18 January 18,2022 You know, a person could take out a grading or grubbing permit today and do all those things. And you know, that's currently allowed. So we were saying that through this rezone process, on the other hand, you could through conditions, exercise some measure of design control to achieve what we understood, some of the community members wanted to have. And as a result, you see some of these conditions. And Mr. Daggula has already, you know, he participated in the Zoom meeting, and he said, "Fine, I'll do that. I'll work with the community in terms of trying to find appropriate places to put the structures on." And over the last two or three weeks we received a communication from one of the members who live in the village. And so, she had recommended a person with whom Mr. Daggula should work with specifically in terms of how best to do the design and preserve as much of the stand of`ohi`a on their property. And Mr. Daggula reached out to him and said, "Yes, let's work together." So that's kind of like where it stands now. And that would all happen, you know, provided that the zone change goes through. So obviously, if the zone change does not go through, you know,there's really like nothing for him to continue the discussion or the dialogue with the association, let alone, with that person that was recommended to work with Mr. Daggula on the landscaping. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for those details. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thanks Daryn and Sidney for being here. Sidney, you just touched upon something, when you worked with the community they were fine with the coffee shop, right? Which would be a permitted use under this zone change. And then it made me think, a coffee shop would actually generate, if not, more traffic, noise. And so, as we know with a zone change, even if a property were to change hands, these conditions of approval are actually attached to the property. So when you met with the community, was it the noise or the traffic, or like people coming and going? MR. ARAI: But anyway, you know, there was an excessive focus on simply short-term vacation rentals. So it was, they understood that the request was to establish a proper zoning pattern, which is basically a Commercial-zoned area within an area designated a long-term plan to accommodate such use, but again, it weighed so heavily on them that this was a circumvention of the short-term vacation rental law. And there was simply too many vacation rentals in the area, and it would provide no additional benefit to the Volcano Community. Which is why they sort of liked the concept of a book store or maybe a coffee shop. Page 10 PC-18 January 18,2022 You know, there was even a discussion about, you know, maybe providing something that would provide some benefit to the community, given that it would be a Commercial type of zoning. But once the opportunity for further discussion ended, then you know, there was no further opportunities to discuss. I should note that the adjoining property next door, which got its zoning in 2019, the property is a little bit larger. I think 1.12 acres or something like that. Three cottages, I think the retail was 2,000 square feet, and I think, 26 parking stalls. I think the applicant, Raja Daggula, can better site this proposal on his property with three buildings, smaller footprints. The design is almost like a treehouse concept. At least that's what he's definitely contemplating. And to accommodate that use there will be six parking stalls. So you have to look at both and value and access the impacts they both will cause. And we argue that Raja's approach is consistent with the reasons why the adjoining property was granted the similar zoning in 2019. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks Daryn, because it could be way bigger, right? But what I'm seeing is a modest development. And the conditions of approval are that guardrails. One thing that popped out at me was the Fair Share contribution, which is very rare. There's very oftentimes not much zoning going on in the area. And so, even that Fair Share contribution is another opportunity for community, right, to realize some other things that they want by way of other services for the area. You know, it honors the land-use pattern; it's consistent with, you know,the General Plan. All these things, all these guides that we put up so that we can focus both patterns. Yeah, you know, I have a question for the applicant. Hi, you mentioned you were a Naturopath. And I was wondering with this zone change, if you were looking to open up that type of office or office use on the property. MS. KAPOOR: Eventually, yes, definitely. That's a dream, I haven't really worked on the plan yet. But it would be an amazing thing to do. So I just want Raja to establish whatever we started out with, and I do want to eventually move there permanently. I'm a tropical beast. I mean I grew up in India. So that's the closest weather pattern that I can dream of in this country. MS. LEE LOY: Well, somehow services in the district would also be health services. MS. KAPOOR: I would love that. Page 11 PC-18 January 18,2022 MR. RAGGULA: If I can add, I think when you met with the community there, I think one of the things that they brought up was not having a doctor maybe, or some kind of a nurse practitioner, or someone in Volcano. And I think that it was a discussion where some people wanted it; some people didn't want it. Same as the case with the bookstore or a coffee shop. A grocery store, someone was saying. But grocery store was out of the question because it means that you'd need a lot of parking and a lot of land has to be disturbed. So that was not an option at all. But some of the discussions ended up with like, maybe there is something we can work out and actually have something there, so that somebody else can maintain it. But there was not a consensus in the community to what they really want with that piece of property. And I really felt that this would be the least disturbance as far as `ohi`a tree canopy is concerned. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you for that response. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And I just want to walk the conversation back just a little bit. What is before us is a change of zone request. We're not here to make a decision on the actual use. We take a look at the Code. Forty-nine uses under CV (Village Commercial), including bar, cemetery, convenience store, hospital, medical institution, repair shop, theater. We have to make a decision on, do any of these potential uses make sense for this property. Just want to make sure I'm walking back the conversation. Thank you. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And very carefully listening to the conversation. With the conditions set in place, this falls in line with what we're talking about as a County overall. I look back at the time when Ms. David and I were growing up, we had actually a third of the population. And what we're talking about is a planned growth, as opposed to something—and this has input from the community as opposed to—it wouldn't necessarily have any input, which is in line with what we're talking about, responsible growth by being sensitive to what's going on with the neighbors. So I'm inclined to support this because it's a natural evolution with being very sensitive to what the neighbors are voicing. Now, everybody's not going to be happy and I got that. But with the conditions, some of them are pretty stalwart and I appreciate that the owners here are interested in continuing to pursue in spite of that, so at this point, I'm inclined to support this. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Page 12 PC-18 January 18,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I have a question for—is the Planning Department here today? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Director Kern is on Zoom. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Kern, I just want to acknowledge, you know, that it's very nice to have the applicants here as well as their company supporting them. And thank you for being here today. In light of that, I'm just looking over the document in front of us. There's a note here that if we are to grant this change of zone and move to Commercial, ultimately the applicant could subdivide into three different lots. Is that correct? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR.KERN: That is not exactly correct. Let me first start by saying, good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. Happy New Year to you all. I'm Zendo Kern, Planning Director. So the CV-10 would allow for the smallest sized lot to be 10,000 square feet. So it'll potentially allow for two lots. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm looking in your notes from the Windward Planning Commission, and it says, "Please note, should the Change of Zone to CV-10 be approved, the 36,000 square foot lot could be subdivided into a maximum of three lots." MR. KERN: Oh, yes, I was looking at the wrong one there. Yes, 36,000 square feet. The smallest lot size would be 10,000 square feet. So whatever that divides into would be the case. So in that case, yes sorry, three lots. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Kern. That is what I understood from this document. And I wanted to make that point, that we could build three buildings, but I think ultimately this could lead out to be three separate lots, which could then be subdivided if the applicants so choose. And I don't know if the community is aware of that or not. Because it hasn't been said yet. Maybe that was intended. As far as the surrounding lots, I mean, a lot of other areas around it CV-10, this doesn't raise too many questions to me as far as the change of zone. But I'm just wondering if everyone is aware that that could be potentially three lots there, which would fall in line with what the applicant had said so far. I just wanted to state that. Any thoughts from the applicants on that comment? Was that intentioned, to move in that direction? Page 13 PC-18 January 18,2022 MR. KERN: If I may, Council Member,just to throw in there. There are other requirements that would come around from the subdividing. We have to look at minimum lot width, etcetera. So while the zoning may allow for the three lots, it may not be practically doable, but it also may be doable. We'd have to analyze that from a lot-width size. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Understood. Thank you, Mr. Kern. From the applicants, do you have any comments on the future subdivision? MR. DAGGULA: No there is no subdivision planned that we're thinking of. This is basically, purely what we have submitted as part of the application. It's going to be two small structures, which is going to be 700 square feet each, including the deck and you know, everything else. The 700 square feet is not really the interior space. It's basically the footprint of the building, which actually includes the deck, the stairs and everything else. So the 2,200 square feet, one that is actually, you know, the third structure is 2,200 square feet. That also includes, I think it's only a 1,300 square feet interior building, you know, the space. But the 2,200 includes the deck, the stairs and everything else. So right now,there is no plan actually doing anything other than this. So,thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. MR. FUKE: Madam Chair, can I respond to Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Please, Mr. Fuke. MR. FUKE: Yeah, the way the conditions that the Planning Director and the Planning Commission had structured the request, it was strictly done. Because it was tailored to whatever is being represented by the applicant. The applicant just kind of represented that he's not going to subdivide the land. In the written narrative as well as the proposed site plan, talks about three structures and having so many square feet on the footprint. So the conditions were structures along these lines in terms of landscaping, mitigations, so on and so forth. So, if there is significant departure from that,the way I read the condition as proposed by the department, it's got to come back to the Council. Because I direct you to Condition No. D. It says, "Construction of the proposed development." So you ask yourself, what is the proposed development? You heard from Mr. Daggula and you've seen the written application. That is the proposed development. And it says, "As substantially represented by the applicant." You heard him today. "Shall be completed within . . ." And so, therefore, all of the conditions kind of flowed from whatever that representation Page 14 PC-18 January 18,2022 is made. So therefore, if there is a departure, I would think there is cause for a property owner or the Planning Department, as they review the application for plan approval, to tell them, "No, you're not complying with whatever you represented, so you have to come back again and it has to be vetted by the same process, Planning Commission, Community, and County Council. And if need be, you're going to have appropriate mitigations into that." You know, that's tailored to whatever that revised development is. So I thought that was very astute of the department to make that recommendation to kind of tie it down to specifically what is being represented. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Fuke, I know you to be a very astute individual. Thank you for that. But I just wanted to mention, it was in the notes from the Planning Commission, and I just wanted to put that out there. And I'm not saying subdivision as in a subdivision, house and streets,the whole thing. I'm just saying that the property could be subdivided in the future. They would end up back in front of us. But the wording in that same D Section is, "Construction of the proposed development as represented by the applicant or as permitted by the zoning district classification." And that's more of an effective date and timeline for the project. But you know, that can go both ways. But I thought it was important to note and thank you for the response. MR. FUKE: Yeah, I stand corrected. It omitted, "Or as permitted by the zoning district." So, I guess all I'm suggesting, if this has become like a design issue, and you want to hold the developer's feet to the fire so to speak, then I would suggest that you bracketed, "Or as permitted by the zoning district." MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you, Mr. Fuke. Coming from the business perspective, there's a lack of County water in the area,just given the area. But are the applicants aware of the challenges that can be faced for businesses that aren't connected to a County water system? MR. DAGGULA: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. My wife and I own a small restaurant, and that's been a hurdle that we faced in other areas of Puna. So I just wanted to mention that, for your information. MR. DAGGULA: Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Chair, I yield for now. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Inaba. Page 15 PC-18 January 18,2022 MR. INABA: Thank you. Mr. Arai and Mr. Fuke, you had meetings with the community and were your clients also present at those meeting? MR. ARAI: Yes, they were, by Zoom. MR. INABA: And Council Member Lee Loy pointed out about the Fair Share contributions. Now, the Fair Share contributions, as it's stated here in the bill are too, if the applicant should develop residential units on the subject property. Is that what is being proposed here? MR. FUKE: Yes, so the structures essentially would be a single-family residents. So they would be responsible in obligating themselves to the $15,000 per unit. MR. INABA: Okay. I think that's all the questions I have for now. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I just have a couple of clarifying questions. Is this the current site plan? The one that's included in the presentation. It's got like, two (inaudible) sides that are octagon shaped things. MR. ARAI: Yes, the most recent concept are those octagon-shaped structures. The original application was for rectangular structures, which was a much broader footprint. So again, in response to the community's concerns, we did reduce the overall size. What you have presented now is more like a two-story type of elevated concept, which is why I kind of mentioned the treehouse concept. Again, it was all towards squeezing things together. Maybe going with multi-level structures rather than something that generates a much bigger footprint. MS. KIMBALL: I had a question for the applicants. Is there any sort of time pressure that you're under to begin development on this? I appreciate Chair's thoughtfulness in mentioning, you know, the real scope of what we're doing here. We're not approving this plan per se, but we're approving this rezoning. And once you do it, you can't really go back. So, if there's no time pressure, my inclination is maybe to take another deep, hard look at this, a little more time on it. I know Chair David has some concerns as well. And look at some of those conditions more closely. But I just kind of want to understand if you have any time constraints at this point. I know you said it