HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN LAAC 2025/02/04 (2024-2026)Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions
V Session
Hawaii County Building
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii
February 4, 2025
CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions
ORDER: was called to order at 1:29 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by
Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Chair.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Chair
Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Vice Chair (came in later)
Mr. James E. Hustace, Member (came in later)
Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member
Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member
Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member
Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member
Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member (came in later)
Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (came in later)
STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items.
PUBLIC ON
AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by
the Chair:
Barbara DeFranco:
John Kawano:
Yen Wen Fang:
(representing Engineering
Partners)
Gregory Ogin:
(representing SVN Go
Commercial)
Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), comment.
Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in opposition.
Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in support.
Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in support.
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
Ana Kahoopii: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in opposition.
B. Pua Case: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in opposition.
Ceci Davenport: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in opposition.
Jim Dahlberg: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in support.
Nancy Carr Smith: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in support.
Kristin Counter: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in opposition.
Maximus Yarawamai: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in support.
Randall S. Okaneku: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
(representing The Traffic Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in support.
Management Consultant)
Benjy Garfinkle: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in opposition.
David Tamura: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in support.
Tanya Yamanaka Aynessazian: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in opposition.
Patti Cook: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in support.
E. Kalani Flores: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in opposition.
Cindy Evans: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), comment.
Ian Langevin: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and
Bill 199 (Comm. 1015), in support.
Page 2
LAAC-3 February 4, 2025
Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Committee Members, the
of Business: following items were taken out of order:
Bill 198: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE
(2022-2024) COUNTY OF HAWAI`I BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE RURAL DISTRICT AT
WAIMEA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAI`I, COVERED BY TAX MAP
KEY: 6-4-024:027
Postponed: September 16, October 15, 2024,
and January 7, 2025
(Note: There is a motion by Council Member Kierkiewicz, seconded by Council
Member Lee Loy, to recommend passage of Bill 198 on first reading.)
;and
Bill 199: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-11 (LALAMILO-PU`UKAPU ZONE MAP),
(2022-2024) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY
CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — 5 ACRES (A-5a)
TO RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL — 0.5 ACRES (RA-0.5a) AND
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL—10,000 SQUARE FEET (CN-10) AT
WAIMEA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAI`I, COVERED BY TAX MAP
KEY: 6-4-024:027
(ADDlicant: KauDulehu Land. LLC) (Area: 5.349 Acres)
The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for
this amendment to the State Land Use Boundaries Map and an unfavorable
recommendation for the requested change of zone, which would allow the
applicant to subdivide the property into eight lots consisting of three
retail/commercial lots fronting Mamalahoa Highway and five residential
agricultural lots. This property is located at 64-983 Mamalahoa Highway.
Reference: Comm.1015
Intr. by: Council Member Inaba (B/R)
Postponed: September 16, October 15, 2024,
and January 7, 2025
(Note: There is a motion by Council Member Kierkiewicz, seconded by Council
Member Galimba, to recommend passage of Bill 199 on first reading.)
; and
Comm. 1015.40: From Katherine A. Garson and Onaona P. Thoene of Carlsmith Ball LLP, dated
December 16, 2024, transmitting proposed conditions of approval for Bill 199.
; and
Page 3
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
Comm. 1015.47: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated January 28, 2025, transmitting
proposed amendments for Bill 199.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And before we begin, thank you to all
of the testifiers that participated today. We're going to start with presentations on
both these items from the Planning Department and then from the applicant. I
believe we're starting with the Planning Department first. Do we have the right
slides up, Director? Yes. Okay.
Point of Information: MS. KAGIWADA: Point of Information, Chair. We have several packets here
and some look like it may be duplicates. Do we know which one we are referring
to?
CHR. KIMBALL: I believe, yes, you do have duplicates in there. This one is, I
think, Communication 1015.50.
MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. No. I think it's either 1015.48 or 1015.49 because
those are the ones from Jeff Darrow.
CHR. KIMBALL: Yeah, what's up was 1015.50. But it looks like we are going
to do presto change-o, so this is 1015.49. Yeah. Alright, Director. I apologize,
it's either 1015.48 or 1015.49. I'll ask the Director to clarify. Originally, these
were going to be presented separately, but in the interest of time the two are going
to be presented together. So, I'm not sure which order they've placed them in.
MR. BROWN: Excuse me, Chair. I believe the point numbers, 1015.48 and
1015.49 are duplicates to cover both bills so they were used twice.
