Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN LAAC 2023/06/20 (2022-2024) Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions 11th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii June 20, 2023 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions ORDER: was called to order at 2:38 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent& Excused: Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, 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 individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Carolyn Pellet: Bill 52 (Comm. 326), comment. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. LAAC-11 June 20,2023 Bill 52: REPEALS ORDINANCE NO. 98-63, WHICH AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 95-70, AND REPEALS ORDINANCE NO. 95-70, WHICH AMENDED SECTION 25-86 (NORTH AND SOUTH KONA DISTRICTS ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL-TWENTY ACRES (A-20a) TO AGRICULTURAL-ONE ACRE (A-la), AGRICULTURAL-THREE ACRES (A-3a), AGRICULTURAL- TWO HUNDRED ACRES (A-200a), AGRICULTURAL-TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE ACRES (A-255a), AND AGRICULTURAL—EIGHT THOUSAND ACRES (A-8000a) AT KEALAKEKUA, KILOA, WAIPUNAULA, KALAMA KUMU, AND KALAMAKOWALI, SOUTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEYS: 8-2-012:001, 012, 014 (POR.), 015, AND 8-2-001:101 (FORMERLY TAX MAP KEYS: 8-2-012:012 AND A PORTION OF 001) (Planning Director Initiated) (Area: Approx. 11,185.708 acres) Due to the lack of quorum, the Leeward Planning Commission forwards its unfavorable recommendation to repeal the change of zoning district clarification for five parcels located approximately 1.2 miles east of the Hawaii Belt Road in the vicinity of Greenwell Mountain Road and extending approximately 8.6 miles further east. The repeal would revert the zoning of these lands back to the Agricultural 20-acres (A-20a) zoning district. Reference: Comm. 326 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba(B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 52 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR. INABA: Heading over to Director Kern in our Hilo Chambers. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Aloha, Chair and Members of the Committees. Zendo Kern, Planning Director, here in Hilo. Thank you for your time today. Yeah, this is a request by the applicant for a Planning Director initiated, basically reversion back to its original zoning. Quite a large parcel with quite a history. I do think it would be helpful to have the applicant's representative express what the applicants are planning on doing. I know there's a large coffee farm there. There's quite a bit of activity going on the property. When we looked at the request it seemed to be very consistent with the area and reverting it back to its original zoning made sense. So, therefore we did embark upon the initiation, and we are here. Page 2 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 The Planning Commission,just for a little history. It got to the Planning Commission, we had six seated Planning Commissioners, three of them had some type of conflict of interest with that property so they all had to recuse themselves. So, we could not get quorum together at all. And so that's why the recommendation came up to you folks as a negative by default, it wasn't due to discussion or conflicts with the commission, it was due to technical challenges with getting quorum. With that I also have Maija Jackson, my Planner Program Manager. She should be coming in on Zoom. She might be able to answer any additional questions that come up. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Director Kern. MR. KERN: Thank you. CHR. INABA: Back here, I guess I should state, I do serve on a board with Mr. Hendrickson, for the record. So, bringing it back here to Kona, if you would like to share on behalf of this request then you'll just click the mic on there on the bottom of, yeah, good to go. (Note: At this time, Kealakekua Mountain Reserve General Manager Gregory Hendrickson came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. HENDRICKSON: Good afternoon, Council. Thank you for allowing me a few minutes to talk about this request. As you may know, this property was rezoned through an ordinance process in the mid 90's. It was rezoned for the purpose of developing a golf court resort community. It had an Arnold Palmer designed golf course. There were to be about 500 units on the property and a clubhouse and all sorts of things. That project was advanced by a family from Japan, who after the collapse of the Japanese economy withdrew from Hawaii and sold the property ostensibly. There was a one-step process in between, but to the Pace Family. And that happened in 2004, and the Pace Family began at that time, they hired me, I was working for a firm in San Francisco to help them to complete a phase conservation project on the property, and that would allow the property to be preserved in perpetuity as one large parcel. We found a program that we could work with, a Federal Force Legacy Program, which is a joint state federal program. And we were able to get that program to accept into a conservation easement a little over 9,000 acres of the property at that time. And the conservation easement through the process that it takes, which was never fast, was put in place on the property in 2011, almost exactly 12 years ago. It was on June 27, 2011. Page 3 