was a longtime dream, so I'm sure you want to get started on your dream, sooner rather than later. But if there's some time, that there is some time. Then I think we should, as a body take it. This is an important decision for us to make. Page 16 PC-18 January 18,2022 MR. DAGGULA: Yes. I mean we do have some time pressures, we do want to actually act. But we want to do it the right way. So you know, if the Council feels that they need more time and need to look at something carefully, then we'll do it that way, yes. We want to do it, you know, what is best for everyone. MS. KIMBALL: I appreciate that very much. And the willingness to take things slowly. I appreciate that, thank you. I yield, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz. And I just have a few notations. I'm going through the transcript. And so, there's 49 possible uses if this CV goes through, right? And well, some of them, if not, most of them. Movie theater and that sort of thing. Given the size of this lot, it's out of the question. So we're kind of whittling that down. Once this is approved, the next step would be a plan approval. And then that goes to the Planning Director, right? MR. ARAI: That is correct. MS. DAVID: Okay. And that is something that does not get any further discussions with the community or community input. That's a Planning Director's discretionary role. MR. ARAI: That is correct. It would be discretionary. However, I do note Condition—where am I? There was a condition in here that, and I'm sorry I can't find it. MS. DAVID: Yeah, I think I saw that. MR. ARAI: That talked about consistent with the character. And if the Planning Director needs assistance in defining that character, then they have the opportunity to reach out. Oh, I'm sorry, that's Condition C. MS. DAVID: And that's if he determines that there is a need or a necessity? MR. ARAI: Yes. MS. DAVID: Okay. And once that happens, that does not come back before us at all, the plan approval? And so, according to the transcripts, there's really no other process after this in engaging public input? MR. ARAI: That is correct. Page 17 PC-18 January 18,2022 MS. DAVID: Okay. And so, I know that, with all due respect to the applicants. They really want to work with this community. And I believe, Ms. Kimball, your suggestion that we kind of ratchet this down for a little while, because I also noted that given the favorable recommendation, that the two commission members, one I believe from Ka`u and the other was the Chair were the only two "no"votes. So it was a four to two on this one. And I believe, I don't want to put words in their mouth, it really centered around the fact that the CDP (Community Development Plan) and the community input was a factor in their decision making on this particular matter. And I believe thank you applicants for saying that there's really not an urgency of this matter. And I appreciate your indulgence, because the community of the Volcano Village, I'd like to have some opportunities to discuss this with them. Because it is their community and I'd like to see the collaboration with potential new development in that area. And so, I yield. I think that's all I have to say for now. And we'll see what happens. Chair, thank you, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. And I just wanted to note, you know, and my review of the transcripts as well. It was noted that the association did not want to move forward with any more discussions with the applicant, because the intention was to move forward with the vacation rental. And so, if I'm reading the transcripts correctly, there is a willingness by the applicant to collaborate, but not by the residents of the community. So I know you are the type to get everybody together to talk story and find a way forward. And so I would just maybe request that you can help to broker some of that dialogue between the applicant and community. Thank you, Chair. Director Kern, I think you had your hand up. MR. KERN: Yeah,just you know, it's an interesting conversation. And I'm just kind of sitting back and getting to absorb this and seeing what happened through the Planning Commission side of it. And if my memory serves me correctly during the Planning Commission, there wasn't a lot of opposition to this being rezoned to Commercial. It was really the sort-term vacation rental component that people were having issues. They were saying, it was like, "You know, a cafe or something, that would be wonderful, but not a short-term vacation rental. So you know, if the Council decides to postpone and have further conversations about it, so be it. But I want to throw this out there for food for thought. The County Council did a lot of deliberation on short-term vacation rentals and passed the bill that allowed for short-term vacation rentals in the CV zoning. Page 18 PC-18 January 18,2022 The request is consistent the General Plan. The request is consistent with the Puna Community Development Plan. The request is consistent with the Volcano Plan. And all those did have community input. I'm not saying don't have further conversation with them, but I feel like we're fringing on a lot of very spot-type zoning decisions based on the request, and not on land-use policy. As the applicant came in next door, for basically the same request with probably three or four times in volume, with additional parking and a lot more disturbance, it wasn't much of an issue around that. So it's challenging, because what I'm seeing is a lot of pushback based on its saying it's a short-term vacation rental. If they might have used the nomenclature, "We're going to do a lodge," it might have been a different conversation. If they came in and said, "We're going to do a little, you know, cafe; a little bistro with some transient