Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2022/08/16 2020-2022 Committee on Planning 28th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawai i August 16, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 10:24 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member (came in later) Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Absent& Excused: 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: Cory Harden: Bill 194 (Comm. 898), comment. Chuck Flaherty: Bill 194 (Comm. 898), comment. Dwight Vicente: Bill 194 (Comm. 898), Bill 196 (Comm. 913), Bill 198 (Comm. 919), Bill 199 (Comm. 922); and Comm. 922.1, comment. Mark Van Pernis: Bill 194 (Comm. 898), comment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if we could please move to Bills for Ordinances. I'd like to start with Bill 196. PC-28 August 16,2022 BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no object from the Council Members, the of Business: following items were taken out of order Bill 196: REPEALS ORDINANCE NO. 17-7, WHICH AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (CN-10) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-2-040:004 (Planning Director Initiated) (Area: Approx. 1.000 acre) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation to revert the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial to its original designation of Single-Family Residential at the request of the landowner. The property is located along the east(makai) side of Kilauea Avenue, approximately 180 feet north of its intersection with East Kahaopea Street. Reference: Comm. 913 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 196 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Since this is Planning Director initiated, Director Kern, could you please lead the discussion here? And I also want to note the presence of the property owners. I believe the Oshiro's are with you in Hilo, should my colleagues have any questions for them. Great, thank you. Director Kern, you have the floor. (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 appreciate the opportunity to be here. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. You are correct. The applicants, or the landowners I should say, are here in Hilo. This is a relatively, very straight-forward request from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to Residential. The landowners had planned to do something commercial. Time went on that they didn't. So it makes sense for them to keep the property in the Single-Family Residential zoning, which is consistent with the settlement pattern in the area as well. So, any questions, I'm happy to answer. Page 2 PC-28 August 16,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. Any questions or comments? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, real quick. Director Kern, I know it's Director initiated. Is this something that the applicants come to the department and request you to initiate, or is this something that you just see on the books and contact them if they didn't meet the conditions of approval in time? MR. KERN: They came in and checked on the ordinance to see what opportunities there were. And because the ordnance time conditions were stale, they had either the opportunity to come back through and request a time extension to keep it in CN through this process or to revert it back to the RS (Residential) zoning. And based on the discussion, it make more sense for them to do RS. So they requested that we initiate that process. MR. INABA: Thank you so much, Chair. That's all I have. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we have a motion on the floor to send Bill 196 to the Council with a positive recommendation. All in favor,please say "aye." Vote on Bill 196: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 196 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Richards — 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, please move on to Bill 198. Page 3 PC-28 August 16,2022 Bill 198: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-32 (SOUTH HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL—3 ACRES (A-3a) TO SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 15,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-15) AT AINAOLA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-039:025 (Applicant: RJL, LLC) (Area: Approx. 13.838 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to apply for a subdivision of 33 lots to be sold on the open market. The property is located at the southwest corner of the Haihai Street and Ainaola Drive intersection. Reference: Comm. 919 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 198 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I believe we have the applicant, Laurie Higashi and the representative for the applicant, Mr. Daryn Arai, in Hilo Chambers. I just want to disclose for the record, that I'm a member of the Zonta Club of Hilo, and that is how I know Ms. Higashi. Folks, if you could do me a favor and provide an overview of the request that is to be considered by the Planning Committee today. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Daryn Arai and representative for the applicant Laurie Higashi came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. ARAI: Good morning, Chair Kierkiewicz and Members of the Committee. My name is Daryn Arai. I'm a Land Use Planning Consultant assisting the applicant RJL, LLC, who is represented here by Laurie Higashi, to my right. The request before you today represents a proper progression the residential land use pattern within this particular section of Hilo. We appreciate the favorable recommendations by both the Planning Director and the Windward Planning Commission, as well as the proposed conditions of approval as recommended. As both the Planning Director and the Windward Planning Commission found, it is a proper land use pattern in this particular section of Hilo. It's consistent with both the General Plan and the State Land Use Law, which designates this area for Urban types of uses, consistent with the proposed 33-lot residential subdivision. Page 4 PC-28 August 16,2022 Both the Director and the Commission found that the property is serviced by adequate infrastructure, such as roads, water; and the applicant will be providing private wastewater systems via individual septic systems to service each lot. So with that, we stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Questions, comments from my colleagues? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Arai and for the representatives for the Higashi's. I'm looking for a subdivision plan within the folder. Is there one? Has one been submitted to us? MR. ARAI: I should note that it's within the application itself. It's identified as Figure 3, Proposed Subdivision Plan. And that was attached to the Planning Director's Background Report. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And we can see that it's been slated for 33 lots, or parcels. And I do believe that it fits within the general scope of the area and the surrounding parcels. And maybe I'm not seeing it, but I don't see a subdivision plan. Chair, have you seen one located in the plan? MR. ARAI: If you could refer to Page 22, as part of the record that was transmitted to Council? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I'm going to yield for now. I'm going to take a look at it. MR. KERN: Just going to jump in real quick. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. So you folks received the background report as well as the recommendation. It would be on Page 22 of the background report, which goes to the County's report and then into the applicant's report. It would be Figure 3, Proposed Subdivision Plan. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you, Mr. Kern. Give me one second. I yield for now. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, anyone else? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. Just one question. I see that all of the roads are going to be built to dedicable standards, except for the one cul-de-sac. What is the reason for that? MR. ARAI: The reason for the private cul-de-sac versus it being all dedicable roads? Page 5 PC-28 August 16,2022 MR. INABA: Yes. MR. ARAI: I personally didn't design the subdivision. Maybe Ms. Higashi can speak to it. But, in many instances—it is an awkwardly configured property. So, it's a matter of being able to cite the lots appropriately. And if it results in a need for a smaller and narrower private road, that is an opportunity that is provided by the Subdivision Code. MR. INABA: Mr. Arai, was that your answer to this property, or what happens at other properties? MR. ARAI: Because it's expressed in the Subdivision Code, it can be utilized by any project. And I should note that, if I remember correctly, a private cul-de-sac such as this can serve no more than six lots, if I remember correctly. MR. INABA: For everyone else, this is Condition F in the bill. So, I'll ask the question again, what is the reason in this case for having one cul-de-sac be privately maintained? MS. HIGASHI: I believe it's because if the road was built to the County's standard, it would make the lots too small for the 15,000 square-foot minimum, you know, to fit the zoning. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you. And Mr. Arai, how many lots will be fronting or utilizing this cul-de-sac? MR. ARAI: No more than six. And I should note,that when a subdivision is laid out, you have to look at the number of lots being serviced by that particular road and whether a full dedicable standard road 50-feet wide with roughly 32 feet of pavement is necessary. And in this particular case, because it only serves six lots, a smaller narrower private road is appropriate. MR. INABA: Thank you for the answer. Just wanted to make sure, because we have some issues here in Kona with privately-maintained roads. But, thank you, Ms. Higashi, for the explanation. Appreciate it. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else here in Kona? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, Chair, I'll just disclose, I also know Ms. Higashi as well through Zonta Club, but it will not affect my ability to make a decision on this. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Page 6 PC-28 August 16,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Okay, I found the map. Thank you very much, Mr. Arai, Mr. Kern, and Ms. Higashi. I was looking at it. I wanted to see where everyone was entering and exiting. And I can see through the report that noticed this is how just like you state it. That's better. Anybody entering from Ainaola? MR. ARAI: Excuse me, this is Daryn. When you say entering, you mean, if there will be any direct driveway entrances onto Ainaola? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Correct. MR. ARAI: No. That will be prohibited, and it's also within (inaudible). CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Folks, hang on one second. I apologize, but I have been getting notifications that we've lost our live feed. Could we take a recess to just check up on that to make sure that the live stream is, in fact, happening? Thank you. We're in recess. Recess: At 10:53 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:56 a.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I'm taking us out of recess and putting us back into session. The time is 10:56 a.m. Mr. Arai, if you could restart and provide us your response to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder's question. Thank you. MR. ARAI: Thank you, Chair. There will be no direct driveway access to any individual lot onto both Haihai and Ainaola. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you for that. Where are folks in the proposed subdivision going to be moving through then, and back to a main roadway? MR. ARAI: They will have to go through both the new Kikaha Street connection onto Haihai and the extension of Ho`olala Street onto Ainaola. So basically, there'll be only two approaches directly onto those two County roadway systems. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, and has there been aoh, go ahead. MR. ARAI: I'm sorry. I should note that this proposed subdivision will extend Ho`olala from two existing subdivisions located mauka, or to the west of this project site. So,there will be enhanced interconnectivity between a number of subdivisions. Page 7 PC-28 August 16,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you for that. Has there been the appropriate Traffic Impact Statements done, or assessments done? MR. ARAI: No traffic study was done. The proposed 33-lot subdivision will not trigger the concurrency requirements for this particular project. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Is there any park area that's been designated within the subdivision? MR. ARAI: No parks are contemplated within this project. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Does the requirement to have park space not apply in this situation, Mr. Kern or Mr. Arai? MR. KERN: Zendo Kern, Planning Director. That is correct. There is no trigger for a park requirement. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And why is that again? MR. KERN: Due to the Code,the size of the project. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then, quickly looking over some of the Planning Commission notes, it looks like the Department of Public Works was wanting to see improvements along the roadways for both Ainaola Drive and looks like maybe sidewalks within the community. But the applicant did not agree on the basis of that decision. Is that true? MR. ARAI: I don't recall a recommendation for sidewalks. However, there was a recommendation by Public Works to improve the right-of-way along Ainaola Street. And that, we did speak directly to, and we felt that it was not warranted. Because if you look at Figure 3, Proposed Subdivision Layout,there's an extensive strip of State-owned lands between the project site and Ainaola Street. So any improvement would not be functional in our point, because it wouldn't provide for an improvement along the entire right-of-way of Ainaola. It would just be a very small segment. And I should note that there's also an exhibit within your record. It was a response by the applicant, and we provided an exhibit that showed the location of an existing concrete culvert. So in order to extend the paved shoulders, it would require reconstruction of that existing culvert as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, okay. I think that's a fair statement. Within the subdivision itself, what is the thought behind making sure people can utilize the roadways for bikes and other things, kind of along the Complete Streets thinking. Page 8 PC-28 August 16,2022 MR. ARAI: There is no bike lane that is anticipated within this subdivision. However, because the shoulders will be paved to its full extent, the paved shoulders could provide that walking and biking opportunities along the interior subdivision roadways. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I mean, I think at this point, you guys have come to know me, and I do like to see that we're making sure that our communities can utilize other sources or transportation. Maybe just making sure our kids can ride bikes along some of those roadways and be safe, yeah? Okay, I see the heads nodding, good. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that was the majority of my questions, and I do appreciate the answers given and your time being here today. Thank you. MR. ARAI: Our pleasure. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I yield, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, Mr. Arai and Ms. Higashi,just one question for you. Noting here your intentions to create the 33 lots, but one of the conditions of approval here allows for you folks to exercise the right to assign 16 ADU's (Accessory Dwelling Units). And so, is that something that you folks are going to pursue? I just want the option to in the events of—just recognizing the care and capacity of the area to increase density, but I was just curious to know if you guys are going to exercise that right. MS. HIGASHI: Appreciate the opportunity and still considering it. I think it's a great opportunity to provide more density, which we need units. So haven't decided completely, but appreciate the chance to be able to do that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I don't have any other questions. We have a motion on the floor to forward Bill 198 to Council with a favorable recommendation. All in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 198: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 198 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz–7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards –2. Excused: None. Page 9 PC-28 August 16,2022 MR. ARAI: Thank you very much, much appreciated. Thank you all. MS. HIGASHI: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for being here. Mr. Clerk, if we could please take up Bill 199? Bill 199: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 17-24, WHICH AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 12-111, WHICH AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 99-116, WHICH AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 96-159, WHICH AMENDED SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED) (FORMERLY REFERRED TO AS SECTION 25-114, CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP, ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 25, ZONING CODE), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL—7,500 SQUARE FEET (CN-7.5) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEYS: 2-2-044:031, 032, 035, AND 037 (Applicant: Hilo Senior Investments, LLC—formerly Island Heritage Ventures, LLC) (Area: Approx. 7.402 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this request for a five-year time extension to Condition C (Time to Secure Final Subdivision Approval). The applicant plans to develop an assisted living facility and a commercial/retail building. The property is located on the southeast side of the intersection of Kanoelehua Avenue and East Kahaopea Street. Reference: Comm. 922 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 922.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated August 9, 2022,transmitting the transcripts from the Windward Planning Commission's July 7, 2022, meeting. Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 199 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I believe we have representatives for the applicant joining us in the Hilo Chambers, Jill Raznov and Mr. John DeWald. If you could please introduce yourselves for the record and provide the Committee with an overview of your request? Oh, Mr. DeWald is actually joining us via Zoom. Aloha. Good morning. Thanks for joining us. You both have the floor. Page 10 PC-28 August 16,2022 (Note: At this time, Representative for the Applicant Jill Dana Raznov, Esq. and landowner John DeWald came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DEWALD: Good morning. My name is John DeWald, I'm the owner of the property and the developer. And, we are excited to finally get moving forward with this project. I'll have Jill go ahead and do the introduction and updates, but I'll be available for questions. I apologize for not being there in person, but I wasn't able to make travel arrangements quick enough. Thank you. MS. RAZNOV: Thank you, John. Hi, good morning, Chair and members of the Committee. Thank you so much for this opportunity to present today before you on this bill. My name is Jill Raznov. I am the applicant's attorney and planner. And as you know, as you met, Mr. DeWald is here. Mr. DeWald represents and is the principal of the applicant. So we're here today to request a time extension on the ordinance to secure Final Subdivision Approval. And I wanted to thank the Planning Director and his staff for forwarding a favorable recommendation on the request to the Windward Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission for also approving that request and forwarding a favorable recommendation to this Committee. A little background for the Committee. The ordinance was originally approved and passed in 1996 to change the Residential Zoning on the subject property from Residential to what it is now, which is Neighborhood Commercial. That request was not by Mr. DeWald or any affiliated entity. It was an unaffiliated entity, and I believe their intention was to develop the property for solely Commercial means. The property is a very challenging property and the predecessors were unable, for various reasons to get their development off the ground. Mr. DeWald's entity came in about 2015 and purchased the property and began right away to do exploration as far as whether or not they could achieve their current project. The project is a 120-bed assisted living facility with a related commercial development, which is going to be offices and retail. But the main focus is the 120-bed assisted living facility. And as the Committee Members might know, we don't have an assisted living facility on this side of the Island. We have one on the entire Island, which is in Kona. And so, this is really a feel-good project. This is such a needed development here. It's also going to be in a great location, which is right on the entrance corner of Kanoelehua, entering into Hilo from Puna and Volcano. Right across from the Puainako Center, kitty-corner to the Baskin-Robbins. Page 11 PC-28 August 16,2022 That property has sat undeveloped for many years with overgrown invasive species. It was formerly the Hiro's Nursery in the 60's. And Mrs. Hiro did some subdivision, which created the current parcels, as you see them today. It hasn't operated as a nursery in many, many years. And it sat undeveloped for a very long time. So, we're really hoping that the Committee approves the request for extension. Since Mr. DeWald and his entity has owned the property, they've done a substantial amount of work to develop and to see this project through to the end. They've had a soil report done; they've received a parking variance approval; they've received a tentative subdivision plan approval. They've entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with owner of one of the parcels to relocate an easement in exchange for some valuable consideration. That easement is going to become part of the entranceway to the entire project, which is going to be moved up east on Kahaopea. So the property is at the corner or Kahaopea and Kanoelehua on the east side of the highway. They've also entered into a Right-of-Entry Agreement with owners of other neighboring parcels to allow the applicant to conduct necessary improvements for drainage on the property. They've received CLOMR approval, which is a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to conduct the drainage. So the property has a flood zone, so there's a lot of drainage; there's a lot of grading that needs to be done. And so, we did receive the CLOMR from FEMA. That was back in 2018. They deregistered the property from Land Court and also received master plan approval recently from the Planning Director, which includes the landscaping plan. The reason for the request is simply because of the delays that were unforeseen right after the current applicant requested extension of the original ordinance after he bought the property and got a Use Permit for the current use, which is the 120-bed assisted living facility. Then we had the 2018 lava flow, which of course, focused everyone's attention on other emergencies, you know,that emergency. And then, thereafter we had the pandemic. And so, those two unforeseen massive emergency events just really hindered the development in major ways. Investors, you know, weren't ready to invest at that time. And then, the agencies that were tasked with reviewing and approving the plans were focused on other matters. So right now, as it is, we have our revised traffic improvement plans that were sent to the Department of Transportation on January of this year, and they are under review. We've been going back and forth with the Department of Page 12 PC-28 August 16,2022 Transportation. The hurdle is that Kanoelehua is a State highway, and Kahaopea is a County highway. And so,just to have agreements with regard to the alignment, the striping, the lighting. This has just been a little bit of a hurdle. And even though we had tentative agreements with the various agencies, none of that became formal approvals. We also have