(Note: At this time, Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow 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 file in the Clerk's Office, or online at
http://hawaiicouniy_.gov.granicus.com. A copy of the PowerPoint
presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 1015.48.)
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Director. I'm going to move right to the
presentation by the applicant and then we can have any questions for the Director
or the applicant as we proceed with deliberations.
(Note: At this time, Ka`upulehu Land LLC Counsel, Onaona Thoene of
Carlsmith Ball, LLP, came forward to address the members of the
Committee.)
MS. THOENE: Alright. Aloha, Council Members. Onaona Thoene of Carlsmith
Ball. I'm here with Kathy Garson. We're representing the applicant, Ka`upulehu
Page 4
LAAC-3 February 4, 2025
Land. For the applicant representatives, we do have John and Joni Metzler, and
Joni just ran to the restroom, my apologies. She will be right back to give the
presentation. We also have our Planning Consultant here with us, Daryn Arai.
Thank you, folks, for your patience. You're up, Joni. She'll be speaking. So, I
just wanted to introduce us.
(Note: At this time, Applicant, Joni Metzler, 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 file in the Clerk's Office, or online at
http://hawaiicounty.gov.granicus.com. A copy of the PowerPoint
presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 1015.50.)
CHR. KIMBALL: Alright. Thank you very much. So at this time, we have two
motions read in that have already been posed. This is a bit of an unusual —
Mr. Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: Madam Chair, I just wanted I guess maybe if you can —like there
was a testifier saying that you had a discussion with him, and he mentioned some
stuff that you showed your expression that you didn't say that. So, maybe you
can clear that up and then we can move on.
CHR. KIMBALL: I'd be happy to do that actually in the context of what I'm
going to suggest next is that we have a bit of an unusual situation here, which is
that we have a favorable on the state land use boundary amendment; unfavorable
on the rezoning. When a rezoning comes to us with an unfavorable
recommendation, there are no conditions of approval included. And so, what I'd
actually like to suggest is that the first motion that this body takes up for
deliberation is to add the conditions of approval, which includes this discussion of
ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Unit). So if we can take that as the first motion,
which would be to amend Bill 199 with the contents of Communication 1015.47,
then I think I can respond to that.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Inaba moved to amend Bill 199 with the contents of
Comm. 1015.47. Seconded by Ms. Galimba.
CHR. KIMBALL: So I will just take the liberty of introducing this amendment.
As I said, with conditions of rezoning, when a rezoning ordinance comes before
us without having gotten a favorable recommendation, the conditions of approval
are not included. So most of what you see before you are these standard
conditions of approval that would apply to any rezoning and has to do with the
various requirements that we have in code including the new tolling language,
what happens if the time conditions aren't met; all of that.
Page 5
I W.V.T I
February 4, 2025
I did want to highlight that per the applicant's request based on conversations
we've had and that you can see the request in the Communication, 1015.40, they
requested that two amendments be added. One had to do with that ADU
prohibition. So, with the current code, there would be ADUs potentially
allowable on this site. At the applicant's request, it is Condition S; so in response
to your comment, Council Member Onishi. There's no change of the code or
anything here. I think what the misunderstanding was is that the applicant is
requesting that their CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions) that they put
forward is a condition in the amendment to this rezoning application. Hopefully
that clears it up. If not, I'm happy to further discus.
The second amendment is that there would be CC&Rs that would apply that had
to do with the Waimea Village Designed Standards that were presented from
1986. Is that the correct date? Yes. Okay. So, those are the two additional
conditions added to the typical conditions of approval that would have come in a
traditional way. So, happy to engage in conversation around the amendment.
Seeing none, all those in favor of amending Bill 199--okay, go ahead, Council
Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, I'm looking at the communication.
On the communication and the motion to amend, I appreciate the background and
seeing conditions presented to the bill because that was bugging me that there was
nothing recorded or documented as far as what conditions would be for the rezone
request. So, I appreciate this addition. It helps clear the air. Thank you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Any further questions regarding the amendment to Bill 199?
Council Member Hustace.
MR. HUSTACE: Thanks, Chair. This was discussed with the applicant then as
well, this particular condition?
CHR. KIMBALL: Yes. All conditions were discussed with the applicant prior.
MR. HUSTACE: And agreed upon?
CHR. KIMBALL: Yes.
MR. HUSTACE: Okay. Thank you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Go ahead, Mr. Hustace.
