Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2022/09/20 2020-2022 Committee on Planning 30th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawai i September 20, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at 9:30 a.m., ORDER: the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (came in later) Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (came in later) Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Absent& Excused: Ms. Heather L. Kimball, 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: Dwight Vicente: Bill 201 (Comm. 945) and Bill 202 (Comm. 945) comment. Mike Vitousek: Bill 201 (Comm. 945) and Bill 202 (Comm. 945) comment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, Mr. Clerk, if we could please start with Bill 202? BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the of Business: following item was taken out of order: PC-30 September 20,2022 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. (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Ms. Kimball, to recommend passage of Bill 202 on first reading.) Reference: Comm. 945 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed: September 6, 2022 (Note: Communications 945.1, 945.2, and 945.3, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 202, were circulated.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. You know, at our last committee meeting, Council Members, there was a robust discussion around Condition E, especially as it relates to traffic and any type of mitigation plans that must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Transportation. Council Members expressed wanting to have a bit more specificity around what exactly that meant. And so our office worked to convene a conversation with Department of Transportation, including Ed Sniffen, Harry Takiue and their team, as well as the applicant and their representatives Sid Fuke, John Shaw; we also had representation from the Planning Department. I want to open up discussion on this particular amendment, so we can talk story about it a bit more and also hear from, I believe we have Harry from Department of Transportation on to just kind of give us the State's position on this particular amendment and how we are proceeding. So, if I could please get a motion to amend Bill 202 with the contents of Communication 945.1? Motion to Amend: Ms. Lee Loy moved to amend Bill 202 with the contents of Comm. 945.1. Seconded by Ms. David. Page 2 PC-30 September 20,2022 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Takiue, are you and your team on? Great, if you could just introduce yourself for the record. (Note: At this time, State Department of Transportation District Engineer, Highways Division, Harry Takiue came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. TAKIUE: It's just me. Hi everyone, my name is Harry Takiue, I'm the District Engineer for the Department of Transportation, Highways Division. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Awesome. Thank you Harry, and if you could just provide us an overview of the State's position on this particular amendment that we're discussing today. Something that was developed really in collaboration with our office, your department, and the applicant. MR. TAKIUE: Sure. Our position is, you know, we support this development and this subdivision. The only concerns that we had was, you know, we just required that a State licensed engineer submit a traffic assessment, prepared for our review and approval. And you know, the concern was just basically, we feel okay with, there was an alternate entrance that we still have some questions on. Well actually, we have some questions on both, but the traffic assessment should, you know, clear things up. And basically, yeah, we're in agreement with it. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. So just to confirm and reiterate,the applicant is going to be doing the traffic assessment, identify various recommendations; possible improvements that must be reviewed and approved by the State, and they are to comply with that. MR. TAKIUE: Yes. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. I do want to call up the applicant and their representative. Mr. Fuke, Mr. Shaw, if you could come forward? Just want to make sure you're on board with this amendment, and if there's a representative from the Planning Department, I do want to make sure I have for the record, their review and approval of what's before us. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke and the applicant John Shaw came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Hi, good morning, my name is Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant. I'm here representing the applicant. First of all, I would like to acknowledge our appreciation, Madam Chair, Planning Committee Chair, for your practical and, you know, solution-oriented approach on this matter. Page 3 PC-30 September 20,2022 As you indicated, we had a nice discussion with the State Department of Transportation representative, in addition to Mr. Takiue, who is responsible for the Hawaii Island traffic highways' matters. We also had Deputy Director for the State, Ed Sniffen. So the participation was very embracive. As a result of that, came forth with the proposed conditions and essentially basically, the draft of the proposed condition, which was subsequently modified by the State, essentially would say that a State licensed engineer would have to prepare a traffic assessment study, and that assessment study would specifically look at, you know, the alternate accesses making sure that there is enough sight distance; looking at appropriate mitigations for whether you're going to have one or two, and looking at the projected number of lots. You know, obviously if you have six lots versus like 25, versus 15, our mitigation on the highways portion may vary. So, the evaluation is going to be predicated upon like a 15-lot subdivision. And based on that the State has to approve it. They have to be completed before final subdivision approval can be issued, and I think the language that was ultimately structured which is now before the committee reflects that. And so, the applicant is prepared to do all of those things and find that proposed condition acceptable. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Planning Director, Zendo Kern, anything to add? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Good morning all, Zendo Kern, Planning Director. You know, Jeff Darrow was there, Deputy Director, as part of the conversation till everything worked out appropriately. And we're fully supportive of the revised condition. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you. I also just want to acknowledge for the record,that Council Member Aaron Chung has joined us, and Matt Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. Thank you. Alright Council Members, any questions, comments, discussion on the amendment before us? Again, that's Communication 945.1. Vice Chair Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. I have some questions, but it actually, I'm not sure of the protocol of when to ask them, because they relate more to the difference between Communication 945.1 and 945.2. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, we needed to make some clarifications to the amendment. So just want to clarify, Mr. Fuke, .1 (945.1) is the one we should be considering? Page 4 PC-30 September 20,2022 MS. VILLEGAS: Now we're on 945.2. MR. FUKE: Yes, this is a proposed amendment that we had reviewed also with the applicant as well and found it to be acceptable. If this amendment were approved then it would be part as a condition of the change of zone and not the State Land Use Boundary amendment portion. There are two applications. The first one dealing with reclassification from Agriculture to Urban. And the second one is rezoning the property from Ag-1 (Agriculture) to RS-10 (Residential). And so, this proposed condition would be on the rezoning portion. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And so .1 is what we're discussing. If you take a look and compare, .1 includes an additional sentence that we received from the Department of Transportation. It's additional language they want to include. So, that's the only one we'll be discussing today; .2 (945.2) was an earlier version. MR. HENRICKS: Madam Chair, and maybe there's some confusion there. I'm not exactly sure why it seems like it should be the other way around, but I don't know why it was numbered this way, and that might be causing some confusion. Because .1 actually evolved out of.2. So, I'll look into that, but I apologize if that's causing any misunderstandings of what the process is. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: It's okay, don't worry about it. I just did a double-check to make sure we had, in fact, the correct amendment before us for consideration. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you, for clarifying that I wasn't crazy. I was thinking .1 to .2. But instead we're going .2 to .1. And that actually does clarify any concerns that I did have because that sentence seemed very important and was included in version .1 and not .2, as well as the terminology of"shall" versus "will." So,thank you for clarifying and confirming that following numerically wasn't the wrong thing necessarily for my mind to do. Appreciate it. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: No worries, Mercury's still in retrograde, but we deal. Alright. Mr. Richards, if you have any questions or comments feel free to just give a holler, okay? Any other questions or comments on this particular amendment? Chair David. MS. DAVID: Yes. Thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz. Mr. Fuke, thank you for explaining that and for clarifying that we are considering not .2, but .1. Yes, because that had a lot of questions from myself as well. That last sentence stays in. The "shall's"remain in, and this will not—final subdivision approval will not be done until DOT (Department of Transportation) completes their assessment, right? Page 5 PC-30 September 20,2022 MR. FUKE: So in terms of the steps, the first thing that has to be done is the traffic assessment would have to be prepared by a licensed engineer; submit to the State Department of Transportation. They're going to have to agree. You know, if they don't agree then well, we have to go back to the drawing board. Once they agree, then obviously construction drawing pursuant to that, you know,to address all of the mitigation, it'll have to be prepared. The improvements have to be in pursuant to the construction plans before final subdivision approval can be issued. MS. DAVID: Okay. And so, their application basically remains pending until that happens? MR. FUKE: The application is filed, it gets reviewed, and you know like, construction drawings for the roadway system; while that's you know, for this highway, improvements have been done. The construction plans are also for the interior system, and also has to be prepared, so that will probably be going on concurrently. MS. DAVID: Tandemly, okay MR. FUKE: So once the construction drawings for both the interior as well as the exterior portion are all approved and then completed, then the appropriate agencies where the State DOT would certify completion. The Water Department would certify completion of the water system. Public Works will certify completion on the interior road portion. When all of that is completed and only after it's completed, then final subdivision approval for the sale of the lots can occur. MS. DAVID: I see. Okay, great, thank you for that clarification. And then, the testimony refers to affordable units. The units are going to be apartment units or lots? MR. FUKE: They're going to be for-sale lots, and I'm glad you raised that question, because you know like, according to Chapter 11, Affordable Housing Code, there are three options that the developer has in terms of how you address it. Sale of housing lots, and also rent can start. Sale of lots, rents, or the purchase of credit. So he's been approached by a number of developers who have these excess credits, to say like, you know, "Would you consider buying it?" But as Mr. Vitousek had indicated earlier in his testimony, the applicant and the landowner are committed, you know,to just wanting to make sure the lots are sold at an affordable rate to the extent feasible. So, he had declined all efforts to purchase. So his option is not doing a purchase option, but specifically it's going to be through the sale. Page 6 PC-30 September 20,2022 MS. DAVID: Through the sale, okay. And then just a curious question, what is their idea of the affordable amount? What is affordable? MR. FUKE: You know, according to the Affordable Housing Code, he has to generate three affordable housing credits, and to be able to do that, you know, the County and the State has established like what the grade is. And so, one credit would be, you have to sell it at the 80 percent affordable housing rate, which I believe isI thought it was like $200 (thousand)plus $1,000 per lot. You know, if you sell it at the 100 percent of the median income, then you get only half credit. So to that extent if he does that,then he's going to sell six of those lots at that price. MS. DAVID: So the affordable price of one lot would be about ? MR. FUKE: For one? Well, according to MS. DAVID: I don't need an exact figure, but I'm just kind of curious what would be affordable? Everyone's talking affordable this and affordable that. I just need some idea of what that means. MR. FUKE: I believe it was like about $220,000-$225,000, you know, at the 80 percent of market. MS. DAVID: Okay, alright. I forgot my other question, but I'm going to yield for now, Chair, and I'll come back later. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Any other questions, comments on the amendment? Okay, looks like we are ready for a vote on the amendment. Again, that's Communication 945.1. Mr. Clerk, if we could please take a roll call vote, because we have a member of the Committee participating remotely in Hilo. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 202 with the contents of to Amend: of Comm. 945.1 was carried by the following roll call (Approved) vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kimball— 1. Excused: None. MR. HENRICKS: The motion carries. Page 7 PC-30 September 20,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. We're back to the main motion, which is Bill 202, now amended with the contents of Communication 945.1. Any questions or comments from my colleagues? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Sorry, yes. I wasn't here at the last Committee meeting, but Mr. Fuke,just to follow-up on Chair David's question. So,the requirement for this project is for affordable housing credits, is that correct? MR. FUKE: No, would be three, because it's 20 percent of 15 lots. MR. INABA: Okay, got it. Director Kern, is that correct? MR. KERN: That is accurate. MR. INABA: Perfect. And then,just question, Mr. Vitousek, in your testimony today, you were providing testimony in your personal role? Okay, thank you. That is all the questions I have for now. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Fuke, one question. And mahalo for your time today, Harry, appreciate you being here. The State is going to be requiring an assessment, and then whatever comes out of that assessment is going to be done before final subdivision approval is granted, correct? MR. FUKE: Exactly, and all improvements have to be completed before then, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Is there any public process involved when the assessment is done and there's a series of things that need to be done by the project. MR. FUKE: There's no special notices to surrounding property owners. You know, unlike when you do zone changes. However, there is a requirement that a sign be posted that a subdivision is going come in. Then, as I understand and, Mr. Kern can probably verify too, but you know,they do post all of the subdivision applications and they have it all on file through EPIC (Electronic Processing Information Center). So through that process, I believe that the opportunity for public input can be secured. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I'm thinking about the road improvements. If there are any, because we don't know if there will be at this point, but if there are any, does the public have input in that process? That might be a better question for Harry. Harry, I mean, if the State comes back and say, we Page 8 PC-30 September 20,2022 want to see X, Y, and Z. And it's on the developer to get it done. Does the public have a say in that at all? Or is it just, this is what's going to happen and away we go. Because this process in front of us really is, in my eyes, the transparency in the public process, here the community weigh in on what's happening? MR. TAKIUE: Hey Matt, thanks for asking the question. I need to go and verify and check on that. I'm not quite sure myself. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I'd like to get that hammered out. Just so we make sure the community has a say in what's going on and they get to have their input. Okay, thank you for the question. Thank you, Harry. And really I'm saying because we pass this the way it is, as amended, the State comes back with what they want to see as far as traffic improvements, but by then, this is out of our hands and gone. And so, I just want to make sure we're tying in public to our decision-making. MR. FUKE: It would be like, you know, I guess to use another analogy, like an infrastructure improvement. So if you do like waterline improvements to, you know, the road rights-of-way or even within the subject area, you know,the engineers at the Department of Water Supply and also like Highways or Department of Public Works, depending on who has jurisdiction over that roadway, would have to review the technical drawings. And so, while there is an opportunity if a person is really interested, you know, for public input, it obviously would not be as, you know, like the process we're going through right now. So probably, because there is this I guess, you know, the technical people kind of like reviewing it. And that's the reason why the condition was structured, was that it required like a licensed traffic engineer to prepare that. And not like, you know, somebody like myself or anybody down the street. You know, so it has to be reviewed by Mr. Takiue's office. So I would assume that, you know, that's kind of like really like a technical kind of stuff, but I hear what you're saying. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you for that. You know, I don't know if it is. I'm just thinking, if it's substantial, there's a substantial improvement made to this specific intersection, then the public may have a concern down the line. And this really is their time to come in and talk. After this, I don't see there being another point at which the public can discuss what they want to say. And then, maybe that's the right process, maybe it's not. I'm just thinking out loud. So, you know, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions or comments? MR. RICHARDS: Chair. Page 9 PC-30 September 20,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. Just a few comments. First of all, I'd like to commend the developer; the landowners for doing the outreach talking to the neighbors. I know the Hano family. The Hano Grace family and also the Cleaners there, Shiraki Cleaners. And so reaching out the way they have, I think is commendable. And also appreciate the fact, I've driven through that intersection. I drove through that weekly for 25 plus years, and the changes that the State has made with a new highway coming through there is great. And so I know this piece of property is coming in and will be coming into that, probably just north of the intersection, is my guess. But I can see where some Planning mitigation may need to be put in. However, with the stoplight there, we already have a lot of safety going on at this point. So I just want to make a comment to the landowners, that you know, terrific. Thanks so much for doing the outreach and trying to craft that. And specifically, Mr. Vitousek for being a neighbor and saying, you know, "We get it, we understand." And I think this may be helping us set a stage for going forward of this responsible development we're all talking about. So trying to strike that balance between the needs of the community for more attainable housing, but also being responsible when we develop it. I will be definitely supporting this. Thanks Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else here in Kona? Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz. And thank you, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder for raising that community question. And due respect what Mr. Vitousek said, that basically this is, you know,the wants of their community, you know, in the immediate area. The impacts, in my mind, do impact the community of mauka. You know, there's so much traffic right now coming from Ka`u, south Kona every day. And those are the things that I think the State will probably take into consideration and address to see what the safest possible way. Like Mr. Richards, I will take this time, since we're at Committee, I will take this time to talk story as well with Hano Grace's Ohana and Clayton Shiraki folks, because they were both my classmates in high school. So I'd like to just chat with them between now and when this comes up to Council to get their feedback. I mean, I know,thank you for the outreach that the developer and Mr. Vitousek had with them; but, yeah, between now and then. For now, I will be supporting this because I really appreciate the amendment that was brought forward. So,thank you, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair David. Mr. Inaba. Page 10 PC-30 September 20,2022 MR. INABA: Thank you. Last question. Sorry, Mr. Fuke, you said that the three affordable lots are planned to be sold at 80 percent of the area median income, is that correct? MR. FUKE: For the project to generate three affordable housing credits, according to my understanding of the Housing Code is that you have to target the 80 percent of the market. If you sell it like 100 percent, then you're entitled to only half a credit. So if he sells it at the 100 percent, then he has to sell six of those lots to be able to generate the three credits. MR. INABA: So the answer to the question is yes, 80 percent on three lots? MR. FUKE: Correct. MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. That's it, mahalo. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Anyone else? Okay we have a motion on the floor to forward Bill 202 to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Clerk, if we could please do a roll call vote? MR. KERN: Madam Chair, may I interrupt? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, Director Kern. MR. KERN: We had that condition I wanted to propose. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Oh yes, okay. I'm going to be calling for a short recess. Let's see if we can get that processed. The Planning Department has an amendment to Condition Q related to agency review that I think my colleagues would be interested in reviewing. We're in recess. Recess: At 10:04 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:09 a.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We're back in session, the time is 10:09 a.m. Let's see here, we have Director Kern on, great. If I could please get a motion to amend Bill 202 with the contents of Communication 945.3? Motion to Amend: Ms. Lee Loy moved to amend Bill 202 with the contents of Comm. 945.3. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. We had a lot of discussion in this particular Committee. Not just this term, but over a number of years about just the amount of time that it takes for various Page 11 PC-30 September 20,2022 agencies to be reviewing various plans and permits associated with the project that we are approving here in Council. We often know that certain agencies, like SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division), I think one of my first bills related to Ka`upulehu the applicant was waiting seven years for a decision and determination from State Historic Preservation Division. And so, wanting to keep in mind that oftentimes, projects cannot move forward and applicants cannot take action because they are waiting on other agencies and departments to act. And so, the Planning Department has crafted language for us to consider. This is the first consideration of us essentially hitting the pause button on the overall amount of time that an applicant has in order to complete all the conditions of approval in the ordinances that we are passing. Director Kern, please feel free to dive into a bit more of the details here; your thinking behind, you know, this exact language. It might not be the most defined language that we have, but I appreciate having something to read at first blush for us to consider. You have the floor. MR. KERN: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning again, everyone. So yeah, this has been an ongoing conversation about how we, you know, maintain our time conditions, but also allow us, as Chair said, for things taking the time that they take sometimes during agency review. So we've been working on it, and I think we went one way at a time, to probably over complicate and then thought, you know, simple is generally best. And so we came up with is this generally simple language that will—the deadlines will, you know, exclude the time it's taking for the agencies to review. With the exception of the Planning Department, especially when it comes to subdivisions, we can have an application in the subdivision process for quite a while and didn't think that was really the intent of what we were going for. This is more so for the external reviews. So for example, this project here, as Mr. Fuke had laid out, is going to have to go through they'll submit plans, we'll send it out for agency review, DPW would review the subdivision road standards, HDOT (State of Hawaii Department of Transportation) will review the intersection. SHPD would do a review. So during those times of review, we wouldn't be the clock wouldn't be ticking against the project. If the applicant doesn't do anything, then the clock is ticking. If the applicant got approval on those plans, the clock is ticking. And so they would come in and they would provide us, the Planning Department, with basically evidence of when plans went in; when plans came out. So happy to discuss this further; happy to massage it. What we're proposing here basically would be an ongoing standard condition that we'd put into our rezoning Page 12 PC-30 September 20,2022 ordinances. So you folks would be seeing that. So again, happy to have the conversation and work through it and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And surprise, Mr. Fuke. You folks are first. And I also do want your ear thoughts on this. You know, we've seen you here at Committee a number of times, but also this is initial language that you haven't seen up until this point in time, so do want your thoughts on this. But before I get to you, I want to open it up to my colleagues for a bit of discussion. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Planning Director. When I stepped into this role, you know, five years ago this definitely, I think within the first three months, I probably saw eight different change of zone applications coming in for a time extension, and oftentimes when you read the background report, a lot of the time that is utilized is actually out of the control of the applicant. I do like this. Planning Director, you mentioned excluding the time, but also some of the timing elements within the Planning Department, and it's just been my experience. And no disrespect, Mr. Takiue, but a lot of the time that an applicant is waiting is actually with State agencies. It's with the Department of Transportation, it's with State Historic Preservation Division. And in the Planning world we have a phrase, "Not my monkey, not my circus." And so, I think allows for the applicant to be able to control what they can control but also, you know, if it's a State agency, you know, that's really something that needs to be addressed at the State level. Even if it's staffing, right, that's kind of out of the control of the County. And so I do like this because it gives us a longer runway for applicants to actually complete what community is asking for. Whether it's traffic improvements, road improvements. You know, I want to hear from the applicant. Mr. Fuke, you've been around this for a very long time, and if this is a pathway for us as community to get what we need, because oftentimes I also see some of the conditions are just stacked upon an applicant that's just come in at a point when so much other development hasn't happened because things have stalled. Mr. Fuke, your thoughts? MR. FUKE: Well, I think in concept, you know,the proposed language is okay; and you know, if this application is going to be considered, "The guinea pig," then you know, it's one that I would recommend to the applicant that that's fine. You know, we don't mind being the first pig in that pot. But the only suggestion that I would like to offer is that perhaps maybe a separate amendment to the overall Zoning Code, because you have so many other applications that's already been approved with all of these kinds of time Page 13 PC-30 September 20,2022 conditions. And so, if you have a generic amendment to the Zoning Code clarifying how time is defined, I think would be much more effective or equally effective, you know, as opposed to just having it all on a case-by-case basis. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for that, and I think it also speaks to Mr. Vitousek's point about community. You know, we actually have a community that's saying, "Yes in my backyard." And then we have the bigger impacts of communities beyond that, that's saying, "Hey you got to go fix the traffic problem,"right? And so, I like this but I think there is space for maybe future amendments within the Zoning Code. You know, I'm willing to take a shot if the applicants are willing to take a shot and see how this works. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: And you know, actually, this discussion relates to something that's been introduced by Mr. Inaba. With regard to this being done, you know, for each and every Zoning Code amendment, I think short of it being codified, it has to be, you know,put into place. And then, later on if it is incorporated into some kind of Zoning Code amendment, then that will of course, trump everything. I think this makes perfect sense in my estimation, you know, on one hand it could be argued that the deadlines would take into consideration the time that it takes, right, to get permits. But on the other hand, which I think is a more sensible view of it, because the permitting process takes different lengths of time for different projects, it's unfair, right? So there has to be some certainty. The only thing I would recommend including in here, though, is for in any other thing or in Mr. Inaba's piece of legislation, is that it also include other things like legal proceedings. Because those things can really hold things up. And really, no one can—no developer I think, and I've never been a developer, but just looking at life in general, you cannot plan until you have things in place, all of the approvals in place, and that's when, you know, things are supposed to start moving right? So you know, I'll just make those comments, but I think this is good, but I would suggest putting something in there for lawsuits and all those other things. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Anyone else on the amendment? Vice Chair Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, first of all I want to thank you, Mr. Chung, for your comments on that and recognizing the discrepancies here. For me what pops up is the continuous concerns expressed by constituents in my district with developers coming back for time extensions. And so, I'm trying to weigh the balance of incorporating essentially a stop-start timeclock on something that's already been given a five or sometime ten-year timeframe. My concern is already within these Page 14 PC-30 September 20,2022 timeframe, needs, circumstances, infrastructure, or lack thereof become that much more pronounced. And so, I'd like to find the balance so we're not, you know, there's been a lot of conversation on this Council about creating policy that would provide more responsibility and not allow for time extensions on zonings to continue and to perpetuate forever. And so, my concern is that this may inadvertently actually harm that intention. So, those are my concerns where this is—how this is related to. Because as Mr. Chung stated, sorry Mr. Chung, if those timeframes for going through all the different parts and pieces of the permitting process are already included in that five-year timeframe, where are we and how are we providing accountability for timing for something to actually come to fruition instead of just continue to be stalled. And I'd like, I mean I'm by no means saying that government is perfect, that the agencies that it has to go through don't cause delays. But you know, in today's world that I'm just having a little bit of heartburn about this. So, I just need to express that. So,thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Director Kern, in terms of this, stop and providing evidence. So, if all of the conditions, for example, are supposed to be met within five years, and say the Department of Health, for example, has an application for two months, are we then tacking on two months past the expiration date of the rezoning ordinance, and how are we going to keep record of that? MR. KERN: Yeah, and thank you for the question. When an applicant comes in for then final subdivision approval, they would then provide evidence of—okay, let's say the come in for final subdivision approval and it's year six. They would actually provide evidence that it was at Department of Public Works for six months; it was at Department of Health for four months. It was at this agency for "X" amount of months. And we would look at that, and we'd just do the mathematically equation and back that down, and did that actually stay within that five-year timeframe? If we do the mathematical equation and it exceeded that five-year timeframe, then that condition would have not been met, and therefore it would have been stale. So I'm just trying to keep it real simple in that regard. I also wanted to add in that our current code does have a provision for tolling for legal appeals. MR. INABA: Got it. And that would put a halt on the time? MR. KERN: That would, yeah, it would toll. It would toll the time. And in this case, again, they would provide evidence, and we would review it. And if it hit that timeframe, then we would move forward with it. If it didn't, then we would Page 15 PC-30 September 20,2022 let them know that they would have to go back through the process to essentially get a time extension like you folks have seen, but all the way through the County Council process; because again, as a Director, directors can't just give out time extensions for rezonings. We are only allowed to do what's embedded in the ordinance itself. MR. INABA: Okay, thank you Director Kern. You know, in line with other legislation that we'll be seeing, I can't support this amendment. It sounds like a simple process to go and backtrack on how long what department had, but I think that's going to take a lot of work. If they need seven years to do something because we know there's going to be Department of Health, there's going to be DPW, there's going to be DOT, then we should give them a longer time. And the expiration date of the rezoning ordinance is the date, and that's it. That's the deadline and I think we should meet deadlines and plan for reviews by different departments we know an application will have to go through. So, I think you folks as the Planning Department, as you review an application and you understand what it's going to take for an application to get to that final approval or to get through all the conditions, should be assigning, you know, a final deadline that is in line with the process. So, I won't be supporting this amendment. Thank you. MR. KERN: Madam Chair, may I respond? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, go ahead. MR. KERN: Yeah, thank you for that, Council Member. So,the challenge is that, in a perfect world we would be able to say, this agency, this department takes "X" amount of time. And we'd be able to calculate that with the overall timeframe that was given. What we've seen, though, is that there's a lot of variables to it, and we've seen things come out let's say, SHPD, State Historic Preservation Division quickly. We've seen other things take a longer period of time, and we've seen that with most other agencies and departments. So without this, it's a bit trickier because we're not just doing a simple mathematic equation that's why the latitude not latitude, but just that kind of flexibility around what departments take was in here. And so, if we're going to do that, we'll have to do some type of metric or factor that would calculate all of the potential delays that one could experience in a department for various different reasons. MR. INABA: Yeah, Director, I totally understand. I just think it gets things more messy later on in the process when we say and we know that this ordinance expires five years from the date of approval. And then we technically will never know again when things are actually supposed to be done. You folks might Page 16 PC-30 September 20,2022 know, but we won't know. And we would look at a document and assume that an ordinance has expired, but it might not have because there might have been delays. So I have a hard time approving an amendment and putting in language like this that then puts into question what the expiration is on a bill that we approved. So,that's all I have to say, Chair. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Kern for putting this forward. Just in this bill in front of us today, what deadlines would be affected by this amendment? MR. KERN: This amendment would factor in, they'll have to go through approvals for the road infrastructure inside the project,that would include Department of Public Works review; they'll have to do a grading permit; SHPD review; Department of Water Supply, their basic approval of the plans, and then in addition, they'll be working with HDOT to formulate what would need to be reviewed by HDOT, to formulate what would need to occur within that intersection. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Those are the reviewing—but that right there, what you just explained is the time and the agencies that are going to be slowing down the process, correct? MR. KERN: So what happens is, if this is approved, the applicant would then come in with a subdivision. We have 45 days to respond. We respond with a deferral. We send out the subdivision application to the various agencies that are applicable. Those agencies then send us back their comments. So for like example, Department of Public Works, Engineering will send back, you know, provide the construction plans that meet this code. And then what we do is provide a tentative approval letter, saying, you're tentatively approved for your subdivision, but do A, B, C, D. Get your water, get your road infrastructures, workout your intersection. And then from there, they move forward with going through all of those reviews and approvals to actually get, you know, permits for those. And that's the time period that we're talking about excluding after the tentative approval while they're going through that review process. I want to also just point out really quickly, this condition is reallyI think you all understand this is a broad condition that we're looking across the board, and this isn't about particularly the applicant. Today is a great example because it goes through various different agencies from County and State where I think it would be applicable. Actually, I thought this has gone out a little bit earlier, so I was Page 17 PC-30 September 20,2022 scrambling this morning, so I apologize to folks for getting this out at a last minute manner. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so my question was revolving around what deadline these delays affect, specific to this ordinance. MR. KERN: The timing. To secure final subdivision approval within five years. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's the only one, right? MR. KERN: Yeah. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So that's the only thing we're looking at. And then, some of the previous comments, this ordinance was written—is five years standard? Everyone writes five years, or do they think, you know what, this project is going to be done in two years because I'm HDOT. There's no SHPD,there's no this or that, it's just the standard five years no matter what? MR. KERN: So Planning, yeah, the conditions are typically a five and a five. That has been the standard. Sid might be able to explain even further on where that was derived from. In certain cases, we've seen longer periods of time, if it's a much larger, bigger project like a resort project. But usually for the smaller ones, it's around there. Obviously, we're relooking at that with the conversations that we're having, and this is part of that conversation. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, and then what is the purpose of that deadline? Is it to ensure the project moves forward? MR. KERN: The purpose is to, you know, say, "Hey, if you're coming in for it, let's keep things moving." I think the argument could be made in certain areas that it's not even necessary, but I think that's a much different conversation than the one we have today. But, yeah, that's essentially it to say, "You came in. Let's keep the clock running, then we can relook at it." If it misses that timeframe, we'll relook at it and say, "Have things changed in the neighborhood; have conditions changed? Would we have to amend those conditions?" Just like you folks see when it comes through with a rezoning ordinance. For a time extension, oftentimes we'll adjust those conditions to what's present that day. That's why we give it a holistic review again. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I think, so your last point, the deadline really forces movement on behalf of, hopefully, the agencies involved, but also the developer of the project lead to make sure that they're getting their project done in a timely manner. Page 18 PC-30 September 20,2022 MR. KERN: That's the goal, and I would argue to say that in certain cases it works and in many cases it doesn't work. As you've seen in many extensions come through. I think when it's in the agency review, some of them might be cognizant of it, but I don't necessarily know if a lot of them are pushing for that. They're dealing with tons of different work and tons of different projects. So, it's hard to say that everyone's prioritizing for that deadline. I'd say that's tricky. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, mahalo. I'm going to fall in line with Mr. Inaba on this. I think that the timeframes that this may sit in a government agency at the very end of the project, coming back in to document those dates, when it came out, when it came in. Looking at the way our EPIC system has been working and what the dates are online with submittals, and approvals, and pick-up dates, I just think there's a lot of room for messiness. And if the purpose of these deadlines are to make these move faster, although government may not be working correctly all the time or quickly, then I think that this actually allows folks coming in with an ordinance like this to push their deadline out further timewise. So it goes against the purpose of trying to make sure things are moving quickly. So, that's where I'm sitting right now. I agree, I can see the intention is to open this up a little bit and make it more acceptable government timelines, but I like that we're pushing people to get projects done faster, so they're not sitting on our books for years, and years, and years. So, I'll be voting against this today for that reason but open to seeing like this more refined. I do have a concern too, that if we say, yes to this today, it becomes a normalcy on every single document on an ordinance similar to this for the foreseeable future. MR. KERN: And that would be the plan, yeah. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. Okay, thank you, Mr. Kern. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz. Mahalo, Director, for that explanation. My issue is, if this amendment was specifically designed for this project, then I think in my mind we're doing things that are piecemeal depending upon what's coming up before this body. I know what you're talking about, subdivision applications or applications in your department are backlogged because of, you know, State agencies or whatever agencies that need to actually weigh in and make a decision. I don't believe extending that will encourage other agencies to move faster. I'm not sure how we do that, but I don't believe allowing a little more time to get things done. Page 19 PC-30 September 20,2022 The thing I like about the process right now is that, if you get into that situation where somebody can't get their appropriate documents or reviews done, at a certain point it comes back to the Council. And then we would know what the issues are. I see this as just giving like: Number One, we can hold it till these other agencies complete their reviews; and Number Two, the piecemeal of this, I believe this should be worked on diligently to be a part of your Planning Rules and how you determine how to address these things. But piecemeal in my opinion does not solve that. And I appreciate yourI think you're halfway there, Director. I think if we get this done in a way that it is memorialized in the Planning process, so that the concerns that are being raised by the other Council Members regarding deadlines can be addressed and full discussion brought before this body to work things out. Or at least participate in your rule-making process where we can get input from the community and from Council Members. So at this point in time, I do not see the need for this. I think it just adds more obstacles than solving something, in my mind. So, appreciate you bringing this forward, but given what I see here on this amendment, I will not be able to support this at this time. Thank you. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair David. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, first of all Zendo, thank you very much for, you know, letting me know about the judicial appeal thing. I didn't know about that, but then it makes perfect sense, of course, right? Because those things can hang up development for many years. Sidney, do your clients need this provision? MR. FUKE: No, we were comfortable with the initial recommendation of the Planning Department and the Planning Commission, which did not have that provision. MR. CHUNG: So,they can move quickly. MR. FUKE: We're okay without it; we're okay with it. MR. CHUNG: Of course, I mean any more time is always better, right? But they're willing to move as quickly as possible, right? MR. FUKE: Yes. You know, let me put it this way. You know, in my experience, and if you look at the applications that come before the County, you only see like time extensions or maybe new zone change, but what you don't see are many of the applications that don't come before you. And you know, if I was the landowner, and I think for the most part, like my clients like, they just want to get in and out. Because if they're going to hold on to the property then they're Page 20 PC-30 September 20,2022 going to have a longer carrying cost. So it's more the exception than the rule that you find developers wanting to go for a time extension and all this. You know, they don't want to do that. MR. CHUNG: They're intending to develop this property? MR. FUKE: In this case here, yes. Between Mr. Shaw and the landowner, they want to team up, get this thing in and out. So,that's their objective. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, then if that's the case, then I see where Mr. Kern is coming from. I see where the department is coming from. But, you know, in as much as, I mean based on what you just represented on behalf of your clients and their intent to move ahead quickly, I don't see why we need to put this in, yeah. I support the concept, of course, and I would certainly want something like this to be considered in either Mr. Inaba's bill or some other bill. You know, what really troubles me, I might be getting off the topic somewhat. But, I really object to these rezonings becoming a commodity, yeah? You know, or value-added. County Council approves the rezoning and then all the representations made by the developer. But ultimately in the end they sell the property, that's what we've got to look out for. Maybe Holeka, you might want to consider something like that in your bill. Because, I'm going to share this experience. You know, when I was around on the first go-around, my first eight years, I think the best I can recall, the only development that came to fruition out of all the ones that we had approved, was that thing out in Pahoa that has Subway. For real. That's kind of sickening actually when you think about it, yeah? Everything, yeah, they just held on to it, or they flipped it. And it's like, what the heck is going on here? Yeah, so you know, that's the bad thing. But if people want to move ahead and they're willing to put their good word, you know, on that intent, you know, so be it. But, looks like your clients are intent on moving ahead. They don't need this thing. No need it. Why don't you just withdraw it, Zendo? I mean, I know what you're trying to achieve, you know. But I mean, I'll vote against it. I like it, but I'll vote against it, because I don't see the reason for putting it in there right now. MR. KERN: If I may respond? You know,this has been an ongoing dialogue for quite a while, so thought this was the appropriate time to try to get it in there. I want to apologize to, you know, Mr. Fuke, about muddying this a little bit. I think all the right intentions are there. I will leave it up to, you know,the Chair here to withdraw or to vote on it. But I do appreciate the conversation and everybody's consideration. Page 21 PC-30 September 20,2022 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Chung, are you done? You're done, okay. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. You know, I'm going to be probably the only one supporting this because I think this is the direction we have to go into, which is kind of backing up against Mr. Inaba's legislation. If we want things done, we have manage expectations. And if we're putting timelines on it in which they can't meet that expectation, we're not getting the traffic improvements, we're not getting the infrastructure improvements, and we're not getting what the overall concept of development is looking like for the entire island. And that's why I keep pushing up against this. However, if supporting this now and it fails, I'm good with that, because I am truly looking forward to the piece of legislation that Mr. Inaba is advancing. Because if it's going to take seven years, then we should give the applicant seven years. But that will come based on what Mr. Fuke said, is there's a number of things that happen that the Council doesn't see. And what I'm not liking is, when these time extensions comes forward, the punishments aren't meeting the crimes, right? It was done in concert with a whole lot of other applications along the way. And like Mr. Chung, you know, I've been around this for a little bit, and I'm seeing some stuff come through the Council that I worked on in the `90's, and that's what's actually really sad, is that, some of the housing, some of the infrastructure, some of the traffic improvements. All of these things are not happening because a lot of agency approvals are just not coming through in a timely manner. And so, I hear my colleagues. I think we want these things. We want these things for our community. It's striking a balance between what the applicant needs to do for us as community, but what our agencies and government also has to do. So I'm going to be supporting this because I really want to up against giving the applicants reasonable amounts of time to get it done and then deliver the expectation. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Anybody else has any burning comments to make? MR. RICHARDS: Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Richards, you haven't had a chance to speak yet. You have the floor. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you. I'll just weigh in for a minute. I listened very carefully to all the conversation, and I understand what people are saying, whether it's needed or not right now. I think one thing we have to look at as a Page 22 PC-30 September 20,2022 County, is we need to be able to give some assurances as we go forward. Because unlike government, private industry, the clock is running on them. And if we don't have some way to articulate and give some timelines, I think we lose a lot of opportunities. So in this situation, I'm going to be supporting this amendment. Thanks, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Any other comments? Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, something that just pops to mind is, this current amendment kind of operates on the assumption that the reason things are taking longer in other departments is because there's some faults of the department. And I just want us to remember that it might be because whatever said developments, not this one per se, have issues. And those departments need to take longer because there are problems there. So,just to assume and to allow broader timeframe, because assuming that our, you know, whatever these departments are, are running on a time-lag or understaffed or whatnot, I think that's short-sighted, because not all the projects that come before us are actually viable, or smart, or will bring what the community wants or needs. Once again, not particularly per se for this, but just in a broader spectrum as we move forward and continue to look at potential changes like this one and codifying them. I think we need to take into consideration that sometimes it takes longer in our State and other County departments because the developments aren't always appropriate. So I just needed to add that. I won't be supporting this moving forward today. But I thank everybody for this conversation, as we continue to navigate the path towards that balance, and honoring the private sector and businesses, and participation in our community as it continues to grow, but also holding the line for responsible development, and regenerative, and reducing opportunities for speculative real estate time extensions. So thank you, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Chung, real quick. MR. CHUNG: Yeah. Well, I agree with what Ms. Villegas said, in part you know. Of course,there are some things related to developments or developers that might cause, you know,the planning approval or the approval process to be delayed somewhat. It takes two to tangle, really. And then in that sense, I've got to disagree somewhat with what Maile said, you know, it's going to give an incentive to the people who are issuing these permits or approvals to work faster. Hah, that's crazy, no offense but, right? I think if history and current events have