Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2022/03/08 2020-2022 Committee on Planning 21st Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i March 8, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 10:31 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) Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (came in later) Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member (came in later) Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member 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: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Dennis Boyd: Bill 112 (Comm. 595); and Bill 115 (Comm. 601); comment. Christopher Delaunay: Bill 112 (Comm. 595); and Bill 115 (Comm. 601); comment. Dean Au: Bill 112 (Comm. 595); and Bill 115 (Comm. 601); comment. Charles Young: Bill 112 (Comm. 595); and Bill 115 (Comm. 601); comment. Chuck Flaherty: Bill 112 (Comm. 595); and (representing Sierra Bill 115 (Comm. 601); comment. Club, Hawaii Group) PC-21 March 8,2022 Kristy Van Pernis: Bill 112 (Comm. 595); and Bill 115 (Comm. 601); comment. Wendy Laros: Bill 112 (Comm. 595); and Bill 115 (Comm. 601); comment. Dwight Vicente: Bill 107 (Comm. 575); and Bill 112 (Comm. 595); and Bill 115 (Comm. 601); and Bill 134 (Comm. 656); comment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Seeing that there are no other testifiers, I'll be closing Public Testimony at this time and moving on to Bills for Ordinances. Mr. Clerk, I want to take a few things out of order today. Let's start with Bill 134. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the of Business: following item was taken out of order: BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 134: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-34 (PAPAIKOU-ONOMEA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL—TWENTY ACRES (A-20a) TO FAMILY AGRICULTURAL—TWO ACRES (FA-2a) AT KALAOA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-7-008:130 (Applicant: Garvin and Laura Goode) (Area: Approx. 9.581 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to seek subdivision of the property into three lots for conveyance to family members and continued operation of an approved bed and breakfast establishment. The property is located at 27- 2365 Hawaii Belt Road, 300 feet west(mauka) of its intersection with Kalaoa Camp Road in South Hilo. Reference: Comm. 656 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 656.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated February 25, 2022,transmitting the draft transcripts from the Windward Planning Commission's February 3, 2022, meeting. Page 2 PC-21 March 8,2022 Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 134 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any disclosures by Council Members before we proceed with discussion? MS. KIMBALL: Yes, thank you, Chair. I'm going to be recusing myself from decision making on this particular item at the recommendation of Corp. Counsel due to my proximity to the property in question, my personal residence. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Let the record reflect that Council Member Kimball is excused from the discussion and the decision making. Will the representative for the applicant come forward? No stranger to this body, Mr. Fuke. Great to see you this morning. If you could provide us with an overview of the applicant's request? (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Sure. Happy to be here. More for this than the next one, which is a little bit more controversial. Yeah, I'm here on behalf of the applicants, Garvin and Laura Goode, who's here participating via Zoom, and if you have any questions. The property generally is located maybe about a quarter-of-a-mile north of the Kalaniana`ole School, in the general area. It's about a nine-acre parcel. They have two existing homes, and the third home is under review right now for a building permit. They have three existing water meters. What they want to do is essentially subdivide the property to enable each of their children to own their respective area and continue to maintain the existing small farm that they have. And Mrs. Goode is also, kind of like, in the equestrian activities as well. In addition to that,they have one of their homes, in which they live in, was permitted as a bed-and-breakfast. So they were going to continue that bed-and-breakfast operation. The Planning Commission had recommended favorably, as did the Planning Director. And likewise, we respectfully request your favorable consideration of their request. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke for the overview. So just confirming that the Goode's are on Zoom, in case Council Members have questions? Page 3 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. FUKE: Yes, they are. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great. And also noting that we have Planning Director Zendo Kern in the gallery should my colleagues have any questions for the department. Council Members? Mr. Chung, you have the floor. MR. CHUNG: Good morning, Sidney. MR. FUKE: Hi, good morning. MR. CHUNG: So, how many parcels are they going to be subdividing this into? MR. FUKE: It's three parcels. MR. CHUNG: Three parcels. How many children do they have? MR. FUKE: Actually, they have three. MR. CHUNG: Okay, one for each. MR. FUKE: And normally, they would have gone in, for like a Family Ag-3 Zoning. But because mathematically allows for, you know, like three lots; three acre-size lots. But there's an existing easement that services the Kalaoa Camp Road that kind of bisects the property. So it doesn't really render itself well for, you know, a standard three-lot subdivision. MR. CHUNG: I see, okay. I mean, FA-2a can actually theoretically, fit like four lots, right? MR. FUKE: Correct. MR. CHUNG: But it doesn't lend itself to that. MR. FUKE: No, no. MR. CHUNG: Okay, alright. Thank you. That's all I had. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, you have the floor. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Kern, I'm looking at the map that was provided with the documentation. And it—you know, and I'm still looking at it. Nothing else in the area seems to be subdivided less thanno, I'm going to actually ask you, what is the surrounding areas, you know? What is Page 4 PC-21 March 8,2022 the minimum acreage there? I thought you were on Zoom. Thank you for being here, Director. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I do have my team on Zoom. And it might be helpful if they share the map of the area. I think that would be more productive. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Because I have it here in front of us, Exhibit A. And I just want to make sure we're using, you know, density land usage that matches the surrounding areas. A lot of the surrounding parcels look like they're Ag-20, or you know, some are a little bit smaller, but just in keeping with that right feel. MR. KERN: Sure, we'll just double check if Maija is in Zoom room to share that screen, or one of my Planners, Traci (Camero). CHR KIERKIEWICZ: If we could get some support from Council Services to admit Planning Department members into the room and pin them so that they can share screen. MR. KERN: And while they're waiting, one of the things we looked at on this one as well is they had the permits for all three dwellings already. And so the density doesn't really change. It's related to the amount of dwellings on there. There's also a condition on there that says that there's no further additional farm dwellings. So it'll really limit those to those three dwellings that would already be permitted now. It'll just effectuate those three lots to allow them to continue with their estate planning. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. FUKE: I think, you know, to add to that, if you look at the tax map, many of those lots in that area are relatively small. They're not consistent with the Ag-20 zone. You know, it's not uncommon that, you know, when the original zoning for the whole island was made, it was kind of like, one big broad brush without giving any consideration for existing lot sizes. So, like in your district, for example, you have a lot of situations which may be zoned Ag-3 or Ag-1, but the lots might be smaller. Same thing like with Hawaiian Ocean View. So you know, you have situations like that. So, I'm just looking at the tax map right now. And there is like, some two-acre lots, some five-acre lots; three-acre lots all in the general area. So, a lot of times the existing zoning designation, kind of like, belies reality. Page 5 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Yeah, maybe Chair, I'll yield for now. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Relley, I think we just need to admit Maija Jackson into the Zoom room. I see that she's waiting up top. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And how is the property accessed now from the highway? MR. FUKE: There is an existing easement and that easement, actually services, you know,just mauka of this property is Kalaoa Camp. So that easement also services that camp as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, do they access from the highway? MR. FUKE: That's correct. Yeah, from the main highway. But the property itself doesn't front the highway. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No, yeah, I'm looking at the map right now. Okay. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. I believe we have Maija Jackson from the Planning Department on Zoom. Aloha Maija. Can you please confirm that you can hear me? (Note: At this time, Planner VI Maija Jackson came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. JACKSON: Aloha, good morning. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great. We can see you and hear you. Good morning. One of my colleagues, Council Member Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder has a question about one of the maps related to Bill 134, the Garvin and Laura Goode applicant. MR. KERN: If you could just show the zoning map; share screen on the zoning map to show the general makeup of the surrounding area, please? MS. JACKSON: Sure. One minute. So all the properties surrounding the Goode property are zoned Agricultural 20 acres, which is shown in the dark green color. Their property is located here. There are several properties around the Goode property at are nonconforming lots that are less than 20 acres in size. MR. KERN: Could you zoom out a little bit. Which is pretty typical. It came through a while back in Laupahoehoe, a similar situation where the zoning got Page 6 PC-21 March 8,2022 overlaid. But the general lot sizes fit the general area, which this one does as well when we did our analysis. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So the zoning around this property is Ag-20, but you do have some nonconforming lots. And is that legal, nonconforming, or just nonconforming? MR. KERN: Legal nonconforming. Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Legal Nonconforming. Okay, thank you, that answers my question. Thank you, Mr. Kern. Thanks for being here in person today. MR. KERN: No problem. It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks Maija. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else, questions or comments? Okay, Director Kern, I just want to highlight something in your memo. Confirming that this is in accordance to the General Plan and the Hamakua CDP (Community Development Plan). I was looking at some of the testimony that came in to the commission. And there was a split around setting an unnecessary precedent. There was real concern around that. So can you just elaborate on that,just a little bit? MR. KERN: Sure yeah, I don't think it's definitely it sets an unnecessary precedence. We know we looked at it, looked at the surrounding areas, looked at the LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide) map. It all seemed to jive together. And one of the things that we did around it was to put the condition on there to restrict any additional farm dwellings, or any additional units on there to really limit it to what that density was already allowed there to be. So it seemed just to kind of really come together almost as a housekeeping matter,to allow these people to effectuate their estate planning for the three dwellings that are already permitted on there. So again, it doesn't actually increase any density. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you for sharing that, and I just appreciate the creativity here. It is a very oddly-shaped parcel. And so the fact that you were able to carve out one acre and provide for that easement. And you know, just ensure that there is space for each of these dwellings to manifest is great. And I'm going to be supporting this on the basis that there are existing agricultural activities that are happening and in the pipeline. So, really appreciate that. Alright. Oh, Ms. Lee Loy, your light is on. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. Director or Mr. Fuke, listening to discussion, actually the biggest limiting factor is the water meters, correct? Page 7 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. FUKE: In a sense, yes. Because unfortunately, they already have three water meters. So it frustrates any other properties in this area, you know, to get rezoned and subdivided without the water. And as what Director Kern had indicated, at the end of the day if the project is approved, all that you'll see is like different tax map key numbers over there. Because three houses, three lots, that's all you'll have. MS. LEE LOY: And three water meters. MR. FUKE: Correct. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. Yeah, thank you. I will be supporting this. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thanks Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Chung. MR. KERN: I was going to say, in addition, Condition E also would prohibit that mathematical calculation of allowing for additional lots. So it does cap out at three. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Did somebody say that the applicants are participating via Zoom? Would we be able to see them? MR. FUKE: They were given the link. (Note: At this time, applicants Garvin and Laura Goode came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. GOODE: Hi. MR. FUKE: That's Garvin. MR. CHUNG: You know, since they were on. You know, it's always nice to see applicants, right? You know, I have a question for either our Deputy County Clerk or Corp. Counsel. This is a question that's always interested me. You know, in a situation like this where Ms. Kimball is recusing herself, does that mean that she's not able to provide input or just so, she cannot participate in any way, shape or form then? It's not just the voting, right? I'm not saying that—you know, I would go with whatever, you know, she or whoever she or whoever's district we're talking about is, you know, advocating, but it's always kind of interesting to hear, right? Page 8 PC-21 March 8,2022 (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: And the answer is, yes. MR. CHUNG: Yes, what? MS. STRANCE: She is not permitted to. It's a double negative, sorry. MR. CHUNG: Okay. Alright. That's that, right? MS. STRANCE: But if you're recused, you're recused. So you can't recuse and then put your thumb on a scale. MR. CHUNG: Okay. Thank you. MS. STRANCE: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other comments or questions? Okay. Vice Chair Villegas? MS. VILLEGAS: Not at this time. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Sorry, one last question. Is there any portion of this property that borders a stream or a waterway? MR. FUKE: Actually, there is a streambed on the northern end of property. If you look at the map, it's Figure 3 in the application. So the short answer to your question is, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I'll look into that a little further. Thank you. MR. FUKE: And then also like, if you look at the map, too, it just shows you where the approximate, you know, delineation of that line is, where the streambed is, and relative to the top of the gulch area. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And how are protections for the waterways dealt with? Through the State or does the County have any say in the ordinance? MR. FUKE: There's no impediment of that stream, because that stream is on the edge of the property. It's notfortunately, it doesn't, you know, bisect the property. Page 9 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, right on. So, it's not actually in the property itself? Thank you, appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Then I have another question regarding that recusal. What exactly is the reason for that? I'm not trying to put anybody on the spot, but you know, these are precedent setting things right? And you know, if you feel uncomfortable going into detail that's alright. But you know, it was represented that because of Ms. Kimball's residence being in close proximity to this property. That raises a lot of questions, right? So what's the specific reason for the recusal? MS. STRANCE: It's been a while since I spoke to Council Member Kimball. I'm not comfortable disclosing a confidential conversation that I may have had with her about that. But the purpose of recusal is, it creates a conflict or there may be a conflict of interest. And if a Council Member could benefit in some way from proposed legislation, then they should recuse themselves. So if there is, for example, there is land ownership proximity and something may increase the value of property. If there is access that you don't want to have, you know, increased traffic by your property. You know, so there are a lot of different ways that conflict can come up. And so to allow a Council Member then to participate, and not put their thumb on the scale and then not vote, there's still that participation that could lead to what might present an ethical violation. Our office tends to be conservative, and if a member is not comfortable with our advice, then we always suggest that they go to the Board of Ethics to get an opinion. Because the Board of Ethics will be the final arbiter of any allegations or conflict of interest. And so, you know, we had a discussion. The Council Member was comfortable with that discussion. And here we are. MR. CHUNG: Right. And you know, actually I'm not really thinking about this case in particular, but I'm just thinking about going forward. I mean, do we just make statements saying, well, you know, there's a possible conflict of interest and we don't have to vote? Or do we have to make specific declarations as to why? So, sorry about this. I'm not trying to, you know, target you. I'm just thinking this is kind of interesting. MS. STRANCE: I don't think a Council Member necessarily has to disclose why, because there may be personal reasons that would create that conflict. But each Council Member has an obligation to look at proposed Council action, and first, make a personal assessment; and then if they have questions to get some advice or go to the Board of Ethics. Page 10 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. CHUNG: Right. Okay. Now,that's fine. I shall do further research on this matter. Thank you. MS. STRANCE: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Chung. You know, I hear what you're saying in ensuring that we are doing what we're elected to do, which is to make decisions for our community. Our Council Rules do prescribe situations where we are to review the Code of Ethics and disclose situations where there might be a potential conflict of interest because of familial ties or potential financial gain. And so, it is incumbent upon each of us to review that Code of Ethics each time we are making a vote and not to abuse that privilege. Our rules make very clear, disclosure either verbally or written memo transmitted to the Chair for the record. Very quickly please, Judge Strance. We are on a tight agenda. Thank you. MS. STRANCE: So just to jump on that a little bit. Sometimes you folks will disclose a connection that you do think rises to the level of conflict of interest. The reason to do that is it allows your colleagues or others to challenge that. But at least you're transparent about it. So that's exactly right. Not every connection is a conflict, but there are those credations about when you need to disclose. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for those additional insights. I don't think you're allowed to say anything, but I will allow you the latitude. MS. KIMBALL: Can I speak to Council Member Chung's question. And just note, in this case, my basis for requesting guidance from Corp. Counsel was potentially of some sort of financial impact of the decision making, which would be clearly in violation of the Ethics Code. And that is why I sought the recusal advice from Corp. Counsel. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: I do apologize. This is my fourth time, but I'm glad, you know, we have that clarification. Because the statement made earlier was because of close proximity. So you know, this could open up a can of worms, right? And you know, where you might be conservative, I'm a little bit more liberal. In fact, there was a time recently when Mr. Inaba had recused himself. And I said, why? You know, but he explained why. And if he felt uncomfortable, it's fine. But you know, as the Chair said, we're here to vote. And as much as possible, we should try to find ways that we can vote and weigh in on matters. And that's why I brought it up. And that's all. Thank you. Page 11 PC-21 March 8,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Mr. Clerk, we have a motion on the floor. Roll call vote please. Vote on Bill 134: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 134 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member David— 1. Excused: Committee Member Kimball— 1. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. This Bill 134 is forwarded to the Council with a positive recommendation. Thank you. Mahalo nui, Garvin and Laura for joining us via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, next item of business to take up is Bill 107, applicant, West Hawaii Business Park. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: 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) Postponed: January 18, 2022 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Richards, seconded by Mr. Inaba, to recommend passage of Bill 107 on first reading.) ; 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. Page 12 PC-21 March 8,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Because there's already a motion and a second on the floor, I will be asking the applicant and/or their representative to please come forward. MR. RICHARDS: Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you. Just a quick thing, it's kind of interesting in light of the previous conversation we had. I just wanted to disclose that I am not affiliated with the ownership of this, but there's a relationship to a ranch, I serve on the Board of Directors. Which is not related to Lanihau. Well, it is related to Lanihau, but I have no oversight or interest in Lanihau whatsoever. But I will be participating in this conversation. Just again, to disclose. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I will be asking for folks to disclose before we begin any discussion going forward. Thank you for that. Any objections to the participation of Mr. Richards in this discussion? Seeing none. Okay, Mr. Richards, you can participate. Aloha gentlemen, please introduce yourselves for the record. Let us know if there's anyone on your team that is on Zoom that you need to introduce as well; provide us a quick overview of the request before us today. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Lanihau Properties President and CEO Riley Smith and Planning Consultant William L. Moore came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. SMITH: Alright, thank you very much, Planning Committee Chair and Members of the County Council. My name is Riley Smith. I'm the President and Chief Executive Officer of Lanihau Properties, and we are the wholly owned landowner or West Hawaii Business Park. Accompanying me today is Bill Moore of William L. Moore Planning. He is our consultant on this project. MR. MOORE: Thank you, Chair Person and Council Members. Glad to be here and happy to answer any questions or give some background or whatever information you need. I know there's a lot of material that you received. Happy to go over it and give some background of what's going on as appropriate. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Gentlemen, that would be really helpful to provide an overview. We recognize that there are several conditions that you were looking to amend. And so the request for those particular amendments, and then we do have the Planning Director Zendo Kern here in person in the gallery, should anybody have questions. Please proceed. Page 13 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. MOORE: If I can, thank you. Just some overview. This again, actually Riley usually does an overview of the family, but this is a longtime family-held property. Real quick. MR. SMITH: Yeah, I apologize for not giving you some background information. So the Lanihau Properties is owned by the Greenwell family. So we're descendants of Henry Nicholas Greenwell that came to Hawaii in 1850. We traced our roots back 172 years. We're descendants of his third oldest son, Frank Greenwell. If you're familiar with north Kona. Anything that you see Palani in north Kona is named after Frank Greenwell. So Palani Road, Palani Ranch, it's all from the descendants of the family that I work for. I've been the President and CEO since 2013. We initially obtained our entitlements back in 2004. We conducted an EIS (Environmental Inventory Survey). We obtained State Land Use designation of Urban in 2004, and zoning also in 2004. Since that time, we have pursued a number of efforts to try to construct infrastructure and connect our development, our project to adjacent lands. The Kaloko Light Industrial area is immediately to our north. We are currently under construction in building Kanalani Street from the terminus of Kaloko Light Industrial area, connecting it to the new traffic signal that the State Department of Transportation constructed through Goodfellow Brothers in 2018. So that road construction, I've got some photos here of the work. We started in June of 2021. We're expected to complete all of that construction in August. So in another four or five months. I hope to be able to dedicate that road to the County of Hawai`i by October. And then all of you folks that might want to go shop in Kaloko and go to Home Depot or Costco and have a safer way to egress the area and can go out to the traffic signal and instead of trying to make a left turn on Hina Lani or navigate from there. So, this request is to enable us to provide a Certificate of Occupancy for Parcel 77 by allowing two means of access to County dedicable roads that would access that property. So in our preliminary discussions with both the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works, they requested that since Parcel 77 is 31 acres, what they would prefer is that there be two means of access to this parcel instead of one. And so, Kanalani would be the primary access, but what we're proposing here, is to enable the buyer of this property to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy if we were able to construct the secondary connection of Kamanu Street to Honokohau Properties' lands to the south. So that there would be two means of access to this parcel to County dedicable roads. So that's sort of the gist of what we're doing here. Bill? Page 14 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. MOORE: If I can, real quickly, as background, when this property was originally rezoned in 2004, Kamanu Street was a really critical part of a connection connecting Hinalani Street with Kealakehe Parkway. So there's a condition that said, except for a ten-acre piece, you had to build all of Kamanu including portions within Kaloko Industrial. There's a 300-, 400-foot section that wasn't built. The numbers just didn't work. That cost of doing that was so great that they couldn't proceed. In the meantime, what happened is the County built Ane Keohokalole Highway connecting Hinalani with Palani Roads. And the State widened Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to four lanes. So now,there is this robust interregional road, and the importance off of Kamanu Street diminished. And as part of that, the improvements there was a traffic signal put in across from the National Park's entrance on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The original rezoning allowed a ten-acre piece off of Kanalani to be developed without triggering Kamanu but that went nowhere. So we came in 2018, asked for an amendment to allow 48 acres to be developed with triggering Kamanu Street but extending Kanalani to that traffic signal. That's what's under construction now and hopefully will again provide a much safer intersection. You don't have to make a left turn on Hinalani as you come out of Costco. Once that happened, we also had some remnant lots that we created including this Parcel 77, the 31-acre piece. And Lanihau was approached by a single landowner that wanted to use that without subdividing. The original plan was to take a road right through the middle and subdivide into four or five lots. Because of this one user, we don't need to subdivide it, don't need to put in County dedicable roads, but we wanted to have the two connections. So that was our initial amendment. So we don't have to trigger all of Kamanu Street, but there will be a connection from Kamanu to Kanalani through this property through a driveway. And again, we agreed to a condition that the driveway would be open to the public during normal business hours. So there would be a way to get to Kanalani to Kamanu Street through this development. Another critical element of this action is the County is trying to do a regional sewer system as part of the Queen Ka`ahumanu project. They're putting sewer line improvements within a portion of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The trouble is there is a rise between the West Hawaii Business Park and the sewer wastewater treatment plant at Kealakehe. So in order to move sewer from the Kaloko area, this area, to the sewer plant, a pump station is needed. Lanihau has given 2.6 acres at no cost to the County for the location of that sewer pump station. However, that sewer pump station is part of our zoning conditions which requires Kamanu Street to be completed before they can get an occupancy permit. So part of our request is to take away that requirement from Page 15 PC-21 March 8,2022 that sewer pump station, provided that it's given to the County. The deeds are with the Corp. Counsel now and will be going through to accept it. So we're just waiting for the final action. But the condition to a waiver for that parcel is that upon dedication to the County. The County is not required for Kamanu Street improvements to be completed in order to construct the sewer pump station. So those were the two amendments. Basically, it was trying to make the cost work for that large one landowner, but providing interconnection between the two roads. And again, waiving the County from having to wait for Kamanu Street to be built in order to construct the pump station. MR. SMITH: Maybe if I can add some additional details. So, the proceeds from the sale, you know, I take the proceeds, I pay taxes. And the net income from the sale is insufficient to build all of Kamanu Street, but it is adequate to build 450 feet of Kamanu Street. And so, as the person who's responsible for the fiscal operations of the company, I need to make sure that I do not obligate our company to do something that we can't afford to do. And so through the proceeds of the sale, paying the taxes, I'll have adequate resources to be able to construct this road. That portion of the road in a perfect situation, I'll have adequate funds and I'll build all of Kamanu Street within the next one or two years. But, what this does is it gives me an exit strategy so I don't obligate our company to do something we can't afford to do. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Planning Director, if you could just come forward, please. Sorry, before we launch into discussion, I just want to make sure we're looking at the correct draft ordinance. Looking at the background report transmitted by the commission, one of the amendments they made to Condition N, changing language from "prior to Certificate of Occupancy"to "Final Plan Approval." MR. KERN: I believe that is the case. We'll double check with my team. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: If that's the case, I don't think we have the correct ordinance in front of us, the draft. MR. KERN: Actually, I should say that my team will better answer that question than I will, so I'll defer to them. Maija? MS. JACKSON: Yeah, that is correct language. It should say, Plan Approval. So if you can give me a few minutes, I will look to see what happened with the bills and make sure to get the correct one to you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, because that is a very, very big difference in distinction here. And so the draft that was provided to our office and scanned notes this. And I think it might have been an earlier draft that was transmitted to Page 16 PC-21 March 8,2022 the commission. So I just want to flag that, because I know in the process, some other clerical errors were pointed out. Those seemed to have been resolved, but this particular very important piece was not. MR. KERN: We will get that right to you. I apologize for that, and I take full responsibility. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. MR. KERN: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Questions or comments for the applicant or our Director? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Good morning, still. I just wanted to touch on the point of, I believe it's Condition N. And what are we talking about when it says, "It'll be open to the public during normal business hours." The intention to provide this connection and allow for public use? But what exactly do we mean with that language? MR. SMITH: So the buyer of the property would operate a business that is typically open from about 6:00 in the morning to 9:00 o'clock in the evening. So when their business is open to the public, that private driveway connecting Kanalani Street and the terminus at Kamanu Street would be open to the public. And you know, also the County sewage pump station Wastewater Division personnel would have keys to that gate, so that they can go in and operate their facilities when they need to also. MR. INABA: Okay. And the reason for not wanting access to the public at all times is? MR. SMITH: Security issues, homelessness issues. I had a situation there in the last couple weeks where I'm dealing with some unwanted residents of the property. A typical situation in Kona. We just need to make sure that we have control of our property and are able to insure the safety and security of our businesses and their employees. MR. INABA: Okay. And in ConditionI believe it's still Condition N, but there's some changes in Condition J. When we talk about—I think Condition J had specific language regarding the curbs, gutter, sidewalks. All of that remains the same if we're talking about dedicable standards. Is that right? MR. MOORE: That is correct. The Kamanu Street, the requirements basically within the MCX (Commercial-Mixed) zoning by the County is to have curb, Page 17 PC-21 March 8,2022 gutter, sidewalks. So it is something—we have actually construction plans for Kamanu Street. It includes curb, gutter, sidewalks. The improvements in Kanalani Street are being constructed with curb, gutter, sidewalks. So it is all being done right now as we speak and will continue to be done. MR. INABA: Got it. Okay, thank you very much Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Anyone else? I would like to propose, because we have a motion on the floor, to move this forward to Council. And my office will be in touch with the Planning Department to put forward an amendment to ensure that the language that was proposed by our Commission is elevated into this bill. Any discussion around that proposal? Mr. Inaba, your light is on. MR. INABA: Sorry, not on that specific proposal, but I just wanted to point out. Sorry I forgot to mention this. In Condition J, the first amendment here I believe it's just a clerical one as well. So maybe for the Planning Department. It says that it's adding Condition M in part of that. But Condition M was already included in there. So if we can make sure it's only adding N and O. MR. KERN: We will clean that up by Council. MR. INABA: Thank you very much, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, any comments on the proposed course of action? Okay, thank you. Mr. Clerk, we have a motion on the floor to forward Bill 107 to the Council with a positive recommendation. Roll call vote, please. Vote on Bill 107: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 107 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: None. Absent: Committee Member David— 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. Bill 107 is forwarded to the Council with a positive recommendation. Gentlemen, we will see you at Council. Thank you, Planning Director for working with our office to ensure that language is clear and accurate words matter. Mr. Clerk, the next order of business, if we could please take up Bill 115. Page 18 PC-21 March 8,2022 Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the of Business: following item was taken out of order: Bill 115: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-13 (PUAKO-`ANAEHO`OMALU ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM OPEN (0), MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 4,000 SQUARE FEET (RM-4), MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—6,000 SQUARE FEET (RM-6), MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—8,000 SQUARE FEET (RM-8) AND VILLAGE COMMERCIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (CV-10) TO PROJECT DISTRICT (PD) AT WAIKOLOA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEYS: 6-9-008: POR. 013, 022, 025,POR. 029 AND 033 (Applicant: Waikoloa Land Company) (Area: 133.822 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to develop "Area B" of the proposed Kumu Hou project, to consist of 900 multi-family residential timeshare units, private community centers, a convenience retail center, golf support facilities, an operations facility, public parks and recreational amenities, and associated infrastructure. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa. Reference: Comm. 601 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed: February 8 and February 22, 2022 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Mr. Richards, to recommend passage of Bill 115 on first reading.) ; and Comm. 601.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated January 20, 2022, transmitting the testimony and hearing transcripts from the Leeward Planning Commission's November 18, 2021, meeting and the draft testimony and draft hearing transcripts from the December 16, 2021, meeting. ; and Comm. 601.3: From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated February 17, 2022, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 115. ; and Comm. 601.4: From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated March 1, 2022, transmitting informational material for Bill 115. and Page 19 PC-21 March 8,2022 Comm. 601.5: From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated March 1, 2022, transmitting informational material for Bill 115. (Note: Comm's. 601.6, 601.7, 601.8, 601.9, and 601.10 from Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz dated March 3, 2022, transmitting amendments to Bill 115, were circulated) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I'd like to invite the applicant and/or their representatives to come forward to provide the Council with a very brief overview in response to some of questions and concerns that have been raised over the last couple of committee meetings. And I'm saying brief, because I have a series of communications that addresses each of these concerns via proposed amendments and wanted to ensure that we're having very focused conversations on those topics in an orderly fashion. MR. RICHARDS: Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: If I might intervene in just a second for a moment. During public testimony, a comment was made about Mr. Fuke that caught me. And under our Rule 13, Condition (i) and 0), all remarks should be directed to the Chair and not anybody in the gallery. And so I took great offense to that. And so, I think seeking Corporation Counsel. I don't know if we strike that from our minutes or what we do with that? But I took great offense, because that was inappropriate, making comments about Mr. Fuke. Yeah, I took offense on that, Sidney. So how do we go forward with this? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Your personal offense is noted for the record. And as the minutes are presented to my office, I will ensure that they are stricken from the record. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you Chair. I wanted to get that just cleared up before we go forward with this. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We appreciate you elevating that. Thank you. Mr. Plunkett, thank you. (Note: At this time, Waikoloa Land Company, John Plunkett came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 20 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. PLUNKETT: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do get the message, to keep it very brief. And I promise you I will. And thank you again, Council Members, for having us back here to discuss this project with you. But,just to wrap up what we've done in our discussions with the Council, and I won't even go into prior background because I think that would just be redundant. But on the subject of water, we are putting forth a condition that will require Kumu Hou to have a net-zero draw on the Waimea aquifer. And therefore having no impact on that very important resource. Secondly, we put forth a condition that will ensure that the 27 holes of golf will remain in permanent open space, irrespective of the continuation of golf. But it will remain an open space uses into perpetuity. Third, we wholeheartedly agree with the dire need for affordable housing on this island. Our updated condition will provide that we're able to get the 201H exemptions and that our Archeological Inventory Survey will permit that we will do substantially more than the 140 units of affordable housing on the parcel as designated. But we furthered that condition that in all cases, we will be required to do the affordable housing project. And I should note that a condition of the Planning Commission, which we had a tremendous dialogue with, does require that the affordable housing will be occupied before Kumu Hou is occupied,just to refresh your memory on that. And further, on an important point regarding kama`aina housing. We've put forth a condition that we'll be recording a covenant that runs with the land assuring two percent of the proceeds go to the Waikoloa Foundation with .5 percent of those proceeds being directed by the County for their initiatives in affordable housing and tourism management; as well, we're willing to consider other possibilities as well, that we can discuss. We also put forth the conditions for the defibrillators in the commercial properties. And finally, we've put forth a condition to dedicate the King's Trail to the appropriate State agencies. We do appreciate the suggestion to look at the Aina Aloha assessment for economic futures which we have done. Members of our team led by Kanani Aton and Ann Bouslag have evaluated this and we believe our score was good. But I'll let them answer any questions regarding that assessment. I thought it was actually a very good tool. And finally, as promised, we provided the Planning Department with a detailed schedule of how we manage density within the Waikoloa Resort as the declarant, and have gone over that in detail with them. And they would be better equipped to answer any questions that you may have on that, as opposed to me. So again, we really appreciate it. I've been as brief as I can, Chair. And we appreciate your time and effort that you have put into this. And so, we are Page 21 PC-21 March 8,2022 prepared to take your questions. Anything that we need to discuss with you, our team is prepared. Thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Would you be so kind as to introduce members of your team that are joining us here in person, as well as available over Zoom, so my colleagues are aware? MR. PLUNKETT: Okay, in person we have Mr. Fuke, who is well known to all of you; we have Kanani Aton, who has been a critical part of our community engagement efforts; we have Ann Bouslag, Project Director from PBR Hawaii, which is our principal planner for the project; Scott Head, who is our Vice President of Operations here on the Waikoloa Resort; Cary Boeddeker, who's the daughter of our founder and as well as, President of the Waikoloa Foundation, a critical part of our team. And on Zoom, available for various questions, are Mr. Stanford Carr of Stanford Carr Development; we have Tom Nance for any water questions; Alan Haun, for any archeological issues that come up; Steve Dollar on near-shore water issues and so forth; and Jason Tateishi, for any traffic issues that may come up. And I believe that's it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. It's good to know you're all here. Thank you so much for that. Again, we have about five different amendments that Mr. Plunkett provided a sketch for us for. And if Council Members don't mind, I'd like to start taking up these amendments, so that we can have very focused discussions on the various topics. We can start with the amendments that we hoped to kind of talk about at our last committee meeting, but we'll start with it today, and it's related to AED's (Automated External Defibrillators) and Housing. Communication 601.3. Motion to Amend: Mr. Richards moved to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Comm. 601.3. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy And you know, Mr. Fuke, or whoever would like, if you would like to provide us with a quick overview. I know that a number of individuals on this body had identified the need to just be a bit more specific about the affordable housing requirements and the timeframe for their construction, as well as the mandatory addition and installation of AED's, which we know are lifesaving devices, throughout the property. So,just an overview, Mr. Fuke. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Sure. Thank you again, Madam Chair and Members of this Committee. The brief overview actually, was done very well by Mr. Plunkett. I was actually very impressed for a great job. Essentially, what it is, is the first condition is like in response to Council Member Lee Loy, I think had raised that Page 22 PC-21 March 8,2022 issue and that was also eloquently brought up by one of the members of the public. This relates to the AED. The second one relates to the open space. And I think that Council Member Kimball had, you know, raised that issue. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Hang on, Mr. Fuke, we're just speaking on the AED's and the affordable housing requirements. MR. FUKE: Okay. So that's the AED condition. As far as the workforce or affordable housing requirements, based on the comments that we received from Members of the Council as well as the community, talking about the need for additional workforce affordable housing. We had drafted language such that it would enable the developer to, first of all, construct a minimum of 140, whether it's going to on this site or any other property within the resort. And that's their obligation, because there is a potential that this particular designated site may not be able to realistically render the full 140. But nevertheless, that's their commitment. Even if means that a portion of that would have to come off the Kumu Hou project, well, so be it. That's their obligation. There's also this desire to have more than 140 units. And if that could be accomplished through a 201H program that would be subject to the County Council's review and approval, then that's what it's kind of like noted over here. The other thing, too, is we had represented through Mr. Carr, and also Mr. Plunkett, that the housing would be specifically set aside for rentals for a minimum of 65 years. Sixty percent of which would be targeted to those earning between 30 to 60 percent, and the balance would be for up to 120 of the County AMI (Area Median Income). So that's in essence the workforce affordable housing condition. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke, we'll pause there if anybody has questions about this particular amendment. Council Members. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: For the record, we're on Communication 601.3? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: (Comm.) 601.3, which is related to AED's and also affordable housing guidelines and the requirement of 60 percent of these units serving the 30 to 60 percent AMI, and the balance targeting 120 percent AMI. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. No further questions. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Okay. Ms. Kimball. Page 23 PC-21 March 8,2022 MS. KIMBALL: Yes, I just wanted to acknowledge and thank the applicant for also including the EV (electric vehicle) chargers in this amendment. You know, we just had that discussion two weeks ago about the necessity to have an equity lens on this. So,thank you for taking the time to include that, appreciate it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Okay, we have a motion on the floor to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Communication 601.3. Mr. Clerk, roll call please. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 115 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 601.3 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member David— 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Moving on to the next communication and proposed amendments from the applicant. May I have a motion to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Communication 601.6? Motion to Amend: Ms. Lee Loy moved to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Comm. 601.6. Seconded by Mr. Richards. This is related to 201H housing development. Mr. Fuke, if you'd like to elaborate? Actually, I think you already touched on this. It was to ensure that in the event that there is the potential to increase workforce housing, it's not restricted to this particular parcel, that other spots within the property. MR. FUKE: Correct, so the last iteration that was sent to your office, the Council, it basically stated that there would be a commitment for 140, whether it's on this parcel or anywhere within the resort. Should this parcel that we've been identifying cannot render the full 140, the goal of the applicant, nevertheless is to have more than 140. And if that's the case then it increases the cap, then we would have to submit a 201H application and it would be subject to the Council's review and approval. But that is the applicant's overall objective. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you very much, Mr. Fuke. Any questions or comments? Mr. Inaba. Page 24 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. INABA: Thank you. A question for Corporation Counsel. I'll proceed with the question. The proposed language here, underlined, says that, "The applicant shall also cause a development of additional units to be constructed provided that the appropriate exemptions are secured through the 201H . . ." process. So based on this language, is it saying only if they go and apply for the 201H process, do they need to construct additional affordable units? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: I haven't been involved in the drafting on this particular bill. And if you have those specific types of questions, I'd like to contact the deputy who may have been working on this. And I know the Planning Department has been working as well. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba, my understanding of this is right now, with the parcel that's been identified, only 140 units can be built. And so, at the recommendation of the applicant and Stanford Carr, pursuing a 201H would increase the ability to build more housing. That's my understanding. And this kind of really is very surgical in identifying this is how we go beyond the 140. Perhaps Mr. Carr can elaborate further. We also have the Planning Director here. (Note: At this time, Developer Stanford Carr came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. CARR: Aloha, this is Stanford Carr speaking. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Council Member Inaba, our plan is to utilize HRS 2011-1-38 (Hawai`i Revised Statutes), which is what we've used over the last 15 years in order to develop workforce rental housing. Madam Chair is correct. We plan to use the same statute in order to increase the density of units from the existing underlying zoning that only permits a limit of about 140 units. So we'll utilize this tool in order to increase the number of affordable rental housing. MR. INABA: Thank you. Director Kern, if you could come up, please? This language starts with, "Shall also cause a development . . ." And the 201H process comes afterward. So in terms of language and specificity to secure more units, we're talking about, "Shall cause," is first, and then we have, based on "appropriate exemptions," after. So how does this play out in your understanding? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 25 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. KERN: Sure,thank you for the opportunity. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. The way that we read this and the intention is that,the applicant shall cause that development of the additional units provided that they get the exemptions to the 201H. Requiring them to do that without having the 201H approval would basically be impossible. So again, the way that we interpret it and read it is to be as they will do it so long as they can get those exemptions through the 201H. Otherwise, they're limited to that 140 now based on zoning. MR. INABA: And are we—does the "Shall," implore them to go and seek out the 201H? MR. KERN: Yes. Shall is shall, yes. MR. INABA: Shall it shall. Very good. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any other questions or comments on this particular amendment regarding affordable housing and 201H tool? Okay, seeing none, we have a motion on the floor. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote,please. MR. CHUNG: I have a comment before that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: And you know, I did have my light on. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. CHUNG: No, but I turned it off, because it was answered. Because I shared the same concern that Mr. Inaba voiced. But it seems that the commitment now is to—you shall, to develop more workforce housing provided that—okay? And it was cleared. I just had to make that comment. It was, you know, a valid point that Mr. Inaba brought up. But clearly, yeah. MR. PLUNKETT: To be clear, we will pursue the 201H exemption in order to try to develop in excess of 140 units on that site. But in no event will we do less than 140 units. MR. CHUNG: It's not just an intention, you shall, right? MR. PLUNKETT: We shall. MR. CHUNG: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Page 26 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. FUKE: And just to add,the reason why the term, like, "shall cause," you know, was added. Like, "The applicant, shall cause,"because the developer of that housing project may not necessarily be Waikoloa Land. But it's their responsibility to make sure that it happens. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Chung, I apologize profusely for not seeing that your light was on. MR. CHUNG: I turned it off. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, I thought you were getting ready to vote. MR. CHUNG: But I figured then felt compelled to say something. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: No that's fine and I think it's important to underscore that for all the committee meetings that we've been a part of, the applicant has said, "We intend to pursue more housing." And what you're doing is you're putting your money where your mouth is, right? And we are now codifying that intention, and really, now we have a tool to just hold you accountable to this. So mahalo nui for your willingness to include this language. Anyone else. Okay, Mr. Clerk, roll call vote, please. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 115 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 601.6 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member David— 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Next item. May I have a motion to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Communication 601.7? Motion to Amend: Ms. Lee Loy moved to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Comm. 601.7. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: This is related to concerns raised about keeping open space, open space. And so, Mr. Fuke, if you just want to elaborate on this? MR. FUKE: Sure. This condition was actually in response to a number of the Council Members raising, and especially Council Member Kimball, about like, what's going to happen to the balance of the golf course. And so this condition, Page 27 PC-21 March 8,2022 you know, explicitly states that the remaining 27 golf holes currently zoned Open will remain in either golf course use or open space. Almost like in perpetuity. And that it also includes a provision that,there's going to be at some point in time, some slight adjustments to the actual hole locations, you know, because of what's going to happen. If the two zoning amendments are approved, you know there's going to be slight adjustments to the golf holes. So once the golf holes are specifically identified, then a specific metes and bounds description of where they are located would be provided to the Planning Department. So for monitoring purposes, it'll become rather easy. So that's the condition. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any questions or comments on this amendment? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah, thank you. And you know, this amendment and the point that Council Member Kimball brought up, we do want open space. At the same time we do need affordable housing. And I'm a little concerned to put a cap on all 27 holes when at this point, you know, we're here for 900 plus units. Only a 140 right now, which will be affordable, and some of this—not to say that we might not need more affordable units later, which may be another nine holes could use. So, you know, I'm sure I'll support this amendment. I like the intention because we like open space, but we do need housing, which everybody's talking about when it comes to this project and we've heard testimony. So, I might be further working on this language prior to our next meeting. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. And you know, first I want to thank the applicants again for being flexible and listening so diligently to concerns and comments made by Council Members. And appreciate Council Member Inaba's concerns. However, it's not just that open space is something that we like. It's something that once we give it up, we can never get back. And so, you know, I certainly think there is this huge need for affordable housing. This is a place that's already designated as Open. I think it's important to preserve that where we can, and we are giving up a little bit with this agreement. But the fact that you guys are willing to protect this in perpetuity, I think is really critically important. So I encourage you to kind of rethink your logic, Mr. Inaba,just from the standpoint of, again, recognizing that this particular zoning is unique from others in the sense that it's really something. Once we depart from it we can never go Page 28 PC-21 March 8,2022 back or go to something else. So I think that's why I wanted to focus on protecting that zoning. Thank you, I yield Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. And thank you to the applicants. I'm actually going to be supporting this amendment. You know, I think out of everybody here on the Council, I've been on every part of construction. And oftentimes what's in the field doesn't lend itself for the true development potential. But there is a need to kind of redraw those lines. And although we have provisions within the County Code to provide de minimis zoning edits, this actually really ratifies that these lines will be defined. And I can really appreciate that, because you know, with other construction projects, there's little bit wiggle here,just 2,000 square feet there. And before you know it, it adds up to an acre or two of property. And so, this actually really holds it nice and tight, and why I will be supporting this amendment. I yield at this time. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Fuke. MR. FUKE: Yeah, if I can just add to that, you know,the applicant is really committed to keeping that open space, because that's really part and parcel of the overall resort's ambiance. The reason why we had added, you know—and not to diminish the importance of workforce affordable housing. It is very, very critical. And that's the reason why we had suggested the provision for a 201H exemption, and just to take that further. If the bills that are currently before you are approved, and there is a desire for additional workforce housing, the Project District bill currently caps the number of units to 900. And there's probably, if they, you know like Dr. Bouslag and her team redesign the area, it's quite possible that more units could be accommodated. But to be able to do that, you're going to need to have either a zone change amendment or a 201H exemption. And so, it is possible you can have more units, you know, within this Kumu Hou area. But to be able to do that, you're going to need a 201H exemption. So that's the idea. So, we appreciate what Council Member Kimball is saying and Council Member Inaba. Both concerns are very, very valid, and we feel like the existing condition can implement both concerns. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that, Mr. Fuke. Any other questions or comments. Anyone else? Okay, there is a motion on the floor, Mr. Clerk, roll call vote, please. Page 29 PC-21 March 8,2022 Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 115 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 601.7 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: Committee Member Inaba— 1. Absent: Committee Member David— 1. Excused: None. (Note: Mr. Inaba voted "kanalua"then "no.") CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you very much for that, Mr. Clerk. Moving on to the next proposed amendment. May I have a motion to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Communication 601.8? Motion to Amend: Ms. Lee Loy moved to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Comm. 601.8. Seconded by Mr. Richards. And this is regarding water and irrigation systems. Mr. Fuke, do you want to provide a high-level overview? And I know that Mr. Tom Nance is available via Zoom in case folks have questions. MR. FUKE: Yes, so this condition was actually drafted by the applicant's attorney just to codify essentially what the applicant has represented, essentially trying to achieve, you know, net-zero in terms of overall impact of the potable water resource. So that condition achieves that. I had an offline discussion with the Planning Director that would probably want to tweak this just a little bit just to enable them to kind of monitor that. So you know, if everything goes favorably by this committee and goes to the County Council, prior to County Council formally acting on it for first reading, then between the applicant and the Planning Director will come up with language to address the monitoring issue that he had. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Director Kern, could you please come forward and just share with us the concerns you had and propose changes to language so that we're all clear. MR. KERN: Sure, Zendo Kern, Planning Director. It's more so just making sure that there was some language in there that showed us that we would have some reporting back to us. So probably some way in like providing a plan to us to be approved and then updates through the annual progress report. Some fashion like that, because if it's on us to look at,then we need to have that brought to us. Just wanted to take out any of that ambiguity. Page 30 PC-21 March 8,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great,thank you very much for clarifying your intention and the methodology going forward, appreciate that. Any questions or comments on this communication? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I just, you know, I really appreciate you guys listening to us and the community regarding your water usage and really making some movement to lessen your impact on our finite resources. And but more so, take care of your needs within your community using reclaimed water. And I think this amendment really shows your strength in your wording in putting your money where your mouth is and that you're actually going to do this, you're going to hold to it. So I really appreciate that. Thank you for working with us to this end and to codifying this within your ordinance. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. And yes, mahalo for putting forward this language. Just, if you could a little bit elaborate on how exactly—what are some of the methods you will be using to get this 540,000 gallon offset over the course of the development. (Note: At this time, PBR Hawaii Project Director Ann Bouslag came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. BOUSLAG: There's two main methods. One is by converting some of the existing landscaping to native and drought-tolerant species and using maybe some more renaturalized lava features. If you drive in there now, you'll see it's a lot of grass and trees, like many resorts were done long ago. And that uses a lot of water. So a significant part of the savings can be achieved in that way. And the rest would have been achieved by using brackish water to round out the irrigation rather than the fresh water that's now relied on. And I'll add that most resorts in the area, unfortunately are using fresh water. And I think Waikoloa would like to be a leader in transitioning that to brackish water. MR. INABA: Thank you. And are you aware or do you know the amount that is used, fresh water, in your development for irrigation and landscaping right now? MS. BOUSLAG: I don't have that number on me. MR. INABA: Does anybody on the team have that number. So we know exactly how we're going to offset the use? Page 31 PC-21 March 8,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Nance, are you on Zoom? Do you hear the question? I think you had touched on this at a high level at the last committee, but if you just refresh our memory? Mr. Inaba, could you repeat your question, please? MR. INABA: Yes, good afternoon. Do we know the current usage of fresh water for irrigation in landscaping purposes, so we understand, you know, what it's going to take in terms of either conversion to the brackish water or changing in landscaping to do this offset? (Note: At this time, Hydrologist and Water Resource Engineer Tom Nance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. NANCE: Right now, for the common areas that are controlled by the applicant, that irrigation amount from the potable system, as I understand it, is about 400,000 gallons per day or possibly more than that. There is also within the various developments, irrigation with potable water. And in the past, my understanding is that they have appealed to the developer to convert to brackish water because it's far less expensive than the potable water. So, 400,000 is a number that the applicant controls and could make that same kind of change from potable to brackish water irrigation for other developments in the project that wanted to make that conversion to save money on irrigation. MR. INABA: Thank you. And then this conversion, is that just a quick change with the water company that provides your water, or how do we go about making that? Just for the public's understanding, you know, if we're committing to making this change. Is it something that's going to take months, years of approval to secure brackish water, or is it something that happens quickly? MR. NANCE: Well, it can't happen immediately because in some areas there may need to be a change to a more salt-tolerant kind of landscaping that could survive with the brackish irrigation rather than a potable. So it'll have to be done over a period of time, but probably can be done as fast or faster than the addition of potable water for the project. MR. INABA: Got it. Mahalo, Mr. Nance. And then mahalo, Director Kern on the suggestion of language for monitoring and reporting. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I just actually had a procedural question for Director Kern, you know, with these amendments that you would like made. Because this amendment, is it better for us to wait and have a completely revised, or go forward and then you can throw your amendment in? He is acknowledging Page 32 PC-21 March 8,2022 positively that we can proceed with the amendment. Thank you, Director. I yield, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, thanks for that question. I was just going to clarify, we'll vote on the measure before us. You know, the Planning Director, rightly so, raised we need to have some kind of water conversion plan that's transmitted to them so that as the applicant is transmitting their status of project development through the annual progress reports, they'll have something to kind of gauge progress by. And so, we'll vote on this and then by the next meeting we will have language that has been vetted by the department regarding the plan. Thank you. Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thank you for your patience. Reading and going over the proposed amendments, some of which I approved, I just have a question. And I'm not sure who can answer this, but in each of these amendments the statement in these additions have been that the applicant"shall,"the applicant with respect to the golf course; with respect to site plan approval, "It shall run with the land," and "The donation offer shall be provided." And then with respect to this water, "The applicant will effect conservation." Just wondering why "shall" is not being used as well. MR. FUKE: It's a good point. I mean, that's why I had to add the caveat in the beginning, I mean I took, you know,the liberty to drafting a lot of these conditions, but this one was the attorney, so MR. PLUNKETT: Mr. Fuke is correct. Our attorney did draft this condition for us because we wanted to make sure it was correct. And it's really a legal issue. The intent and obligation is there that this has to happen. MS. DAVID: Right, and I understand that. We've been having numerous conversations on "will" and "shall"right? So I was just wondering whether this would be something that could be in conformance with the rest of these conditions that we're talking about. And not for today, but you know, we still have two more meetings. MR. FUKE: Yeah, so, I think Chair David, in response to your request, you know, as Planning Committee Chair Kierkiewicz noted that, we will come forward with some language change over here to just enhance the monitoring portion. So in conjunction with that, we will, kind of like, vet it again with the attorney to see what's the difference between "will" and "shall." And if the consensus is "shall" is more appropriate, then we hear you, yeah. MS. DAVID: Thank you for that and thank you everybody for being here today. I yield. Mahalo. Page 33 PC-21 March 8,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair David for raising that. Mr. Chung. MR.CHUNG: Then maybe I should just ask the question of the developer? Do you see any difference between the word, "will" or"shall?" MR. PLUNKETT: I'm not a lawyer. I mean, from my standpoint, no. MR. CHUNG: But what's your intent? MR. PLUNKETT: The intent is to do it, period. MR. CHUNG: So, "shall,"right? Yeah, okay. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I mean to be uniform and consistent, we will amend the language at the next reading, from "will"to "shall," especially because we're going to be tweaking this particular amendment to incorporate the Water Conversion Plan. Thank you for the discussion on this. Any other comments, questions? Okay, seeing none. Mr. Clerk, we have a motion on the floor. Roll call vote, please. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 115 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 601.8 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) 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. Bill 115 is amended with the contents of Communication 601.8. Moving on to the next amendment. May I have a motion to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Communication 601.9? Motion to Amend: Ms. Lee Loy moved to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Comm. 601.9. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And this is related to 1.5 percent from proceeds from gross sales going to the Waikoloa Foundation. Ms. Boeddeker, if you want to elaborate a little bit more about this? And .5 percent of that being donated to the County to support County driven affordable housing, tourism management initiatives. (Note: At this time, Waikoloa Land Company Owner, Cary Boeddeker came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 34 PC-21 March 8,2022 MS. BOEDDEKER: Good afternoon and thank you all for having us here again. We appreciate the time and I personally very much appreciate all of the thought and insight all of you have given to us. I've learned a lot from this process. I've never done this before, so it's quite interesting for me. You know, in listening to a lot of the feedback about the foundation, and the fact that it's still in its infancy, we felt that it was important to allow a partnership with the County Council in helping us to oversee funds, a half a percent. First of all, we have the two percent, which we have already talked about previously. But the half percent would go through the foundation, but directed to programs specifically addressing tourism, management, and affordable housing, which we've heard numerous times is so incredibly critical here. So we would like to work with you. You hear daily about the needs of the community. We do have a wonderful advisory board, but I think you can also be an extension of that. So we would like to present that you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Just to clarify, sorry. I think language we got was related to 1.5 percent. And you mentioned 2 percent? MS. BOEDDEKER: Well, the original two percent, which is taken out of the gross sales proceeds, and then the 25 percent of that. So hopefully that's clear. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Fuke. MR. FUKE: Just to add to that, we had, you know, the idea was to set aside that .5 percent for affordable housing or tourism initiatives. So we were kind of debating about like whether the funds should go directly to the County, or should the County then designate an agency? And I think we had opted to say like, no, if it goes directly to the County, then the County would have to accept it, and then it's got to be maybe appropriated. And the Mayor has got to release the funds, you know, you have all of that stuff. And who knows, maybe there may be additional staff that might be required to handle it and all that. So we thought it would be best to have the body, you know, this Council, you know, you tell us. Like, essentially the way we see it working, is that, say if we have "X" number of dollars, and we ask the Council, like, how do you want to use it? You want it be directed to some kind of tourism initiative, a management initiative, or affordable housing? Maybe directing it to, you know, Kamakoa Nui or any other kind of project. Then you provide that direction. And then it becomes the foundation's obligation to set aside those funds. So that eliminates the so-called beaurocracy. So that's how it's structured. Page 35 PC-21 March 8,2022 MS. BOEDDEKER: But I also furthermore with that. It was very important to the foundation to create a relationship with the community and with all of you. So instead of just handing it over, we felt as a foundation, the importance of building that team together to do the right thing for the community. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Probably—this is little confusing for me in how it's written. It says, ". . . 1.5 percent of the parcel gross sale shall be derived of first-time sale and donated to the Waikoloa Foundation of which .5 percent of such proceeds . . ." So .5 of 1.5? MS. BOEDDEKER: It's .5 of two. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, I think that's confusing. MS. BOEDDEKER: Yeah, I agree. We could probably work on maybe rewording that just a little bit. MR. RICHARDS: And I think I completely understand the intent. And you know, when you said 2 percent, that made sense, but 0.5 of 1.5 is pretty small. MS. BOEDDEKER: So the .5 percent is what we're talking about in partnership with the County. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so I think we just need to clean up the language. I support the intent and I think that's what you were trying to do. Just the language needs to be clarified. Chair, how do you want to do that? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'd like to hear from other members first, but I don't want to muddy the waters. I don't want to adopt something that we're not all crystal clear on. And so, I'll ask the individual, Ms. Lee Loy who made the motion to just withdraw this, and at our next meeting, I think we'll have clearer language. But I think it's important to hear from everyone, so that we can craft accordingly. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, I agree. Thanks, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Chair David. MS. DAVID: Alright. Thank you for the explanation on the .5 percent. And you're mentioning Council. That the Council would be the ones to determine what community benefits this .5 percent will go through. My question is basically a procedural one. How does the Council as a body become the depository for funds which might run into the millions? Page 36 PC-21 March 8,2022 And I'm not sure if this is a Corp. Counsel question, or finance question, but great though and how does it play out? And maybe you can't answer that right now, but I just wanted to throw that out there because I don't understand how that will happen. And the separation of powers,jurisdiction. MR. FUKE: So, quite honestly whether it's the County Council or the Administration, you know, it just says, like, designated by the County of Hawaii. So,the money doesn't go directly to the County. The County tells the foundation how to use the funds. So that's the direction. So the question is like, who provides the direction? Is it the County Council or is it the County Administration, or maybe both? You know, ideally, you'd want to have it both. I really don't know, like how that would basically be structured and that's the reason why it was left generically, the County of Hawaii. MS. BOEDDEKER: And that's also why we debated this ourselves internally about how would this work? That is why we had it going through the foundation as a body that would be directed by the County and County Council however we figure out this process. But that's the intent. So maybe we could all think together about how that would work. MS. DAVID: And I'd be curious to see what Corp. Counsel or Finance would weigh in on this particular subject matter. Okay, mahalo. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: And I would agree, you know, having looked at this amendment that it needs to be tweaked. It is incorrectly written. And it seems to indicate that 1.5 percent of the proceeds will come out, and out of that, .5, which is not the intent. So thank you. You know, I'll be voting—what are we going to do with this? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: No, I'm going to ask Ms. Lee Loy to withdraw after everyone's weighed in. Thank you. MR. CHUNG: Well, I will say this, though, when it does come back. I'll vote for it, but there's something inside of me that just says, it doesn't sit well with me, okay? I like the intent that you're trying to partner with the County, but I just think your foundation should be your foundation, you know. And this is a big chunk out of what you guys could do. But you know, hey, if the intent is to partner, that's fine. There's something that's not right to me, but I'll vote for it. Thanks. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? Page 37 PC-21 March 8,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Vice Chair Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Aloha. Thank you everybody for your patience with my being via Zoom today, and for this great conversation, and the willingness to take this back and make amendments. The terminology is quite confusing. It makes me think that actually, it's .75 percent. It's just confusing. But, I also concur with Mr. Chung's kind of just feeling of unsettlement about this. While the intention is there, and I appreciate. Ms. Boeddeker, you taking the initiative to bring this forward. I've had a number of people, my constituency in District 7, bring forward to me, suggestions and requests that actually the full two percent be contributed to County funding for affordable housing. I appreciate this, essentially it's a 25 percent give of that two percent, if I understand correctly. So I would ask, of the two percent, I'm going to go ahead and ask a full half of that be contributed to some kind of partnership. The thing that seems to weigh in most conflict with those that I've spoken to is the 900 timeshares. And that being just such a huge number with a huge impact on this side of the island. And you know, I am hopeful that that number might be able to be reduced. And I'm hopeful that the number, you know,the whole concept of a foundation sits awry in my mind as I look at the history of Hawaii, and the history of our people being relegated to feeling needy for the handouts of major developments or corporations. It goes in opposition to what I feel is imperative in how we transition the management of our resources. They are priceless and invaluable. And the overall concept of a foundation, then, thus being—I've just watched the number of—I've been sick, so watched the number of television shows. And the same story repeats throughout history. I wish I had the solution, but it makes my stomach churn to feel the same protocols being utilized in order to appease these huge needs that we have as a community. We continue to repeat the cycles that have not brought solutions. Yes, the affordable housing or the workforce housing piece is absolutely amazing. So grateful. But the percentages and the numbers are not equitable for the solution for the issues we're facing right now. So I'm going to selfishly ask for more. I'm asking for more workforce housing. I'm asking for more of a contribution from that two percent. And I'm asking for less building in that 900 area block. Thank you for my broader range on this and my comments. But I hope you'll take that into consideration as you go back to the drawing board and clarifying the specifics and the terminology utilized in the specific piece. With that, I yield. Page 38 PC-21 March 8,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Vice Chair. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. You know, I'm listening to my colleagues and they've raised the issues that I had about the percentage and maybe refining this. But I'm going to look at Kanani a little bit, because we've identified affordable housing and tourist management initiatives. And one thing we're beginning to elevate with our kind of tourism coming back after the pandemic isn't so much tourist management, but responsible visitation. And responsible visitation not only by our guests, but by ourselves. And so, I actually would love to see more of a broader term about how we actually begin to protect our resources, our cultural ones. The shoreline, all of it from a more broader context of everyone providing a more responsible visitation. And so, if you guys could take all of the feedback that we had here today, I don't want to get stuck, because tourism at some point might augment over time, right? And I just want it to be more inclusive of not only our visitors, but you know, our local families also. The other thing I know that's coming up later on is about the trail. And so, if there's also some inclusivity of trail, trail management, trail education, again, responsible use and visitation of all of our cultural resources in the area. But also the nexus between our mauka and makai lands. I think that's where we're trying to go, and we're kind of using terminology in words that we have right now and available to us, but I would love to see this amendment kind of expanded to be the life of the foundation's goals and objectives. (Note: At this time, Waikoloa Foundation Senior Project Manager Kanani Aton came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. ATON: Okay so, mahalo nui for calling me forward. And as a member of the advisory board, we see all of it as a priority, that you're talking about this unified vision around cultural resources, `aina-based resources. And all of our precious, precious Akua resources, like the wa`i, the water; those kinds of things. While we can get really specific on fractions or percentages, it is not lost to us that all of the proceeds and all of the work that's going to come out of the foundation is a unified plan that looks at new models of economic diversity that holds the core of aloha `aina. Of that practitioner mindset of the ineffable love; the high-quality execution of what it means to be Hawaiian in this modern day. And hopefully we can craft a prioritized plan that takes into account all the things that we're trying to hedge at. Open space, water, lowering, you know, impact from our present economic model of tourism today. Page 39 PC-21 March 8,2022 The critical crunch of affordable housing, especially bringing our workforce close to where our parents are working, so that the children can be right next. All of those things are the important work of the foundation. These are new things. Yes, it feels weird because we've never done things like this before. But we need to call forward new economic models that hold the community at the core. And yes, Rebecca, I agree with you that we need to ask more in the name of the community, in the name of the culture, in the name of the land; in the name of those powerful resources that we call Akua. The Wa`i a Kane, all of those things. And we need to hold those conversation together. So thank you for calling me forward on that. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you for kind of elaborating on that, because I, you know, and Judge Strance can agree, legal writing is just very structured. But what we're trying to implement is this deeper understanding of our `aina and the culture within it. And so how do we codify that? So if you can take that back? You know, at the suggestion of our Chair, we're going to kind of pull this one back and give everybody a little bit more time to think about it. But, yeah, if you could drill down on your team with that, and how we actually elevate community through this process is what I think we're all chasing. And that new model, right,that new model. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Agree with most of the comments already made. Wanted just to propose a suggestion, maybe we change it from tourism management to destination management? And then we're tying into the Hawaii Island Visitors Bureau Destination Management Plan, so there's kind of a roadmap that exists. And another partnership opportunity. I actually like this relationship idea. It is novel from my understanding, but I think that that's what's intriguing about it. And I think there are probably some language requirements in terms of figuring where the funds go and maybe strengthening within this amendment, you know, that the process a little bit? I'm wondering kind of along the same lines with the water,that we need to have some language about reporting to Planning on this as part of the annual report. So, you know, whoever is taking the lead on rewriting this, those are a couple of my suggestions. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, thank you. I think Condition DD of 115 does make mention of the annual report, and it covers all the conditions. So, we'll ensure the proper language. And it's just sounding like, we may need to offer up several different versions of a potential amendment because I do hear similarities Page 40 PC-21 March 8,2022 within comments, but also some very clear distinctions around wanting the County to be a partner and wanting Waikoloa Foundation to just fully have sole discretion on how to program those dollars. Thanks for the conversation. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, and I appreciate you coming forward too, to talk story about this, because this is something that I wanted to comment on, but the cultural side. And I mentioned this previously, this is a new direction as far as responsible development going forward. And it's a new, and I'll use the word, partnership, and it's exceedingly novel. What I see is an opportunity, and I've made these comments before about keeping the whole cultural side very authentic. Because we're going to fund it and we're going to recognize the importance of it going forward. So having a foundation that actually that's the mission behind it to keep it going forward, it's kind of like turning a battleship or a cruise ship since we're talking about tourism, it doesn't turn right away, but we have to start making that turn to make that. And I think this is a way to start doing that. And the sensitivity of Waikoloa wanting to respond to the concerns of the Council. It's different now. And I think this is the way forward. And so I fully appreciate this and I appreciate the comments that are being made. It's not going to be quick, but I think that way—you know, a friend of mine, she's not with us anymore, but she was very adamant about keeping the culture authentic. And this is what this is going to do, by recognizing the importance and elevating it to that level of status. So, I like the direction of all this. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, you know, when I said I had reservations, and of course, Ms. Villegas had reservations as well. Our reservations are miles apart, okay? This isI'm going to try to articulate it as best I can even if I said I wasn't able to do it earlier. This is akin to what we were discussing when the Ironworks building came up, the project, okay? Trying to take a cut from the development and the sales. That troubles me. We have taxing authority as the County. There are other ways to generate funds. But what we're doing here is trying to take a cut, use the foundation as a conduit to come to the County somehow for distribution out. And see, the other ones are intended to make the development better. This one is different. I like the partnership concept, that's a good thing. And if you agree to it, fine. But the higher the amount goes up, then you're put in a position where you have to look at the Council Members and think well, if we don't agree to this, then this whole project may fail. And no developer should be put in that kind of position. And that's what I'm troubled about. Page 41 PC-21 March 8,2022 There are other ways to get monies to get it out to the community. Sorry, we might have to tax you guys more. But, not this way. But if you guys agree? And so I'm okay with, you know, as I said I'll vote for it under the present setup. But if it gets too far afield, I'm really concerned about the legality of it. So, I just had to say that, and we'll just keep it at that, okay? No need for any response. MR. FUKE: You know, I think that maybe I should just point out several things. The reason why this condition came about was, there was a comment made by, I think, a member of the public, maybe the Sierra Club,just saying like, "Oh, you know, Hokuli`a had something like that, but it just never worked out. You know, they promised, promised . . ." You know, those kinds of stuff. So,this is a situation where the developer or the applicant was just trying to, you know,put their money where their mouth is. You know, so this is what they represented, and so it's like a codified representation. You know, in a perfect world, we don't think—like even Kuki`o has its own foundation, but then, you know, it's not codified. And perhaps, like in a perfect world, it shouldn't be codified. And maybe what you pointed out very accurately, like the Hilo Ironworks situation. But nonetheless, I think that, you know, after hearing all of this, there's some questions. One is like, should it or should it not be codified as part of the ordinance? The other one is that, if it does get codified or doesn't,then there should be some clarity, you know, regarding the 1.5 or .5 percent or whatever? And I've got to take responsibility for that, or the blame. You know,that was my crude math. Okay, but everybody understands that. The other one is like, in terms of like, if it's codified, then how do you define County of Hawaii? You know, who does the designation? Is it the Mayor in consultation with the Council? Or is the