MR. HUSTACE: This body kind of worded hard on just a conversation about
ADUs. This body worked pretty hard on ADUs and trying to address housing and
that sort of form and fashion. So, I definitely have a concern on that sort of front
in terms of, we're talking about housing at large and how that kind of impacts
that. I know if we're talking about density, that's one thing and there are
Page 6
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
concerns about that in this particular area and how it may impact the agricultural
use of the properties. But yeah, definitely concerns of how that impacts. You
know, if we're putting this condition on every sort of project, what does that do to
our housing and trying to add capacity in that sort of sense. Thank you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Mr. Hustace. Anyone else? Council Member
Villegas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for this opportunity to take a look at these changes
and I appreciate your statement, Council Member Hustace, about what this does
to potential inventory for housing and the intention of ADUs. But I guess I firmly
go back to this is prime agricultural land. I mean, growing up driving through
Waimea and the strawberry fields and the different vegetables and whatnot in that
area and with flood mitigation. So, I'm happy to have the ADU removal because
to me it's a no brainer that these properties are not likely to be purchased by local
middle-class families. This is an avenue for people who potentially live on the
Kohala Coast to buy second or third homes within Waimea and have access to
school systems and that community there because that is historically —not
necessarily historically, that is the trend in Waimea right now, as was stated by
many testifiers, the gentrification and the displacement of our local, authentically,
generationally, legacy families in that area.
You know, I've stated under a number of different circumstances here on the dais,
if a project is focused on authentic workforce housing, in appropriate land areas, I
think that is a wonderful thing. But creating more gentlemen farms and hardening
surfaces that are when you look at the photos here, that grassland —and thank you,
Mr. Metzler, for all that hard work that you put in, I do honor that blood, sweat,
and tears to transition a property that did contain so much debris it sounds like.
But as we sit here as a Council and we continually talk about value systems for
protecting soil and water and trees, and our ecosystems, whether or not a piece of
property is actively farmed agriculturally, I don't think changes the value of it to
that overall ecosystem and that ahupua`a and how it relates in that waterway
which I think is really pivotal because having spaces like that remain capable of
water absorption is really important. So, while I appreciate the efforts made on
your part to try and ensure that this is as much as possible in alignment with what
your vision and the vision from 1986, this is something I do have to point out as it
was stated a number of times is this report from the County Council actually in
1986 and this, and you'll see it in the Waimea Design Plan, it's to ensure the
preservation of Waimea's ranch and agricultural heritage in the face of growth
and change, to reinforce their traditional role of Waimea Town as the regional
support and service center for ranching and intensive agricultural activities. And
our job here is to listen to the people of that place.
Page 7
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
I got a phone call from a prior Leeward Planning Commissioner who told me that
there were 1,700 testimonies, and he read through hundreds of them and it's just
unfortunate to me that the predominance of the testifiers that we've heard here
today have some kind of stake in the game; an opportunity to make money or they
were part of the prior planning, and those that have opposed don't and they're
trying to ensure that they can continue to pay their property taxes and they're
trying to ensure that we have the ability to continue —actually even to get closer
to growing the food we're going to need to have as our prices continue to escalate.
I just was doing a little bit of research online just one more statement, Chair.
CHR. KIMBALL: Quickly.
MS. VILLEGAS: In the last statement —and Metzler Contracting does have a
great reputation of building beautiful homes. And in Kona we have the
millionaires on the Kona-Kohala Coast, it's the billionaires and they're moving
into Waimea and really gentrifying the area and the homes that are built are
exquisite homes for discriminating homeowners and what we need now is shelter
and homes for our kama`aina people, not for them to be displaced by
disproportionate inflation of property values and taxes by building gentlemen
farms. I yield.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Anyone else before I go back to Council Member
Hustace? Council Member Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. On the amendment, I think it's
necessary to have conditions of approval so that there are clear guardrails and
expectations for the property owner. So, I will be supporting these conditions, but
I do have things that I want to say about these bills globally in honor of some of
the testimony that was put forth today. I did have a chance to meet with both Joni
and John Metzler, and then did have an opportunity to connect with Ana, Pua
Case, Kalani Flores and Momi Naughton, and there's some real deep community
engagement that needs to happen before I think we can move these bills forward.
