Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCPLUD 2024/04/02 (2022-2024)Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development 1311 Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii April 2, 2024 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and ORDER: Development was called to order at 11:22 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member (came in later) Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent & Excused: Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kdneali'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: (There were none.) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Heading on into business of the day, Mr. Clerk. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 134: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 25-2-42 OF THE HAWAPI (Draft 2) COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO AMENDMENTS INITIATED BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND OTHER PERSONS Adds a provision requiring the Planning Director to submit a subject area building entitlement report to the applicable planning commission and the County Council for each change of zoning district application. The report would identify buildings that are legally permitted to be constructed on any parcel of land within a quarter - mile radius of the parcel for which the change of zoning district is sought. Reference: Comm. 741.4 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba and Ms. Evans Postponed: March 5, 2024 April 2, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Ms. Evans, to refer Bill 134, Draft 2, to the Planning Director and the Planning Commissions.) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I also just want to note for the record that Committee Member Sue Lee Loy has joined us. I don't think Planning was available when this measure was first introduced so I do want to note that we do have members of the Planning Department here. Mr. Inaba, if you could just remind us an overview of this bill and then I would like to invite Planning leadership over to provide their comments. Thank you. MR. INABA: Sure. So, Bill 134 adds a new section in Chapter 25, Article 2, or a subsection, I should say. And as it reads right now, it states that the Director shall prepare a report identifying all buildings excluding existing buildings that are legally permitted to be constructed on properties within one quarter mile of an applicant property. And the intention of this bill is to provide both the Planning Commissions and the Council with the best information and most comprehensive information possible when we review and make decisions on an application. So, we did hold this over at the request of the Planning Department, since they weren't able to join us at the last meeting. They're here today. And just to kind of fill you in, Director and Deputy, we did have some discussion as to what information really would be the most beneficial and the distance as well. So, is a quarter mile too much, too little, and do we care if it's just one more structure on a neighboring property or should there be a trigger, it's five more structures, because essentially what we're trying to prevent here is unintended stress on infrastructure or lack of improvements to infrastructure without knowing what a full buildout could look like tomorrow without further approvals by any County agency. So, I would like to hear from you folks, just preliminary thoughts and we will be sending on to you folks anyway. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern and Deputy Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Alright. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. Thanks for the opportunity and thanks for postponing so we could be here. Appreciate that very much. So, I guess I have a couple questions maybe just to try to get a little bit better understanding. So, we have a project that comes in, and then you want to go out in that radius to understand what could be built essentially, right? So, taking that in consideration, there are many factors that go into that. It's not just the zoning. So, let's go and say we have a parcel that somebody's wanting a project on. The neighboring parcel was originally say, Ag-l. It was rezoned to RS-10 that could have a density of say 20 lots, and that zoning is stale. So, the time condition has expired on it. They can't use it for the RS-10 for the 20 lots, and they can't use it Page 2 for the Ag-1. How would we look at that? Because often times we have —like that's just one scenario. Then we have the scenario of water and wastewater as well. So, what could be built is often times much more complex than just a simple analysis because sometimes there might be a parcel that is zoned, but you go and check on it and there's no water and there's no wastewater. So, in order to actually build something there, you'd need $10 million of offsite improvements. Then therefor by default it doesn't go anywhere. So, I'm trying to understand how we'd look at those components. If it's very straightforward, say, there's a zoning right there, you have all the infrastructure and it is, it's easier to make that determination where the realm of planning it's not necessarily that simple in some ways. So, I'd like to get better understanding of what your thoughts are around those, if you wouldn't mind? MR. INABA: So, I guess when the application comes before the Commission and the Council we're looking at if it's stale, then technically they can't build, right? MR. KERN: Yeah. Technically, it's inactionable at that time. MR. INABA: Yeah, so the then it wouldn't be reported as a structure that could be built. For the second one, if it's within the zoning type and it's just infrastructure that might be lacking, we would want to report on that. MR. KERN: To what level? Because you could have, like I said, you could have zoning, but practically speaking it couldn't be built. So, to say you could build five units there, let's say, when there's no water and no wastewater is false. MR. INABA: Based on the zoning. MR. KERN: Based on the zoning, yeah. Because that's often times when it's, you know, simple zoning it's not as bad but often times, especially in our urban areas, especially in the Kona area, the first question when anybody comes in, we ask, do you have water available? And most times it's no. And then the second question is, do you have wastewater available if it's a sewer system? And often times it's no. Certain times it's yes, but often times it's no and that kind of stops things at that point and time because it's really not actionable to build. So, that's my first concern, is just trying to understand what the actual metrics are that we're trying to produce. Are they real or is it misleading? Because I don't want it to be misleading, I want it to be real. And the second component of my concern is the staff time this will take. This will definitely put additional burden onto the team. We have been going —I'll pause on that one and do this dialogue as far as the expectation first. Page 3 PCPLUD- 13 April 2, 2024 MR. INABA: Okay. So, to address the first question, yes, just based on the zoning type. If water is to become available, could they build, then yes. If they have a stale ordinance, no, because they would have to come back. Technically, they don't have the rights that come along with that RS-10, is that what you said, based on that original change of zone. MR. KERN: Yeah. It's kind of inactionable until it goes through the process to either refer it back to its original or get the conditions current. MR. INABA: Okay. And then Council Member Evans and I did have a discussion with Gina (McGuire), Christian (Giardina) wasn't able to join us, but they have been working on different mapping systems, and I understand that this could be a heavy lift if we don't have necessarily the integration between our zoning type and Real Property Tax or Building Division. So, it's going to take that combination. But not trying to have this be effective tomorrow, you know, we can set it out. But I think it's good policy for the County to have that information when we make decisions. So, it seems like there's potential based on our conversation, and maybe we can have another conversation with them and the software that they're using integrating. We had a presentation here at Council. The strawberry guava infestation, if you will, out here on the Hdmdkua Coast and looking what that mapping looks like, what exists versus what could be, and that's essentially what this bill is looking at. But I do think, like I said, that this is helpful information for all of us, and what to provide, though, the department time to look at what the best option is in a reasonable amount of time on considering there's a lot of things going on right now. And then, Council Member Evans, I don't know if she wants to add anything, but that's kind of where we are and the discussion that we've had at our last hearing. MR. KERN: That's helpful. I think the immediate better understanding of that software, because I do think it poses a challenge when you're working across departmentally. It would seem like it shouldn't be, but it is challenging when you're trying to gather all this information that isn't necessarily at your fingertips. And then the other side of it, which I think you're sensitive to, in saying this is that, you know, we have been short staffed. My divisions go through fluctuations where sometimes a division gets full, sometimes it's not. On average, we've been around twenty percent understaffed the last three years. And we've been pushing because we want to be as responsive as we can, process things reasonably and fairly, and basically be on time with things, which requires an additional push. And there is a fine line of not over pushing where people say I no longer want to work for the department. We lose people. So, it's really trying to be sensitive to that and that's one of my biggest concerns, is what that burden's going to put upon the staff on that. I think I wasn't hearing that you're sensitive to that so Page 4 PCPLUD-13 April 2, 2024 maybe we can collaborate on how that could actually work so it doesn't hurt the staff because that's very important. MR. INABA: Yup. Definitely understood there. And I said the whole point here is that hopefully it's not a burden significantly on staff if we're using the right technology and the right software. So, I'm happy to schedule a meeting with you folks to kind of go over what options exist and what you folks thoughts are there after we referred. So, thank you. Chair, I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Evans, did you have anything you wanted to add? MS. EVANS: Yeah. I think just put it in context of this section that we're looking at. You know, when I read the whole thing in context with the four subsections to the main subsection, this starts to make a lot more sense to me because it's saying that someone is coming in to ask for an amendment and then in the analysis you will make a recommendation to either approve it or deny it. You will, if you don't act within 120 days, it will be deemed —the application will get forwarded without a recommendation. So, I think having this information, especially with the conversation we had with the data and now we're entering data. Maybe this is a little premature, but I think we're headed in the right direction because more information is really going to help the Planning Commission and the Council put it in a bigger context, which I think is really critical, especially with your comments about what we have in the area for roads and wastewater and water. You know, these are big decisions when we're amending the district classification. I think that's a big decision. So, I think I'm happy that the computers are here and the TT's, but again, you know, is this a little premature? I look forward to the further discussion to have with your staff. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you, Chair. Well, I don't know how to put it as exactly, but I mean, I think to me, I think we really need to be sensitive about staff work on this because I think they've put a lot of effort into our current packets. And to be honest, it's pretty evident that we don't, not all of us read those already. So, this would be providing a lot more information and require a lot more from the staff. And I guess it would just, for me, like I think on our side we should commit to reading all of that information and absorbing it. And I suppose the other side of it is, I mean, maybe it would be more efficient for us just to use the tools that exist to get the information that we want, because there is quite a bit of information available on all of this if you're willing to sort of do a little bit of homework. I mean, that's being maybe a little bit blunt on that sort of topic, but I think it is really important that we think about the folks that have to do all of this work and is it really going to be as useful for us as we think it is. Basically, an Page 5 PCPLUD-13 April 2, 2024 ROI, like the return on their staff time, is it going to be really, really useful for us. So, I think as we just were talking about a discussion between us and the department to make sure that there is good ROI on staff's time. I think that's my perspective right now. Thank you. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Took me a little bit to kind of get into this and my planning terms, this landing in this is a cumulative impact of what this project does to all the other adjacent property owners when we're going through a district classification change. And to the point of the heavy lift, I'm just thinking out loud, and maybe this could be a recommendation coming back that this might be something put on the applicant rather than on the director, and then the director can evaluate what the applicant has found. I think the other challenge I'm having with this, and not that I don't support it going through its stokes and seeing where we land on this, is when an applicant is going through a district classification application, the adjacent properties may have zoning, but the zoning district has multiple permitted uses. And over time what it might have started off, for example, was a warehouse is now a coffee shop, has different density needs, different water needs, and different parking needs or vice versa. And we've been working hard at the legislature when it comes to our Construction Codes to allow for adaptive reuse to lower the barriers as we modify these buildings to make it simpler and easier to for economic opportunities or housing for that matter. And so, that's where, to the point of complexities, Director, I'm landing because it's an incredibly heavy lift that I think we're really only scratching the surface on, and so I'm actually really interested on where the department and, you know, our subject matter experts evaluate this that maybe it's really not on us and it's on the applicant where we can just cross check the information. Director, your thoughts? MR. KERN: That was one of the kind of initial thoughts that popped into my mind as a way to try to mitigate the timing for staff. I do think you underscore the complexity of this is not simple especially when you have a merit of different uses. The challenge that I run into, I think back of the short term vacation rental law that was passed, Bill 108, and one of the requirements of that was for the applicant to verify building permit information with the Department of Public Works. That didn't work out according to plan at all, and it actually sent the applicant into no persons land. And that would be my concern that if we just put it on the applicant, there has to be a clear way for them to be able to get there. And often times, when you're dealing with the complexity of the interdepartmental challenges, it's hard to get there sometimes. And I use the term, they're stuck in the hallway. They cannot make it work in one department Page 6 PCPLUD-13 April 2, 2024 and they cannot come back to us. It's kind of like getting a SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) approval. If you're not going through government good luck, right. So, how do we actually help people with that? And so, that's kind of one of my big concerns with just putting on the applicant. If it's clear and all the departments that are part of this process sign up and they all agree with it, that could be potential. But if it's without that, we're basically setting them up for failure guaranteed. And then we would also then have to verify the accuracy of that information, which we'd probably be doing all of that over again or maybe half of it over again just with the process to make sure that it was right, because if the information is being provided, we want it to be as accurate as it possibly can be, correct? So, those are some of my thoughts again. Thinking out loud as we're going through this process. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks, Director, for that feedback. And I just —I don't envy you guys or the staff on how to walk this out, right. It's words on paper but we have to figure out a process to walk it out. MS. LEE LOY: I've done this work and there's stuff you uncover, and people have been operating businesses without the appropriate permits or the appropriate zoning. And then all of a sudden this becomes a huge stick and those unintended consequences that pop up when we're just looking for good information to make good decisions. Those are my thoughts, let you know, let's just walk it out and maybe it's more than just a refinement to the language but maybe a different process or a different tool. I think often times we use the tools that are available to us but if everybody can put their heads together and come up with another space for something like this to happen, I think it will be great information because we want to know the carrying capacity of everything that we have but more importantly, how do we improve it through CEP (Capital Improvement Projects) projects, right? If we need better wastewater systems, how do we guide that funding to make that happen, right? And I think finally, to the makers, there's language in here about one quarter mile, just kind of wanted to understand that rationale. And I was just thinking about a process that we use about notification to surrounding property owners and would love to see something more consistent with that so what a thousand feet is a thousand feet, you know, half a mile is half a mile, and it's consistent all across of our rules. But just something for the makers to think about or give feedback now how they landed on the quarter mile. Those are my thoughts. Thanks, gentlemen. I yield. CHR. KIIERKIIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. Page 7 WOURif��fGl April 2, 2024 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. Council Member Lee Loy said two things that really resonated with me that the sense of cumulative impacts and —sorry, we were just right there. But the challenge that we have when we're sitting here looking at rezoning ordinance is to be able to foresee through time and space what could potentially happen in these areas. And I think that that's the question that you're trying to get at here is like do we have some lay of the land. And as I'm reading the actual language, which is just identifying all the buildings that could be constructed, I'm wondering if that is not specifically the right question to be answered, and that maybe we need to kind of step back and say, okay what is the actual thing that we're looking for? Is it this cumulative impact, is it the sense of density, is it having to develop or prepare for infrastructures, having to determine that the infrastructure is sufficient? There's a lot of different ways you could use that kernel of information to answer different questions. And so, as I was sitting here listening to some of the comments made, it occurred to me that perhaps concurrently, and we may have some issues with Sunshine Law with this, but we should have an ad hoc that actually talks about what the decision tool looks like. So, you know, when we talk about the strawberry guava tool, that was a decision tool and the first step in developing that was what is the question you want to answer? And in that case the question was should I do preservation here or should I do —sorry, restoration or protection? Same thing here, we need to figure out what that question is, then we can figure out the data. And the nice thing about the decision model is that you can have factors that are fuzzy in terms of where they would, you know, rank on a scale in terms of how certain we are. So, there's a possibility that maybe ten units could be developed on this lot, but because of the water issues the strength of that probability is low. And so, you can combine those multiple factors to get a decision score. So, we have ability to build and that flexibility. But I think we might want to spend a little bit of time on what that structure would look like. And it's something we can modify over time, right? Of course if the answers are not proving to be meaningful, we could revisit it, of course. But that's my thinking at this point, and I'm happy to develop the language for that and happy to participate in that ad hoc if that's something of interest. It's definitely, like I could totally nerd out on this for days, obviously, but I don't have to be a part. I yield, Chair. MR. KERN: If I could add to the convo a little bit? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Go ahead. MR. KERN: Yeah. So then I'd kind of go into further like do we then ask the surrounding property owners what they plan to do there? For example, we saw one of the SMA (Special Management Area) applications in Kona the other day. It had the ability to maybe do 1.00 units, but practically they only did I think twelve, right, so, then do we engage in that. The other area relates to sewer is it's not like water in certain ways is a little bit easier because they can tell you how Page 8 PCPLUD-1.3 April 2, 2024 many water units are available and then you get to the fire flow conversation, are the lines big enough. When you look at sewer for something, they require a sewer study, so what do we do? Do we add that as an additional for the entire area outside of the scope, like say, I think drilling down into what the elements are, I think, are very important and what those mean to actually the department, the applicant or other departments I think are key. So, good discussion. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah, thank you. You know when the decisions are made here and then I call it entitlements, other people might call it something else. But the reality is that's what we're giving them is the opportunity. Now what they do with it and how they run with it later, depending on cost of sewer if they have to do sewage hookup, if they have to, you know, can't get their water permits at the time, you know, that's just part of development. But the reality is we have given them the opportunity, and they're just going to have to play that out. I think what's happened in my district and maybe other districts is those entitlements and ability to build out maybe it didn't happen for 30 or 35 years, but when it did happen, they did the maximum that they were capable of doing and it just kind of —the whole community just went, whoa. We had no idea that they had that capability of, you know, building 560 homes on that acreage that was sitting there, but the entitlements or the ability, the Council had given that to them. And so, without that information all these other things were being approved and everything was happening in the community, and nobody understood that in fact they had been given that. I think when we're making these decisions and understanding that they have that opportunity, if they take it or not, is what I'm hearing you, which is true. There's limitations on development and opportunities, and finance, and the market, and recession, I mean, there's all kinds of variables. But the reality is the Council, or the Planning Commission people have given them the approval and the opportunity. And for me, that's kind of what I want to know. I want to know what is the opportunities around this when we're making a decision because it'll really be like the 2024-2045 General Plan, is a vision, a land use vision of what's going to happen in this community, and these decisions get made by Council Members and Planning Commissions before we come on board, and I for one, want to know. I really want to know what's going to happen in that community, what that vision is, what have been approved to allow that vision to come to fruition. But knowing that there's always those outside variables that can keep them from maybe doing the maximum. But again, maybe they won't do the maximum, we've just given them that ability, but not know what the future holds. I think it's important to know and that's why when Holeka and I talked about this, we saw some value in it. It needs some, obviously, I think this is a wonderful Page 9 PCPLUD- 13 April 2, 2024 discussion and I look forward to where it goes actually. I look forward to what my colleague says, and I appreciate all the comments that people have offered today, including yours because it's true. We can't predict but we know what opportunities we've given them. So anyway, with that, I yield. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Great. I guess, it's good to have discussion and find out, you know, sort of what the thinking is and was, and what we're trying to get at. I guess, what I kind of worry about is, you know, getting a spread sheet with like hundreds of parcel names and, you know, that would not be necessarily helpful. So, I think something more map based where you can look at it and see what's in the area. I guess the other part of it too is, you know, I think with any piece of information with the Planning Department it is complicated so I kind of worry for them a little bit that they present this, you know, this is the zoning and it's for 560 units, but it never could really happen, and then we make a decision based on that 560 units, but that could never happen because they don't have the water. Then we're making a wrong decision. But who is to blame? Is it us or them or, you know. So, I guess that's all these things that we have to unpack with all of this, and I think it's really important that it not be a spreadsheet with hundreds of just parcel numbers. So, trying to find something that would be useful for ourselves and the public, but also accurate. And, you know, there's legal liability questions around this even, that we could get into some very authority areas. So, I think it's —I can definitely see wanting to have that bigger picture. And so, definitely welcome this conversation. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Lee Loy? No. Okay. Anyone else? MR. DARROW: Chair? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Deputy Darrow. MR. DARROW: Thank you. You know, it's good. I'm glad that we're able to talk about this. A lot of points that were going through both the Director and my minds are coming out and that's really helpful. This particular section of Code is relevant to the Planning Director. When change of zones come in, applications to the Planning Department, we utilize this as what we look at for whether or not we're going to recommend approval or not. And it gives a very specific criteria line that we follow. Is this going to be an effective land use pattern, does this line up with the General Plan that was approved by the community, does it align with the community development plan to be able to further that land use pattern in this area to further, you know, an effective land use pattern. Page 10 April 2, 2024 When we come before the Commissions mainly, not so much before the