revised construction plans regarding the infrastructure improvements with DPW (Department of Public Works) for review. And those were sent in January. And so the applicant stands ready, and able, and willing to complete the project within the five-year timeframe that we are requesting. And we would simply respectfully that the Committee approve that five-year extension to allow the applicant to finish. And we're available for any questions you have. And thank you so much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Jill, for that very detailed presentation, and history, and progress report for this particular project. Going to see if my colleagues have any questions or comments for the applicant and/or their representative. Okay, seeing none here in Kona, we have a motion on the floor to forward Bill 199 to the Council with a positive recommendation. All in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 199: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 199 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards —2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you very much folks. MR. DEWALD: Thank you for your time. MS. RAZNOV: Thank you so very much for your time. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, let's go back to the top of the agenda please, for Bill 194. Thank you. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: Page 13 PC-28 August 16,2022 Statements from The Chair called Elizabeth Dunn, who registered to speak regarding the Public on Bill 194 (Comm. 898) and came forward when called. Bill 194: Bill 194: AMENDS CHAPTER 25 ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 4, SECTION 25-2-44, OF THE HAWAI I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATED TO CONDITIONS ON CHANGE OF ZONE Clarifies that the Planning Director may not extend the time allowed to satisfy conditions within a change of zone ordinance unless specifically authorized by the County Council. Reference: Comm. 898 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba Motion to Approve: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend passage of Bill 194 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Inaba, this is your pill. MR. INABA: Thank you. Kind of appropriate on a day when we're seeing some rezoning bills. So, it's a very simple measure, and it just ensures that when the County Council is the body that grants changes of zones, anytime there needs to be an extension when conditions aren't met, the Council would be the one to grant those extensions and also make any needed changes or alterations at that time, seeing that infrastructure needs and conditions may be changing over the course of whatever time was originally allotted. So, as you know, this bill will, perhaps answering Ms. Dunn's question, the next step is that this bill will be forwarded like Council Member Kimball's EV (Electric Vehicle) to both the Planning Director and the Planning Commissions for their input. Yeah,just very clear, making sure that the Council who grants the authority originally would be the one to grant an extension if that is needed. And happy to take any questions. Perhaps, actually if Director Kern or Deputy Director Darrow want to chime in, they can go ahead now. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Thank you. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. Thank you for the opportunity to talk story about this one. So, I'm neutral on this, but I do want to just clarify something, because I feel that there's a fair amount of misinformation. I'm hearing things that aren't really ringing true. And I'm seeing certain things that actually, again, kind of underscore that. Page 14 PC-28 August 16,2022 So, the process of a time extension is built in to the ordinance which is approved by Council. The Planning Director does not have the authority to grant time extensions beyond that. And the Planning Directors haven't done that, to my knowledge. And I'll turn it over to Deputy Director Darrow here in a minute, who's got more history with the Department internally to speak to that. So, this practice has been in place, and it's concerning when certain conversations are out there, saying that basically the Planning Director grants time extensions at will. And that's simply not the case. You just saw the last application that was in here. They were requesting a time extension. As such, they had to come through the Council. Now, if it's built in the ordinance that says, the Director"may" grant a one-time time extension for those various reasons, then that is the Council authorizing the Director to do that for those reasons, and that has been the practice. So again, I'm neutral on the bill. I feel it's very much in alignment with the current practice that has been going on. And happy to continue in that fashion. But I think it's important for the public to know that this has been the case. I'd like to turn it over to Deputy Director Darrow so he can add. MR. DARROW: Aloha, Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak on this matter. I completely agree with Director Kern. This has been the process as long as I've been with the Planning Department. We looked back at some old rezoning ordinances, and they had the similar condition for the Administrative time extension within the ordinance, that again, is granted by Council. The Planning Director prepares these ordinances as part of his responsibilities under the Council. He prepares the conditions; he provides a recommendation to the Commission, who then in turn provides a recommendation to the Council, who ultimately approves the change of zone or the amendments. This particular language that's being proposed in the bill is, again we're trying to understand if there's any difference, but we,the Planning Director and previous Planning Directors have not had the authority unless that authority to grant Administrative time extension was given to them through the condition of the ordinance approved by the Council. You know, as Director Kern had mentioned, there's been a lot of talk. And some of it is difficult to understand where someone, or an article, says that the Directors