But on the amendment piece, one of the things that I asked the Metzler's about
was these houses, these homes that will be available to community are not
affordable at a price point that I think most local families could afford. And so,
one of the suggestions that I had was connecting with, I think it's the North
Kohala Land Trust. We also have a Hawaii Island Land Trust where they are
dedicated to providing affordable housing in perpetuity. And I don't know if it's
appropriate, but I wondered if we could hear from the Metzler's or their
representatives here today about, you know, any forward progress with
connecting with the land trust and if that is something that you can commit to
doing so we can have represented here in the conditions of approval that one of
the properties would go to supporting housing through the land trust.
Page 8
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
CHR. KIMBALL: Please up to the mic; and just for the record, anything that has
to do with existing conditions of approval or potential future ones, I will consider
pertinent to the discussion.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I appreciate you, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Metzler, go
ahead and activate your mic. Hi.
(Note: At this time, Applicant John Metzler came forward to address the
members of the Committee)
MR. METZLER: Would you repeat your question for me?
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah. Of course. When I met with you and your wife,
Joni, we had talked about, you know, homes, properties being available to the
community. There are two there now but there's a potential for three more and I
mentioned to you that what would be available would not likely be affordable to
the average working family, an ALICE family, that's Asset Limited, Income
Constrained and Employed, that's the working poor, and I wondered if you folks
have given any thought to having maybe dedicating one of those properties to the
local land trust that was being, you know, getting off the ground in your
community as a measure of goodwill? Because we want to talk about having
affordable housing for our residents and this is one way to ensure that. And
again, just wanted to give you an opportunity to share with us if you've had
conversations with the land trust and where you are about adding some kind of
condition of approval related to that to this ordinance.
MR. METZLER: Thank you, Councilwoman. Joni and I heeded your
recommendation, and I very much appreciate you bringing that to my attention
because it's something new for me and I've never heard about it, obviously. I
approached the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the organization with the
acronym HALE (Hale O Hawai`i), that person's name is Mr. Pete Hoffman. We
had several email exchanges in which I sent him maps and other presentation
materials that Joni showed you today. We met at the project site, and I must say
that the negative testimony that's been brought forward against our project is not
helping any of the local families because Mr. Hoffman brought it up during my
meeting with him. So, our intent is to negotiate a deal with this HALE entity, but
it's going to take a lot of doing for them to agree to a land donation and use if we
have all this negative opposition to the project.
We did offer to donate a sizeable and appreciable amount of money to HALE so
that they could implement ownership of one of the lots and we plan to go all the
way carried forward, that offer to donate. It'll be a six -figure amount. But
they're going to need some assurance that they're not buying a lot upon which
they cannot build.
Page 9
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Metzler, for following through on that
request and connecting with Mr. Hoffman. I really appreciate you taking the time
to consider that as an option and I'm glad that they are a potential partner on
affordable housing in perpetuity type unit. Thank you, Chair. I yield.
MR. METZLER: Well, again, we appreciate your suggestion. And I've got to
say that maybe you guys weren't listening but when Joni made her presentation,
she mentioned that we want to sell these half -acre lots for around $300,000. If
you take a few minutes and look on the internet, I'm sorry that this other
commissioner didn't see it her way to state for this discussion. But if you look
just on the internet and try to find a lot anywhere in Waimea for $300,000, I think
you'll find that people will be crawling over themselves to buy one of these lots
and these are going to be folks who live in Waimea or belong in Waimea for some
reason or another. I've heard a lot of this testimony about, you know, "I've been
here for X number of years and generations and stuff." Well, my `ohana's been
connected with Waimea since the 1800's. So, I want to see our youngsters living
there and flourishing there. So, I can't make a commitment that we're not going
to sell to some out of towner. But my belief is and my statement to you today is,
we're going to do our best to have local kids buy these lots. If they want to build
a house, more power to them. But you look on the internet and show me a lot in
Waimea that's going to be sold for less than $300,000 to $350,000. Amen.
CHR. KIMBALL: Okay. To you, Mr. Hustace.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. Yeah. I'm in favor of these conditions here.
I just want to go back specifically to the ADU piece again though, and it's kind of
a question actually for the Planning Department, if that's okay? Thank you,
Director. In your presentation, looking at the aerial imagery I see some, you
know, parcels that maybe have ADUs on them already. The question really is
though, are there any permits or applicants, you know, in this close vicinity that
have ADUs?
MR. DARROW: I'm not sure. We didn't actually do a review of how the
adjoining houses were permitted. They could've been permitted through `ohana
permits previously. That would be my thought. We've had very few ADU
permits come in across the board at this time, mainly because people are trying to
understand how to go about doing it and trying to figure out the process. We're
trying to present with clarity how people do that and provide them direction and
understanding how they can meet the requirements to be able to do an ADU. So,
I would guess that those are not ADUs at this time.