rentals in there," it might be a different conversation. But there's a lot of frustration around the STVR side of it, that we're seeing things change. And the work that the Council did to regulate that, and the work of what we're changing to regulate that, has been helpful, I believe. There's also the conversation around the hosted rental side of it and the timing of that. And from my understanding, we will be having conversations around that sooner than later, and that may change. So I just also want to throw into folks' minds, that's saying, "Oh you could do a hosted, it's no problem." The timing of that may be difficult depending on how things evolve. So I don't think that's a fair shot. I think what's a fair shot is looking at land-use policy where it makes sense doing that. Otherwise, my question to you is, how do we do this? How do we do land-use policy? Do we do it by feeling? Because then we're going to get outside of the General Plan. We're going to get way outside of the CDP. We're going to get way outside of these other areas, and we're going to say, well I'd like that because it feels good. Now we have sprawl. Now we're no longer keeping to our urban core and to these policies. So if we're going to make more spot zoning-type decisions, how do we regulate land-use policy? How do we focus the area and the growth areas that we want to have? And this area is triple compounded by way of the GP, CDP, and Volcano plan. How do we do that? And if we're going to be doing this, it would be really helpful to understand how do we effectuate land-use policy? How do we effectuate change and work on regulating that? As far as the plan approval goes, it will come through the Planning Department's Office. It is a decision that the Planning Director will process. My staff will Page 19 PC-18 January 18,2022 process it, and they'll look at all the conditions based on the rezoning; make sure that those are adhered to. And they'll look at all the conditions within, you know, Chapter 25 to make sure that those are adhered to: parking, setbacks, etcetera within there. And if there's anything contrary to that,there's also the ability to have that taken to the Board of Appeals and appealed. But plan approvals are very much—we're really checking that list. Does it meet all that criteria? Did they comply with their conditions? And are we consistent with the other elements, such as, setback, landscaping, etcetera? So,just want to throw that out there. I have the feeling that it's probably going to be postponed. But while it is postponed, for the minute to have those types of thoughts going around there. I'm happy to answer any questions or expand on that if necessary. Thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. Mr. Fuke. MR. FUKE: Yeah,just to add to that,just three final comments probably in relation to Chair David's comments. One is that after we had that meeting with the Volcano Community Association, as Mr. Arai pointed out, we reached out again and they said, "No, we don't want to talk with you guys anymore." So you know, that's kind of like where it ended. Secondly, as Mr. Kern had noted, if this rezoning is approved with the conditions, you know, with or without any modifications going through, the only other permitting process is the plan approval. And that's all administrative. Now, it's not unusual and I've seen conditions in the past where the Council has written conditions which require consultation with the community prior to the submittal of plans for plan approval. And so if you have that written as a condition, then we or Mr. Daggula or whoever he hires as an architect or designer, ultimately would have to reach out to the community, have that engagement. And if the community association elects not to meet for its own reason, but at least Mr. Daggula can honestly say, "I reached out and they did not take my hand." So at least, we can report that to the Planning Director in conjunction with the plan approval process, and then they can take it through. So I just kind of wanted to throw that as an option. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Just kind of a reminder, we need to convene RAWEEMC (Regenerative Agriculture, Water, Energy, and Environmental Management Committee) about 20 minutes ago, so looking for a little bit of direction as to what Council Members would like to do here? Chair David. MS. DAVID: Yes, thank you and thank you, Mr. Fuke for that. And yeah, I just wanted to thank you for explaining that part. Okay, I yield. Page 20 PC-18 January 18,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Chair, yeah,just a quick comment. I appreciate what the Director has said about land use. It seems like the outreach is what I would expect for a 500-unit subdivision or something. It's been quite substantial, and already discussing parameters that would be reflective of community input. And so I can see this going forward, and I think it's appropriate to go forward as we're talking with the subdivision. And as you articulated, we have 49 uses already. So I'm going to support this going forward because it does make sense with our land use as it's been determined. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else before we move to a vote. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I was going to quickly comment. You know, I'm not going to make the motion to postpone. Someone else is welcome to, but I think I'm okay with just moving this for another discussion at Council. You know, there's two discussions at Council, with the understanding that there may be some bracketing of material and maybe a postponement there if we can come to an agreement. But that's where I am right now. Appreciate everybody's time, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Chair David. MS. DAVID: Yes, thank you. I have no objections on moving this forward right now, because you know, it's up to us how we see and how we're going to vote on this matter. If we move it out of committee like Council Member Kimball said, we have two more meetings to discuss this. And in the interim I will contact the Volcano Association and see what other issues and also the commission members. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I'll be supporting the bill. You know, as Director Kern had mentioned earlier, there was a similar matter that came before this body. I believe early 2020, Bill 137, which became Ordinance 20-21. The Kilauea Lodge, expanding that particular area,just having more retail space. And so it makes absolute sense, from a planning perspective to concentrate the growth of commercial assets there. And really do appreciate the diligence by the applicant and representatives to stay with community on this, being very transparent about what the intentions are. But also, really hearing them and using that to refine plans. We don't ever see that very often. So I just want to make sure that that recognition is there. And everything that has been done, has been articulated in the ordinance. Page 21 PC-18 January 18,2022 I do think that there are ways we might be able to refine and strengthen a little bit of language based on some of the comments that Chair David mentioned regarding final plan approval, design concepts. But I want to be clear about what that is exactly. Volcano doesn't have design guidelines similar to Pahoa or Kailua Village. And so just want to get clear on what exactly is going to be reviewed and by which bodies. Is that the Council? Is that the Volcano Community Association? Just want to be really clear because we would then be sending a precedent for future projects. So want to make sure we're getting that language right. That being said, we have a motion. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Kern. I'll keep it quick, thank you. Mr. Kern, have we done a move from zoning to Commercial to allow for STVRs to be built to date since we've enacted the STVR bill? MR. KERN: That's a good question. I'm sure people have used it. I'm just trying to think of a particular rezoning thatI can't think of one right off the top of my head, but I could certainly ask staff and we can look into it and provide you that information at the next Council meeting. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, that would be good. I just want to make sure as we move forward that if we are setting precedent, you know, what we're setting precedent to. Thank you. MR. KERN: Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor to forward Bill 106 to the Council with a positive recommendation, all those in favor please say "aye." Vote on Bill 106: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 106 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following roll call vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: Committee Member David— 1. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 22 PC-18 January 18,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Mahalo nui everyone. We will see you at Council. Happy New Year. We have one more matter before us, Bill 107. Bill 107: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 18-115, WHICH RECLASSIFED LANDS FROM OPEN (0) TO INDUSTRIAL-COMMERICAL MIXED (MCX-20) AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (MG-la) AT HONOKOHAU IST AND 2ND, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEYS: 7-4-008:013, 030, 074, 076-078, 084, 085 & 090-100 (FORMERLY TMK: 7-4-008:013 & 030) (Applicant: West Hawaii Business Park, LLC) (Area: Approx. 282.367 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment, which amends Condition J(Kamanu Street Construction Timing) and adds Condition N (Roadway/Driveway Requirements Related to Development of Parcel 77) and Condition O (Ownership Transfer and Development of Parcel 90). The properties are located along the east(mauka) side of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway in Honok6hau, North Kona. Reference: Comm. 575 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 575.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated January 11, 2022, transmitting the draft transcripts from the Leeward Planning Commission's December 16, 2021, meeting. Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend passage of Bill 107 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'm actually going to ask for someone to make a motion on this measure to our March 8 Committee meeting. Our office has a policy of alerting applicants as to when their items are going to be scheduled at Council. We sent that notification to which they followed up and said that they're not available until March. So just asking for everyone's understanding of this matter. Thank you. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Richards moved to postpone Bill 107 to March 8, 2022. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion on the postponement? All in favor please say "aye." Page 23 PC-18 Januar) 18 2022 Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 107 to March 8. 2022, to Postpone: was carried by the follow ing voice vote. (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba. Kaneah`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy. Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes. None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda. May I have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 2 58 p.m., Ms Kimball moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Da\id, 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. Appro\ I 1D Ze2 Ms. Ashley L Kierkiewicz. Chair (Date) Planning Committee AK/dt Parr 24