have granted five-, 10-, 15-, 25-year time extensions. That's just not true. The ordinance grants a one-time Administrative time extension for a period not to exceed the original period granted by the ordinance. And it's normally under the condition to complete construction or to receive final subdivision approval or plan approval. Page 15 PC-28 August 16,2022 So, if that period of time is five years, the Administrative time extension cannot go beyond that. If it is longer, which is rare that we see that, I would say a majority of the ordinances that we see come before us are five-year time terms, then again, that period is not to exceed that original period granted. The Planning Directors do not just automatically approve these. That condition that's provided in the ordinance has criteria for reviewing and approving those Administrative time extensions. And you know, he takes a very thorough look at the request, and if it complies with those three criteria listed, then he or she can go ahead and approve that Administrative time extension. There have been times that I'm aware of where a Planning Director did not approve an Administrative time extension for reasons varying from a substantial change in the scope of the project that was presented to the Commission and Council, or from the fact that it no longer complied with either the General Plan or the original reasons for approving the zone change in the beginning. And they would be requested to either revert back to the original proposed request or to seek an extension from Commission and Council. But anyway, both Zendo and I stand here if anyone has any questions. Thank you. MR. INABA: Thank you, Deputy Darrow. I do want to go back. You know, we just had bill for—Bill 199 today, actually. And at some point, language in the rezoning bills were changed because it used to read, "If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Director shall submit the applicant's request to the County Council for appropriate action." Somewhere along the line, we're seeing that language was changed to, "Granted that the Planning Director has authority to grant an initial time extension." So I think we're going back to, is what always was. I'm just not sure when the change started to happen where we put in language within each of these rezoning bills to grant the Planning Director authority for Administrative extensions. So, this bill that we have before us today, really puts a clear timeline as to when conditions were agreed upon to be completed and then ensuring that if extensions are required, those requests need to come to the County Council. And I think that's very clear; there's a clear distinction there. And I think, perhaps this Planning Department leadership could agree that maybe we wouldn't include that language that grants them that authority anymore. But I think for transparency and accountability moving forward, that we know, if it's five years, it's five years; if it's ten years, it's ten years. Page 16 PC-28 August 16,2022 And if the conditions aren't met, we as a Council or whoever's on the Council at that time, will hear and consider the conditions that weren't met, and making sure that any changes to the bill or to the ordinance will be made. So, happy to answer any questions from my colleagues, but I think it's very straight forward and goes back to what we were doing just ten years ago based on what I'm seeing on Bill 199. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Oh, thank you, Chair. I just want to say, I'll be supporting this today, given the Director's neutral position on the bill and Mr. Inaba's breakdown of why he thought this was important. And thank you, Mr. Inaba for bringing this forward. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Director and Deputy Director for that explanation. So, you basicallyI'm trying to see if I can understand it. You said nothing can go past the original five years that's been granted, or the extension cannot go more than that five years. Is that correct? Did I hear you correct? MR. KERN: Yes. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. So,the condition is specifically baked into the rezoning ordinance, and the conditions state that the time extension allowed to the Planning Director cannot exceed the original time. So if the original time was five years, then that Administrative time extension cannot exceed that five years, right, so you could give a time extension for that five years and that's it. MS. DAVID: Okay. And so, I just wanted to confirm that because I'm not sure and maybe thank you, Mr. Inaba for bringing this forward, and maybe that can be fleshed out, because there a lot of community concerns that—especially in Kona. We've got approved subdivisions that go back 20-somewhat years. I'm just wondering what those situations entail and have they been extended, or they just stay there until somebody does something. I think this is an important issue, because if all of these preapproved subdivisions that have been actually in limbo for many, many years decide to come forward yeah, it's something that we know that might happen. And I think when you folks consider Mr. Inaba's proposed bill,just look into those kinds of things because that's what I think the concern is. It seems like developments that were approved, you know, several years ago still on the books still on the books and feel either they sell it or somebody else comes forward with an investment proposal, and then they already have that in Page 17 PC-28 August 16,2022 hand, and it could be years. And I'm just tossing that out there for when you guys consider this. Those are things that are very real as far as proposed subdivisions that have already been approved but not done yet, especially on the west side. So, that's all I have to say. I don't need you to answer any questions right now, but I think that should be a big consideration. And I just want to say thank you again, Council Member Inaba, for bringing the topic up front and center for discussion, because it's due. Thank you, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Vice Chair Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, wow, hit