Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN LAAC 2023/10/17 (2022-2024)Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions 18th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii October 17, 2023 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions ORDER: was called to order at 2:27 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 Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (came in later) Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member (via videoconference in Hilo) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (came in later) STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS ORDER OF RESOLUTIONS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Shelly Mahi Res. 303 (Comm. 517), comment. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Coming here to Kona, Resolution 303. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order of Resolutions. LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 Res. 303-23: AUTHORIZES THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO NEGOTIATE A SIXTY-EIGHT YEAR LEASE WITH KAMAKOA NUI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT, SITUATED AT WAIKOLOA, DISTRICT OF SOUTH KOHALA, COUNTY AND STATE OF HAWAII, AND IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEY: 6-8-042:022 The property located within the County's Kamakoa Nui Subdivision is approximately 10.324 acres, and would be used to develop and construct up to 140 -units of affordable workforce rental housing. Reference: Comm. 517 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend adoption of Res. 303-23. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR. INABA: Committee Members, just wanting to point out, first of all, that there is a Communication 517.1 in your pinkie folders. This is a presentation that was prepared by the Pacific Housing Assistance Corporation, who are the developers on this project, and they are joining us via Zoom today. Ms. Awaya, if you would like to start off by giving us a high-level overview. I had asked them to give us a quick summary of what the project is being that the slide that does provide a lot of the details. So, heading over to you folks on Zoom. (Note: At this time, Executive Director of Pacific Housing Assistance Corporation Audrey Awaya came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. AWAYA: Aloha, Chair Inaba and the members of the Legislative Approvals and Acquisition Committee. Mahalo for granting us some time to present our Na Hale Makoa affordable workforce housing development to you. I know in the interest of time we've been asked to be brief so I'll be as quick as I can. You already have a hard copy of our presentation before you. My name is Audrey Awaya. I'm the Executive Director of Pacific Housing Assistance Corporation we're the developer and sponsor of Na Hale Makoa. With me today is our Development Staff Karen Arakawa, Director of Project Development; Lacey Shimabukuro, Development Project Manager; and Jessica Gasmen. And I'll just go quickly through the slides. (Note: At this time, Executive Director of Pacific Housing Assistance Corporation Audrey Awaya came forward and provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on Page 2 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 file in the Clerk's Office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 517. 1.) MS. AWAYA: So, we ask for your favorable consideration of Resolution 303-23. And we're happy to answer any questions or address any concerns that you may have on our development. Mahalo for your time. CHR. INABA: Mahalo, Ms. Awaya. Joining us also today from OHCD, Office of Housing and Community Development, Assistant Administrator Harry Yada, Chelsea Jensen, and Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. Mr. Yada, did you want to add anything to the presentation? (Note: At this time, Housing Assistant Administrator Harry Yada came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YADA: No. I think the presentation spoke for itself. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Opening it up for discussion starting over in Hilo. Council Member Kierkiewicz, anything there? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: No. I appreciate the presentation and I'll be supporting this ordinance or proposed bill. Thank you. MS. AWAYA: Thank you. CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Waikoloa is in my district so I'm very excited for this project. The bigger question when you come in and obviously for the community of Waikoloa, this is going to like be, wow, because it's a lot of people, it's a lot more cars and of course the issue is evacuation route and secondary access, making sure our roads, you know, for wildfire and public safety, it's just up on everybody's mind. So, if you're out in the community and there's a discussion about adding all these people and all these cars, when you were working on this project, what kind of—how did you address or discuss the thing of the impacts to traffic? MR. YADA: Audrey, did you guys do a traffic study as part of your? MS. AWAYA: So, Karen, do you have anything on that on the traffic as far as from our environmental consultants? MS. ARAKAWA: Yes. So, we did an environmental review in accordance with the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) requirements and there Page 3 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 was a brief review on that. We will have to get back to you to review that. But yes, traffic was taken into consideration. MS. EVANS: That's good. The Mayor was in Waikoloa last week with other people from the county and we were talking about wildfires, which is top on everybody's mind because you're actually right there kind of on the edge with all that brush and brown and it's drought and, you know, so it's going to be a real high concern even for you as a developer and your tenants. It's kind of up on everybody's mind right now. And so, I'm not sure if you're aware that the wildfire conversation happened in Waikoloa and everybody's really on alert about discussion of firebreaks and HELCO (Hawaiian Electric Light Company), and water, and hydrants, and all the things that we're going to need to do emergency response on. And so, you know, I really encourage you to maybe connect with Chief (Kazuo) Todd and talk to him about those conversations because we're talking about putting in a siren, working on the fire hydrant thing, you know, putting in extra fire hydrants out along the line there where, you know, kind of you're at the end and you're right up against the great big open space. So, that whole discussion about the wildland urban interface, right. So, I just wanted to point it out to everybody. I'm sure my community that's going to watch this video, many are going to say, "You better have mentioned the evacuation route and the real problems we have with wildfire and pitwall fire potential and the high risk that we have in Waikoloa." So, definitely, you know, evacuation route, you know, given the type of vegetation that you put in there, you know, that kind of stuff. The Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization is really proactive in, you know, they're looked at as maybe leaders as to what you can do to mitigate and try to make a, what do they call that, not fireproof but, you know, what you can do to lower the risk of fire. So, appreciate that and again, I'd like to see what your traffic study look like. I'd really like to see that because that's really big for us in Waikoloa too. So, thank you. We're really excited to have workforce housing and have this down in our community. It's very much needed. So, thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Perhaps Housing can check in with the Planning Department if there's been any discussion prior to this resolution regarding traffic as well and have that ready for us when we get to Council. I also want to point out and remind us that the resolution before us today is specifically for negotiating lease of the land. It's not a change of zone and it's not a 201H. It's the lease of the land. Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada. Page 4 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. And thank you for this project. Just curious, you gave some numbers before. I didn't quite catch everything. I see that there are 30 units with Project Based Vouchers. So is that 30 units at the 30 percent AMI (Average Median Income), is that correct? MS. AWAYA: Correct. That's what we're targeting, correct. MS. KAGIWADA: Can you break down the others since you are talking about workforce housing? The other 109 minus the managers unit. Which percentages will most of those be going to? Can you break that down a little bit for us? MS. AWAYA: The entire project is intended for workforce housing and people employed within the 45 -mile radius of the project. Traditionally when you do a traditional affordable housing it's for units that are for those 60 percent of median income and below, and those are the 109 units. Those are because of the availability of affordable housing financing programs. And we have 30 units that are reserved for families that are over 60 percent. So, 61 percent to 140 percent of area median income. MS. KAGIWADA: I'm sorry. You said 30 units or 60 units? MS. AWAYA: Thirty units. MS. KAGIWADA: So only 30 units between 61 percent and 140 (percent)? MS. AWAYA: Correct. Right. We wish that we could've provided many more units than that. It's just that it's really tough to find financing for those units that are above 60 percent in median income. And we recognize that, you know, traditional workforce housing is for families that are over 60 percent, and we tried our best to include more units but then, you know, unfortunately we weren't able to obtain the financing or to make the project financially feasible with more of the gap group housing units. MS. KAGIWADA: I see. Okay. I guess, back to you at Housing. Can we do anything to try to help people get more actual, you know, workforce housing for people who are maybe between that 60 percent or even higher, like say 80 percent to 140 percent. What can we do to try to get more of that going? Is there something the County can do, that we can help with? MR. YADA: I guess I don't have an easy answer for that because all of the subsidized financing typically concentrates on that 60 and below, you know, primarily LIHTC (Low -Income Housing Tax Credit), you know, all of these funds that come through loans, they come through HHFDC (Hawai`i Housing Finance and Development Corporation), the state entity, all focus on those Page 5 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 lower AMI's. So, it's tough to find financing for that gap group. That's something that is our priority but, you know, it's tough to meet that challenge because there's no subsidized financing for them. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Sorry, Chair, just one more question, a little leeway here. I know it's not (2:51:07) this but when we do potentially county projects can we be a little more targeted to that or are we still going to run into all the same issues? MR. YADA: Well, yeah, the county projects, if we do it through private developers, they may seek the same type of financing. They may be restricted for the same reason unless the county uses its own funds to build the housing, which, you know, is questionable. We're going to face this on any project that we bid out to private developers, you know, because they always migrate towards. That's the only way they make the project's penciled is with these subsidies through financing. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Alright. Thank you so much. And thanks for the leeway, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Further discussion here in Kona? Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Yeah, I have a couple questions for Mr. Yada. I was just wondering, is the other county lands in that same area, near Paniolo and that side of Waikoloa? MR. YADA: Well actually the Kamakoa Project. This is one project. But we have, under design, the next phase of infrastructure that will probably be in the $17 (million), $18 million range, and that will open up an opportunity for another 600 plus units for us to RFP (Request for Proposal) out to private developers to build more projects like this; single-family, multi -family, a mix of possible projects. So, we're looking forward to that design being done. So, we anticipate bidding that out maybe early next year and at that point it will open up the opportunity for, like I said, 600 plus units additional in this project. MS. GALIMBA: And that's the same project, like adjacent? MR. YADA: Right. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. Thank you for that. And then I think this might be for Ms. Awaya. MS. AWAYA: Yes. Page 6 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 MS. GALIMBA: I saw on your project timeline that you got the 201H in 2007. And so, I was just wondering about that timeline. Is that normal that it would be so far in the past? Was it specifically for this project or was it sort of for a project of, you know, affordable housing project? I'm kind of assuming it was for an affordable housing project because the timeline of this particular piece seems to be closer up in time. MS. AWAYA: And then I'm sureI don't want to goof up and I'm sure Harry can correct my mistakes. But then the 201H exemptions that were granted many, many, many years ago, it was intended for, I guess, another development or intended for the entire subdivision. And so, when the county had, I guess, decided to go forth with this workforce housing development in this area in Waikoloa that, you know, they went to council and received all these exemptions. So, no, we're not a bad developer and it took us all these years to develop this project. It's generally, for sure, doesn't take this long. MS. GALIMBA: Okay, thanks. I read through this process so that just stuck out to me, so I wanted to find out some more. So, it was the Office of Housing that got the 201H, is that correct? MR. YADA: I don't know if we want to get into that. But this project was approved by the council as a (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) 46-15 project that provides, you know, a whole range of exemptions for the county to do different densities, different kinds of project types. And so, it provides a lot of flexibility. And that was enacted by the council I think in 2016 or something back there. So, you know, we have a lot of flexibility in moving forward in developing this proj ect. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks very much for the background. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Galimba. Any other discussion? Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Harry, for being here. Absolutely in support of you and your housing contributors, as we like to call our developers. I really don't have any questions. But maybe before we get to Council, the resolution cites a number of background documents, which is why I think we're all kind of struggling to figure out how we all got here. So, if it's possible to just send the attachments and then maybe we can make it a whole record. It includes Resolution 328-91, and there's some citations, and I know Deputy Wan is with you and maybe that's something we can take up at Council. But absolutely in support of. And thank you and to your housing contributors for this project. I yield. MR. YADA: Okay. We can do that before the Council. Page 7 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 CHR. INABA: Thank you. And making sure that I don't see it referenced here, but any resolutions that spoke to the HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) 46-15 as well because based on the discussion so far, I'm not sure what is 201H and what is 46-15. Any further discussion? Alright, when I spoke to the lease of the land, it reminded me, I don't see a dollar amount here for the 68 -year lease. Do we have any idea what we'll be looking to lease this land at per year? MR. YADA: Basically, the rent is as established in the RFP process. And it's stated in that that it's 10 percent of any excess cashflow. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. WAN: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. I'm just going to clarify for Mr. Yada. The RFP had stated that the rent was going to be one dollar per year plus 10 percent of any net cash flow at the end of the year. So, it is a flexible rent amount depending on the profitability of the project. And that was something that was scored within the proposal itself. So, upon accepting the proposal, that was one of the line items that was accepted by the county. CHR. INABA: Okay. In terms of the resolutions we usually approve for lease of real property, there is a dollar amount. So how would we be able to get some kind of idea in the resolution? MS. WAN: I'm sorry. I will just note that according to the Code it doesn't ask that Council necessarily authorize the dollar amount for rent. What it authorizes is the ability for the negotiation of the lease. So, the resolution is asking for the authority to negotiate the lease. CHR. INABA: Yeah. I understand but for the most part we do have dollar amounts when we've done leases thus far. So, is there a way to even get an estimate that could be shared with us at the next hearing? I got here that we don't necessarily need to have it in the resolution. It's typically what we've been doing, that we have some type of dollar amount but is there a ball figure that we could get at the council hearing? MS. WAN: So, the static number would be one dollar per year. CHR. INABA: Okay. We can go with that then. MS. WAN: Yes. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Also, wanting to point out that assuming the resolution is accurate, the first "Whereas" speaks to 235 acres of undeveloped land in the Kamakoa Nui Subdivision and what's being discussed here is a Page 8 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 10 -acre parcel; TMK (Tax Map Key): 6-8-042:022. So, just wanted to point that out for the record. If there's no further discussion, there's a motion on the floor to forward Resolution 303-23 to council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor? Vote on Res. 303-23: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 303-23 (Approved) was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: It is forwarded with a positive recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Yada and Ms. Awaya. MS. AWAYA: Thank you very much. CHR. INABA: Bill 85. Thank you. Bill 85: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — 3 ACRES (A -3a) TO FAMILY AGRICULTURAL — 1 ACRE (FA -la) AT HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-2-048:092 (ADDlicant: Sandra Kaneshiro) (Area: 3.16 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone request, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into two lots, each approximately 1.4 acres in size to accommodate existing single-family dwellings. The property is located at 605 Makalika Street, approximately 540 feet southeast (mauka) of its intersection with Railroad Avenue. Reference: Comm. 518 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 85 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. INABA: Today we have the applicants and their representative joining us in Kona Chambers. Mr. (Daryn) Arai, good afternoon. I believe we have; it Page 9 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 looks like Director (Zendo) Kern in Hilo Chambers. Mr. Arai, if you'd like to start us off. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Daryn Arai came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. ARAI: Good afternoon, Council Member Inaba, Committee Members. My name is Daryn Arai. I'm the Planning Consultant assisting the applicant, Sandra Kaneshiro, who unfortunately could not be with us here today but is capably represented by her son, Tyler Kaneshiro, located to my left. The request before you is straightforward. The rezoning is simply for estate planning purposes. The three -acre property is the Kaneshiro Family compound. The Kaneshiro Family, being prominent business owners in Hilo, but they find their point in life right now where they have to decide whether the family compound, in its current state, is better off being separated. There's two existing homes on the property. They simply want to place each home on its own separate lot. I should mention, I reside in Hilo and Mr. Kaneshiro resides, along with his mother, in Nevada. But that points to their point and stage in life at this time where some family members have moved on to the mainland and other family members still reside in Hilo, which then points toward the need for this rezoning request. So again, we believe it's a straightforward request. We appreciate the Windward Planning Commission's favorable recommendation of this change of zone, and we hope you will find likewise. I was made aware of a communication that's being introduced and its conditions regarding CHR. INABA: Mr. Arai, we'll hold on that for now. MR. ARAI: Okay. Sorry. CHR. INABA: Mr. Kaneshiro, would you like to add anything? Alright. Director Kern, any further comments? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Committee. Nothing really further to add. I think Daryn did a good job explaining it. It's a very simple change of zone. I'm here and happy to answer any questions. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Alright, any discussion? Council Member Evans. Page 10 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 MS. EVANS: Yeah, just a question. You're going from Ag to Family Ag. What's the difference, what is Family Ag? Director Kern, this is to you. MR. KERN: Sure. So before 1996, all ag was classified as ag and it would be identified by the letter "A" and then a number representing the minimum land size. So, in this case it would be A -3a, so that's agricultural three acres. The Zoning Code was amended in 1996 to change it so anything less than five acres in size would be a family ag or FA, and then anything five acres or greater would be ag or just an "A." And the reason being is that the smaller lot sizes is a little bit more rural in nature, more family -based, family-ag, where the ag allows for a few other additional uses more large scale related to agricultural activities. MS. EVANS: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. INABA: Alright. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Nope. Sorry. CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Kern, I'm seeing there's a positive recommendation from the Windward Planning Commission but I'm looking at the map that was provided and they're stepping down, importantly though, from Ag -3a to Ag -la. But in the area, I mean, across the street, this is all Ag -10a. On the other side of the street from them is Ag -3a. There's a scattering of RA -la and then there's an Ag -la partial near them. But around them, they're completely surrounded by Ag -3a, Ag -5a, Ag -10a. What is your feeling for the direction of an amendment, I'm sorry, of an ordinance like this as it starts to grow this movement from Ag -3a to FA -la? MR. KERN: Give me one second to pull up. So, within this area, the General Plan LUPAG map or the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide map actually shows that area as a LDU or Low -Density Urban designation, which would go down to potentially lots of 7,500 square feet. So, the long-range plan is to allow for density within that area based on the General Plan. So, this would be consistent with it, it's still at a higher density than LDU or low-density urban would allow for, but also keeping within state land use ag, the minimum lot size would be one acre. So, this would be basically the smallest lot size you could get in the area while maintaining the same state land use. The reason why we were able to support it is because it is consistent with the General Plan and the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide map. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so the Planning Department's feel is that this area should be developed down to Ag -1 a? Page 11 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 MR. KERN: Right now, if you look at the General Plan, the Planning Department's feel would be that it could be developed to a low-density urban standard, which would actually be more of a residential, 10,000 square foot lot type of subdivision. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kern. MR. KERN: Thank you. CHR. INABA: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. You know, in support of this application. Just to provide my fellow colleagues' some context. Mahi`ai Street actually is through Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), and we actually just went to an entire rezone project of one of the lots and taking one of the lots back to create 13 lots for family ag. In addition to the surrounding land uses, I know a lot of Department of Hawaiian Home Lands are looking at opportunities to take their ten and five acre lots down. But, you know, that's the structure of DHHL. I just wanted to ask the applicant, the conditions of approval that are listed here in Bill 85, is that something you and the applicant can accept? MR. ARAI: Yes. The conditions as recommended by the Windward Planning Commission and the Planning Director, I've spoken to the applicant, and he accepts the conditions. MS. LEE LOY: I had a question regarding the fair share contributions because it's noted to be paid at the—wait, let me make sure I'm reading it right. CHR. INABA: Ms. Lee Loy, I can add and it's due and payable prior to receipt of final subdivision approval. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. So, thank you, Mr. Inaba. And that's very doable for the applicant and the owners? MR. ARAI: That's correct. The reason being is that the way the condition is structured, that the fair share be payable if the action results in the construction of like another home. But because this is simply to carve out the two existing homes, there should be no fair share assessed. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. Just a quick question. Under family ag, are we allowed to do an additional ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit)? Maybe that's a question for Director Kern. And again, just looking at housing opportunities. MR. KERN: Happy to answer that question. So, currently with the state land use being agriculture, the possibility for a simple ADU or an `Ohana would be Page 12 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 no. There would be the potential for an additional farm dwelling application agreement but that has to be connected to agricultural activity. If the underlined state land use was changed to rural or urban, then an ADU would be possible. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Director Kern. Thanks, Daryn. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Heading over, Council Member Kierkiewicz, anything? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I will be supporting the bill as presented. I appreciate the Planning Department and Planning Commission for their thorough assessment and ensuring that any sort of development, you know, we adhere to the highest standards possible land use planning. It's a really straightforward simply request. One property, two existing structures, subdividing so that there's clear line of title to support estate planning. I'll be supporting it as written. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. Bringing it back here to Kona. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Mr. Kern, Ms. Lee Loy mentioned the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Do you know the outcome of some of those meetings that arose as far as them wanting to increase the density in the lots surrounding this area? MR. KERN: I've been in a few different conversations in that area. I'm not sure if I've been in the exact same one that Councilwoman Lee Loy was referring to. But we have gone through and reviewed the DHHL or the Department of Hawaiian Home Land's Master Plan for their lands, which has been consistent with opening up more density in that area. And those additional changes will be reflected in the or are reflected in the current draft of the updated General Plan. And this would still be consistent with that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. MR. KERN: Thank you. CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, just a quick question here to clarify. So, you're only splitting this into two lots instead of three lots, correct? MR. ARAI: That's correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. And there are currently two homes already on the lot? Page 13 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 MR. ARAI: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you. That's just what I wanted to clarify. CHR. INABA: Alrighty. Any further discussion? Council Member Villegas. Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 85 with the contents of Comm. 518.1. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. Just want to point out this is I think what you have been notified, was the potential for the inclusion of another requirement here, and that is to include in Section 2, adding—changing the current Condition "M" to "N" and adding new language to read as follows, that the "Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision shall be secured within five (5) years from the effective date of the ordinance." Also including in Section N, that the "initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be requested in accordance with Section 25-2-44 of the Hawaii County Code." CHR. INABA: Alrighty. Anything else, Council Member Villegas? MS. VILLEGAS: Not at this time. CHR. INABA: Mr. Arai, would you like to comment on the amendment? MR. ARAI: Sure. Thank you, Chair Inaba. The applicant has every intention of completing the proposed subdivision within the three-year period that he indicated, barring any unforeseen circumstances. The applicant—and I have spoken to the applicant about the proposed amendments, he accepts the amendments as presented. But I think I may have brought this up at some point in the past where conditions within an ordinance should align with the nature of the request that's currently being contemplated by the proposed rezoning action. In this particular case, whether or not the subdivision happens or not, the fact of the matter is there's still two homes on the property. So again, it's all about proper prospective. We, as I indicated earlier, we do accept the conditions as written, but I just wanted to make that clarification. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Arai. Any further discussion on the amendment before I go back to Ms. Villegas? Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yup. Thank you for your flexibility and your willingness to accept this condition. And based on that I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be included in here. And so, I'm asking for my colleagues' support in such. Page 14 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 With lengthy conversations, some of them ending up clear as mud but in general, I'll be supporting this amendment and would like to see the timeframes continue to be included in legislation that comes before us in an ordinance like this. So, with that, I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any further discussion on the amendment? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair Inaba. CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. You know, I evaluate each of the rezoning requests based on its individual merits, and I don't think that in this particular situation it necessitates this mandate. So, I will be respectfully opposing this proposed amendment. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. I'll be supporting the amendment only just because the applicant has accepted it, and it seems like that's important. But concur with the comment that Council Member Kierkiewicz made is that in a lot of these rezonings, to me the decision is always it should make sense in perpetuity. If it doesn't make sense in perpetuity regardless of whether or not there's a subdivision, we shouldn't do it. And there are other rezoning ordinances that are more complicated that have infrastructure installations, and roads, and lighting, and blah, blah, blah. Those, I really want to see those dated time performance conditions. But something like this, for me, the mental math is, does it make sense in perpetuity? But this is family ag. Hearing from the Director, hearing from the Council Member representing the district, it sounds like it does. The only hesitation I see, and I can see a domino effect where all these other ones as Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder pointed out, turn into family ag, which is okay. You know, I'm thinking about this holistically. I'm okay with it all turning into family ag, except, okay, where's the infrastructure; did we just create another subdivision without any support? But I'm going to support the amendment and the rezoning ordinance today. But I do actually feel it's unnecessary because, for me, turning this to family ag makes sense regardless of whether or not the subdivision happens. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any further—Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. In opposition to the amendment. You know, I tried to do the girl math on whether this rezone would turn into more taxes, but it's not. And I like when we have conditions of approval that nudge that process for us so Page 15 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 that we can collect more taxes so that we can provide more services. That's not the case with this rezone application. We're going from ag to ag. The houses that are there are there, and they're already being taxed. And to some of my other colleagues' concern, what Department of Hawaiian Home Lands does with the surrounding properties will be at their discretion. They're not going to come in front of us. So, Hawaiians should have their own self determination on the properties that they live in and live on, and how they utilize them. But what we have in front of us is a family trying to take care of their estate planning. I'm in opposition of the amendment. Thank you, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Thank you first of all for kind of understanding and accepting this. It's kind of funny today, earlier you weren't here when we talked about building permit and how we put 180 -days on getting your building permit done because it basically gets all parties to the table and say we need to work together collectively to get the building permit issued in 180 days. I can follow that same line of reasoning for this and that is that you've worked with the county, you've been developing here in the county, you're pretty confident that five years is enough to help all parties get to the table to finalize what you need to do to get this done. And what's interesting is we're not saying you can't get an extension. I think what we're saying is we all know what the rules of this and we're all motivated to get it done in five years, but if something changes that we feel we need to address or have that conversation, it will reopen in five years. And I think that's okay based on, you know, again, unfortunately you didn't hear this conversation earlier, but I do believe that the motivation goes on all parties to help you get this for the family. You want this, let's all work together to get it. And so, I think because of the fact that you can come back if there's some circumstances that you need more time, I think it's there for you. So, I wish you the best and I support this as is. Thank you. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Any last comments? MR. KERN: Mr. Chair, if I may. CHR. INABA: Director Kern. MR. KERN: Thank you. So, with respect to this amendment, my question goes to where do we leave a property if the applicant doesn't perform? And this is the issue we deal with time and time again. The next application we have coming up contemplates this very issue. So, if you put the time condition in there and for unforeseen circumstances the applicant's not able to perform, and it moves past Page 16 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 those time deadlines that were put forth or even the extension, the property moves into limbo. And my question is, is the Council okay with having properties in limbo that are not usable for the existing zoning or the change of zone without having to go through the entire process again? And so, this is the question that I constantly, I think about. And so, if a person or an applicant doesn't meet their time deadline, could potentially the property revert back to its original zoning so at least it was usable? That's the bigger question that I have. I believe that this property is fine at the proposed request the FA -1 a, without any time conditions in there. That's why we didn't put one in there. I understand where you folks are coming from with this. That's fine. Where do we end? Are we okay with properties being in limbo? That's all. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Condition "N" speaks to your responsibility to initiate rezoning or a more appropriate designation to get it out of limbo. So, with that, I think speaking to discussions we had earlier, people come before different county agencies and bodies for requests, whether it be rezoning, building permits, representing certain things. In this case, it was represented to the Windward Planning Commission that subdivision would be completed within three years. To be fair, again, in worst cases the Planning Department has given five so that's what this amendment is. And it really does speak to the domino effect. If we continue to give no time conditions and everyone in the surrounding area gets an application like this granted, where would we find ourselves in terms of infrastructure, whether it be sewage, water, road usage? And I think that's where it's not for us to maybe determine what is fair or when we should be applying. We should be applying time conditions so that we know when things need to be complete and when things might need to come back for a new review. So, with that, there's a motion on the floor to amend Bill 85 with the contents of Communication 518.1. Mr. Clerk, roll call please. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 85 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 518.1 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 5. Noes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, and Lee Loy — 4. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 17 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 CHR. INABA: Thank you. Back to the main motion, Bill 85, as amended, any further discussion? Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Nope. CHR. INABA: No? Alrighty. Thank you, Mr. Arai, Mr. Kaneshiro, for being here today. We will take this up at first reading in a couple weeks. All those in favor of forwarding Bill 85, as amended, with the contents of Communication. 518.1, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 85: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 85, as amended Draft 2 to Draft 2, on first reading was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: Moving on. Mr. Clerk, Bill 86. Bill 86: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-15 (HAMAKUA DISTRICT ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM FAMILY AGRICULTURAL — 3 ACRES (FA -3a) TO AGRICULTURAL — 5 ACRES (A -5a) AT WAIMEA, HAMAKUA DISTRICT, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 4-7-007:048 (Applicant: Shawn and Stephanie Ching) (Area: 34.559 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone request, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into six lots, each approximately five acres in size. The property is located at 47-5211 Old Mamalahoa Highway, approximately half a mile southeast of its intersection with Mamalahoa Road. Reference: Comm. 519 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 86 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR. INABA: Today we have Mr. Fuke and the applicant joining us here in Kona. Again, we have Director Kernjoining us from Hilo Chambers. Good afternoon, Mr. Fuke, if you could give us an overview of the request? Page 18 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke and Applicant Shawn Ching came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Hi. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Council Committee. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm here assisting the applicant. I live in Hilo. Although I was going to introduce him, I'm quite sure all of you want to hear his voice, so I'll let him introduce himself. MR. CHING: Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Inaba, Vice Chair Galimba, and County Council Members. It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon. MR. FUKE: So, Mr. and Mrs. Ching, Shawn and Stephanie Ching, they bought the property from the former owners. The former owners planned originally, you know, currently it's zoned FA -3a, and they wish to down zone it to FA -5a. The former owners wanted to do a maximum of 11 lot subdivision, but this doesn't fit in the desire or the dreams of the Ching's. Basically, what they want to do is to have like a maximum of six five -acre size lots and keeping it essentially for the family. The question might be, why do an Ag -5a zoning especially in light of the fact that when you have an FA -3a zoning, that you could considerably have lots that are a little bit larger. There are kind of many reasons for this. First of all, they want to keep the land for themselves, their family, one of the gentlemen, the uncle who just kind of stepped out to use the restroom. And so, the Ag -5a zoning would be more in tune to their overall objective. The fear is that if you have like an FA -3a and you have zoning and you have a person that, you know, purchased maybe a six to seven -acre parcel of that whole area, then there's a potential that person could then subdivide their property into two three -acre lots. And so, this kind of like defeats their overall vision, you know, of the property. The other thing, too, is that when you look at the county's infrastructure requirements, they look at the infrastructure not necessarily by the number of lots that you're proposing but by the zoning. So, if you have an FA -3a versus like an Ag -5a, both Public Works and the water, their lands all kick in based on the zoning. And so, they're saying that why should, under that circumstance, possibly be subjected to potentially higher infrastructure requirements than what is necessary? They didn't fulfill their objective. Currently, there's one farm dwelling. There's a barn on the property as well as a tack room. The balance of the property has been used intermittently for cattle grazing, it has some fruit trees on it, that's their dream. They want to have the land, you know, subdivided, maximum of six, but it may not be a maximum of Page 19 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 six. It could be five, it could be three, it could be four. But that creates their potential. Mr. and Mrs. Ching have two children. They have an uncle and themselves. Very definitely, they would want to immediately have the land subdivided to create one parcel, at least one additional parcel so that that parcel can help underwrite the cost of the land as well as potential infrastructure requirements associated with the balance of the subdivision. So, in a nutshell, that's the request. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Would you like to add anything at this time? MR. CHING: Nothing to add at this time. CHR. INABA: Alrighty. Director Kern, over in Hilo, any comments? MR. KERN: Thank you very much. Nothing to add at this time but happy to answer any questions. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Keeping it in Hilo. Council Member Kierkiewicz, on the main motion, any comments? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Not at this time. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Bringing it to Kona here. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. My apologies if I'm missing where it's already listed in here, but how many acres is the piece of property in total? MR. FUKE: It's a total of 34.5 acres. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So, this would give us a maximum of six. MR. FUKE: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. With the family's potential of keeping these for your family and then there would be potential, although less potential than under its current zoning, to sell off some lots. MR. CHING: Excuse me. What is your question? MS. VILLEGAS: Never mind. I'm confusing myself, walking backwards. Sorry, long day here. Okay. That was my first question. I just couldn't find it in Page 20 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 here where the math added up for six lots at five -acres, but I couldn't find the thirty. My sinus headache is kicking in. So, yeah. MR. FUKE: I have that mathematical problem as well. But going back again, the existing three -acre zoning would've enabled them to create eleven three -acre size lots. And so, that's kind of like not in their game plan. The five -acre zoning, we're limited to a maximum of six lots. MS. VILLEGAS: Great. Thank you. It also allows you to be in a different property tax class and benefit from that in the down zoning. I recognize that. Does anyone else want to have some conversations or I can go ahead and bring forth the motion? Go ahead Council Member Inaba. CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I'll just weigh in. Pretty straightforward. This is a down zone. It's in my district, I think, or just right on the edge. And I don't have any issues per se with it. But to be real with my colleagues, you know, there is a financial impact on us in the sense that with the smaller FA -3 acre there could've been fair share and there could've been affordable housing requirements. So, I don't have any issue with this, but I want you to be making your decision based on the full picture. And so, yeah, just wanted to add that clarity in there as to why there's some basis from your side to go forward. But good. CHR. INABA: Thank you for that insight, Council Member Kimball. Anyone else? Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Actually, thank you for bringing that up. That was what stood out for me is the fair share contribution. So, when you downsize from three to one there's fair share. We're going up, so does fair share—it's based on size, it's not based on action? A subdivision action is based on actually the size of the lot? That's for Director Kern. MR. KERN: That's right. There's a lot size nexus to it. MS. EVANS: And the lot size is the max is three acres. MR. KERN: Less than five acres. MS. EVANS: Less than five acres. Okay. Good to know. Thank you. I yield. CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. Page 21 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 Motion to Amend: Ms. Villegas moved to amend Bill 86 with the contents of Comm. 519.1. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. This communication creates an amendment that changes the current Condition "K" to "L" and adds new language to read as follows. "Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision shall be secured within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance." And then it makes "K" into "L" and adds a portion that says, "An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be requested in accordance with Section 25-2-44 of the Hawaii County Code." So once again, just bringing back in what has historically been kind of protocol for including time constraints or time requirements when it comes to this. And so, with that I'd humbly ask Mr. Fuke and Mr. Ching if this would be okay with you to include this? MR. FUKE: Sure. Council Member Inaba brought that to our attention this afternoon. So, we had a chance to talk about it and in concept, you know, I don't kind of want to belabor over all of the discussion that went on with the previous application. So, I will, in the interest of time, dispense through that. But relative to this specific amendment, if I think as I mentioned earlier, the current zoning would enable them to do a maximum of 11. This will enable them to do a maximum of six. The question, however, is that, you know, the change would probably do the subdivision maybe in increments, maybe having like two or three lots immediately and then doing the balance over time. And so, the question is like whether, if they were to do maybe like a two or three lot subdivision, not maxed out, you know, does that fulfill this requirement or is it going to be interpreted to say that, no, you've got to do the maximum? And so, to me, it really kind of doesn't make sense because say if he has like, you know, he does like a four -lot subdivision. He sells off whatever he needs to do to, you know, like help underwrite cost of the subdivision. So, now you end up with two parcels left, and then what happens to the zoning if it's determined that, "Look you haven't complied." You have to go back again to this body to ask for, you know, please let me—give me more time, you know, to have the land subdivided. So, if it can be interpreted to say that whether you do a two -lot subdivision, a three -lot subdivision in the beginning, you have fulfilled this requirement. And if that's the conclusion, then that condition is totally acceptable. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. And I will admit my lack of experience when it comes to these kinds of things. But it's difficult to sit here and listen to different people Page 22 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 come with representatives and ask for zoning changes. It's no secret that I would tend to lean on the side of favoring down zoning versus up zoning, especially in this capacity or in this instance. But I suppose I'm a little challenged as to why, if you're getting this zoning changed, and it's based on a subdivision, those are the requirements, why a property owner wouldn't take the initiative to do what they just came claiming that they want to do and do it all at one time and be done? MR. FUKE: Well, if the Ching's objective is to immediately convey a parcel to family members, the uncle, and then maybe sell one or two, to do that immediately, then it would make sense for them to do that immediate six -lot subdivision. However, their children are young right now, so they don't need to have, you know, unlike the previous application, the need to have estate settled immediately. MS. VILLEGAS: Well, that's because they already have two big homes on one lot. So, how that got built, you know, that's a whole other concept. MR. FUKE: But then again it kind of defeats their overall vision. Because what they want to do is, you know, at some point in time just like construct their home on it and then have, you know, raise their, you know, whether it's cattle grazing or agricultural activity on maybe like a ten or fifteen -acre of that 30 (acre) somewhat property. And the thing is like when you create all of these lots at six, five -acre lot