MR. HUSTACE: Fair enough. Yeah, just curious in this vicinity on the eastern
edge of Waimea.
Page 10
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
MR. DARROW: I did see that. There are a number of dwellings that are in close
proximity of this property.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you. You know, I'm kind of torn on this particular piece
because sure I want to see that maximized, that agricultural piece of the property,
you know, that's what the community is kind of pushing for, that agricultural side
of things. But if the conversation amongst Council Members is about
affordability, you know, wouldn't the potential of having the ADU lead to maybe
more affordable rental, I don't know. That's food for thought on something to
consider. So, I'm definitely torn on that particular condition. So, thank you. I
yield for now.
CHR. KIMBALL: Any further discussion on the amendment? I believe we had
Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and then Council Member Inaba.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I already spoke.
CHR. K]MBALL: You did? Okay. He's not ready so, you're up.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Director, I'm looking at the County of
Hawaii Planning Department's recommendation for this particular project and
about halfway in, this is Page 5, because we're talking about ADUs and we're
talking about the amendment in the conditions; you have it in front of you?
MR. DARROW: Yes.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Page 5, at the top and kind of
paraphrasing; about halfway in the first paragraph on Page 5 and although the
applicant will be required to meet the County Housing Code providing affordable
housing, subdivision will include primarily market rate lots. And then skipping
down a little bit, the Leeward Planning Commission did not support the request
because they believe the southern portion of the property should not be urbanized
because it's situated in the area designated for small farms and ranches in the
SKCDP (South Kohala Community Development Plan). Can you help me
understand this paragraph because this kind of touches on everything that we've
spoken to? Are you seeing the same thing I'm seeing?
MR. DARROW: Yes.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, let's start with the top. The affordable
housing component; what is that? How are they required to meet the County
Housing Code for providing affordable housing within this project or this zoning
request?
Page 11
LAAC-3
February 4,2025
MR. DARROW: So, the residential agricultural .5-acre portion of the project, and
it is the portion that it's mainly focusing on because currently the proposed
request is that the commercial area would be utilized for commercial purposes.
But the entire project is covered by the condition placed in the proposed
conditions that this project shall meet the affordable housing requirements for the
project. What that means is if they end up proposing residential lots on the
property, they have to meet that 20 percent requirement. In this particular case,
because there are five lots proposed, one lot will be 20 percent and are required to
meet affordable housing requirements. If residential uses are proposed on the
commercial, which could allow quite a bit of residential on that particular portion
of the property, it will also be required to meet 20 percent affordable housing
requirements.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. To what was said earlier about the
beneficial means of bringing in the Housing Trust is actually a requirement of this
project?
MR. DARROW: I'm not real clear about that aspect of this. I think what they're
trying to do with that is have an entity kind of oversee and see that and make sure
it's making affordable housing. But the applicant is actually required, and it's
based on Condition P.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, Condition P actually requires that
at least one lot be provided at an affordable housing rate, and that's 20 percent?
MR. DARROW: Correct. Yes. That's the current requirement for affordable
housing.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And the rest would be market rate.
MR. DARROW: It could be.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And the second half of that paragraph,
which is interesting, that this portion should not be urbanized because it's
designated, again, paraphrasing, not word for word; since it's situated in an area
designated for small farms and ranches in the SKCDP. We're talking about a
plan from 1986.
MR. DARROW: No, no.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Not this one.
MR. DARROW: This is the South Kohala Community Development Plan.
Page 12
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But we're also discussing this Waimea
Development Plan from 1986.
MR. DARROW: Yeah. That's a design plan more for the aesthetics design
review.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And that's —
MR. DARROW: This particular plan, which was one of the slides that we
showed in the presentation, identified small farms and ranches in preservation
areas which was the green area and the yellow, which identified existing urban.
And so, it's right in that area. It aligns closely with the state land use designation.
So, when we looked at the state land use designation, you have the pink for the
urban, you have the light green for the agricultural.
You know, when looking at this request, the original request came in in 2021.
They had come in and requested commercial and single-family residential. That
met with a lot of opposition. They pulled back the project and they came back to
present this project, which still has commercial in the urban area but now it's
requesting instead of urban to a rural designation. So, it's like that buffer between
urban and agriculture giving that little bit of buffer. And then residential
agriculture on the County zoning.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Are ADUs permitted in state
land use rural?