Council, we do provide more information there mainly through our presentations. We provide in the documentation what's going on in the surrounding property owners, what sort of land uses are established, what sort of zoning is there. But more importantly, we provide that visual view through our PowerPoint presentations. We show the zoning of the surrounding areas, and I'm not sure if it goes out as far as a quarter of a mile, but I would think it follows more with the 300 foot, maybe a little further than that. But it shows the established zoning, it shows the General Plan designation for the future land use pattern, and it also shows aerials. So, we get a really good sense of how much of the area has been built out, how much of it is still needing to be built out. We don't necessarily create a report but that visual does really help. And I agree, you know, it might be difficult having like an Excel sheet with properties and stuff. The more important thing that I think we need to consider here is why we need this information. We've said that it's to be able to identify the potential of the cumulative impacts, but I think that's important to place in the bill, that this is a consideration for approval or denial of this recommendation. That this report that we're preparing, or this information is also part of this criteria that we're utilizing. We just don't want to report for a report, we want it for a particular reason. And so, I think that's important to look at, is how do we incorporate that in the bill as far as, yes, okay, this area is —we look at the overall area and it's built out. This is kind of just an infill project that helps us with our decision. But we look at certain change of zones that come in and they're in areas that their potential is great. It may take 40 or 50 or 100 years to build that out. But in this particular area these uses are starting to come and be established. Again, we look at it from the criteria that's set before us, so we say this is consistent with the General Plan. This is why we want to see this. We don't want to see industrial and commercial uses in a residential or an agriculture zone. We want to see it in those areas identified for those uses. We want to see that it's not having a significant impact on the surrounding properties. Sometimes we may not see that as much, but when the notifications go out, we get information provided by those people that will be affected that say, "Hey, this is really going to affect us. You know, can you please hear our voices and take this into consideration when you're making your decision?" But anyway, I just wanted to provide a little bit of information regarding that, that it would be helpful to be able to bring this to a place where we can say, you know, we can use this for our decision making. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Deputy. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you, everyone, for the feedback. And yeah, I would hope so, not you folks do all the work and don't use it, right, as part of your recommendations. So, a lot of the, you know, Council Member Lee Loy brought Page I I April 2, 2024 up the distance thing, and nothing here is set. We can amend that to 1,000 feet, whatever it needs to be for consistency through our different application processes. And then even considering, right, depending on the uses, I don't want a thousand pages of Excel either. We want something that's digestible and something that's useful. And if it's not possible, if we sit down and we just can't come up with something that would be useful, then maybe this isn't right. But I do believe that there is software that can help get us to that point. We haven't had the chance to sit down yet and discuss that. And perhaps even, you know, when you send this bill to the Commissions, can even have some of those specific changes already included for their review and their thoughts there. But I hope that we can move this through. I'd love the Commissions, or the department first and the Commissions, provide feedback as to what and how things would be most helpful and useful to all of us. So with that, I'll yield. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. You know, Chair, I want to give you an opportunity to weigh in too. One thing that's not touched upon, but our Director and Deputy Director touched upon it is often times the recommendations are followed up with other agencies. And so, I'm just wondering, and maybe this is a question for the Clerk because it's really clear in our rules as far as when stuff like this goes to Planning Commission, has to come back. I would love to get the feedback from the various agencies that provide, you know, the expertise on traffic and roads, and all that kind of stuff on how they would want to help evaluate this part of the bill. And just wondering if, Director, maybe having a little bit more time, or giving you guys a little bit more grace so we can get a real collaboration with all the different agencies that help compile the background report and provide that recommendations. MR. KERN: I'm a fan of grace and time. Absolutely. That would be helpful. We will be sending it out to the various agencies for their review. What I would want to make sure is that they actually understand what they're really opining on because I'm not sure if they're going to hate it there, so we'd have to articulate that. And it might be even something where it may be beneficial to have a meeting or like an ad hoc or something to drill into that a bit more because if there's specific things related to building permits it's