size, then what you have is like two things potentially happening. One is that the real property taxes go high because your assessed valuation is higher now as opposed to having a property being assessed as maybe like a 15 -acre parcel, now you're going to be assessed on a five -acre parcel. So, your assessed valuation is high, and it translates to having to pay more taxes when that's not your objective. And in the meantime, they kind of want to just do a limited type of agricultural activity on the balance of the properties that they have. MS. VILLEGAS: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can still do all those. I mean subdividing, you don't have to break those into lots per se with walls. You can still graze the whole land. You can still own it all and have it be under—it's just officially six parcels instead of one. MR. FUKE: It's kind of like, you know, if you have a property whether it's like in Hilo and it's zoned maybe RS -10, and it's like you've got one -acre of land, why force a person to have the land subdivided when it doesn't suite maybe like, in spite of the zoning, their immediate vision. But all you want to do is create an opportunity. And having that, you know, RS -10 zoning with a, you know, Page 23 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 one -acre parcel, it creates an opportunity for that person to do their own respective estate planning to say like, "I can get four lots, and this is how I'm going to divide it, if and when that time comes." And so, this is the same kind of opportunity that the Ching's want to have. They want to be able to create an opportunity eventually for their children. MS. VILLEGAS: I get it. And I have the utmost of honor for Mr. Ching. The challenge for me is the precedence that gets set because here you are, a local man with local family, I believe we know each other. I'm forgetting what the context is, but you look really familiar. But we sit here with people that come for these kinds of requests day in and day out, and it isn't the same or as authentically aligned in those capacities. So, you know, your down zoning, which creates a better tax margin for yourself on this big property, but without a time constraint, what's the real authenticity in this being the long-term plan? I won't be here in another, you know, maximum I'll be here for another three years. But historically, then people come back and there's some other change, and then my vision changed, and now I want to do this, and then I'm going to, you know, potentially make this much money off of this change. And so, what we see here, or what I see here and which concerns me, without including time constraints, which I believe is why they've been included historically, and it concerns me that they're being removed essentially in what we're seeing now is that it doesn't provide for consistency and accountability for the long-range. MR. FUKE: Just to clarify, it's not that the applicant is objecting to having that condition. What we wanted to point out is that if you do a partial subdivision, you know, you do a three versus a six, you know, that's very logical and within their game plan, you know, within the five years. So, that five-year question is not a problem. MS. VILLEGAS: I think that's a great suggestion, Mr. Fuke. And I think, I mean somehow, I'm here talking about this and while I brought forth the amendment, it actually comes from Mr. Inaba. So, I'm going to go ahead and defer to him on the potential of amending the amendment with the inclusion of, and that may be the way that we get where we need to go, which allows for what does happen in this type when you're down zoning and then you're, you know, all these different scenarios. So, with that, I'm going to thank you and I'm going to go ahead and surrender this, and we'll just move forward with the conversation. Alright. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. On the amendment. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. I read this three times now under the specific lens that Mr. Fuke was representing, which to me, it looks like, and I would like to have Judge Strance's concurrence with this, that there is no specific Page 24 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 subdivision defined in the rezoning ordinance. And so, yes, if the applicant decided to divide into two rather than six, they would still be meeting the criteria of the final subdivision approval. So, to your statement I think that is true, but I would like to have Corporation Counsel confirm that before I mistakenly vote on that because I do appreciate what you're saying, is that what we're really wanting to check off the box, we're going to have to check off, "Did the Final Subdivision Approval happen." Not necessarily was it for six lots or two. And to your uncle, I didn't get a chance to say, "Go blue," over there. Nice hat. CHR. INABA: Corporation Counsel Strance. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good afternoon. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. don't know. I think I'm smart, but I don't have the entire Code you know, Mr. Kern may know off the top of his head, if he's still on the line. MS. KIMBALL: Director Kern, can you confirm that I'm close to the mark with my interpretation here? MR. KERN: While I'm not an attorney, I would happily make the determination that any form of final subdivision would work for that condition to allow that flexibility. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. That's my layman's assessment as well, and I'm happy to wait until the Council's first reading to have a confirmation from Judge Strance. But we ignorant, non -attorney people are getting it right. Yeah, I think that's correct. And Judge Strance, if you would just have that answer next time, that would be great. MS. STRANCE: I will. Thank you. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you for the discussion. Over in Hilo? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Again, on the amendment, I think we all recognize and would like, you know, understand the need for responsible and timely development but again, I'm going to oppose the inclusion of this specific deadline. The request is very straightforward, and I don't think it requires the same level of urgency or constraints that we would prescribe on more complex projects. So, again, I will be opposing this proposed amendment. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Lee Loy. Page 25 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Again, in opposition of the amendment. You know, using some of the girl math and the rational nexus and understanding of my other colleagues, it's ag, it's ag, it's ag in perpetuity. That's what we get from Ag -3a or a FA -3a to a now Ag -5a. In opposition of the amendment. Thank you, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Yeah. I just hate having to drag everyone through this every time. But I think we're kind of getting closer maybe to unpicking some of the issues. So, hopefully we'll get somewhere good eventually on this and some consensus around it. And so, I will also be opposed. I think unpicking the subdivision versus the zoning, we're kind of getting somewhere even though it's confusing still. There's getting to be a little more clarity. So that's all. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to hear from Judge Strance on, you know, what's really going on here before voting on this amendment. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you. And with respect to that and to the applicant and moving this along, I would ask that we withdraw the motion to amend today, and move the bill forward as is so that we can get an opinion from Corporation Counsel at the next reading regarding the amendment and we can take this issue up then. I do want to point out before you withdraw that motion, is that representations are made to the various Planning Commissions, and if in fact subdividing just into two parcels and making those accommodations for estate planning is the intention, then that should be in the transmittal letter, not a six -lot subdivision, which was intended to be completed by the end of 2028. So, representations matter because that's what we're looking at here, and I would recommend, we'll see what happens in two weeks, but I have no problem supporting this application. What I have a problem with is when representations are made and we're hearing something different than what's transmitted from the Windward Planning Commission. MR. FUKE: I would like to just kind of note that was represented before the Planning Commission, that the property may be subdivided in increments. CHR. INABA: Alright. Well perhaps we need to confirm with them before their transmittal letters are sent because yes, there is no specific subdivision action contained within the ordinance. But what was represented is here as a public document, and that's what we're going off of. So, for future reference— Page 26 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 MR. FUKE: Again, just to summarize the applicant's position that, you know, we have—not withstanding all of the other discussions about whether they should have time conditions or not. Specifically, relative to this particular project, if the understanding and, you know, as it was confirmed by the Planning Director and may be subject to Corporation Counsel, that once you have a subdivision action that increases the number of lots, whether it's the maximum as was maybe put forth in the application or something less, that would theoretically constitute an action on implementing that particular condition. So, you know, with that understanding, you know, we have totally no objection to the condition. On your other hand, if you're looking at that condition as being you have to max out and if you don't max out, you have not fulfilled that condition. Then bear this in mind, when you have rezoning, for example like a commercial project, and then the developer is saying I'm going to do a 300,000 square -foot commercial project, and he has to comply within an "X" period of time. If on the other hand, he does only 100,000 square feet, what happens to the zoning, you know, for the balance? You know, so CHR. INABA: Mr. Fuke, I think your representation as to where you stand on the amendment is clear. You either support it if the subdivision action constitutes two lots or if it means all six, then you don't support it. Is that right? MR. FUKE: If that condition means that whether you do a two or a six -lot subdivision maxed out, that you have fulfilled that condition, yes. CHR. INABA: Very well. Corporation Counsel, we'll hear from you at first reading. Ms. Villegas, would you like to withdraw the motion? Withdraw Motion Ms. Villegas withdrew her motion to amend Bill 86 with to Amend: the contents of Comm. 519.1. CHR. INABA: Back to the main motion, Bill 86. Any further discussion? Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: I just want to express I concur with your statement about what's written here, is it's a story that we're being told. You know, we're elected officials, we have been hired by our community to sit here, and some of us have a lot more experience in different areas in our lives. I remember where I know you from, telecommunications. And so, as we try to navigate those things and represent our communities and all of the different concerns we have, and the responsibilities we have right now at this pivotal time in history to make the best decisions possible when it comes to land use. That's why it's so important that the stories that are being told here, because all too often, and history has proven this, people that are paid by other people to sit here and find a way to make Page 27 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 things happen in the legal documents within the confines of this legal context when utilizing certain stories, we can be deceived. And things get placed in one way and they really aren't. I mean, we had a presenter here today with a communication about things happening in our waste energy. And anytime there are people being paid to get something done, and I'm not saying this is your intention, but that is some of the sensitivity of sitting here. And as you well know, the state in general, we're inundated with people looking for places to vision their long-term estate planning. And our concern becomes when that visioning eliminates the people who already live here, somehow being able to even have a place to live. So, just broader context on some of those sensitivities so you understand why the stories matter, why the context matters, and why what's being said is going to happen to a piece of property is actually what's going to happen. So, thank you. I humbly, I'm just sharing my heart in that capacity and my support of why things lining up really makes a difference for us right now. So, thank you for that. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. We're on Bill 86. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You have kids? MR. CHING: Yup. I do. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And from here? MR. CHING: Excuse me? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Are you from around the area? MR. CHING: I'm from Oahu. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You're from Oahu. MR. CHING: Yeah. My dad is a graduate of Hilo High, 1961. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Alright. You've made some people happy in the house. I think what you're looking at is if you think about Oahu, and you think about here, and here you have open land. There's a very beautiful feel to that. In Oahu it's much more compact. And so, we're struggling with how we grow, yeah. That's what you're watching today. So, I appreciate that you're actually down zoning or increasing the size of your parcels. What you do with them after you walk away from getting this ordinance or this bill passed is completely up to you. But I think my comment would be, we like the island Page 28 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 because it is so open, because it's beautiful like that. Our goals are that, pretty simply, at least mine is. So, thank you for listening today and participating. And this guy next to you has got some experience in this field. So, you did good. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. MR. CHING: Thank you. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Again, Mr. Ching, thank you for being here. And this is a process. We passed a bill recently that became an ordinance. The way bills are presented to us have since changed without time conditions, and that's why these amendments are being put forth at each bill. So, I appreciate your understanding. We'll take up the amendment discussion at the next reading. All those in favor of approving Bill 86 and forwarding to Council with a favorable recommendation, "aye." Vote on Bill 86: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 86 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Bill 87, please. Bill 87: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO DISTRICT ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM RESORT HOTEL — 750 SQUARE FEET (V-.75) TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL — 20,000 SQUARE FEET (ML -20) AT HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-1-006:002 (Applicant: Aloha Kia) (Area: 1.795 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone request, which would allow the applicant to develop a new car dealership and service station for Aloha Kia. The property is located at 92 Kalaniana`ole Street, approximately 760 -feet northwest of its intersection with Kanoelehua Avenue. Reference: Comm. 520 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Page 29 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 87 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. INABA: Today we have the applicant's representative, Mr. John Pipan, as well as the applicant, Aloha Kia, here in Kona Chambers. And we've transitioned out in Hilo Chambers. We now have Deputy Director Jeff Darrow. Mr. Pipan. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant John Pipan and Aloha Kia Representative Russell Wong came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PIPAN: Aloha kakou. Thank you all for your endurance today. Thank you much for your care and your dedication to the communities that you represent in this process that we're in. John Pipan. Land Planning Hawaii. To my left, Russell Wong, representing Aloha Kia, the applicant. I'll be brief in my remarks, leave ample time for discussion. In looking for an appropriate site to relocate their dealership, improve their facilities, expand their inventory, there are few and far between appropriate industrial zoned sites that allow auto sales and rental. This site came to our notice. They had sought this site and, you know, it's got this resort zone, which doesn't allow for the proposed use. So, we're here to request a change of zone to limited industrial. We see that there's a similar zone industrial to the east and to the south. Lots of industrial uses in the area including auto dealerships in the area. We think this will fit in nicely. We've reviewed the proposed conditions, all the hard work from the Planning Department, the Planning Commission. We really appreciate that. We have no qualms with any of those conditions. And I might note that the special management area use permit associated with this proposed development was voted on at the Windward Planning Commission and unanimously approved, and that in depth evaluated the environmental impacts, cultural historic, view impacts, recreational impacts. And with the conditions on that use permit and the proposed mitigations, it was found to be appropriate for the special management areas. So, with that, we're here to answer any questions you might have and respectfully request your forwarding this favorable recommendation to the full Council. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Mahalo, Mr. Pipan. Any further comments at this time? MR. WONG: No comment. I'm just here to answer any questions that you may have. Page 30 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Deputy Director Darrow, apologies for the space earlier. Do you have anything you want to add to this application at this time? (Note: At this time, Planning Deputy Director Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Aloha, Chair Inaba, Members of the Hawaii County Council. Jeff Darrow, Planning (Deputy) Director with the Planning Department. Pretty straightforward application, change of zone from resort hotel to industrial. Lines up with the General Plan, which is industrial for this particular property. They did receive a favorable recommendation from the Windward Planning Commission as well as approval for the SMA (Special Management Area) permit and recommendation from the Planning Department. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Deputy Director Darrow. Any discussion? Starting in Hilo. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: No comments at this time, Chair. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Bringing it here to Kona. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Good to see you. Just wondering. This is kind of the entryway going down towards the beaches in Keaukaha and that whole area. Just wondering if there any plans, and I'm sorry, I didn't find the details here, but to make the property more attractive. I know it's, you know, a car dealership so obviously, you know, it is what it is. But is there anything specifically that you could do to maybe make a little more of a pleasant statement as people enter the area? MR. PIPAN: I can speak to like the plan approval requirements that will be in place requiring landscaping of the site along the property's frontage beautifying the area. The building is proposed to be renovated, a facelift, but largely the same size as it is right now, under 25 feet, and there's not going to be any great view impacts in that way. But landscaping consistent with the Planning Department's Rule, I think it is 17, helps to screen the site and shade the parking spaces. So, aside from that, yeah, I think it will be an attractive auto dealership. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Is that something different than what's there now? MR. PIPAN: Yes. There is some landscaping there now and it is a warehouse that's beginning to show its age but still has good bones. I think it is going to be an improvement. And, you know, the transition to electrifying our transportation infrastructure is a big priority, right. Aloha Kia and Kia as a brand has been a real leader globally in pushing EV (Electric Vehicles) adoption and you're going Page 31 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 to see the latest technology of EV's there and, you know, I think that's going to be a really good, positive, environmental message. MS. KAGIWADA: Right. And I realize that on at least two sides already there's already industrial to that property, correct? MR. PIPAN: Correct. MS. KAGIWADA: And so, as Mr. Darrow said, I think the General Plan is recommending to make that all the way to the point of that triangle, industrial. MR. PIPAN: Correct. MS. KAGIWADA: But I'm just wondering, across the street, you do have resort type, you have restaurants, you have hotels. Has there been any feedback from them on this? MR. PIPAN: No. We received no feedback, no testimony, no concerns from neighbors. I feel like it's still consistent, given that the limited industrial allows lesser uses and more compatible uses with neighboring commercial or resort zonings. There are also general industrial zonings nearby that permit a greater range of potentially more hazardous and more offensive uses. But again, the proposed uses is relatively benign. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Alright. Thank you. I yield, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Did the SMA use permit cover the service phase while working on vehicles? MR. PIPAN: Yes. It covered the entire development. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you, Chair. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. This may be actually a question for Council Member Lee Loy because this is in your district, yeah. Is this something that's going to be covered by the Banyan Drive Redevelopment Plan at all, or is that outside of the area? MS. LEE LOY: May I respond? Yeah, it would be outside the peninsula because it's state land, is that Banyan Drive Redevelopment area. This is outside of that. Page 32 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 MS. KIMBALL: Okay. So, that working group only deals with the state land and not with the surrounding properties. Okay. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. MS. KIMBALL: Seems fine. I don't really care about what they've got to say. Alright, I'm good. Thank you. I yield. CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah. I was reading the documents, and one thing was missing for me, and that's why I need to ask. I need to know about signage. I know in our community sometimes people get a little worked up about electrified, lit up neon lights at night when they're driving by. And so, did that ever come up, how the signage is going to play out? MR. PIPAN: Yes. Thank you for your question, Council Member Evans. We've got our proposed elevation drawings for the buildings, and it has really quite modest, you'll see these in the Planning Department's background report. It's a figure in there. I can zoom in and maybe you can make it out from there. But it's really quite modest, you know, it's the Kia logo, "Aloha Hilo," and it's not in your face. It's not very loud at all. It's very modern, very understated. MS. EVANS: And what signage do you have to get approval? I've never been through this before. Do you have to get approval through the Planning Department for your signage? MR. PIPAN: Yes. Deputy Darrow, they administer the sign provisions. Is that included in the plan approval? Yeah, Public Works, there you go. MR. DARROW: Public Works. Correct. MS. EVANS: Great. I've noticed that there was some comments on the definitely or external lights and how you're going to light and, you know, be sensitive to the environment because I'm sure there is probably a lot of birds and, you know, other wildlife or something besides cars. MR. PIPAN: Correct. All the external light is required to be shielded and not shine into the sky. MS. EVANS: Alright. Good. Alright. Thank you. MR. PIPAN: Thank you. MS. EVANS: Thank you. I yield. Page 33 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. Thank you to my colleagues for great questions. I am in support. This is actually kind of adjacent to the runway for our airport. And so, to your concern, Ms. Evans, there's definitely some light shielding as it applies to the development of the structure but also in consideration of some of the landing requirements for the airport nearby. In addition to, this will be a modest development because it is adjacent to the airport, and so you'll have some noise abatement things that have to happen but also limit the size and height of the structures. So, I hope that alleviates a lot of my colleagues' concern. This really is a good fit next to all of our limited industrial area, and I'm in support of it. Thank you. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Just going to highlight some of the parts in this SMA use permit regarding the shop you have, I'm guessing it's to work on vehicles or is it just to clean and detail? MR. WONG: Service based. There's a washing area— MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Change oil that kind of thing? MR. WONG: Yeah. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I know it's in here but given your proximity to Ice Pond across the street, 80 feet away from the bottom corner of the property, just make sure you take good care of that area and that waterway. All our kids play in that water so take care of it. MR. WONG: No. Definitely. In our industry, you know, care for anything that you do, you have so many systems in the bays. You know, any spill or anything like that, you have to have a backup collection, water separators, you know, oil and water separators to make sureso, the good thing about the automotive industry is you have that kind of care. And I know there's a lot of things that we're doing to make sure we manage water so there is no water runoff across the highway. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Of course. Thank you. I yield, Chair. CHR. INABA: Alrighty. With that, Deputy Director Darrow, for a parcel like this I know that Council Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5 are exempt from Chapter 11 provisions to provide affordable housing for industrial. Do you know how many credits would have been required if the exemption didn't exist in Chapter 11? Page 34 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 MR. DARROW: I was speaking with members of the Office of Housing and Community Development today regarding the trigger of affordable housing on industrial rezonings. It actually triggers when the development employs over 100 persons. And so, in this particular case, my understanding is the proposal is 15 full-time employees. There is a breakdown under Section 11-4(d) that talks about the credits, and it looks like if it did apply it would be one credit per ten full-time equivalent jobs. That's my understanding of reading it. And then also there's a square footage trigger. But the overall trigger that has to occur first is that the proposed development generates at least one hundred jobs. CHR. INABA: Alright. Thank you. Corporation Counsel, for Section C in the bill, just for the next reading, could you also give us an idea of what "substantially represented by the Applicant" would mean in this case or as permitted by its zoning district classification, just so we have an understanding of rezonings and what these time conditions mean as we go through more of these discussions. Thank you. And lastly, Condition P, Deputy Director Darrow, it's saying here that "the Deputy Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area..." is that because the Director had previous employment or contracts with this specific property or the applicant? MR. DARROW: It's the representative of the applicant, Land Planning Hawaii CHR. INABA: Can you answer that question please, Mr. Pipan. MR. PIPAN: Yes. Land Planning Hawaii used to work with Zendo (Kern). Katrina Kern, his sister is still employed by Land Planning Hawaii thus the conflict of this interest, thus working with Deputy Director Darrow. CHR. INABA: Corporation Counsel, I am just wondering if this is advised. Normally, the Planning Director has the authority, and in the case where there would be an existing conflict, does it make sense to replace people and give authority in an ordinance to a deputy, or would it make sense at the time of, you know? Because it could be a new director by the next time if this thing comes back. So, I'm just trying to make sense of why I haven't seen this authority granted like this before. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good afternoon, Elizabeth Strance. Which provision are you referring to? Page 35 LAAC-18 October 17, 2023 CHR. INABA: Condition P: "Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Deputy Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation." I'm wondering if that should be a determination made at the time, if the Planning Director either has the Deputy or the Mayor sign to begin that initiation rather than designating. Because I feel like this language is based on not the position, but the individuals who currently hold those positions. MS. STRANCE: I can look into the, you know, the wordsmithing on it. I think it's intended to highlight, you know, the Planning Directors involvement in crafting these conditions. So, I understand the reason that it might be there. I understand what you are saying and maybe we can come up with some different language that accomplishes both. CHR. INABA: Alrighty. Thank you. I will work with you if any amendments need to be had. With that, there's a motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor of forwarding Bill 87 to Council with a favorable recommendation, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 87: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 87 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: Mahalo for being here today. Motion please, to adjourn. Page 36 LAAC- 18 October 17, 2023 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 4:17 p.m., Ms. Galimba moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: This meeting is adjourned at 4:17 (p.m.). Approved: Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair (Date) Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Committee 1-11/tk Page 37