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 Following that process, well actually during the course of that process, we were in communication with the Planning Department regarding our intentions to move the property towards more of a conservation outcome. And Planning Director Yuen, at the time, made the determination that the ordinance was no longer affected, that there was not a possibility to meet the conditions of the ordinance any longer, actually because of the easement being put in place. And therefore, there was no possible way to affect the ordinance or the rezoning provisions. The ordinance itself has a provision that says, if the ordinance cannot be affected, that the Planning Director should initiate a reversion of the zoning to its original zoning, which was Ag-20. We made the request that that happen at that time, but it's been quite a process to get here today, which is fine. The challenge with having the ordinance on the books is, as you can appreciate, having an ordinance that has no effect creates a lot of confusion. And there's been situations where the landowners, and there's a few different landowners now that own portions of the property. I'm the general manager of the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve, which is the largest of the landowners and which continues to own the property that is subject to the larger easement. But as the landowners have communicated regarding getting permits for work on the property, the question of what do we do with this ordinance continues to come up. And I think the right result is to not have that ordinance being a problem. The effect of removing the ordinance is a downzoning of the property. So, with the way the easements overlay and there's two easements, there's that larger easement that was completed by the Pace Family in 2011, and then there is an easement that's 225 acres that was put in place by HCC Farms, which is a coffee farming concern on the property that they own, which is part of what was that original ordinance area. So, the portions of the property which remain outside those easements are those 1-acre, 5-acre zoned land, and we're asking that that land be 20-acre zoning and just have a clean slate of this ordinance not hanging over the process. The property right now, Director Kern mentioned that he thought I should speak to some of the uses, and I'd like to do that. In terms of the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve, that property is used for sustainable commercial forestry, very limited forestry. But it's primarily been, you know, involved in active restoration and conservation. Over the past five years we've planted more than 350,000 native trees, reforesting more than 1,500 acres of the property. We've installed over 20-miles of ungulate-proof fencing and removed the ungulates from those areas, which are enabling them to come back into native forest. We host a large nursery. Last year we grew over 150,000 native seedlings, which were used for both planting on our property and for sale for others doing restoration work here on Hawaii Island. We conduct bird surveys; we've conducted pest inventories to deal with invasive species. We have invited our Page 4 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 community to come to the property and had over 815 visitors last year that have come up onto the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve. The Pace Family continues to own a little over 1,000 acres of the property. That portion of the property is still used for cattle grazing. Kona Hills Coffee Company owns about 500 acres that's oath in forestry and intended to be in coffee plantation. And then HCC Farms has its conserve piece, which I believe it intends to plant and to coffee as well. The Greenwell Family continues to own 100 acres of the property. It was the longest historical owner, and that portion of the property is used for family purposes and a family home up there. I'm happy to answer any questions about this portion of the Kealakekua hoopla. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. And, if you could, please just state your name for the record and your role? MR. HENDRICKSON: Okay. Yes. My name is Gregory Hendrickson and—my name and what else? CHR. INABA: Your position or your role here. MR. HENDRICKSON: I'm the general manager of the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Opening it up to questions. Is there any further comment from the Planning Department at this time before we open it up for discussion? MR. KERN: Thank you, Chair. No further comments at this time and happy to answer questions. Thanks. CHR. INABA: Thank you. And again, we have Planner Maija Jackson on Zoom. Starting off with Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. This question is for Planning Director Kern. Thank you for being here. MR. KERN: My pleasure. MS. EVANS: Okay. The timing of this is interesting to me. I know you're trying to update the General Plan and this particular area is probably going under general planning efforts by the Planning Department. So, regarding the General Plan, if this passes and goes back to its original zoning, is that the zoning that appears in the current General Plan? And then if that's so, then this zoning could be subject to change based on what we might look at in the amended General Plan. Page 5 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 MR. KERN: Thank you for the