Council in consultation with the Major? I mean, I think that needs to have some clarity as well. And the point about like being destination management initiative. I think like what Council Member Kimball pointed out. And as the Chair noted that at some point in time, if this becomes codified, and this is another condition that the Planning Director and I had, you know, an offline conversation that they would like to have a little bit more clarity in terms of the monitoring system. Although it's part and parcel of the annual reporting system, they would like to have some kind of language over here that shows like how many funds, how much you raised over a year, you know, that kind of stuff. And the last item, was of course, like what Council Member Villegas talked about. Well, maybe you should increase it from two percent to three percent or whatever the case, you know. But there is that number issue. Page 42 PC-21 March 8,2022 So hearing from what Chair Kierkiewicz had mentioned, was maybe calling for this item not to be part and parcel of this package of amendments. And maybe between now and first reading, if we can come up with some language, if at all, then that can be covered independent of the balance of the amendments. MR. CHUNG: What I'm saying is this, I don't care whether they have two percent, three percent, five percent, 10 percent. If this bill takes all of that, what's the use of having a foundation? It doesn't matter whether it's 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, or 100 percent of this thing. And that's why I said, I had reservations about this. It offends me actually. But I'm willing to vote for it with these numbers, you know, incorrectly worded but. We know what we mean. You know,just for the sake of moving this thing through and trying to advance your good intentions. And trying to work and become a partner. But, what's the use of having a foundation if this thing gets crazy? MS. BOEDDEKER: Well, and to address that just a little bit further too, I mean the foundation currently has, and I think I've expressed this to you, a very modest budget today. I mean it's basically, $100,000 a year, which we get through, you know,the Waikoloa Bowl. And of course,that will grow as we start to get into raising money. But every single dollar that goes out of the foundation is less work the foundation can do. So obviously, as the President of the foundation, I am protective of that money. And I want to see it go to the best use for the community. However, I am also very open to partnerships. So if there's a way to do that that we're not thinking of that's a better way that you can think of, because we're trying to do the right thing, as we keep saying, especially from the foundation's perspective and what we're trying to do. In no way was this intended to be something that was not didn't go over well. You know, I think we're trying to figure out partnerships. MR. CHUNG: Let's stop right there already. It's well intentioned. I think we all recognize that. But you know, I'll state it again, I just think what you have proposed here is far beyond what any other foundation has come up with. And you were receptive to the concerns of others and the public. But if it goes too far afield I've got to object. That's all. MS. BOEDDEKER: I appreciate that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah, thank you. And I just want to chime in on the partnership. I think it is a good idea. Right now, have you folks made those moves to amend who's on your actual board, not the advisory board? Page 43 PC-21 March 8,2022 MS. BOEDDEKER: We have a board meeting in about three weeks with my advisory board members to discuss so, yeah. MR. INABA: Okay, yeah. So you know, with the intention of making sure that funds are used, you have a modest budget you say. And yes, we do want to make sure that the foundation is supported for whatever efforts for culture that you have in mind. Not that they've been clearly articulated yet, but I want to make sure that we do have capacity in the County and we do need affordable housing. So I do support taking some of that which you folks initiated and offered, to make sure that we can develop the affordable housing. So,thank you for that idea for partnership. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. We do have our work cut out for us. So Sid, I'll reach out. There's a lot that was elevated here that you understand is of great importance to this body. And I just can't help but reflect on, you know, some things that Council Member Chung said. Just being aware of the changing political wins, right? That happens at the change of administrations every couple of years with the election of new Council Members. And so, we want to do what's best and right for our community, but we also want clarity in terms of who will be in charge of that decision-making around how these funds will be spent. So thank you. Ms. Lee Loy, if I could get you to withdraw your motion? Thank you. Withdraw Motion Ms. Lee Loy withdrew her motion to amend Bill 115 to Amend: with the contents of Comm. 601.9. MR. FUKE: Madam Chair, can I just do a follow-up then? So, if between now and first reading, say maybe like within the next week, can we propose an amendment that can be considered by the full Council, or does it still have to be considered by the committee? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I think it's fine. We'll take the vote on, you know, putting this forward to the Council today. But I think we're all very interested in seeing what sort of other draft language you have around this amendment. Thank you. MR. FUKE: I understand, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I need a motion to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Communication 601.10. Motion to Amend: Ms. Lee Loy moved to amend Bill 115 with the contents of Comm. 601.10. Seconded by Mr. Richards. Page 44 PC-21 March 8,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Fuke, this is regarding the King's Highway Foot Trail. If you want to provide a high-level overview before we go over to comments. MR. FUKE: Sure, I believe like the Sierra Club had mentioned that it would really be nice if he applicant were to set aside the King's Trail, you know, to either Na Ala Hele or the Federal Government. So the applicant had no objections, so you know, this is the language. The only thing that's left kind of blank was that, you know,that SHPD (State Historical Preservation Division) number. And I'm trying to get that number from the archeologist. But nevertheless, you know, notwithstanding its absence. I mean, even if it's absent, everybody knows what the King's Trail is, so. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Any questions or comments on this particular amendment? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I'm glad you're doing this as well. Did you reach out to the State and make sure they're going to take it? MR. FUKE: No. That's why we're saying like, as opposed to dedicate, you know like, it can cause some problem. And this was like, after consultation with the same attorney who drafted the water condition. You know, if you say like, it's going to dedicate and it's going to effect before you can even get your building permit or plan approvals, then you know, that dedication process can take forever and a day. So you know, your obligation is really to make that offer. And it's up to them to kind of see it through. So that's why it's structured like—along these lines. MS. KIMBALL: Got it, thank you. MR. PLUNKETT: And if I could just add to that,that it's our intent and our desire to put that in the hands of the appropriate agency as soon as possible. MS. KIMBALL: Great, appreciate that. Thank you, that's all, I just had that question. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I actually appreciate this amendment about donating. And I'm reflecting, I think about Ka`upulehu. There was a requirement for them to complete a number of cultural plans. And it just took forever for it to get through State Historic Preservation Division. And if I'm not mistaken, the better part of 10 or 12 years for them to satisfy that condition. And so I do appreciate thisgoing,just here have it. Not, hinge it on any acceptance or formal acceptance, it's yours. So I will be supporting this amendment. I yield. Page 45 PC-21 March 8,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thanks for bringing that up, Ms. Lee Loy. I was going to bring it up myself. I think it took them seven years just to hear back from SHPD before they could proceed, so. Alright, if there are no other questions or comments on this amendment, we'll move to the vote. Mr. Clerk, roll call. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 115 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 60 1.10 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) 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. Bill 115 is amended with the contents of Communication 601.10. We are at the end of the list of proposed amendments to Bill 115. So I will take any closing remarks on the bill, as amended, before we take a vote on the motion that is on the floor, which is to forward Bill 115 to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah, real quick, so we know what the project is for. Mr. Fuke, I sent you an email regarding the current zoning and the existing buildout on your lands. Can you share a little bit about what that number is? So with this rezoning we know that we'd be granting the 900 timeshares, the 140 affordable housing, the 25 single-family residential. I believe that's it. I might have missed something. Well, with your current buildout, how much room do you have left? MR. FUKE: I don't know if the Planning Director had provided the unit count. Did he? They did, and it was kind of like a spreadsheet done parcel by parcel, and that's the reason why, Council Member Inaba, it took a while. Because they had to kind of generate all of that. But that spreadsheet kind of identifies all of the different properties within the resort, what they're capable of supporting, you know, zoning-wise, what has been built, what's capable of being built, so on and so forth. And so that spreadsheet is very clear. It doesn't specifically earmark, you know, which properties that Waikoloa Land owns but this is just overall. As a master developer, they have some measure of control over the density. So bottom line, if you make reference to the zoning of the resort right now, which was approved in 1978 and 1991, currently entitles 9,992 units. And this does not include the two commercially developed areas, the Queens' Market Place and then the King's Court. So it's all of the other properties. Page 46 PC-21 March 8,2022 So, however, off that total 9,992 units, the Special Management Area that was granted by the Planning Commission, the last go around in 1991. It reduced that and provided a cap. And that density cap is 6,365. So that is approximately 3,600 units less than what the zoning allows. So if there is going to be more units within that area that exceeds 6,365, inspite of what the zoning says, the developer or the affected property owner would have to go the Planning Commission to raise that unit cap. The number of units that's been built according to this chart, you know,to date is about 3,414 units. And so there is a difference of roughly 2,900 units between what has been built and what is allowable by the SMA. So as far as the 2,951 units that's capable of being developed, you know, based on the chart, then Kumu Hou is part of that. So what they did was they kind of like reshifted the density, the uses around, within the entire resort. And that's this chart here. MR. INABA: Okay, so the information you sent me says that with the existing zoning and the buildout of your project there's room left for 649 more units on your land. MR. FUKE: I did that in the absence of this detailed spreadsheet, so I stand corrected. And this one here was done by the applicant's in-house. So it took a while for them to generate this. So I stand corrected. This, what you had before was provided to you by the Planning Director is information that we provided to the Planning Department. And they will, moving forward, will be using this as a basis to monitor, if this project is approved, to monitor the total number of units within the resort. MR. INABA: Okay, so with all the current bills for rezoning—maybe you can point me to the right column for your properties, not the entire resort area that could be built. Because that's what the question via email was, and that's what your 649 units answer was based on, not the entire entitlement of the resort area, but the lands directly under control by Waikoloa Land Company. MR. PLUNKETT: Maybe I can help a little bit on try to help Mr. Fuke answer this question. So, in answer to the question on—if your question was lands that are owned specifically and wholly by Waikoloa Land Company. MR. INABA: And the lands that we are currently been affected by the current bills before us. MR. PLUNKETT: And without Kumu Hou. MR. INABA: So with the current zoning and the current buildout. Page 47 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. PLUNKETT: Under the current zoning, if you look at the column that says, "Units Allowed per Zoning Code." And in that, I'm going to ask Mr. Head to help me too, if I missed something. There's a parcel, 11 acres, that's called the Beach Golf Course Driving Range. It's zoned for 319 units. The parcel that we're proposing the workforce housing on is zoned for 142 units. There's a parcel that will actually be merged within Kumu Hou that's underneath that. It's 12.17 acres that is zoned for 87 units. What's not on this schedule, and the reason this can get a little bit confused and I'll go farther if I could, is that there is a commercially-zoned parcel, which also permits up to 100 residential units on it. But the intent is, that remains a commercial parcel. So those are specifically owned by Waikoloa Land Company. Now, if I could just elaborate a little bit further. If you look at the column that says "Units Built Today," so 3,414 units have been built today. We are the master developer and hold substantial rights by virtue of our declaration, which allows us to allocate among the resort various densities and so forth. And so, it's incumbent upon us as the declarant under that declaration to manage the density cap. And as you can see, when we filed the application, we said, there's 3,414 units built; there's 2,951 units that remain under the density cap for a total of 6,365, which is the total under the cap, under the SMA. So what we've done is we've reconciled to that, where could those be put? And we have included in that, the 900 for Kumu Hou. And then under various other projects that are in the resort that we approve, allocate density, and we do that by deed and other mechanisms. Scott, did I summarize that correctly? (Note: At this time, Waikoloa Land Company Vice President of Resort Operations Scott Head came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. HEAD: No, excellent job. I think this is going to be a roadmap for us going forward in reporting to the Planning Department our strict adherence in remaining under the SMA caps. I know it gets very confusing to interpret, but it is our guiding map that we use. And that there are a lot of iterations to it, but John, you did an excellent job describing it. MR. INABA: That was a very long-winded answer. So, with a specific number or column, I think based on the way you folks have developed over the last 40 years, and we know what the entitlements are. You built a certain way, how many unitsI should say, you have left with your remaining space for the lands that are being affected by this rezoning bills, the both of them? Page 48 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. PLUNKETT: We have 2,951 that we can either through some combination, build on our own lands or allocate to other developers is the simple answer, and it's a fairly complex schedule, but that's the best I can simplify it. And included in reconciling to that 2,951, we've included Kumu Hou's 900. MR. INABA: Okay, we were about 2,300 off in the emails that I think I was corresponding with Mr. Fuke on. I'll open it up to questions or comments from my colleagues. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Any other comments? Vice Chair Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, please. I suppose, and thank you, Mr. Fuke, for referring to Communication 595.6 and the graft that is contained within. I suppose it comes as a bit of a surprise, and it makes me a little uneasy, that the numbers that were provided for this graft—while the communication came from our Planning Director, all of the information came from the developer themselves. That doesn't sit particularly well with me. I would prefer to think that the information like this would come directly from our Planning Department, as there needs to be some separation between church and State in my opinion here. Also, one of my constituents was cut off in testimony, and they did some very in-depth research of the background report and the Planning Director, Chris Yuen, when he made statements about this development. And on Page 516, Chris Yuen states that timeshare units will not be considered in the count of the 3,000 resort visitor unit limit set by the General Plan for resort nodes, such as Waikoloa is. It sort of questions here as to, how can a timeshare unit be considered a residential unit. And it is thus taxed based on a residential unit. I would say somebody who stays at a timeshare is not considered a resident in our County. Residents, you know, in my mind are people that buy places to actually live in them. I also have some questions about what happens if the applicant doesn't timely comply with any of the required development conditions. Are there any time limits for compliance? Would that just be up to the Planning Director to decide whether or not to initiate rezoning to the original or other zoning districts? I have questions about that, especially with a project of this size. Can you answer those questions for me, please? MR. FUKE: Sure, Council Member Villegas. We are familiar with the letter that former Director Yuen had prepared and made the separation between visitor units and conventional residential units, and how timeshare was regarded. And Page 49 PC-21 March 8,2022 so if you look at the table that was provided, it was specifically broken down between visitor units and residential units. And cumulatively, it shows like, 3,000 for visitor units on the top, and 3,365 on the bottom for residential units for a total of 6,365. If you look at where Kumu Hou is, Kumu Hou is within the visitor portion, that 900 units. So, we were very mindful of trying to stay within the so-called interpretive cap that Mr. Yuen had stated in that letter. That's the reason why you know, it's about three or four years in the making on this project, because there was a lot of things, moving pieces, that we had looked at. You know, before coming up with this plan. And one of the things was, how would timeshare be accounted at? And we had to do a deep dive, had it further reconfirmed by the former Planning Director, Mr. Yee. And that's where we are right now. In terms of the construction time table, when the staff and also the Planning Commission reviewed it, you know, when you deal with a major resort like that, and it's like 40 years in the making. You're not dealing with a specific project, like maybe dealing only with a 10-acre parcel, and you know, you want to have a performance condition associated with this. This relates to like a development for the whole resort. What was very critical from the commission and the department standpoint was making sure that appropriate conditions related to the project, infrastructure and otherwise, are all tied in that portion of the development. So as a result, you see like, you know, within the Kumu Hou ordinance, Bill 115. You know there are time-sensitive conditions, but the time-sensitive conditions are not related to the actual construction of the unit itself, but performance of other conditions. You know, workforce housing, the submittal of annual reports, and depending on where the foundation goes, you know, that condition; the open space, the conveyance, or the offer of a conveyance of the King's Trail. Those are items that you have, like time sensitivity relative to the actual construction of the 900 units. It's a question of the marketplace and whatever. So there is no specific timetable related to when the 900 units will come online. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you for that, Mr. Fuke. I appreciate your clarification. Still clear as mud, but that might be my brain right now. I also wanted to put forward that there have been conversations and testifiers who consistently requested more bike paths throughout this resort area. There are lots of golf cart paths already in existence there, but there has been a fervent request for real bike paths, and the potential for those to lie within the 800-foot setback from the highway. Page 50 PC-21 March 8,2022 So I just wanted to bring that forward, as you folks have been very gracious in listening to their requests, the concerns, and making concerted efforts to make whatever compromises possible in order to make this zoning change more palatable to our community, especially in a timeframe when we have so you know, I have COVID. So you know, our numbers are going down, but it's not because people aren't still getting COVID here. And our economy is still very fragile, as it's based on tourism. And as I sit with this pain and these physical challenges, it weighs heavy on my heart and my chest that we continue to line ourselves up being reliant on external visitors and external economic forces. And our people continuing to rely on, not for sources of employment, without anywhere to live. And so, we just perpetuate this cycle. And we are very vulnerable as a society and humanity as we continue to navigate a path through climate change, which we know that this may not be the last major virus or pandemic or whatnot. So I urge this continued thinking outside of the box and transitioning from our perpetual reliance. And in our western world, wealth is this goal and yet, when is enough enough? And for all of us to have enough to live a healthy lifestyle here in the islands. I think it should be all of our goals. Those that already live here. And not necessarily continuing to look outside for those resources. So, thank you for your patience with my comments. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Comments before we move to the vote. We still have Bill 112 to review and discuss as well. Okay, seeing none. Just want to thank you all for your presence and your willingness to engage the commission. They did a very excellent job, thoroughly vetting and providing amendments to strengthen the conditions in this ordinance. We appreciate the genuine willingness to connect and have a dialogue and put forth meaningful solutions. So thank you, you're really setting the bar for how other developers or anyone really interested in doing anything here on Hawaii Island should operate. And that's doing it in partnership and collaboration with community and the County. So, thank you. We have a motion on the floor to forward Bill 115, as amended, to the Council with a positive recommendation. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote, please. Page 51 PC-21 March 8,2022 Vote on Bill 115: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 115, as Draft 2 amended, on first reading was carried by the following (Approved) roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: Committee Members Inaba and Villegas —2. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Bill 115 is forwarded to the Council with a positive recommendation. We have a couple other amendments forthcoming on that, which we will hear at first reading. Mr. Clerk, if we could get to the last item on the agenda, Bill 112, the companion measure for this project. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: Bill 112: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-13 (PUAKO-`ANAEHO`OMALU ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM OPEN (0) AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—8,000 SQUARE FEET (RM-8) TO MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—6,000 SQUARE FEET (RM-6) AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) AT WAIKOLOA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 6-9-008:021, POR. 027, POR. 028, AND POR. 031 (Applicant: Waikoloa Land Company) (Area: 45.932 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to develop "Area A" of the proposed Kumu Hou project, to consist of up to 264 multi-family residential units, up to 25 single-family residential lots, and associated infrastructure. The properties are located between the 75- and 76-mile markers on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and west(makai) of the highway to the King's Highway Foot Trail, `Anaeho`omalu and Waikoloa. Reference: Comm. 595 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed: February 8 and February 22, 2022 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Mr. Richards, to recommend passage of Bill 112 on first reading.) and Page 52 PC-21 March 8,2022 Comm. 595.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated January 20, 2022, transmitting the testimony and hearing transcripts from the Leeward Planning Commission's November 18, 2021, meeting and the draft testimony and draft hearing transcripts from the December 16, 2021, meeting. ; and Comm. 595.2: From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated January 28, 2022, transmitting supplemental materials for Bills 112 and 115. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, there's a live motion on the floor. Before I call for the vote, any comments? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I just wanted to make one comment in regards to Communication 595.6, which is the reconciliation of all of the units. And I just have to say it, because I'm having due-diligence trauma right now, having had worked for a number of landowners and/or their representatives, we were chasing this for the better part of 10 years, when Chris Yuen came out with that determination, and trying to understand it. And I find this incredibly valuable with the overlaying of the land-use dockets that cover that particular area. All the zoning and the SMA. This infamous SMA 25. I'm looking at Ann, she knows. This really is an amazing tool and a good foundation for our Planning Department to keep track of these units, as these various landowners in the area have to do their annual progress reports. This is really going to be a fantastic tool. So with that, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Okay, Mr. Clerk, roll call vote on Bill 112, please. Vote on Bill 112: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 112 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: Committee Members Inaba and Villegas —2. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Bill 112 is forwarded to Council with a favorable recommendation. Folks, Ms. Bouslag, Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Fuke, Ms. Boeddeker, Ms. Anton, Mr. Head; everyone on Zoom with the project team, thank you for being here. We will see you at Council for first reading on Wednesday, March 23rd. My office will be in touch to confirm the time. Page 53 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. PLUNKETT: Thank you again to the Council for all your patience and working with us. And I think it's been a very positive dialogue for us. And we do appreciate it. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Good work everyone. Before we close, I wanted to invite up our Corporation Counsel and Clerk. You guys know that I make these off-the-cuff comments, and I just wanted some clarity for the record, about my statement to omit personally offensive comments that were made by one of the testifiers. I don't have the authority to do that. And so, you know, Corporation Counsel, I just want to make sure that we're very clear about how we, or just the nature of the minutes and how testifier's comments are reflected for the record. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. I don't know if I need to say much else. So at the beginning of conversation for this session, Council Member Richards raised concern about offensive comments that also violated your rules and suggested they be stricken from minutes. And Chair Kierkiewicz agreed that if any minutes came through, that she would edit them. So just a couple things. One is that that level of content of community input is not in minutes in the first place. So,there's not a risk that they would be in the minutes. Secondly, the Chair doesn't have authority to self-edit. So I think everybody knows what the comment was, but it wasn't specifically called out. And so the suggestion would be that she would self-edit. Under Robert's Rules, there would be a process to expunge information from minutes if minutes came back before the committee that were improper in it. That would be the process at that time to take care of that. And then just by way of reminder, the Chair has the authority to hold people account to following the rules. And Council Members would be free to raise points of order to assist the Chair in a busy meeting like today was. So there are ways to address that in real-time. But I did want to be clear because this is a public meeting, that there is not going to be a process of Chair self-editing minutes before they're presented to the committee. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for that clarification. Yes, I don't just have a red pen where I can go and strike minutes from the record. So, I just wanted to make sure for the record that was very clear. And I'm sorry if I caused anyone any personal offense with those comments. Mr. Richards. Page 54 PC-21 March 8,2022 MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you Chair. I appreciate the clarification of it. And it just highlights my concern that we—this group, we conduct business in a very high-level and respectful manner. We don't have to agree, but we can still be respectful. And that's why I took offense for that. Mr. Fuke, he comes before us all the time, and he's a highly respected individual within our community. So I wanted to just make a note of that. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Richards. It's noted that we should all maintain a level of professionalism and decorum. Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you, Chair. And thank you, Judge Strance. My concern really was some level of false light for an individual that I know has a lot of integrity. And I just didn't want to carry forward in the discussions that we had. So I do appreciate Mr. Richards' raising that issue. But as a way to level set, I think each and every one of us are very mindful of our integrity and our trustworthiness. So, thank you for this discussion, Chair. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. We are at the end of our agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 1:25 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, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz–9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Planning Committee is adjourned. Approved: 2- (.102_2_ Ms. A sh ey L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 55