the nail on the head. Thank you, Mr. Inaba. This is a topic that's been brought up very often for those constituents in District 7. I want to thank you for taking the time, and the energy, and the diligence to really look at this in depth. One of the things that I have heard passed around a number of different times, is a request for a list of all the developments that have been approved and where those properties are, and where they are on the timeline. I'm not sure of the capacity for the Planning Department to provide something like that, but I think that it would be really helpful. Not only for this Council, but just in general. To see what's out there, what's already been committed to; what the timelines are at; what are expired; what are asking for extensions. I see a common thread in conversations here in Council when asking for Department of Water Supply for a list of, where are all the water credits? How many are there out there? How many have been given? Where have they been allocated to? Same thing for affordable housing credits. And I see a lot of synchronicity here when we're talking about time extensions. District 7 constituents suffer and struggle under the insecurity of developments that were approved and received entitlements decades ago. There are even water credits associated with these developments. And there's a lot of prospecting, and unfortunately, a lot of the things that were approved of decades ago no longer align with, or are outside the scope of what our current infrastructure can sustain. And that's what I really am hopeful for, for this piece of legislation, that it can continue to provide that check and balance. Because we're at max capacity in a lot of these spaces. Our roads can't handle it; our sewer systems can't handle it. And building for more external influx of homebuyers is not resilient or regenerative. And it's causing a demise and real stress for a lot of people in District 7. Page 18 PC-28 August 16,2022 So, we want responsible development. We want progressive thinking with adequate infrastructure improvements prior, so that Kona can remain for the people, by the people, with the people authentically in that capacity. So thank you, Mr. Inaba for bringing this forward, and I am hopeful that maybe Planning could provide something. Maybe, it's, you know, broken down per district, so we could take a look at and really authentically be able to see what's already been put out there. So, it might be a pipe dream, but now's the time for pipe dreams, because there is funding coming for infrastructure improvements. So as we try to realign, reconnect, and regenerate our communities, I think this will be a fantastic tool for that. So, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Council Member Inaba for bringing this forward. You know, generally speaking, I do support anything, that things about more accountability, transparency, and opportunity for more public input. I just had a legal question for either you or for Corporation Counsel, and it was kind of hinted at, I think, by the testifier. Since many of the more recent zoning ordinances would have a condition that says that the director may extend the initial extension, will this supersede that? Or for those ordinances at least will that still be the case and any new ordinances that are put forth at this time, you know, if this were to pass, it'll only apply to them? Is my question clear? Thank you. MR. INABA: Yah, I think it's clear, Chair. May I? The intension is only for bills expiring after this bill. If this bill before us shall pass, only then after would you know, not granting any extensions by the director not be allowed. So, it wouldn't go retro. If the director had previously granted an Administrative extension, then that would stand. So for example, if a bill expired yesterday and the director granted an extension today, and the bill passes in a month, that extension stands. MS. KIMBALL: Right, right, okay. MR. INABA: Yah, I mean, that's what it's saying here. Once it goes into effect. MS. KIMBALL: So, my question again would beI understand that. If the extension or if the current authorization has not expired and yet there is the clause in there that the director"may" extend it one time. That extension has not happened yet. If this bill were to be in place, does it override that condition or is the condition still valid? Page 19 PC-28 August 16,2022 MR. INABA: I would call Corporation Counsel forward. My intention would be that the Code overrides a specific rezoning ordinance, being that it's in the Code. But, I'll let Corporation Counsel answer it. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good morning, Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. When an ordinance passes as to a specific piece of property, and there are conditions granted to that piece of property, they're normally considered to be entitlements. And so, the authority granted in that entitlement, has already been granted. And so, we can look into it further, but there was no question that I anticipated today. But as a general statement, that a Council can't generally go back and amend a piece of legislation that's already passed. So these zoning ordinances are just that. They're laws that are already passed. And so, the intention that you're stating would be that you're changing these laws that have already been passed, and these entitlements that have already been granted. But we can certainly take a look at that further, and just to confirm my understanding of the general law. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Judge Strance. And it probably would be worth just examining. But there's timeI'm happy to support this referral to the Planning Commissions. It may be actually that we just want to put,just some wording, so that there's not conflict and there's clear understanding that if it's already been granted. You know, I would agree that it would probably be perceived as an entitlement. One piece the Code can't, you know,take that entitlement away just like that. But, appreciate the feedback, thank you. I yield, Chair. MS. STRANCE: May I comment further? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, go ahead. MS. STRANCE: So, the other piece of this is that these bills routinely come in front of you. And so, going forward, if it's your intention not to grant additional and specific authority to the Planning Director. That would be something that you folks will also need to pay attention to. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Lee Loy, did you have your light on? You have the floor. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Completely support this, and especially its pathway back down to Planning Commission. Partly because it's a complex process. But I have a couple of questions for our Planning Director and Deputy Page 20 PC-28 August 16,2022 Planning Director, which might sound maybe even sarcastic. But, how did we land on five years for a timeline of development, or completing various conditions of approval? MR. KERN: That's a good question. I'm going to default to a gentleman that's been here a lot longer than I have. Jeff? MR. DARROW: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy, I you know, I'm not sure how that particular number came about. And as mentioned, it's not always five years. They look at it terms of the size of the project. If they're relatively small projects, then normally five years is a standard. Yeah, I mean even on our very, very small projects, they normally have a five-year timeline. When they are larger projects, then they'll go as much as ten or even longer years to complete construction. So, I'm not sure exactly when five years actually originated and why they actually came up with that particular number. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for that response. And with this going back down to the Planning Commissions, can we explore that? Because we saw a number of applications today at varying sizes. But some are more complex than others. I've seen projects having to get a LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) or CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision). We have no way of controlling the Federal Government and/or that review of a flood map. We see connections to State roads. We have no control of a timeline with the Department of Transportation. We see cultural impact statements needing review prior to plan approval. Again, another State agency that we have no control over. And I like where this is going, because I also think that if there is an opportunity to be realistic about the time that we're providing these developments to move forward, we actually will see some of the projects come online. And the housing, and the commercial, and the infrastructure being met to fit community. If we could take that time to explore that down in Planning Commission and ask those realI know it seems simplistic, but it is a real fundamental question. Are we being realistic to give someone a five-year window to build a project when there are so many varying agencies that have to lean in and give approvals? Is that something we can do, Director, Deputy Director? MR. KERN: Yah, Council Member Lee Loy, certainly, we can get into that. It's part of a larger conversation that we're having, which also leads to, you know, when these zoning conditions and the time runs out, it leaves these properties in a state of limbo that doesn't revert it back to its original zoning. And the current zoning that they got isn't also there. And so, what happens then, right? Some initiation has to happen, like we saw earlier today with the Oshiro's. For them to even get their property back to its original zoning, they had to go through this Page 21 PC-28 August 16,2022 process to get there, which is something else that we're looking at. But, absolutely, we can get into that. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. And then, it's that investment, right, into securing it. And then, I know a lot of smart land use attorneys who would say that, there has been vested interest rights. When they go ahead and start paying for a lot of these maps or studies, or review of a flood channel, that there has been a significant amount of investment, which leans in on an entitlement issue. And again, the complexities of all of this. But if that's some of the work we can do down in Planning Commission, I would love to see that when it comes back for us to make some decisions around this. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anybody else? Mr. Inaba, want to wrap it up here? MR. INABA: Yep, thank you. And want to mahalo Council Member Kimball for that question. I'll talk story with Corporation Counsel. Whatever it is, it will be. So,thank you for pointing that out. And to Council Member Lee Loy's point, yes, I think we rely on the advice and expertise of the department as to how long an applicant would need. And the point of this is not to—is if they need 10 years, and that's the realistic. And if it's not met in 10 years, then you come back to the Council. So, mahalo for the good discussion and I look forward to talking story with the Commissions when the bill is referred to them. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Would you like to make a motion to refer to the Commissions? Go ahead. MR. INABA: Yes. So, I will make a motion to refer Bill 194 to the Planning Director and both Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions for review and recommendation. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? All in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Motion Mr. Inaba moved to refer Bill 194 to the Planning Director to Refer: and Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. (Approved) Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz–7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards –2. Excused: None. Page 22 PC-28 August 16,2022 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 11:47 a.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Inaba, and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz— 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Committee is adjourned at 11:47 a.m. Thank you everyone. Approved: &,),1/ Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 23