question. So, the General Plan won't amend the zoning. It'll set up future land use maps like our LUPAG Map that you folks see Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Maps where we want to see what certain types of density or certain types of uses such as low density urban, medium density urban, extensive agricultural, et cetera. In this area, it'll pretty much maintain all of its agricultural status. The General Plan will not promote any higher density. So this would be consistent with the current General Plan, as well as the draft of the upcoming General Plan. MS. EVANS: The other question I had is recently we passed an ordinance about giving extensions to people to achieve what they want. Is this going to be required; if this didn't pass, would they have to be required to come in here to do an extension or they lose it if they don't get the extension? MR. KERN: So, this is where we move into a zoning in limbo. The ordinance timing conditions have expired. And so, it's still the originals, technically it's still the zoning that was effectuated in the ordinances, but nothing can happen with that because the ordinances are stale. And so, the two practical things could happen. One is they could come in for a time request to amend it to its existing zoning and ask for time extensions on that. As Mr. Hendrickson had mentioned, former Director Yuen said that essentially with the conservation easement, et cetera, on top the existing ordinance, the existing zonings really don't make sense in any of that. However, those ordinances still govern the property. And so, in order to get out from underneath those ordinances with that intention, then this would be required to do a reversion back to its original zoning. The original zoning doesn't have conditions on it, it's just original zoning to what it was. MS. EVANS: Alright. So, if they came in and asked for a development, let's say, and you look at what kind of overlays and guides you. The fact that they didn't get the extension to keep what this ordinance 98-63; 95-70, that really wouldn't apply. And so, would they already be back at their original zoning, or you're saying—what do you mean, this is in limbo? How would it, if they came in and said, "We want to do this, and we're looking at what the original zoning was, because we haven't gotten our extension." MR. KERN: If I'm hearing the question properly, in order for them to have a valid existing zoning they would have to go through a timing extension request, which would go to the Planning Department, through the respective Planning Commission, and then back to the County Council to approve that timing extension request because it's an ordinance. Unless that happens, the ordinance is stale and as I've mentioned a number of times throughout the last couple years, this is that really tricky part we get into where a project goes through rezoning, if they don't meet the time conditions the ordinance goes stale. It's still technically zoned what it was rezoned to, but if they come in for subdivision approval or plan approval, we will say, "We're sorry. We cannot process your request because the Page 6 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 ordinance is stale, you have not met your timing conditions, therefore, you cannot really use it for what the original zoning was and you cannot use it for what it was rezoned to, and you have two options." One, is you can request a time extension through that processor maybe three options. One of them you could request a different type of zoning and go through that entire process, or you could request the Planning Department to initiate a rezoning back to its original zoning. When those requests come to revert it back to its original zoning, the Planning Department doesn't always say yes. It depends on, does it meet the current settlement patterns, does it meet the current General Plan, does it meet the area, and in this case it does. So, then we'll take on initiating that rezoning back. This has been in the process of trying to get to this place for I think over 12 years. MS. EVANS: Well, I'm glad that—because I was curious. It does meet all those, the LUPAG, and the General Plan. If it goes back to its real zoning, it does meet what we currently have? MR. KERN: Yeah. It does. It's not in conflict with our current policies, or the area, or the existing uses on the property. MS. EVANS: Okay. Thank you. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I just wanted to ask about theI'm sorry if I might have missed it. But I wanted to get a little more detail on the conservation easement. Is there a conservation easement on the 9,600 odd acres that Kealakekua Mountain Reserve owns? MR. HENDRICKSON: There's a conservation easement on a little over 9,000 of those acres. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. And that is like a forestry conservation easement, is that correct? MR. HENDRICKSON: It is. It's held by DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources), by the state, and it's administered by the Division of Forestry and Wildlife. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. And then there's the 225-acre easement that HCC holds on there—and that's probably more like an agricultural conservation easement, I imagine. MR. HENDRICKSON: Yes. That's held by the Hawaiian Islands Land Trust. Page 7 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 MS. GALIMBA: Okay. And so, then the other properties are not covered by a conservation easement? MR. HENDRICKSON: That's correct. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. So, if it reverts back to 20-acres, potentially, it could come in to, what would you say, develop into 20-acre lots, potentially, but then they would need to do a whole, not a rezoning, but a project. MR. HENDRICKSON: Yeah, it'd be a big subdivision project, I'm sure. Yeah. MS. GALIMBA: Right. Okay. So,just to be clear, it doesn't automatically give anyone the right to carve up 20-acre lots, they do have to go through a process with the Planning Department to actually carve out those 20-acre lots? MR. HENDRICKSON: Yeah. To that point, if I may, I think when the ordinance was put into place, they kind of figured out how it would need to be done in order to do it in an economic way, and that was, you know, with these one and five-acre parcel densities, to justify the cost that would be associated with subdivision of the water, and the roadways, and all of that. But taking away that density also takes away those economies of scale and instead you're bringing roads and water to an extensive area. And with so much of the land base now unable to be subdivided in perpetuity, it becomes difficult to do 20-acre lots. I think that it's possible to do, and maybe even appropriate to do, a larger acreage subdivision that would allow, for example, different tenants to come onto the property and use it for agricultural purposes. But those would be large block type things that are less intensive. But a 20-acre subdivision I don't think is really economically feasible. And I think we killed it with the easement. And it was part of the intent to kind of kill that prospect by putting the easement in place. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. So, I just wondered as well, who is the owner of, I think it's Parcel E, the one-acre, who is the current owner of that parcel or is it I mean I don't know if it's the same kind of ownership parcel? MR. HENDRICKSON: How big is it? MS. GALIMBA: What was that? MR. HENDRICKSON: How big is the parcel? MS. GALIMBA: It is 797 acres. MR. HENDRICKSON: 797 acres. Page 8 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 MS. GALIMBA: One acre. It calls for one acre. MR. HENDRICKSON: Not sure. I don't have a map that has youroh, I see. Okay, I see the one where you're looking is. So, it's parcel which one? MS. GALIMBA: Parcel E. MR. HENDRICKSON: Parcel E. That's Kona Hills. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. MR. HENDRICKSON: Yeah, the Kona Hills Coffee Company. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. So that would be downzoned to 20 acres? MR. HENDRICKSON: That's correct, yeah. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. Okay, thank you. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Galimba. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Through this conversation I'm getting a better idea of where this is. And I actually had the opportunity to be at Holoa`aina two weeks ago, at sandalwood forest up there and MR. HENDRICKSON: They're adjacent to us, yeah. MS. VILLEGAS: Yup. Exactly. And then my drive up there, I got kind of lost in the fog and ended up diverting onto some of the side roads. And what I noticed is a lot of these properties in the forest have already been graded, and it's raw dirt. And this is our forest land. So, I have personal concerns about that. This is confusing to me. There are so many owners, so many pieces of property. It doesn't smell right to me. I also have a lot of concerns because I know there's been a history at Kona Hills with violations with the Building Department and the Planning Department in building structures for their staff that were unpermitted. There's also issues with Kona Hills tied to another piece of property and operating in unpermitted structures. So, for me, those are some red flags immediately calling into question. I also wondered when you spoke about the propagation of native trees, what trees are you speaking of and what species? MR. HENDRICKSON: We've worked with NRCS to identify the MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, NRCS is? Page 9 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 MR. HENDRICKSON: The Natural Resource Conservation Service. They're the federal agency that provides technical assistance associated with forestry and agriculture. And with them we identified what the specific trees were for the ecotypes that we were planting. And we've been planting those trees. There's about 15 different native tree species that we plant. MS. VILLEGAS: But predominantly, it's coffee, correct? MR. HENDRICKSON: We actually plant no coffee. There is a native coffee, but it's not a species that is appropriate for our ecotype and we don't plant that. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So that's a different property, is propagation of these other species that the NRCS, and yet predominantly a lot of the land that Kona Hills has is in large production coffee, correct? MR. HENDRICKSON: That's my understanding. I don't represent Kona Hills. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. MR. HENDRICKSON: So, of the 11,000 acres, I'm the General Manager of 9,627 of those acres. And that's the work that we're doing. MS. VILLEGAS: And Kona Hills is not included in that 9,627 (acres)? MR. HENDRICKSON: No. They're a different landowner. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, and yet they're listed on here. MR. HENDRICKSON: Yeah, it's because the ordinance covered this area. And so, the ordinance, the reversion has to address the area that, you know, that is now has these different constituent landowners. Some of these parcels that are here, they're not subdivided parcels. They were the way the zoning was broken out. So, there's really the Greenwell Family who own 500 acres; it's that smaller part of Parcel A. There's like, if you look in that one Parcel A, that has the A-20a in it, and then there's like a small little carve out in there. MS. VILLEGAS: Yup. MR. HENDRICKSON: That's the Greenwell's. The rest of that is owned by the Kealakekua Mountain Reserve and is covered by the conservation easement. And then the Kona Hills owns that area. They own 500 of the acres that are in Parcel E. Another portion of that is owned by the HCC Farms and that's where the 225-acre conservation easement is. And then the Pace Family owns a piece in the middle of the property, which would be part of Parcel B. Page 10 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 MS. VILLEGAS: I'm sorry, is that D, as in dog? MR. HENDRICKSON: B as in boy. MS. VILLEGAS: B as in boy. Okay, gotcha. MR. HENDRICKSON: It's about 1,000 acres and that's used for grazing. Those are the only landowners that are there right now. Now, I understand your concerns and certainly, you know, we've lost a lot of our native forest and they're a credible part of the needs that we have as a community for clean air, clean water, and we're thrilled to be a part of restoring those for our site. I've long served as a member of the Board of the Kona Soil and Water Conservation District and helped draft the booklet regarding Kona's resource concerns and in particular the part around forestry. A lot of those lands were converted for agricultural purposes many decades ago. The great thing about the conservation easement is you can't bulldoze anything. And so, roughly 9,300 acres that are under the easement, you know, to even create a road we did ask permission of the Division of Forestry and Wildlife. So, those areas have perpetual protection. The other areas are still subject to the restrictions of the County as it relates to the work that's being done there and I do understand that there have been some challenges that Kona Hills has faced and that they are addressing, and hope that that gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I don't think it's beneficial for them to have 1-acre zoning. I think it would be better if they had 20-acre zoning, and that's what we're asking, is that it move from what they have right now, which is 1-acre zoning to 20-acre zoning. MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. Yeah, there's so much going on in here and so many moving parts, and so many parcels. MR. HENDRICKSON: I understand. MS. VILLEGAS: And unfortunately, some of the reputation of some of the different businesses associated with the area have been questionable, at least in my interactions with constituents have brought that forward to me. I also like in it too and see the synchronicity as we had a gentleman that confirmed at first reading to serve on the PONC (Public Access, Open Space and Natural Preservation Conservation), Open Space Commission, and one of the things he was talking about is our need to revert back to the recognition of our mountain ecosystems and the waterways and how they connect. And as we, in our western colonial historical land management practices were actually destroying the places which are there to protect us. And to no fault necessarily of your own, by this being part of what's happening here, I'm just saying the synchronicity in having just been up to these properties, some of them beautiful, still completely intact, the forest coming Page 11 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 back. Others, already completely bulldozed, exposed earth, lots of structures already built, honestly, which makes me question how many were even permitted. So, I just see the synchronicity here, if this is an opportunity for us to reassess and realign. It also doesn't sit well with me, I've been told this number of different times, that if something goes stale well then, we just have to move it forward into the next thing of what they're asking for. I think that's the time to really take a look at the greatest, best use, moving forward with different protocols and perimeters, and expectations for our land use in areas that are forested, like this, and kind of some of the headwaters of our water cycles. So, I'm not really comfortable with this and I will totally admit it because I'm confused by the number of different things in here and I don't like the concept of something was put forward, then it fell backwards because they didn't do something, and it just doesn't—the alignment and the timing here doesn't sit right with me. So, I will humbly admit that, and that I have some more to learn about this. But thank you for enduring my questions and my concerns where these properties—this is big land, and what happens here impacts communities, makai (out to the ocean or seaward) in a very specific matter. So, thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. Coming over to Council Chair Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here. And thank you to our Planning Department folks for being here too. I'm going to start with kind of a general question. Does reverting back to the original zoning match what is on the ground now as far as the ownerships that you've described and their current usage on those lands? MR. KERN: Reverting back to its original zoning would be consistent with the uses that are there now, yes. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. And so, are there any further actions needed from the applicant or the other parties involved, the owners of the other TMK's (Tax Map Key), to bring them up to current code? I mean, is this triggering any other actions through the down—well I'm not going to call it downzoning, I mean it is, but to the repeal of the original ordinance and its amendment? MR. KERN: From a land use perspective, I'll double check with Maija. I don't believe so, from another County Code side of things, you know, they will have to comply with other County Code whether it's, you know, building permits, grading permits, et cetera. Maija, is there anything else from a land use side that they'll have to do. (Note: At this time, Planning Program Manager Maija Jackson came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 12 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 MS. JACKSON: No, there's not. MR. KERN: Okay. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Great. And just a general provision, these different owners, now that they're—since they were originally covered by this ordinance and they continue to be covered by this ordinance although there are different owners now of these different parcels, they are subject to the revisions here regardless of their own position on it, I guess. I mean, are we engaged in any kind of taking with the other owners, with the other parcels here? I'm sorry if my question doesn't make sense. I'm not even clear on what I'm asking entirely. MR. KERN: I think I hear what you're saying. I'm actually surprised that some of the other owners aren't present today. The other owners did show up at the Planning Commission meeting. I'm not sure if all of them, but at least there was a representative from Kona Hills and then Mr. Pace was there as well. So, everybody is aware of what's happening here. I don't see nothing from a takings conversation has come up. It's been more of a, you know, housekeeping matter so everybody is not attached to this other ordinance, and it separates them so they can operate independently with the original zoning. Not sure if Mr. Hendrickson has more to offer. He was at the Planning Commission meeting as well. MR. HENDRICKSON: Yes. And all of the landowners that are affected signed onto the application to request the Planning Department to revert the zoning. They've all concurred. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. KERN: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, they all agreed to sign the application and move forward with it. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Okay, thank you for that. This may be a question for Ms. Jackson. What are the significant differences as far as future actions that can be taken on an Ag-I versus and Ag-20? Obviously, the subdivision action, but is there anything else in terms of land use that is significantly different between those classifications? MS. JACKSON: There's nothing significantly different other than the density of lots that could be created. Should any of these landowners decide they want to subdivide their property in the future, and they have the Ag-20 zoning, they would need to apply for a subdivision. They would need to meet all subdivision code requirements, and they would need to comply with any other laws that are in existence such as the Historic Preservation Law. So, these are all standard things that occur during subdivision actions, that all of these landowners would need to do in the future. Page 13 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 MS. KIMBALL: Okay, thank you. I guess what I'm trying to get to is, you know, there are certain provisions for the number of additional farm dwellings based on size, or wastewater requirements, things like having to go to the State Land Use Commission that might vary or not vary on the size. So, my ask is just if there is some benefit to the applicants to actually downzone in these cases in terms of these other processes that exist. MR. KERN: Happy to jump in on that. The use from an ag use is it's consistent across the board. I'd say it's a matter of, you know, on the land size, it's a matter of scale on what they're trying to do; whether it's farming or conservation. When it comes down to a subdivision it's going to be water dependent. So, a subdivision would require a water system that is consistent with the Department of Water Supply. So, as you're familiar with, there's a number of many parcels along the Hamakua Coast, say that are zoned Ag-20, that really aren't subdivided because the water infrastructure is so great, the road infrastructure is so great, to do that. So, the same type of situation would be true in this case, that if they were to try to get a greater density, whether it's, you know, Ag-I or Ag-20, they would have to put in water. And one of the conditions of the existing ordinances that are looking to be repealed is a water system. And so, even though you take that condition away, subdivision code requires the water. If somebody were to apply for a water variance, the most that they could get is an additional five lots. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Alright, thank you for jumping in. Thanks to all of you for answering my questions. If the Chair will allow it, I don't know if this is a Judge Strance question. With respect to the Charter, I really appreciate the Planning Commissions and their ability to provide input on these types of things. Is there any mechanism by which the CouncilI'm not suggesting we do this, particularly perhaps for this one, but has the ability to refer something to the other Council when there isn't quorum available in the Council or where the bill would normally be heard, I'm sorry, Commission? So, in this case the Leeward Planning Commission is not able to hear it because they can't get quorum because of folks having to recuse themselves. Is there any mechanism to kick it to the Windward Planning Commission? Just so we have that expertise. MS. JACKSON: There's currently not that mechanism in place. And actually, Charter is pretty clear stating that any land use matters within the jurisdiction of the Leeward Commission should be heard by the Leeward Commission. So, it's not set up for the Windward Commission to hear some land use matter that relates to West Hawaii. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Thank you for that. That was my last question. Thanks, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Chair Kimball. Bringing it around here in Kona. Okay, Council Member Evans. Page 14 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 MS. EVANS: Thank you. I appreciate the questioning by Member Kimball because I was going down that same path. I had felt disturbed that the Leeward Planning Commission didn't weigh in on it because they do have so much expertise and knowledge. And the other thing is, Member Villegas really pointed out there was different landowners who aren't even present here today that we can talk to. There's just something about this, I agree, I'm a little uncomfortable with. We are changing the zoning and some people are going to get higher density and some are going to get less density. And it could be really beneficial to some and assuming it's beneficial to the others, but I don't know because they're not here. But, you know, since I've been here and we talk about changing ordinances when it comes to land use, we've always seemed to have conditions on it and the conditions come from the Planning Director, they come from the Planning Commission. And this comes with no comment at all on any conditions, it's just let's just change it back. Well, a lot of things that happened, like Member Villegas said, a lot of things can happen in 12 years. So, the land that we're reverting back is probably not the same land that got the original ordinance. So, I don't know how I create a comfort level on this. I wish I knew more. I feel like I just don't have enough information. I don't know how you could postpone it and ask the Planning Director to come in and be a little more specific on each one of the parcels. Who owns it, what the current use is, did it ever change, use to date, you know, put in whatever, if we need more information. I don't know. Just one thought. But I'd have to look at my other colleagues to see how they feel if they're comfortable with it. But, Chair, I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. And,just wanted to point out in Communication 326, which is behind this bill, there are links to the Planning Departments background report and recommendation report as well as the transcript from the Leeward Planning Commission's March 16'h meeting. Heading over to Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hendrickson, for being here. For the rest of my colleagues, I'm going to be supporting this. I've listened very carefully to the ups and downs of why there's some angst. Yes, we're returning it to the original zoning from 1995 and even 1998. And as Ms. Villegas said, sure the land character may have changed but should anybody want to come forward, they're not going to make the same regulatory processes that they had back in 1995 or 1998. Right now, those regulatory processes are higher, more cumbersome, more costly, and frankly, they wouldn't even be able to come in with a change of zone without even having water. So, I really—I support this. I think we have land managers and landowners who are collectively making a decision for a large track of land. There's a huge Page 15 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 conservation easement over and across it, which will also provide some other kind of constraints for any future goals of this property. And one conversation that I had with Ms. Strance offline was although it wasn't heard by the Windward Planning Commission, every time an application is heard by the Planning Commission, a notice to surrounding property owners are provided. And we haven't seen that either. And so, that's why I am at the comfort level I am to support this, follow the recommendation of our Planning Director, give a number of property owners who are clearly doing ag and really everything within the ag that they can on this large track of land. I yield. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Yeah, I just kind of maybe wanted to explain why I am comfortable with it and it's sort of a broad stroke thing. But basically, the folks that would be, everything is going back to 20-acres, and from what I'm looking at, the ones that would be sort of benefitting going from an 8,000 (acre) down to a 20 (acre), all of that is in conservation easement. So basically, they can't benefit from that 20-acre zoning because it's all on conservation easement whereas the others that have at three (acres) and one (acre) are going up to twenty. So, they actually are really being downzoned. So, that's why I'm comfortable with it. And there have been controversies about Kona Hills. They are in agriculture. They're planting coffee trees. And so, that's, you know, a legitimate agriculture activity and they're going to have significant interest in keeping those coffee trees that they've invested so much money in, in agriculture. So, that's my reasons why I'm comfortable with this. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any further questions at this time? Okay. I have some questions then. Director Kern, when you look back at the original Ordinance 95-70, and this is just, I guess, a question, I'm not seeing before where we have one TMK (Tax Map Key), or in this case two TMK's, that are portioned out with different zonings for different parts of that one TMK. Is this something kind of abnormal or does this happen often? MR. KERN: Thank you for the question, Chair. It happens. This isn't a one off. I would say it happened a bit more in the past say late 1990's, 2000's, you'll still see come split zoning. We've seen some areas that have what's called hardline zoning. Typically, I'd say over the last decade or so, it generally doesn't happen unless it's a peer necessity. It's usually pretty consistent with the same zoning or a direct split and then a different zoning. So, it's not totally uncommon. CHR. INABA: Got it. Okay. So, for this one—and the main difference between or what did Ordinance 98-63 do to Ordinance 95-70? MR. KERN: Maya, do you have that in front of you? Page 16 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 MS. JACKSON: Yeah. So, it looks like Ordinance 98-63 amended 95-70 and they just modified conditions, so provided, it looks like a five-year time extension on the water condition and some of the subdivision performance conditions also changed. CHR. INABA: Okay. And if Bill 52 passes, essentially, we're left with two TMK's with A-2's, and perhaps this is where I'm a little confused is that in the last two ordinances there were only two TMK's. And now, in this bill we have additional TMK numbers listed. So, are those in direct correspondence with lettered parcels from one of those previous ordinances? MS. JACKSON: Yes. So, what happened was the original ordinances are referring to the TMK's that were in place at the time and the properties have since been subdivided, which is why you see more TMK's referenced now. But what we did is whenever you repeal an ordinance, you have to repeal any land that's associated with that original ordinance. So, that's why this repealed ordinance is referencing the entire land area that was originally rezoned. MR. HENRICKSON: If I could maybe provide a little more clarity. There were two consolidation re-subdivisions with parcels that weren't part of the ranch area, but they consolidated into a portion of the ranch area, and that is why they have to be included. So, for example, HCC Farms owned two parcels that were outside of the ranch area that was included in the ordinance. In order to acquire a portion of the ranch area, they used one of their parcels to consolidate and re-subdivide into that portion of the ranch. The same is true with the Kona Hills parcel. There was a parcel that they owned that was not on the ranch, but they created a larger parcel with that parcel that included a portion of the ranch. So, that's why there's four now. But there wasn't actually a subdivision action, it was a consolidation re-subdivision with existing parcels. But they weren't previously included in the ordinance. CHR. INABA: Thank you. For the Planning Department, are there any TMK's listed in Bill 52, any part of these TMK's that were not covered under the previous ordinances? MS. JACKSON: I can respond to that. So, if you look at the bill that was sent to you, I think it's Bill 52, there's a multipage metes and bounds legal description and that legal description lays out the same area that was rezoned by the prior two ordinances. So, we're talking about the same land area overall even though there are different parcel numbers being referenced at this time. CHR. INABA: So, the answer to my question is "no?" MS. JACKSON: I believe so. Your question was, is there any additional area? Page 17 LAAC-11 June 20,2023 CHR. INABA: Are there any areas of these TMK's listed that were not included in the original ordinances? MS. JACKSON: No. CHR. INABA: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions on this matter? Alright, with that there's a motion on the floor to forward Bill 52 to the Council with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote please. Vote on Bill 52: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 52 on (Approved) first reading was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. This bill goes on to first reading at Council. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:41 p.m., Ms. Kimball moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: This meeting is adjourned at 3:41 (p.m.) Mahalo. Approved: I 57/43 r. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair (Date) Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Committee HIItk Page 18