Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2022/09/06 2020-2022 Committee on Planning 29th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i September 6, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 11:41 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member (came in later) Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Absent& Excused: Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, 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: Michael Vitousek: Bill 201 and Bill 202 (Comm. 945), in support. Carolyn Pellett: Bill 201 (Comm. 945) and Bill 204 (Comm. 952), oppose and comment. Janice Palma-Glennie: Bill 201 and Bill 202 (Comm. 945); and Bill 204 (Comm. 952), comment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if we could please start at the top of the agenda. If you could read in Bills 201 and 202? PC-29 September 6,2022 BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 201: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT KEALAKEKUA, SOUTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 8-1-008:004 ; and Bill 202 AMENDS SECTION 25-8-4 (SOUTH KONA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL—ONE ACRE (A-la) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) AT KEALAKEKUA, SOUTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 8-1-008:004 (Applicant: Amy Hagen-Cowell Trust) (Area: 6.875 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to the State Land Use Boundaries Map and change of zone, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into 15 lots, with a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet. The property is located on the east(mauka) side of Hawaii Belt Road (Highway 11) at its intersection with Alii Drive and Napo`opo`o Road, Ka`awaloa(mauka) in South Kona. Reference: Comm. 945 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bills 201 and 202 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Members, we have two bills before us, and so I'm going to allow discussion globally on both of the matters. If I could have the representative for the applicant come forward? Mr. Fuke, if you could please introduce yourself for the record, and also the applicant that's joining us in Kona today? Mahalo. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke and Applicant Robert Cowell came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of this Council. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a Planning Consultant, and I'm assisting the applicant. The applicant is in Kona right now, his name is Robert Cowell sitting in the back there. Page 2 PC-29 September 6,2022 I'd like to, you know, direct your attention to Bill 202. You know, look at the last page, because I think that helps kind of spell the story and probably responds to some of the comments that were made. It's a copy of the zoning map, the proposed zoning in that area. And it shows you where the property is situated and what the existing zoning in that general area is. So, if you look at the map, you can see that the property is not that ideal in terms of from an access standpoint. But nevertheless, it's surrounded by properties that are zoned RS-10 (Residential — 10,000 square feet), RS-15, (Residential— 15,000 square feet) CV-10 (Village Commercial— 10,000 square feet). You know, there's some Ag-1 (Agricultural— one acre) zoning. And so, there are,there are multiple zoning. And so if you look at the Kona CDP (Community Development Plan); the General Plan. The General Plan suggests that this is an area that's right for medium and low-density activity. It's like what Mr. Matsukawa had described before the Planning Commission, that it's ideal for the concentration of activities rather than sprawling of activities. So it's almost like a natural, but nevertheless, the site does have some access issues. You know, Mr. Cowell and his family, as Mr. Vitousek noted, has owned the property for well over 100 years. And now so as part of their estate planning, they're trying to figure out, like how best to utilize the land. You know, in a way that benefits the community. So there were like, several options that they looked at. The site is zoned Ag-l. They have like 25 water units, so one option that they had was that, without coming before this body, they could just subdivide the properties into six one-acre sized lots and put in a private road, and there you go. Just get in and out. The question however that Mr. Cowell and his family asked themselves, is like, you know, is that necessarily good,the best for the community, and will it really implement the plan as according to what the CDP and the General Plan kind of suggested? And their answer was yes, you know, if I were like an outside developer, in and out,that's probably the best thing, you don't have to do anything. So they said, they wanted to do something more for the community. Because if you subdivide the property, you create one-acre lots, the lots are going to be sold at"X"price. On the other hand, if you develop the property into 25 lots based upon the existing zoning then, you know, it sort of like exacerbates an existing roadway condition and so might not really be the best. But you have more lots on the market; you can sell the lots at considerably lower, you know, than what you can sell it for one-acre size. So, they came back again after discussing it with the neighbors and all that stuff, and said like, maybe we ought to develop lots that are generally about 13,000 to 15,000 square feet in size, which is generally compatible—if you look at the map Page 3 PC-29 September 6,2022 again, with the adjoining properties in that area. And so, if we do that, on the other hand, you know, we will create some impact. But here are the additional obligations that we would have to obligate ourselves to. First of all, there is no affordable housing requirement if you do six one-acre lots. If you do 15 or anything more, you come before this body; you have an obligation for affordable requirement; 20 percent, so a minimal of three. You know, notwithstanding that the lots now will be like, 10,000 to 15,000 square feet in size. It becomes a little bit more affordable than one-acre sized lots. The other thing is too, is like, they would be willing to, you know, to help address the community infrastructure by agreeing to do the Fair Share contribution. And that amounts to roughly $240,000. You know,to address parks, roadways, so on and so forth. So they said, you know like, let us do instead not the one-acre lots, not the 25 RS-10 square-foot lots. But instead, maybe we should do like 15. And so,that's the proposal before you right now. You know, we had looked at the roadway situation at that point in time. They spent a lot of time discussing it with DPW (Department of Public Works) and Engineering in Kona,just trying to figure out like, what is the best way to provide access to this area? So DPW Engineering basically said, well, if you look at the map again, let us make the primary access at the farthest northern area. You know, away from the intersection. And to relieve traffic, let us also have like a small little easement that, if you look at the map, where the toe of the property comes in, you know,juts out. So essentially what happens is that there should really not be any ingress movement, you know, cars going in and out of the property. But what becomes potentially a problem is that if you have a homeowner trying to make a left turn onto the Belt Highway, then that becomes a problem, because you have a sight distance issue. And so, you know,that's not to deny that you will have traffic making people within that subdivision wanting to make left turns. So,the idea is to have that small little easement at the toe of the property on the southern-most portion. And so, if you do that then, you know, people that want to make a left turn and go down to Alii Drive or the Hokulia Bypass, they can easily make a right turn and just go right down, you know,to that area. And being furthest away from that intersection, at least would facilitate, like your sight distance. So we had worked it all out with DPW Engineering. And then unfortunately, we learned, you know, when Public Works was reviewing this application, they said, like, uh-oh, they had conveyed this portion of the Highway to the State. So now, we have to go back again to the State to secure their approval in terms of this access design. So we've already have had some discussions, you know, with the State. But nevertheless, we're going to have to kind of deal more in detail with State Highways. And hopefully the State Highways can concur that the best way Page 4 PC-29 September 6,2022 is like the way that DPW Engineering had kind of suggested that the property be developed. So, I know there's talks about like this property being, you know, suitable for agricultural purposes, but not really. Then again, when you look at the surrounding area, it's all urbanized essentially. The soil classification is Class U, very poor. So it has very limited, from a resource standpoint anyway, agricultural potential. In a nutshell, that the request, and you know, on behalf of the applicant, we respectfully request your favorable consideration of the rezoning. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke, and thank you, Mr. Cowell, for joining us. I did want to provide you an opportunity to address this body in relation to the request before us. MR. COWELL: My name is Bob Cowell. I've owned the property myself since 2007, I believe. It's been in my family for many years. We wanted to use this piece of property to best aid the community, and one of the biggest things I see that we're short of is homes that working people can afford, with a piece of property big enough for them to actually have a yard and use. And that's why we came up with the 15 lots. We put a lot of thought into it. We did try to follow the CDP guidelines. We have been working towards this plan for about 15 years. It hasn't just sprung up in the last couple of weeks or years. And I hope the Committee can support this project. Thank you CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Cowell. Council Members, any questions for the applicant or their consultant. I also was to note the presence of our Planning Director, Zendo Kern is here in case we have questions for the Department. Any questions? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the information so far, Mr. Fuke. Good to see you. So a 15-lot subdivision. What parts of the Subdivision Code kick in then? Parks, sidewalks, anything like that going to kick in that's being requested not to be in here? MR. FUKE: For the 15 lots, would be, you know, based on the preliminary subdivision layout, there would be like a 50-foot-wide roadway. You know, that's part of the application package. And it would be a cul-de-sac. So, 20-foot- wide pavement with, you know like, paved shoulders on the side. There would be a 20-foot-wide easement at the southern end of the property to allow just for egress activities. There would be no curb, gutters, and sidewalk. Usually the Page 5 PC-29 September 6,2022 curb, gutter and sidewalk is a Council imposed condition, and usually that's associated with lots that are 10,000 square feet or smaller. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, what about park space? MR. FUKE: There's no park space in here, so the park obligation would be addressed vis a vis the fair share obligation. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, it's increased to make up for the lack of park? MR. FUKE: I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand the question. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Was the fair share amount increased because they're switching to MR. FUKE: No,the fair share obligation is the standard one that the Council traditionally imposes. So you know, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Cowell and his family could subdivide the properties into six one-acre lots, have no obligation for affordable housing; no obligation for fair share, but they don't feel like it's appropriate, you know,that would necessarily suit the community that they were born and raised in. And so, this kind of like, represents a good compromise as opposed to something more intensive. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I was thinking about Mr. Vitousek comment about doing good for the community and making sure that we can decrease the cost of the lots. It sounds good. I like the testimony, but I think the reality of that is it's a market value. So, you know, it's always interesting listening to the push and the pull of both. And we want it to be cheaper. There could be affordable housing, but reality is, housing is market value. How much of this is going to be affordable housing? MR. FUKE: Well, based upon the Affordable Housing Code, it's a minimum of three. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Is he sticking to the minimum? MR. FUKE: My understanding, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so three of the 15 lots. Page 6 PC-29 September 6,2022 MR. FUKE: You know, 15 times 20 percent is three. So, he has an obligation of three of the affordable housing requirements. Over and beyond that, I can't speak to, you know, what he intends to do. The theory, on the other hand, is just that by having smaller lots than presumably the price even if its market, would be less than a one-acre lot. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And I was just looking at the Google Maps and at the maps submitted in this application in the ordinance, I mean, was there any thought to doing a roundabout? I know there's real mixed thoughts on roundabouts but looking at the way it's designed and not just this subdivision but just this particular spot. I mean, they put them in Puna. Sometimes it works, sometimes they don't, but this one looks kind of ripe for the roundabout idea. And I'm probably going to get slaughtered for that, but it does create good flow, so. MR. FUKE: Well, I mean, if one had to do it all over again, perhaps that would be a better way to, you know, address that issue. You know, we've all traveled a lot—we've seen many areas where you have roundabouts, and roundabouts works very, very great. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think so too. If they're designed correctly. MR. FUKE: As long as people can understand, you know like, this is my turn and your turn. And yeah, it kind of minimizes the stop-and-go kind of efforts. So, personally I'm kind of pleased at Waikoloa at Paniolo Drive, you know, they're seriously thinking of the roundabout. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And just given the traffic in this area and the four kind of ins and outs. And the four-way exits and getting these folks out of their subdivision and moving with the right turn, no turn, and having the State kind of re-included in the conversation, it might be a good topic just to bring up, at least. MR. FUKE: So, like, who knows, maybe now, you know, the State's going to get—you know, you have the State and County involved, and I know the State historically has been kind of adverse to the notion of roundabouts. They'd rather see the, you know, standard traffic light, but maybe that conversation can be reinvented again. But you know, realistically, you look at it; here you have like the County and the Government has spent"X" amount of dollars, millions of dollars,just to construct that intersection. And naturally, also condemn properties in this area to make this intersection. So, when that's going to happen, I really don't know. But if you ask me if you were to start all over again if this would be right for a roundabout, I would say, yes. Page 7 PC-29 September 6,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you for that, Mr. Fuke, appreciate it. I yield, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fuke for being here. And to the applicant, thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate your vision of being a housing contributor in a market for attainable housing. I had a couple of questions, and maybe this is more for our Planning Director. You know, a couple of meetings back, Director, Mr. Inaba advanced some conversation around time extensions. And so, here we have a new application, and it's giving some benchmarks for the applicant to meet. You know, five years for final subdivision approval. You know,there's talk about working with the State Department of Transportation about, you know, access. And so, I asked the question during that meeting, right? We put on a five-year time limit. Is this reasonable? In light of the applicant needing to have a conversation, especially with State Department of Transportation, about access. And truly, is this a reasonable managed expectation that they can get everything done, knowing that some of this stuff is out of their control. And is this one of those applications that we should look at putting kind of a stop-the-clock clause in, that if the applicants are doing their work but an agency is taking a while, that that's not counted against their time? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Sure. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. Good to see everyone. So to answer your question, I believe this would be an appropriate application for that condition. I have that condition drafted. I've been working through the different angles of it and different impacts. Something that we can maybe bring forward at the next one. I haven't heard anything back from the applicant's side of it needing additional time. I think the intention is for them to, you know, fulfill it within the time period here, but what we're talking about isn't their intention. It's what happens when it gets to an agency. So, I'm happy to bring that condition up at the next one or send that to you so we can maybe bring it up at the next hearing. MS. LEE LOY: And I think like the housing emergency that we're facing, I would rather see applications given the amount of time they need to complete, and then not offer the time extension, if we put in that stop-the-clock clause, right? Page 8 PC-29 September 6,2022 That they're working as hard as they can on their side of the table but once it goes over to the agencies that the applicant, our housing contributors, are not being penalized for that delay. MR. KERN: Correct. And I technically or generally agree with you on that. So, like I said, I have the language put together. What I've been trying to do is look at it and make sure that it's sound and something that actually is fair and reasonable for both sides of it, and not something that would be just taken advantage of. And so, that's kind of theI don't think it'll be anything perfect, but I agree with you that if we can have some language like that,that would take the burden off of the applicant, and sometimes just five years to do something. Four years we're caught up in permitting and all of a sudden, it's go, right? And that's not always necessary that's not necessarily fair. So, do you want me to send that? I can send that to you. MS. LEE LOY: Yah, you know, I like the project. I've been involved with the Kona CDP for probably 15 years of my professional life. So, when there's comments about reading the CDP, I helped participate in putting a lot of words in there. And so,this was part of that infill project that we were looking at. It has some of infrastructure. It would be minimal costs to that infrastructure, which then lends itself to the affordability of lots. And so, I support this. I'd just rather see us do better to give our housing contributors a real good shot of getting it done. And we can talk about expedited permitting, but this is actually where we could actually expedite the process also. I have another question, Director. We had another conversation around the Revolving Housing Fund. And I understand that a change of zone is not necessarily a trigger to contribute to that Revolving Housing Fund. But we have some fair share conditions, and I was just wondering about some thoughts around shaving off some of that fair share contributions as it relates to amenities, like parks, right? And maybe start guiding some of that money into the Revolving Housing Fund, because I heard from some of my colleagues on this dais about building a more robust fund there. Is that a consideration we could look at? MR. KERN: I think that's definitely a consideration we could look at. I think the critical component is, where do we shave off, right? But I think that's something we could look at. Especially as, I mean, housing is the biggest challenge that we have. So I think having the right tools in there for that is critical. Real quick, I would like to add, though, that when my staff takes in an application to review for a change of zone or any other permit, they review it against the General Plan and the Community Development Plan for that area. And the decision or recommendation is made based on, is it consistent with those elements? And if it's not consistent with those elements, it doesn't get a positive recommendation. It gets a negative recommendation. Page 9 PC-29 September 6,2022 Oftentimes when somebody comes in to look at a project, they'll know that going in. They won't even decide to move it forward, which is why you don't see a number of those. But I just want to underscore that I do know that a lot of work was put into the Community Development Plans, and that we look at it and make our decisions based off of that. And this particular application fits right in there perfectly. MS. LEE LOY: My final question, Director. I know this applicant, and Mr. Fuke, you can confirm 25 water units, right, that they have. We're only doing 15 units, right? And so, those water units actually go back into the system and then actually extend the life of the aquifer in the area and the water in that area. So I see a number of wins that this project is providing for community, and not just the obvious: we're putting in attainable housing, or local housing, or the goals of housing, which we sorely need; but actually extending the life of the infrastructure, especially the water, in that area. I'm going to listen to the rest of my colleagues. I am happy with moving this forward, and but, with either push on that stop-the-clock clause. If not here, maybe in some future applications. MR. KERN: It's there. No, I've really actually wanted to have it in place on these applications coming up, and perhaps waiting for perfection is not the way to go. So, I'll talk with the applicant about that, and maybe we'll bring it forward on this one. If not, one of the next ones. Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz. Aloha, Director. I have a question. I'm not sure if Mr. Fuke or for you, Director. How much time is the State going to take to determine the access issue? Do you have any clue? Because to me the access issue is very substantial in that particular area, right? I know where their ingress is, right next to the Shiraki Laundry. And then if the egress is going to be by Farm and Garden,just about,that is horrible, as far as having that one lane going down to the main light at Nap6`opo`o and the bypass, Mamalahoa. I'm curious because to me that's the most important thing. I appreciate what the developer's doing for, you know, affordable housing. And then, that's my concern, because I can't visualize that yet. So, I'm just curious what the State is going to be doing about that. MR. FUKE: To answer your question, you know, how long the State, I really don't know. I mean, you know, dealing with the State is certainly different from dealing with the County. The County doesn't give you necessarily a specific Page 10 PC-29 September 6,2022 timetable. But if you continue to press then, you know, they're here, so they're going to render a decision. The State on the other hand, they have the local offices and then sometimes they punt to the Honolulu office. And so, you really don't when you'll come out. MS. DAVID: I know you didn't have an answer for that. MR. FUKE: Yeah, I don't have an answer. So you know, we've already reached out to Engineering Partners to approach the State Department of Transportation, just in terms of looking at what was previously conceptionally agreed to by the County Department of Public Works Engineering, and you know like, get their assessment of it. We don't know what they'll say right now. But Mr. Cowell, obviously, didn't want to expend the money to actually pull the trigger on that not knowing the outcome of the zone change. But that is the plan right now. And hopefully once we can get a conceptual approval by the State. You know knowing that the State has an obligation to allow access to the site one way or the other. Whether it's going to be for six lots or 15 lots, you know, if the zone change is approved, they're going to have that obligation. So, how best to achieve that circulation in a safe way, you know, that's going to have to be determined. So hopefully, you know, depending on where this application stands before the Council, we'll have the discussion with the State Department of Transportation. MS. DAVID: Okay. And then, that's my question too for the Director of the Planning Department. You folks are involved right now. Not power, but how much can the department do in trying to move this forward to resolve this access problem? Because right now, we're asking to move forward, basically with this access issue hanging over us. I'm not comfortable at this point not knowing. I didn't know the State didn't make up their mind yet or weigh in. So,that's my only thing. I think that we need to figure out on the State level and get that issue resolved. MR. FUKE: Well the condition requires, you know, whether it's stated or not,the condition already requires compliance with whatever the State determines to be. So if the State, for example,just wants to have that access purely from the Shiraki side and no more nothing, well, then that's what they'll have to live with. If the State then determines that maybe they need to have a channelized intersection, and I can't understand why they would need a channelized intersection to service 15 lots. But you know, if that's the conclusion, they have jurisdiction so the applicant would have to live with that, or forego the project and say okay, I'm just going to do six lots. You know so, unfortunately, Chair David, I don't have that answer to what the State position ultimately is going to be, but we hope that if engineers all think alike, but they don't necessarily all think alike. They'll think Page 11 PC-29 September 6,2022 like how DPW Engineering in Kona, you know, like traveling to this area and they'll agree that that's the best conclusion. MS. DAVID: Okay. Well, for now, I think we're still in Committee. So, I'm going to reserve my support of this until we have more discussion. And also, another thing, I need to really digest some of the written testimony that came in just on the last eleventh hour this morning, and then weigh in a little bit more next meeting we have. Okay, mahalo Chair. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Vice Chair Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. Thank you, Chair David, for those astute and insightful questions, as well as pointing out some of the poignancy of the testimony that we've received. It was a three-day weekend, so I know I received some comments from people that had a bit of a challenge in providing testimony at this time. I just have a couple questions from my narrow sphere of land use planning, and zoning changes in comparison to the work that's been done by many of you here. Is there any legal requirement that once the zoning is changed for this property that they actually build according to what the plan is? Whether or not it's the six or the 15, is there any legal requirement for that? MR. KERN: The conditions are what would govern that. Once you get the zoning changed. So in a special permit, it's very specific, but when you move to a change of zone it does have that broad ability to fit within what is allowable within that zoning. So these conditions are really what funnels it down to a more finite. MR. FUKE: Just to add to that. So, if the zoning is approved, then the zoning governs the maximum number of—you know, governs your density. So, the zoning would then—say like the maximum number of lots that this property can have would be like 15. Alternatively, if you have that zone change and the developer wants to have maybe 12 lots,then that would be possible. MS. VILLEGAS: Right. Okay. Then my other question is then, does it open up an opportunity for the current landowner to sell the land after, if these bills were approved? Once they get the zoning changed, they can sell it and not actually build the project, correct? MR. KERN: This would not take away the property owners' rights to do what they would with to do with the property. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, so does the passing of these bill, though, increase the value of this land? Page 12 PC-29 September 6,2022 MR. FUKE: To respond also to your first question. Yes, land use (inaudible) from my understanding run with the land. They don't run with the individual. So yes, the person would be in a position to convey the property to a family owner or to another developer. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Just in my experience, those are the things that bring up some concerns for me. Also at this time, there's a lot of concern in my community about the decisions that have just been made about the Action Committees related to the CDP. The CDP Action Committees, and the direct authors of the CDP and the Action Committees and those that have participated for decades now are highly concerned. And much of the testimony that's come in is expressing a belief that unfortunately the perspectives presented by yourself, Mr. Fuke, by the Planning Department, and by some of the interpretation by the Leeward Planning Commission is inaccurate of what the intention was of the CDP's. So I find that concerning. You know, you said, Mr. Kern that this was in alignment with the General Plan. How old is the General Plan and how far behind are we on the updated version? MR. KERN: The current General Plan is from 2005, and we are in the process of kind of the internal final review. So under my watch, we're right on time with the General Plan. It has been in the works for a number of years, though I believe, about five years. MS. VILLEGAS: I get it, but we're still 18 years behind if the current one was from 2005. MR. KERN: The work got started to update the General Plan about six years ago. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. The current General Plan that's on the books is 2005. So, when we say that something is in alignment with the General Plan, that's an 18-year-old document. A lot has changed on the west side and the east side of the Big Island in the last 18 years. So there's a lot of uncertainty and unrest right now from people. We need housing. I concur and completely agree that we need housing. But we need workforce housing. I myself feel very strongly that the equations related to affordable housing requirements based on developments haven't worked, aren't working, and have recently been exposed in Ponzi scheme. Things with the Federal Government, which is really unfortunate because that's what we need most. Page 13 PC-29 September 6,2022 I did not get through the testimony expressed that of these 15 homes the comment workforce housing, or housing built for people who have jobs, are very different. I mean, we've got, Kona has just been inundated with the mega-, mega-wealthy people who can afford to buy homes over asking price, cash. So in lieu of all these things happening, I find myself really struggling. I have great appreciation for the water credits and the consideration for mitigating the complete usage of water credits. Is this project currently set to connect to sewer? MR. FUKE: No,there's no sewer system in that area. So it's going to be used, you know, if it were to be developed, it's going to be developed with the septic system that's consistent with State Department of Health regulations. You know, to respond to your other question, I think, on that CDP issue and the General Plan. You know, the reference to the General Plan in 2005, sure. But it provides like—you know, the LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide) map provides you directions in terms of where growth should or should not occur. And the CDP was kind of like, on the Kona portion anyway, kind of went on its own and said like, well we can take into consideration the County General Plan, but we're also going to do our own thing. And so, you know, for us, like in a position of trying to advise clients, it's good to know like, what is it specifically that makes this project inconsistent with the Kona CDP. It's easy to say like, it doesn't comply with the Kona CDP. Then you have to ask the second question, what do you mean? Because here you have like, one of the testifiers—and here you have another person who testified earlier before the Planning Commission and who worked very intimately on the Kona CDP, Mr. Mike Matsukawa. He says that it's consistent. So, you know like, what goes on? You know so, that's why. MS. VILLEGAS: Opinions, everybody's got one. MR. FUKE: Everybody's got their own opinion. And so, from my simple perspective, I wanted to just direct all of the Council Members to the zoning map. And you know, that his clearly—it shows you where the property is in relation to all of the existing uses. So it's not, what do you call, what one would consider like a spot-zoning kind. It's kind of like an infill. So to those who say that this project is not consistent with the CDP, I want to know specifically what do you mean? MS. VILLEGAS: Good question and perhaps that's opportunity in the future, for that to be answered more specifically. Thank you for that, Mr. Fuke. I guess it all brings me to the point, access and road infrastructure. I know this roadway pretty well. It's very confusing already, even with the multi-million-dollar intersection that was put in there. And adding to some of that, I have concerns about. So I Page 14 PC-29 September 6,2022 suppose, I don't suppose. I concur that until the answer comes back from the State on what's going to happen here, I don't necessarily think that this is something that I can feel comfortable moving forward. What was consistently expressed throughout our communities during the pandemic was this was a pause to take an opportunity to revisit our infrastructure needs and the need to very consciously plan how we do things moving forward. You know, this sounds like this is a legacy family. I can't see you, Sir. I apologize. I feel like I might know you if we saw each other, but it's a little bit blurry. But a family that has owned a piece of property or been in their inheritance structure for over 100 years, I think this behooves a little more answers on what needs to happen on this roadway, because that is pivotal. And I know every time I open the newspapers somebody else is dying in an accident, and at all costs we don't want to add to anymore danger in those ways. So until we have an answer from the State, I'm going to be holding off on moving this forward to Council. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions or comments? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I will support my colleagues from the west side in their desire to keep this in Committees until they've had a chance to review testimony and get additional information at this point. I did have a couple of questions. We've had some conversations about other areas, which are looking to have a subsection that will have lots available at affordable rates. I've expressed to you that I think Chapter 11 is flawed in the term of affordability. Mr. Applicant are you willing to consider a provision in your affordableI'm sorry, Mr. Applicant. MR. FUKE: Mr. Cowell. MS. KIMBALL: Mr. Cowell. Thank you. Would you be willing to consider a longer term of affordability? So right now, Chapter 11 requires a 10-year term of affordability. I would like to as much as I can pursue—within the affordable housing agreements, you have the flexibility to make that a slightly longer period of time. If you were willing to consider that, I'd appreciate that. It's not going to come out as necessarily part of the rezone, but it's important to me to consider. MR. FUKE: Can you be a little bit more specific in terms of what do you mean by a longer term? MS. KIMBALL: Yes so, this has to do with the resale of the property. MR. FUKE: Oh, the resale? Page 15 PC-29 September 6,2022 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, so there are two things. And I'm going to use this opportunity to make sure my colleagues are all aware with respect to the sales of affordable lots, that there is time period by which it needs to be advertised as affordable and made available to eligible applicants. There's a time period of 210 days at which it's available at the affordable price to anyone regardless of income level. That to me is extremely problematic, especially when we're talking about lots, because the turnover to get a land loan takes a lot of time, especially if you're a lower moderate-income family. That, we don't have the flexibility to address at this point, and the affordable housing rate agreement would have to be changed in the code. However, the term at which the lot can be resold at the affordable price is something that can be modified within the affordable housing agreement. The standard in Chapter 11 is 10 years. So, if the applicant would be willing to consider a longer duration so that it would be tied to the deed itself, that would be something that I would find favorable about those three lots and this project. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I wanted to follow-up. I hear my colleagues about wanting input from Department of Transportation, and I don't know if there's any real mechanism within our change of zone application process to require them to comment now, without the applicant providing some level of subdivision plans, something for them to review to evaluate what that access looks like, right? And so,there's this kind of tug and pull about how much does a property owner kind of invest on an idea or a dream and/or estate planning while waiting for answer, which may take a while, to then only have a whole brand-new Council sitting in front of them with a whole bunch of brand-new ideas at that time. I just wanted to understand a little bit better on any mechanisms we may have to compel the Department of Transportation to respond. MR. KERN: Ask really, really nicely. That's about the best we can do. But I'm happy to put together a preliminary meeting with that and the applicant to talk story. I think having a fully big set of plans isn't necessarily practical with working with the State at that level and as Council Member Lee Loy said, there's a sequence of a process you work through. I do feel good that they worked through kind of that with DPW slightly. So I'm not anticipating an issue. So would that be something that the Council would be favorable to? We can talk story with the applicant and the representatives to have a meeting of the mind, or what they think or feel can be done within a reasonably short time period. I can do that. Page 16 PC-29 September 6,2022 MS. LEE LOY: Thanks Director. Yeah, I think we're back to certainty, right? That's actually what drives up costs on housing, is the uncertainty. And I don't think we're doing any favors to anybody right now when we're trying to address an affordable housing crisis, and we're still fumbling ourselves. So, I'm going to yield at this time, but support some time for the applicants, Director, and then you know, my colleagues to read through some of the information that's been provide. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'm going to suggest thank you, Director, for taking the lead on convening a conversation between the applicant and the State. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to just let Mr. Sniffen or Mr. Takeuye know that we need to have this conversation. Is two weeks a sufficient amount of time to connect with the State? It does not sound like we are going to be moving this out of Committee today. There are some things that you need to discuss, Mr. Fuke, with the applicant. So I just want to make sure I'm giving you a reasonable amount of time to have those discussions with the various stakeholders. MR. FUKE: You're talking about deferring this to next Planning Committee meeting and whether we would actually have a decision or at least some idea from DOT? I mean, I would recommend having it scheduled and then if for some reason we can't, you know, have the meetings of mind then it can always be postponed then without any hearing. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. May I have a motion to postpone Bill 201 to the September 20'h Planning Committee Meeting? We had one motion, and that was to forward Bill 201 to the Council with a positive recommendation. And so, we are taking each matter up individually. I'd like a motion to postpone Bill 201 to the September 20'h Committee Meeting. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 201 to September 20, 2022. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion on the postponement? Seeing none, all in favor please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 201 to September 20, 2022 to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Inaba and Richards —2. Excused: None. Page 17 PC-29 September 6,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Bill 202. I'll need a motion to forward this to Council with a positive recommendation. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Lee Loy moved to postpone Bill 202 to September 20, 2022. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion on the postponement of Bill 202? All in favor please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 202 to September 20, 2022 to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Inaba and Richards —2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Moving right along on our agenda. Mr. Clerk, if we could please take up Bill 205? We're taking up 205. Thank you very much. Bill 205: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 17-65 WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM AGRICULTURAL—20 ACRES (A-20a) TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL—20,000 SQUARE FEET (MG-20) AT KEA`AU, PUNA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 1-6-141:002 (Applicant: Ke`aloha Lani, LLC-formerly Hawaii Island Distilling, LLC) (Area: 6.505 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation to amend Condition E (Timing of Fire Flow Improvements) and Condition I (Timing of Roadway Improvements). The property is located east of Highway 11 (Volcano Highway), west of Railroad Avenue, and north of Highway 130 (Kea`au-Pahoa Highway) in Puna. Reference: Comm. 953 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 953.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated August 26, 2022,transmitting the transcripts from the Windward Planning Commission's August 4, 2022, meeting. Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 205 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Page 18 PC-29 September 6,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Hello again, Mr. Fuke. If you could please introduce yourself for the record and provide an overview of the request before Council. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Okay, this might be a more fun one, but—my name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a Planning Consultant, and I'd like to also acknowledge the presence of Kyle Lemmer. He's the Director of Operations for Waiakea Water. If you can look on your Bill 205 and look at the last page. You know, that shows where the property is situated. So,that gives you like a better handle in terms of where the property is. Because for those of you old-timers, if you know where the Kea`au kimchee factory used to be, Harry Kim's place, you know like, the parents' place. The property is right next to over there. You know, and but of course,the kimchee factory is no longer there. So, I kind of want to just give you some general background as far as this whole area. You know, way back when, maybe in the early 90's, this company called Hawaii Brewery Development and Hawaii Island Distilling, his name is Marcus Bender. He was the founder of Hawaiian Springs Bottled Water. So he developed the bottling plant on that site. One of those sites. Mr. Bender also was the founder of Blue Moon on Oahu. If you remember Kaka`ako area. And he's also the founder of Kai Vodka. So you know, he thought that this area had, you know, great artesian water, and so, he founded Hawaiian Springs. Great resource, and he wanted to create, like a so-called beverage community in that area, knowing that there's a lot of interest in Koloa Rum for example. You know, now we have in North Kohala, you have this Kuleana Rum that's coming on. Ms. Villegas understands very well about microbreweries, you know. And just for your added information, I'll just throw in, like Islander Sake is kind of coming and doing their own brewery at the former Hapuna Prince golf course area. So, there's a lot of interest in that and so maybe Mr. Bender—maybe it was a little prophetic in that sense;panasonic, you know, so of speak, yeah? But at any rate, so he secured special permits for about 13 or 14 acres of land. A portion of it was the Hawaiian Springs. And he also had this subject property rezoned to MG Industrial (General Industrial). For also to continue on this beverage kind of notion. He also developed a field of solar array, you know, on the 6.5-acre site, and that's being used to kind of help support a lot of these activities in this area. Page 19 PC-29 September 6,2022 Recently, the early part of this year, Ke`aloha Lani, which is this Waiakea Springs. They bought all of Mr. Bender's interest. So they're now the developers of this particular area, with the exception of the Hawaiian Springs Bottle Water. So, the Ke`aloha Lani, Waiakea Springs, right now they have a plant down in Keaukaha, but the water all comes from Kea`au. They're kind of like trucking it over, so what they want to do is actually now do the plant right in this particular area. So they've secured plan approval, they're going to be applying for a building permit, and hopefully, they're going to have it completed by October of next year. But here's the rub: so the rub is that currently if you look at Condition E, it requires extensive water improvements for fire protection. And these are improvements, like you know, your bre hydrants and your increasing your waterline, and you know, these are improvements that are tied into the subdivision process. If you subdivide, then you know, this whole so-called BMW level of improvements all kind of kick in. But the condition currently reads that, you know,prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, then all of these improvements have got to be in. So the rub comes now, here you have this solar array, or some kind of aif you're going to have like a storage shed or maybe just like an office building, you've got to put all of these improvements in, and it becomes so unrealistic. So what we're asking for, and the Planning Director and the commission have agreed, is that now in terms of when you apply for a certificate of occupancy for any building permit, that you give the Fire Department the discretion to determine what are the appropriate fire improvement requirements to address like water, you know, like bre suppression. However, if the land gets CPR'd (Condominium Property Regime) or get subdivided, then you have no choice. This so-called BMW level of infrastructure water improvements got to go in. So the other one is like on Condition I, relates to the roadway. And same thing, it says like prior to receipt of, you know, your CO (Certificate of Occupancy). You've got to put in all of this, you know like, full level of roadway improvements. So we're saying that, no, can you consider something less? And the something less is that, at least we will construct a minimum of 25-foot-wide roadway with eight-foot gravel shoulders on both sides. So if and when, like you know Waiakea Springs come in with their new building, they're going to be obligated to at least increase the roadway from 16 or 18-feet wide to 20-feet wide and put in the gravel shoulders. However, if the land gets subdivided, then you have to have the full nine yard of improvements. You know, and so, essentially that's the request that's before you. Department of Public Works, Fire, and the Water Department, they have no Page 20 PC-29 September 6,2022 objections to what we're asking for. So, likewise, we're requesting your favorable consideration of these proposed amendments. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Lemmer, I wanted to provide you an opportunity to address this body, if you'd like. MR. LEMMER: (Inaudible). CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you for your presence. Council Members any questions for the applicant or comments? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What is the intent of the parcel owner? MR. FUKE: What is the intent of the what? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Of the owner? MR. FUKE: They want to just kind of like continue this beverage community. So you know, they have like two areas that are available for development. One of which they're going to be applying shortly for the water bottling plant. They have another vacant property that's maybe available for either them or someone else to do a, you know,possibly a beverage facility or distill facility. So that's the idea. The solar array was designed to accommodate the electrical needs, the power needs of this whole area. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So the name of the MR. FUKE: The current owner right now is Ke`aloha Lani LLC. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then, I was looking at the background information on the change of zoning, and it's interesting that there is a—looks like originally, this was a fourteen-and-a-half-acre property. MR. FUKE: Yeah, actually, that's why I was trying to make reference to, you know, that map. You know, on that zoning map. The original area was roughly like about 20 acres in size. And so, they had like about 14 acres that was kind of like given a special permit, you know, for a beverage community. And a portion of this 15 acres is the site of the existing Hawaiian Springs. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So this Special Permit No. 842? This is what's in the background information for it, yeah? But that then applies to every lot as they're subdivided? MR. FUKE: Correct, yeah. Page 21 PC-29 September 6,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So it's grandfathering those rights in? MR. FUKE: No,there's two areas. You know like, that special permit covers a portion of the Hawaiian Springs and one of the sites that Waiakea Water wants to build right now. What we're amending is the area across from that area, you know, which is the six-plus acre site that was zoned General Industrial. And in that rezoning, there was this condition that says anything that happens, you know, on this zoned area—and this zoned area is the site of where you have the solar facility, so whether you put on a storage shed or your office building, then you have to put in this whole level of improvements, which you know like, "the punishment doesn't fit the crime." You know,that kind of stuff. So, we're proposing that condition to be amended to make it more realistic that the level of roadway improvements and the water improvements be commensurate with the proposed activity. And the safeguards would be having both Public Works and the Fire Department to specifically address that in conjunction with the building permit and occupancy permit process. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so the purpose of this application and for the applicant is to brew beer or bottled water, what they're going to do? MR. FUKE: No, it's like a beverage community which includes, you know, in the special permit area, it includes the ability to not only bottle water, but also to have a brewery, a microbrewery-type operation or distillery. Distillery like rum or vodka. Brewery like, for beer. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. I yield, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks Sidney. Actually, it's in my district. MR. FUKE: I didn't realize it's in your district. MS. LEE LOY: But I get it. I get it. It's Planning 101, right? If we want opportunities for economic development around this, as you call it, right, like a brewery community. MR. FUKE: A beverage community. MS. LEE LOY: A beverage community. We would create the infrastructure and the warehousing pieces, and the road infrastructure, and the water availability. Like, this is such a nice kind of microcosm of how community, especially our commercial-industrial area could work, and why I completely support this. Page 22 PC-29 September 6,2022 As you mentioned, some of the barriers were very high as far as the conditions for zoning on this particular property, but this one dovetails nicely along with the special permit. I'm going to be asking my colleagues to support this. I mean, it's right across an area with easy access to the highway. You know, we see a need to create light industrial and industrial economic opportunities away from the areas that we have now, because they're going through lease-hold issues. And so, I completely support this and look forward to advancing this to Council. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, we have a motion on the floor to forward Bill 205 to the Council with a positive recommendation. All in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 205: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 205 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—6. Noes: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1. Absent: Committee Members Inaba and Richards —2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Bill 205 moves to Council with a positive recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Fuke, for being here. Mr. Clerk, if we could please move on with the next order of business, Bill 204. Bill 204: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL—FIVE ACRES (A-5a) TO FAMILY AGRICULTURAL—ONE ACRE (FA-la) AT KAILUA-KONA, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-017:043 (Applicant: Siting Chen) (Area: 14.968 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone request, which would allow the applicant to apply for a subdivision of the parcel into 11 lots of at least one acre. The property is located on the south side of Hualalai Road, approximately 0.6 miles east of its intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, Wai`aha 1st, Puapua`anui 1st in North Kona. Reference: Comm. 952 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) and Comm. 952.1: From Planning Director Zendo Kern, dated August 24, 2022,transmitting the transcripts from the Leeward Planning Commission's July 21, 2022, meeting. Page 23 PC-29 September 6,2022 and Comm. 952.2: From Deputy Planning Director Jeffrey W. Darrow, dated August 25, 2022, transmitting a response letter, dated June 13, 2022, from Land Planning Hawaii Inc. Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 205 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Will the applicant and/or their representative please come forward? I also want to note the presence of our Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow over Zoom, and members of the Planning Team, Alex Roy and Jessica Andrews here in chambers. Thank you for joining us. (Note: At this time, Land Planning Hawaii Planning Administrator John Pipan and landowner-applicant Siting "Steve" Chen, M.D., came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PIPAN: Thank you very much, Committee Chair Kierkiewicz and members of the Council. Thank you for bearing with us. It's a long day, I know folks' stomachs may be grumbling at this point, so I'll try to be brief in my remarks. Sitting beside me is Dr. Steve Chen. He's the landowner and applicant on this rezone before us today. He's a medical doctor, specializing in Oncology. Nearing retirement, he bought this project to us last year with the idea to subdivide it into up to 11 lots. We look at the guidance; we look at the zoning and a need for a rezoning. And at its core, this project will allow for families to become part of the solution to island self-sufficiency. By creating the opportunity for several small diverse low-impact farms. The project has the potential to provide food and homes for 11 separate families, as opposed to one large 14-plus, nearly 15-acre lot. That to date, hasn't really yielded much in the way of productive agriculture. An acre is much easier to manage; in farm terms, can yield more than enough fruits and vegies for a family, a farmer's market booth, even wholesale to local restaurants. And we're seeing the many benefits of using fresh local ingredients trend in the community and the demand for those types of ingredients is increasing. So what's proposed here is the opportunity for families to provide for themselves and their community furthering the goals for more sustainable and self-sufficient food secure future. We look at the surrounding area. This requested zoning fits in. We've got Ag-1 to the north and mauka; we've got higher density Residential zoning, RS-10 on the makai side, and a mixture of residential zoning to the south in existing subdivisions. Page 24 PC-29 September 6,2022 And there's some interesting history with respect to land use on this parcel and the adjacent one. So in 2010, the makai side of this parcel, the neighboring property rather, was rezoned to RS-10. That ordinance has since gone stale. That parcel may be changing hands, so they would have to come back to you before developing any residential uses there, of course. This property, soon after that 2010 rezoning of the neighboring property pursued rezoning to, at first RS-10, and some feedback indicated that may be too dense. So they changed it to RS-15. So between 2010-2013, they got pretty far through the rezoning process. And in the end before the Planning Committee, couldn't come to reasonable development terms of the ordinance. So that project was withdrawn for a much higher density, okay, so it'll be like 40-43 units on this same 15-acre parcel. So, that's a higher-density option. Some testifiers have said that is appropriate for this site. It was tried, it didn't work. The status quo alternative is what you see now. Ag-5,the potential to develop two lots,period. Very little in terms of potential gains in housing inventory. And what we see here is like the Goldilocks scenario, not too dense, not too sparse, kind of just right Ag-1 (FA-la) (Family-Agriculture one acre). So, we look at the Kona CDP. We find that this is consistent with the Kona CDP. It is infill surrounded by entitled projects and built-out subdivisions. And the Kona CDP directs an increase in all types and tenures of housing, not just affordable projects. So we find it consistent in that regard,too. This is consistent with the General Plan. Neighboring uses are also consistent; Agricultural-Residential. The neighbors we consulted with early in this project are all in support. Both immediately to the north, to the south on the makai side, and a couple lots down, we've all got good feedback and support from them. The property is over a mile from the coastline. It's not going to be impacted by coastal hazards, shoreline erosion, anything of that sort,tsunami, not an issue here. All essential utilities and services are available to the property. The property is gently sloping, all in Zone 'X" There's no flood zone issues, so development should be relatively straight forward in that regard. And there's no impacts anticipated to traditional customary Native Hawaiian practices. There are no notable sites. An archeological survey was completed in 2005. The found six sites, mainly rock ranch walls and potential temporary habitation site. The recommendation from SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) have all been completed including data recovery, and we've got a no-effect letter from SHPD so that isn't really a concern. But regardless, if inadvertent discoveries are made, all work in that area will halt until the proper clearances are secured. Page 25 PC-29 September 6,2022 And traffic impacts for a potential maximum of 14 lots with the zoning, although we're only requesting 11, consistent with the water's that available right now, are insignificant. You know,the 2010 and 2013 rezones went through a traffic study. They didn't find any significant impacts from those much higher density projects. So those are all the negatives that don't really apply here. We don't see those red flags coming up. So what are the potential benefits? Fair share contributions, over $15,000 per lot to support area public services and facilities. A new County road will be built and dedicated providing for a connection both to developments potentially in the future on the makai side and to the south. That connector road will be put in at no cost to the County. The project will comply with affordable housing regulations as they stand. Two credits will need to be earned by this project. The project will also increase revenue to the County by increased property taxes. Not to mention, plain and simple, at its heart this project will create 10 additional fee-simple lots for establishing diverse, low-impact family farms when the County is in desperately in need of all types of housing and locally grown food at the same time. Considerable work went into crafting the conditions that you see before you today. And I want to extend a big mahalo to Deputy Director Darrow, and thanks for joining us today remotely. The Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission all did a lot of work to get this to this point. So, we'll gladly take all of your questions and respectfully request your favorable consideration to forward this to the Council. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Pipan. Dr. Chen, thank you so much for joining us. I did want to provide you an opportunity to address the Council. MR. CHEN: Aloha, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Siting Chen. I go by Steve. So, I got into this because I relocated to Hawaii a few years ago and was looking for a place to retire, and my dream place. You know, this is paradise. I made a big decision moving from the mainland to here, and I had a chance to look into different islands and different places. Actually, I lived in different places for a few months each time. And then I decided Kona is the best place. I really like it, so I decided to stay here. And I really was looking for something that I wanted to have after retirement, to have a healthy lifestyle and be able to do some agriculture work and (inaudible) and healthy stuff and be healthy. So stay away from the hospitals. So I got this idea, and so I talked to the local people and realtors and got into this land. I was advised this could be a very good place, and I was trying to reach only high density in the past and then there was strong community resistance. And then we said we don't want high density. I know, I just want to be, you Page 26 PC-29 September 6,2022 know, medium, the right place. So like that so people can find some parks and to do some agriculture and stuff. And we figured this could be a good solution, and I talked to the neighbors and then they're really excited about it, actually. It's a piece of land that's been sitting there vacant of no use and they're worried somebody may come in and build a new expensive luxurious estate or something like that. And so, I talked to them. They're very excited about it being like one-acre lots, and very much mentioned the surroundings. So that's why I got into this. I'm very excited about this, and I would appreciate a favorable recommendation from the members. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Dr. Chen, for being here. Council Members, any questions or comments? Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. Aloha, and thank you for being here again, gentlemen. You know, we had a great opportunity to meet and go over some of your vision and ideas for the utilization of this property. And something I was very honest about, and I try to be with anyone and everyone as it comes to land planning and zoning use is that my job is to represent the constituents of my district. And it makes it challenging because there's 22,000 of them. They don't always have the same opinion. I see through reading through the minutes that you have received approval from Mr. Van Bergen, who is the property owner, I believe just makai? MR. CHEN: Two lots down. MS. VILLEGAS: Two lots down. That's right, and there's one in-between. I've seen his house lot coming into fruition as time proceeds. But as I also am reading through these notes and minutes, one of the big questions that comes forth for me, because I remember before I ran for office, and this actually came before a prior Planning Committee, and it related to a redline. The redline that separates where the Urban—let me find it here so I don't miss—here it is. This came up back in 2011, and this property lies right on the red line, delineating Rural District from Urban District. And there was conflict in the past, and according to what was decided then the red line is there. And doing anything outside of that redline goes directly against the General Plan and the LUPAG Urban area. So, I have some challenges with that. I also have been reading through the testimony from a number of the very vocal members of the five communities that surround that area, and I will also say that this isn't a hot spot because there's already a current landowner who continues to try to navigate businesses outside the confines of our planning laws. And so it's a hot spot for other people that live Page 27 PC-29 September 6,2022 in that neighborhood or the surrounding residential neighborhoods for what's going on in this geographic area. But that's what comes up with me. I love the concept of one-acre farm Ag lots. My question is, there's no legal requirement once the zoning is changed for it to actually become that, correct? MR. PIPAN: No, incorrect. This would be minimum, one-acre lots. The State Land Use is still going to be Agriculture. That limits it to, at the smallest, one-acre lots. The zoning is going to be FA-la. You can't get anything else. You can get larger lots, sure. Dr. Chen wants to have the largest lot, three and change for his own. If I can go back to the question about the red line and the Urban area versus the Rural area? MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, that would be his own. Yeah, please. MR. PIPAN: We looked at this quite a bit because it is pretty obvious that that Kona Urban Area line cuts right, almost 50-50 through the middle of this property. So reviewing the notes from the previous attempts, they sought the determination of the then Planning Director on this General Plan LUPAG map determination. Because the Kona Urban Area roughly follows the General Plan's urban area designations. So, and Deputy Director Darrow, if you're available you can help bolster this argument, but that determination was made that this parcel falls into the Urban Expansion LUPAG map, and therefore the red line would follow Hualalai Road, not cut straight through the property. Is that more or less correct, Deputy Director? (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Can you folks see me okay? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. MR. DARROW: Jeff Darrow with the Hawaii County Planning Department. As mentioned, there's been a lot of discussion regarding the interpretation of the General Plan as well as the Kona CDP, Kona Urban Area. The General Plan basically goes through the property right through the middle. And so, as mentioned by John, that in the past this was questioned to be interpreted within the Urban Expansion Area. The entire property, which would go up to Hualalai Road and be consistent with urban expansion. Page 28 PC-29 September 6,2022 The Kona Urban Area follows that exact same one. And so, it's not meant to be a site-specific line. It's meant to be broad-brush, and that comes right out of the General Plan in the land use element section of the General Plan. That the policies and objectives of the General Plan are broad-brush. When you put it on for Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide map, it's not meant to be site-specific. It became site-specific when we took the map and put it on GIS (Geographic Information System). Everybody now interprets it site-specific, but that is not the intention. And so as mentioned previously, the owners of the property intended to try to move that line to one side of the property to make it within the Urban Expansion. As mentioned, it several times did not pass. So at this point, the line is moving now towards the makai boundary to be within the Important Agricultural designation as well as have that Kona Urban Area aligned with the makai side of the property, so it's not within the Kona Urban Area. It's a tough situation. We don't see this very often where the line splits right down the middle of the property, but we do have that ability to be able to use broad-brush determination. And I'm not trying to say that it's ridiculous when we say broad-brush. It's not a mile, it's not—it's normally a matter of hundreds of feet and that's about it. In this case, we took a review of the request. We are supportive of it. We feel that it is consistent in the interpretation, moving the General Plan and the Kona Urban Area to the makai side of the property. I hope that answers your question. I am here, I apologize for the noise, I happen to be in transition coming back to Hawaii now. MS. VILLEGAS: I thought you looked like you were in the airport. MR. PIPAN: And if I may, a little bit of follow-up for Deputy Director. That wasn't my exact understanding of where we were with the interpretation of the General Plan map. And forgive me if further discussions have gone on since then. But my understanding was this was within the Urban Expansion area. We were going to be consistent with that. The density is here controlled by the number of water units that are available, so we can only get up to 11 lots. So, one-acre lots make the most sense. It preserves that agricultural productivity of the parcel. So you know, we're not arguing for the line to be drawn on the makai side. That wasn't our request from the start. We want to continue to be within the Kona Urban Area. This project, we we've represented all along is infill, and that's consistent with the Kona CDP. Page 29 PC-29 September 6,2022 MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. With regards to traffic and the access points and increasing flow, the last time I drove it was in a poor state with a lot of potholes and whatnot. So what has come back as far as reports relating to that? MR. PIPAN: Yes, so we have a set of paired conditions, and thanks for the question, G and H. So our initial layout for the subdivision had two access points on Hualalai Road as cul-de-sacs, and we realized pretty early on that that wasn't going to be workable. We needed to provide for connectivity to the south and to the makai side. So we redrew things providing for this dedicable connector street, relocating that sole access to the far makai side of Dr. Chen's property, to allow for future connection from that previously rezoned property, Lot 42,just neighboring. So we recognize that, yeah, repairs are needed on Hualalai Road. We have provided in the conditions, the dedication of the future road widening strip along Dr. Chen's piece to be dedicated to the County at no cost to help facilitate future improvements to the road. And there's those funds reserved from the fair share contribution that would support area traffic impacts and improvements to Hualalai Road. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, which brings up this Lot 42, which I noticed in a bunch of the testimony also is one of the opportunity points it sounds like for transportation and also for sewer. Without it we stand to have a subdivision that does not connect to sewer, because we need that. Who owns Lot 42? MR. PIPAN: So, it's in escrow as I understand right now. So, Hukopa LLC, they were the party that secured the rezoning in 2010. They've run their clock out; their ordinance is stale. So in lieu of continuing the plans and coming back for you with this inability to perform on their conditions, it appears that they're looking to sell. So we've heard and talked with the potential buyer and they're in support of this. The trick is the sale hasn't closed yet. We don't know if it will be successfully purchased and transferred, so we don't know exactly who we're going to have to be working with. And furthermore, they're starting with a stale ordinance, which is essentially starting with(inaudible). MS. VILLEGAS: Who owns Hukopa? MR. PIPAN: It was, as I understand, the Barrett Family who was a part of this lot and the couple others in this MS. VILLEGAS: The Bolton property below? Page 30 PC-29 September 6,2022 MR. PIPAN: I think Bolton's is further north. No, it would go down to Ken's property. MS. VILLEGAS: Oh, Ken Van Bergen's. Okay, gotcha. Any idea who's in escrow to buy it? MR. PIPAN: I'm not sure if I'm at liberty to say. I don't want to speak out of terms. MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha, can't help but ask. Okay, so those are some complications. There are some complications. MR. PIPAN: Yes, for sure. So, we talked a lot with the Planning Department, Department of Environmental Management, on the sewer issue. They had initially come back with a requirement to connect to the sewer citing that dead end part of the sewer line on a cul-de-sac that was within 300 feet of Dr. Chen's property, it would require over 500-plus feet of extension just to reach Dr. Chen's property from the nearest actual feasible connection point. It's a big ask, and especially when we're trying to offer these homes not homes, but lots,to local families. Affordable land, right, that's the intent. So, tacking on potentially $1 million dollars easily and requiring a sewer line kills this project outright. And we're back to our initial condition of Ag-5 zoning and maybe getting two lots. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, I have a hard time with that, I suppose, we've got to start sewering. We cannot, yes, go ahead. MR. CHEN: May I say something please. So,the sewer, I'm totally with you. I'm big with the environment, and conservation in the community. So totally I'm that kind. So, but with regard to this one, now it's basically not feasible to connect. So basically, it's not available, right? If it was available, I would be happy to connect. I mean I would be in favor of that. Without being able to connect, with total uncertainty with Lot 42, there could be a whole lot more uncertainty. They're set to close, but I'm not sure. I heard from some people, and they said a lot of uncertainty about that, right. And it varies, they might not want to sell, and they may want to keep it as, you know, family forever. So, it's been there for couple of decades already. So it may be there forever. So without them being developed, there would be no chance of a sewer being available. Without that being available, so the alternative is individual treatment system, which actually will have data to show that it could be, you know, by environmental standards, very comparable to a sewer. Of course, I'm happy to connect to a sewer if available. But if not, by environmental needs an individual treatment system would be very comparable to fulfill all the environmental standards, and it was approved by DOH (State Department of Health), right? So,that will fulfill that part of it. Page 31 PC-29 September 6,2022 And also big with you, I see the committee, everybody's pushing hard to solve the crisis of affordability. I'm also with that. And the reason I got into this is about affordability. I couldn't find anything really affordable to do what I needed to do. So this is one way to actually lower the cost. So you know, when we're talking about affordability, it's a whole spectrum. It's not just one pocket. The market is interlinked, right? If you provide more in a different pocket, it's basic general availability. If you provide more availability, then you ease the problem. Because it's all interlinked. For example, if you were to say, somebody want to try to buy some land, some property they couldn't afford and they have to go into a lower one, which is fine with other people, which actually jacks up all the prices. It causes more crisis. That's why we're in crisis. MS. VILLEGAS: No, our crisis is related to other things, but I appreciate the perspective you're trying to portray. MR. CHEN: Anyway, well it is a spectrum, it's the whole market. We're more linked in a way. If you provide more affordability, that will contribute to solving the problem. So now,the sewer is not available right now, and we're talking about extending, you know, beyond 500, and basically will increase everything. Structure, costs, and becomes not feasible at all. The project will not be feasible at all. So I think this represents a more reasonable solution as it stands. It is what it is. I mean we try to be perfect about it, but this may be as perfect as possible. MR. PIPAN: If I may? Condition P, and coincidence aside, sorry. The method of sewage disposal. So this would require connection to the sewer if it becomes available to this property prior to subdivision approval. So there is part of these conditions that say, yes, this development would be required to connect to the sewer if it becomes available to his parcel. Now,that's kind of a race between this subdivision and potential developments that could come forward on that Lot 42. But this is the best that I think we can do that's reasonable. Again, this is a very low-density subdivision. Department of Health says that septic systems are appropriate, and they'll all have to be designed by registered Hawaii Civil Engineers. So, I think in this case we shouldn't make the perfect, the enemy of the good, right? MS. VILLEGAS: I understand and respect what you're saying, but I have been to a Department of Health presentation where they did provide all the documentation and science that shows that septic systems actually take a little longer, but they leach just as much straight into the ocean, and they proved it at Puako. Page 32 PC-29 September 6,2022 So as we move forward, especially in District 7, one of my great concerns is that we are attaching to infrastructure, and we are not creating variances or exceptions. They're justI guess at this time, and I want to respect you, Mr. Chen, and your visions for creating a space for you to live a healthy lifestyle and provide an opportunity for other families ideally who already live here and are at a time and place in their lives to be able to purchase a lot or a home. I'd be interested to explore a little bit more of what Ms. Kimball talked about in some requirements on those lots. Moving forward I know there is a requirement for affordable housing. However, I have not seen that work in the history of our County, and we just kind of perpetuate where we've headed. I have concerns about the access point and the sewering. Those are very big issues especially with the Wai`aha Stream Bed that runs right pass there and the aboveground and underground water that travels through this area, which directly affects our coral reef ecosystems. We've had a number of brown water events outside of that area. So, there are some other issues here that I still have a little heartburn about, but I appreciate your vision and your desire to create the space. We just are in a really pivotable and at an odd tipping point. So unless it is directly workforce affordable housing, I have to ask very deep and intricate questions with lots of details about anything else transitioning Ag properties at this time. So thank you, with that I'll yield, and I'd love to hear from my colleagues. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Before I go to Council Member Chung, Deputy Director Darrow, you had your hand up. Did you want to weigh in on any part of the conversation? MR. DARROW: Just to clarify what representative John Pipan had mentioned. As mentioned previously, this property is split in half with the General Plan line as well as the Kona Urban Area line. One half its urban expansion. The other half is Important Agriculture Land. In the past,the request has been low-density development, single-family residential, which was more consistent with urban expansion, which allows a multitude of types of zoning: high-density, medium-density, low-density, commercial-industrial. It doesn't mention agricultural, but half this property is in Important Agricultural Land. The family-agricultural is consistent with that half of the General Plan on the property. And that's what I wanted to make sure that we understand, is that, you know, low-density is typically six units per acre or more. This is one unit per acre, which is again, (inaudible)properties. The applicant is proposing I I lots on a I4.9-acre property. Very low density. Lower than low density. There are a number of factors that we struggled with and worked with the applicant, as well as went through a lot of discussion at Planning Commission. One was the discussion of sewer and hookup. The applicant is there's a Page 33 PC-29 September 6,2022 condition that restricts the construction of only one-dwelling unit per acre. If the applicant chooses to go beyond that, they will have to come back to Council, and at that point, most likely be required to hook up the sewer. The other condition that I believed touched upon was that the applicant is going to be given a large chunk of his property along Hualalai Road within the subdivision actions that will go as a future road widening towards the County to be able to improve Hualalai Road in the future. It's not going to be upon request. It's going to be part of the subdivision action, where the applicant gives that portion of land to the County for future improvements. I can mentionI can't go into detail, but I have spoken to somebody that was in escrow for this property, and my understanding is they're looking at doing an affordable housing project here, which I'm sure will come before the Council. So that's something to keep in mind. Moving forward, we're trying to create connectivity to try bring in the infrastructure. If that project moves forward pretty quickly, then this project will also be required to hook up if it approves prior with the final subdivision permit. Thank you for time to be able to bring clarity. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Deputy Darrow. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: John, Dr. Chen, you know, I don't think anybody can dislike that vision that you have with the smaller lots for agriculture. But, of course, knowing full well that, you know, right now with technology, we're able to modify things and adapt. Even with poor soil quality you can still farm. But you know, when I look at the Agricultural land classification, it seems that two-thirds of the subject property is classified as poor. And then, only one-third, good. How do you rectify that in light of your vision, and what kind of assurances basically can you give us that this is not just going to be some gentleman's estate? Because if it is intended to be,just let us know. I mean, at least, you know, be straight up, right? So, that's all. MR. CHEN: Okay, I walked through the property, so I know it actually is. So there's only a few pockets, mostly very rocky. Just rocks. You can't do any agriculture at all. But there are some pockets. Pockets with very good native soil, but very small pockets. So, hey, this is very good pockets for a vegetable garden. So I thought this is perfect for individuals, you know, smaller lots. And you do small-scale agriculture. You can put in some trees and some vegetable plots like that. Very small pockets. So, the size of the table like that, here and there, a few places. So this is perfect. Because otherwise, there's no meaning for agriculture at all. Right now, you can grow some grass and graze by horses and stuff. Now, yeah, it's just some native growth, but not even the grass will do very well,just some native growth. Just dry resistant soil. Page 34 PC-29 September 6,2022 MR. CHUNG: So these pockets are about the size of the table, maybe larger? MR. CHEN: Different areas, yeah, different areas. And some areas areI mean, of course they're surrounded by some rocks. There are different areas. Some areas, maybe more. You know, some areas I couldn't access. But I see some places and I say, this is the perfect spot. Just make vegetable gardens, so like that. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, so, while we're on the topic, though, how many such spots are there on the entire parcel? Many of them? MR. CHEN: You see this once in a while. I cannot say in entirely the entire area to be honest with you. Because some of this is overgrowth, right, you cannot get in. But I saw just by walking that, you know, the trails that I can walk through I saw some pockets. I saw maybe five or six of them already, but there could be a few more. MR. CHUNG: So I mean, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but basically then, it's for just small at-home gardening, not for taking it to the farmer's market or selling. MR. CHEN: Well, you never know how much they can grow though. Once you grow by individual families, more topsoil on it and it'll grow. Like, for example, actually one of my neighbor rents at farmer's market. And in her back yard she grows so much of stuff,just in her back yard. Her yard is only one-third of an acre of that lot, right? She grows so much stuff. Dragon fruit and all kinds of stuff. And she's so happy of the profit that's she making out of it. MR. CHUNG: And again, you know, I preface my questions by saying, we all know that you don't need soil now days to do certain things, right, but you know, I had to ask, right? Okay, well, thank you. MR. CHEN: Okay, sorry. MR. PIPAN: No, I think you hit it on the head pretty much. Yeah, the smaller lots, the one-acre lots allows more intensive management by a family. So, my vision—you know, I farm. I've been living on the same five-acre property outside of Honoka`a going on 12 years now. We've tried pretty much everything. I've always needed at least one or two other jobs to make the farm work. And you know, it's tough. Page 35 PC-29 September 6,2022 You look at the broad scale, the map's say one thing. They say, this area is poor; this area is good, but you've got to look at the micro. You've got to look at, okay here's a rocky spot; here's a steeply sloped area. So, the smaller lots allow for that. They allow for more intimate connection with that plot of land, and more intensive management. So, you'd be amazed with what you can do with just one acre. And I think we would be amazed with what each of these families could do with that one acre. MR. CHUNG: I mean, yeah, I understand that you can do a lot with one acre, even if you have small pockets. I mean since we're on the topic now; but you know, but I cannot help in the back of my mind, you know, worrying about the creation of gentlemen estates, when you're going to get, maybe, real property tax breaks. But as I said, it is what it is. You know, I mean if you guys' plan to do something,just let us know. I just have to compartmentalize all of these things in my brain. MR. PIPAN: If I may. We're not requesting a change to the State Land Use Agriculture designation. And that requires, that mandates any dwelling be associated with an active farm. Now, enforcement of that State law is another question entirely and probably a much longer discussion that we don't want to have right now. But that's in the laws. Each of these homes is required to be a part of an active farm. MR. CHUNG: Right, but I'm just saying, you did state at the frontend of your presentation that that was the vision, right? Breaking these up into smaller, you know, maybe economies of scale, I guess, to make it easier for people. And I think I heard, you know, farmer's market, something like that. Anyway, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'll keep it quick. Mr. Darrow, for some reason I thought I remember hearing that the Family-Agricultural has been discontinued or wasn't an option going forward. And apparently, I'm completely wrong, but can you just give me some background on that. I swear I heard that before out of Mr. Kern or a previous director. MR. DARROW: That might have been a different classification that we have within or Zoning Code, called Intensive Agriculture. It's rarely used. In fact, I don't even know if we have any. I think it's going to be not continued as we move forward with our changing our code. Family-Agriculture is, once you go below five acres, Agriculture-five acres, our Zoning Code says the minimum lot size within the County's Agriculture district is five acres. But the minimum lot size for a property within the State Land Use Agricultural district is one acre. And to go below five acres in our County requires to go through a change of zone Page 36 PC-29 September 6,2022 to Family-Agriculture whether Family Ag-I, 2, 3, or 4. So it very much is relevant and used quite a bit around our County. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you Mr. Darrow, appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Mr. Applicant Number 2. Did you hear my previous conversation with the other applicant about the affordable housing in terms of affordability? Okay,just if you want to bring ideas back next time we meet on this. I want to just reflect a little bit on the comments my colleague made about the connection to wastewater. And you know, it's more than just the environmental issue, which is certainly critical and important, but the problem we've had with wastewater is having the volume of connections to create the revenue to support repair and maintenance of the facility. And so I appreciate the way it's written, because it would be problematic from a cost prohibitive to connect right now, but I want to ask Deputy Darrow,the provision in there that states that the applicant would have to connect to wastewater should it become accessible, is "accessible" defined in the Subdivision Code? Is it like a certain distance? When does it become accessible, because I do think it's important to try to connect as many people as we can, so we can keep the facilities with the lights on, right? But what does accessible mean as it's defined in this ordinance? MR. DARROW: The way that we were viewing the term "accessible" in this particular request was that of the makai lot that we've been speaking about does get developed, again we can't go into detail, it's in escrow but there has been discussion of a development coming forward on that particular piece of property and it could happen pretty quickly. If that does happen and the sewer is brought up through that lot from where it is currently and is in the immediate area of Mr. Chen's lot, then at that point we'd consider that accessible. And I believe again, he has mentioned it too, that if it does come to that point, he would hook up to the sewer. And we've made it part of that as a condition. The only factor that we're looking at in Condition D is timing. If Mr. Chen happens to move through final subdivision pretty quickly, before the other property is developed, then he would be able to proceed with the septic system. If there's delays and the other property is developed, at that time he will be required to connect to sewer. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, is requirement to connect to sewer a possible condition of the subdivision as well, so that time component is not as relevant? Page 37 PC-29 September 6,2022 MR. DARROW: Unfortunately, I don't have that information right here. I think it would be something we look to DEM (Department of Environmental Management) again if it were within that 300-foot area. Then at that pointI mean not bird's-eye, but actual development within 300 feet of the line being put in. When we send out the subdivision for comments,that comment would come back requiring connection. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, thank you. I think what I'd suggest, if you don't mind is when we revisit this for the next hearing, if you'd come back with some sample language, regardless of whether or not the adjacent lot sells or not, I think you can define "accessible" specifically. And so, I'd like to see some proposed language around that. Thank you, I yield Chair. MR. DARROW: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question. And Jeff, I don't know if this is for you or John, for you. When we talk about the property must be associated with agriculture. Is that agriculture within the property or it can be an entity unrelated to that property? And where I'm going with this, as a cowboy owning horses, but works for a ranch somewhere else. MR. PIPAN: Go ahead, Jeff, and I'll follow up. MR. DARROW: Yeah, normally when you build a farm dwelling, which this would be, each dwelling on these properties would be considered a farm dwelling. That dwelling has to be associated with agricultural activities consistent with a working farm. Now,the first farm dwelling is not as enforced as the additional farm dwellings that are requested, but it is a requirement of State law within Chapter 205-4.5 that means dwellings or farm dwellings associated with farming activities on the property, not elsewhere. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, because I know there's some programs under USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)that you could farm dwelling off of the farming property, and my understanding, that was okay within our County. But what you're saying here under this land use, we cannot? MR. DARROW: I think it would be a case-by-case bases. If someone came in and—it can read in 205, if you're an actual working farm and you have several farming properties, those farming activities that are also associated with your farm elsewhere, can be part of that farming activities. But again, I'm not sure exactly what you're speaking about, but we have had situations where property owners don't just own one property, they have multiple farming entities on other properties, and it's all considered part of that working farm. Page 38 PC-29 September 6,2022 MR. RICHARDS: Okay, and I don't want to take a lot more time on this. Where I'm thinking with this is if a ranch bought two or three lots for cowboys and they kept a horse down there periodically and they had workforce housing down there, but the actual agriculture is someplace else. And so, that's where I'm going with that, and we can visit on this later. Thanks Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else that hasn't had a turn yet? Ms. Lee Loy, you haven't spoken on this measure. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. You know, I'm getting the sense, especially from the representative of the district, that this one's funky. I just kept looking at this, and Mr. Pipan, if you could just indulge me for a little bit? I know this area very well. Hualalai Road, very narrow, very winding, and it's because it was established as an Ag road. And so, as we're trying to do these infill projects and pull in the infrastructure, you keep banging up against this line, right, where Ag is meeting rural urban expansion. And this property is beautiful. Beautiful views. Terraced perfectly. And I can understand why another one of my colleagues is just wondering out loud if this is going to turn into a gentleman farms, because there are very beautiful views. What I like about this application is the condition for that road widening at Hualalai. I think that will help community, because I know, Puapua`a is a heavily traveled road. We've got a lot of residential units utilizing that road, but they're all trying to cut through the cutties is what we call it in planning terms, right? Find a little bit quicker way out. I heard my colleague talk about some time to let the other properties kind of come forward with their plans, and there might be an opportunity to connect to some much-needed infrastructure and connectivity with some stub outs. And you know, so for all these reasons, I think we're there, but maybe a little patience where we can manage this particular property along with the two adjacent properties, both to the south and makai. Because if I did hear Mr. Darrow correctly, there's some affordable housing that's being proposed and may be on the horizon rather quickly. And when I say quickly, in housing terms, within the next four to six months. And I think listening to my other colleagues wanting to see how maybe we can refine some of these conditions of approval that might dovetail the need for community: better infrastructure, better roadway access, while still fitting into this idea of family Ag, I think is incredibly neat from a planning perspective. Because if I envisioned this area correctly, you're going to have probably upwards of 800 to 1,000 residential units that actually might need these farmers with a farmers' market down at the park. Page 39 PC-29 September 6,2022 So, I actually think this is kind of nice boutique area that could lend itself to when we talk about walkable communities, community connection, and then lending itself where there isn't that bigger need on reliance on getting in our cars, I think we're close. And so for those reasons, I'm going to look at my colleague, Ms. Villegas, if this is something we want to postpone for a little bit and see what happens with some other things that are coming up, I think you guys will be kind of closer to the goal line while all these other things come forward, and/or developing some refined conditions of approval. Because I saw you guys in the room earlier too, because I also believe if we want you to be successful, some of these timing elements especially when it talks about agency review, that the clock should stop. It's not on the applicant to have to wait a year or two and grind through five years when really all you maybe have had is 24 to 36 months to do the work, while an agency or a department has gobbled up two years of that five-year window. So those are my thoughts, and Chair and Ms. Villegas, you know, I will be supporting a little bit of a pin in this one while we continue to work with the applicant and some conditions of approval. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great,thank you. Any other final questions or comments? MS. VILLEGAS: Just one more thing to toss in there because it came to mind as one of the challenges we're having as a County, is some of these lawsuits and legal decisions coming down about State Ag properties and short-term vacation rentals. And that would be something that I would definitely want included in some kind of agreement with this. Because gentleman farms are one thing, but then to have them turned into vacation rentals would be—and I know it's something you say "no" about, but once you've sold the lot, that person owns it and whether or not they authentically become a gentleman farmer or actually provide agriculture to our farmers markets, I'd love to say I still trust in humanity as much as I used to but too often we're a little more challenged which is why we have to have laws. And I just had one other question about ag taxes then, because that was something that Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder had brought up earlier, as we looked at our property taxes. Ag land under one acre is no longer provided the tax exemption at Ag tax rates. So what happens with these properties that are one acre? Do they pay ag taxes, or do they pay residential? Do they get that ag loophole? Page 40 PC-29 September 6,2022 MR. PIPAN: Thank you for your questions. It sounds like in reverse order,they wouldn't get that ag tax break, and that's just the way it is. A smaller lot, you know, you're not dealing with large acreage, so it kind of makes sense to pay the going rate. And respect to short-term vacation rentals, those aren't allowed on Ag zoning. If someone did want to do short-term overnight accommodations, like a bed and breakfast, they would have to go through a special permit; they would have to go to the Planning Commission for approval of that. That's a discretionary permit, it's subject to public review, so that would be on a case-by-case basis. Short-term vacation rentals are not a possibility here,just with the zoning. MS. VILLEGAS: I don't know, somebody just challenged that and won. So,that opens some challenges for me there. But I'm going to yield at this time because I believe we've got a potential postponement. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Do you have anything to add, Ms. Lee Loy, substantive? MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I just wanted to—something Ms. Villegas touched upon, which I completely forgot to mention. Ag tourism is a permitted use in this zoning. And so, as Ms. Kimball talked about, restrictions or you know, the reselling of affordables and that time limit, the applicant would think about maybe some deed restrictions around that. I don't know. This is something that we know is going completely transform that area, but when we talk about traffic impacts, if it's used for ag tourism, you're going to have people coming, like a short-term vacation rental who will have to traverse one side of this road is kind of ag in nature, but the other side which is very urban in nature. And so,just, Mr. Pipan, give those things some thought, and I think there's ways to really kind of address that within our conditions of approval. I yield. MR. PIPAN: Okay, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. Mr. Pipan, Dr. Chen, thank you so much for our presence today. I think you've heard a lot of great insights from my colleagues. I'm going to ask that you work with Vice Chair of the Planning Committee, Council Member Rebecca Villegas on some potential amendments. You are welcome to reach out to my office for support as well, and I know the Planning Department will also provide some mana`o. But we are looking to postpone this measure for one month. And so we will be coming back, which I think is a reasonable amount of time to work through a lot of the issues that have surfaced today, but we are looking to postpone to the October 4h meeting, which is back here in Hilo. I just wanted to let you folks know. Page 41 PC-29 September 6,2022 MS. VILLEGAS: Just so you folks know, we have a Planning Conference next weekend. And then our County is hosting the Hawaii State Association of Counties annual conference, which I've been really involved in. So,thank you for extending me that extra timeframe. September is absolutely insanity right now. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, may I have a motion to postpone Bill 204 to the October 4h Planning Committee? Motion to Postpone: Ms. Lee Loy moved to postpone Bill 204 to October 4, 2022. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion on the postponement? MS. KIMBALL: I just want to actually ask the applicant if they prefer if we postpone it to a Kona meeting on the 18'h of October. MR. CHEN: Sure, whichever works for you all, then I'm okay. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: That adds two weeks. That's a month-and-a-half until we're going to see you again. MR. CHEN: Yeah, that'll be good. Yes, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: So we will amend that motion. Mr. Clerk, do I need to have the maker withdraw? Okay, thank you. May I have a motion to postpone Bill 204 to the October 18'h Planning Committee meeting. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Lee Loy moved to postpone Bill 204 to (Amendedl October 18, 2022. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor please say Ic aye. Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 204 to October 18, 2022 to Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Inaba—2. Excused: None. Page 42 PC-29 September 6,2022 CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: That brings us to the end of the agenda. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 1:58 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David, and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz— 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Inaba—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Committee is adjourned at 1:58 p.m. Thank you. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (D te) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 43