going to be on DPW (Department of Public Works) to try to get us that information, yeah. So, I think we should be sensitive to that. How much grace and time we have once it's deferred, I think, is limited unless there's something else that occurs. Maybe we'll have to check with the Clerk if the provision can be waived because we have requirement — MS. LEE LOY: Or like ask for more time. I'm not sure. Mr. Clerk, that question, you know, it's very defined about how much time it takes to go down Page 12 PCPLUD-13 April 2, 2024 and come back. Is there a pathway for a time extension for them to evaluate this that we can provide, or they can ask for? MR. HENRICKS: No. MS. LEE LOY: Well, we'll try and find some way to say yes slowly rather than no quickly. But those are my thoughts also, too, because to your point, right? These are agencies that aren't here today. And then some of them are state agencies like Department of Transportation. MR. KERN: Correct. And when it comes back, maybe that's an opportunity for additional time. It's just post commission time. So, I think, I'm definitely open to that. I think it's going to be necessary to create something that actually works. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. Yeah, those are my thoughts. Council Member Kierkiewicz, come on, get in on this. I yield. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Thanks for this discussion. Thank you for being here. I'm very cognizant of what is being asked of you. I also recognize that so much goes into developing the materials for commission and then the Council, and I think if you take the time to read through all of that, and there's a lot there. There's the background, the report, there's that very extensive presentation that you put together for commissioners, there's also relevant County and state agencies kind of weighing in. I feel like it's all there and my wondering is —and there's also that really great map that you include in the ordinance that identifies the subject parcel that is requesting the change of zone, and what all the other surrounding properties are zoned as. Maybe it's just building that particular map out, where we know the zoning is there, but now we also want to know what's been built out. If there is information that we can ascertain from building as to what is being planned because of submitted permits, I think that would be really helpful. But maybe just synthesizing some of the information that we already have into some kind of visual or an overarching sort of one sheet that will help us to make decisions. I also just want to be very mindful of like preventing any spot zoning and just making sure that when we make these decisions it is in line with a framework of a larger plan, like our General Plan and our Community Development Plan, which takes into consideration all the different constraints that were brought up earlier; infrastructure, environmental concerns, transportation, community needs. I feel all of that is taken into consideration when you make your recommendation report as the department. So, I feel like everything is already there, it's just how we might synthesize it and present it to the Council so that we have a tool that can Page 13 PCPLUD- 13 April 2, 2024 further help us in the decision -making process without being overly burdensome to your department. MR. KERN: If I could respond? CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Sure. MR. KERN: I think your analysis of our background reports and recommendations are accurate. We do try to do that. And I think the zoning map shows one thing. I think it's not. Showing the zoning map is pretty easy to do. That's not hard. Showing what was existing there, that's not too hard. It's really identifying what the potential future is. That's where it gets really hard because it's water, wastewater, roads, TAR's (Traffic Analysis Report), the whole nine. And so, if we focused on that portion that you brought up, Chair, that would be easier and more achievable. And once we've crossed that threshold with other departments requiring amount of water, sewer, et cetera, that's where it's going to get much more complicated. And all of that additional cumulative impact, the conversation is not existing background report. We don't reach out that far. And again, we'd be chasing after information that's either not there or extremely hard to get. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah. I just want to be mindful of that. So, I support continuing this conversation. I also like the suggestion of, you know, setting up an ad hoc to really hone in on what exactly are we looking for and how are we going to get that information in a way that is not burdensome to the department or even to the applicant. So, support this moving forward to the commission for their mana'o. Okay. There is a motion on the floor to forward Bill 134, Draft 2, to the Planning Director and Planning Commissions. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Motion The vote on the motion to refer Bill 134, Draft 2, to the to Refer: Planning Director and Planning Commissions was carried (Approved) by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder and Lee Loy — 2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Seeing as there is no other official business on the agenda, I am adjourning this meeting at 12:06 p.m. Thank you. Page 14 PCPLUD-13 April 2, 2024 ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Kierkiewicz adjourned the meeting MENT: at 12:06 p.m. Approved: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Development U( A o4 (Date) Page 15