taught us anything, we've got to watch out. We expect, I mean you know, as citizens we expect that government officials will carry out their duties responsibly, fairly, and you know, their ministerial Page 23 PC-30 September 20,2022 duties. Not so. You put power in people's hands, and all kinds of stuff go out of whack sometimes. So, we've got to watch out for that. Okay, so it really takes two to tangle. It could be the developer maybe dragging their feet, whatever. But even on our side, as much as we want to expect best things from government, sometimes it doesn't happen that way, okay? But I'm still going to stand by what I said earlier, but I have one question. I was going to ask earlier, and I forgot. Zendo, what exactly needs to be done for final approval to be had? MR. KERN: For final subdivision approval, they would have to go through and meet all the infrastructure requirements. So you know, that's installing the roadways; curb-gutter-sidewalks; waterlines; off-site improvements, if they're required. Say in this case, any you know, intersection improvements that would be related. So pretty much, everything related to development of that subdivision. MR. CHUNG: So that includes, getting those plans improved and the inspections, right? MR. KERN: That's correct. So that includes making permits, State Historic Preservation review; having plans developed and drawn up by an engineer; being reviewed by the Department of Water Supply; being reviewed by Department of Public Works Engineering Division. In certain cases, being reviewed by engineering division for the State. MR. CHUNG: As I said, I'm not going to change my, you know, what I said about how I'm going to vote on this amendment. But, I just wanted to ask that question because I think you guys can see how many variables are involved in this thing, especially the inspection. But anyway, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. Director Kern, I just want to thank you for being so responsive to some of the concerns that, you know, we've brought up over the years related to time extensions. I think this is one of the creative solutions that you just wanted us to sink our teeth into. I really appreciate Mr. Fuke being so gracious and accommodating for us to have this particular conversation related to this bill. I think what we're trying to understand is, what is a reasonable amount of time for a developer of any size to be completing a project. You know, five years appears to be the standard that we just keep referring to, that's how they did it back in the day, and we will continue to do that. But I think it's time to really question, is that the best way forward, so maybe within our rules, taking a look at some kind of scoring rubric that takes a look at complexity of a project and then from there determines the appropriate amount of time based on the various approvals and interactions with various agencies and departments that's needed to complete the Page 24 PC-30 September 20,2022 project. So, I think that is something that we should be handling outside of this particular bill. And I think when it comes time to hitting the pause button on the review process, I don't know if this particular bill is the right time and place. I think there needs to be a bit more global discussion with a broader community, perhaps something related to changes within Chapter 25. And so, again, really appreciate the discussion among my colleagues, and the Planning Department just taking the initiative to try something new and give us something to sink our teeth into and have a really good discussion. So with that, I'm going to ask Ms. Lee Loy, and I really want to vote on this, but this is not ready for primetime. But I also know this idea is not dead in the water. So, Ms. Lee Loy, if you could please withdraw the motion to amend this bill with this communication? MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Rocks in hard places. I think it helps. I'm just going to say this, when there's an item on a Public Works agenda about a road dedication, you guys go take a look at each agency and how long it takes for them to approve a road dedication and how long it takes. And this is a completed road. How many months it takes,just food for thought in the future. I will withdraw my motion. Withdraw Motion Ms. Lee Loy withdrew her motion to amend Bill 202 to Amend: with the contents of Comm. 945.3. MR. CHUNG: I get one question about that,though. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Chung, at another time, because we're already 25 minutes over. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, no, because I agree with that. But, the road dedication can come after final subdivision approval, right? MR. FUKE: After final subdivision approval and because until that time, the roads are still under private ownership. MR. CHUNG: But still, I agree with what she said. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, alright. Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy for withdrawing. We are back to the main motion, and the motion on the floor is to send Bill 202, which has been amended with the contents of Communication 945.1. Send it to the Council with a favorable recommendation. I believe we've all made our comments on this okay, alright. That being said, we have a motion on the floor. Page 25 PC-30 September 20,2022 Because we have a Council Member participating remotely, Mr. Clerk, if we could do a roll call vote. Vote on Bill 202: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 202, as Draft 2 amended to Draft 2, on first reading was carried by (Approved) the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kimball— 1. Excused: None. MR. HENRICKS: Motion is carried. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Bill 202, as amended, moves forward to Council with a positive recommendation. But wait, there's still Bill 201. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: 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 (Applicant: Amy Hagen-Cowell Trust) (Area: 6.875 Acres) (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Ms. Kimball, to recommend passage of Bill 201 on first reading.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. This is the companion measure for the overall project. Are there any questions or comments before we move to the vote? Mr. Richards, anything for you. No? Okay. I just want to mahalo nui the applicant for taking the time to engage community, especially their neighbors. Just kind of reflecting on today's conversations. All of the conditions that we are reviewing and approving, they really set that expectation with the developer and ensured that they are being kept accountable. And I just want to take a moment to mahalo nui HDOT, Harry, Ed, and your team for working with the applicants, my office, and the Planning Department to really wordsmith and strengthen that condition related to the traffic piece. So, thank you for taking the time and for being engaged today. Alright, Council Members, we have a motion on the floor to forward Bill 201 to Council with a positive recommendation. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote. Page 26 PC-30 September 20,2022 Vote on Bill 201: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 201 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kimball— 1. Excused: None. MR. HENRICKS: The motion carries. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Bill 201 is forwarded to the Council with a positive recommendation. We will see you in two weeks at Council for first reading, Mr. Fuke. MR. FUKE: Thank you very much, Chair. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: May I have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 10:56 a.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kimball— 1. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Committee is adjourned at 10:56 a.m. Thank you everyone. MR. KERN: Have a great one, all. By now. Approved: 6((3()--2__ Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 27