MR. DARROW: They're permitted in the residential agricultural zoning.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: On, let's say state land use ag?
MR. DARROW: State land use ag you have to comply with the requirements of
Chapter 205 for farm dwellings.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, state land use rural?
MR. DARROW: Correct.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Can?
MR. DARROW: Yes, you can. That's what our Code says right now.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: There's hesitancy in that answer. The first
one was solid. The second one was hesitant.
Page 13
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
MR. DARROW: You caught me. In the HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) 205, it
says if there should be a dwelling per half acre in the rural district.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: One dwelling?
MR. DARROW: Right. But our code has allowed for additional dwellings in the
rural district, and I think that there is changes happening right now with the
legislature because of that, because of the fact that there's a strong push in the
legislature for additional options for housing and one of those is the ADU bills.
And so they're looking at this issue in the rural district with the limitation of
allowing one dwelling on a half -acre.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Which is what's being proposed.
MR. DARROW: Correct.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But no further ADUs?
MR. DARROW: Yes. Well there's no ADUs.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No ADUs.
MR. DARROW: Right. It's just allowing a single-family dwelling with no
ADUs.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And the change of zone from state land use
ag to state land use rural with the change of zoning to .5 residential —
MR. DARROW: Agriculture, RA (Residential Agricultural).
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Residential agricultural allows for the
dwelling and ADU or no ADU?
MR. DARROW: Correct. Well, our code says it does allow for ADUs.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: For?
MR. DARROW: It could if you could meet the infrastructure requirements. And
that poses challenges without infrastructure in place like County water and sewer.
When you try to do it through catchment or individual wastewater systems, you
can run into issues.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. DARROW: Thank you.
-Page 14
f1f.T.TM
February 4, 2025
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. I'll go to
Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Nope. No questions. In support of the amendment. Thank you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. I thought your attention to detail is going to catch
me up on something I missed. Alright. Council Member Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, Chair. You know, I'm going to suggest postponing
these bills because it was really evident that the Metzler's and the community
have not had an opportunity to really engage outside of these public hearings at
Council and at Commission, and I don't think that's the best way to be engaging
community.
CHR. KIMBALL: Are you going to suggest we postpone before deciding on the
amendment? Because otherwise I'd like to decide on this and then —
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah. I think let's maybe withdraw the amendment only
because I'd like the community to help make the decision around whether or not
they'd like to see ADUs on the property, especially if we're going in the direction
of having this land returned back to productive agriculture, and you're going to
need housing for that. And so, I think it's best for the community to weigh in on
that before we attach those conditions of approval.
CHR. KIMBALL: Okay. Any other thoughts on that. We're still on the
amendment. Council Member Villegas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. Director Darrow, so my question relates to, and it goes
back to my history with O`oma and some other zoning opportunities for other
projects. And in those circumstances, mind you this was state land use zoning
changes, but the issue was once, if we approve zoning changes or this
amendment, it creates the entitlements to the property; correct?
MR. DARROW: Correct.
MS. VILLEGAS: And the listed specifications of what's allowed and what's not
allowed?
MR. DARROW: I would clarify that by saying that the conditions will be placed
on whatever development is on there. I've seen change of zones that they have
actually limited the uses permitted in that zoning district. I've seen that but that's
not something I think we should be doing. I think we change the zone, and we
consider what could the highest and best use be for this particular zoning. Are we
okay with that; can it meet the infrastructure requirements to support this kind of
Page 15
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
thing even though we may be hearing from an applicant what they're proposing,
we have no idea if that's actually going to happen or not, right?
MS. VILLEGAS: Because it's not legally binding. If we change the zone, it just
changes the perimeters of what's allowable on the property, but the development
or the proposed project, it's not legally binding that they ever build that particular
project. Does it ever come back to Council once we approve the zoning change?
MR. DARROW: Only if they don't meet the conditions that you place on that
particular rezoning; like timeframes, right. We say normally that's a typical
development condition. You have to do your development within a timeframe.
MS. VILLEGAS: Or come for a time extension or da, da, da, da, da. But
otherwise —
MR. DARROW: I'm sorry.
MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. DARROW: Now we're changed that. Even for a time extension, you come
back before the Council.
MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. I'll support the amendment, but I have some statements
about the actual bill, and I actually concur with Council Member Kierkiewicz, and
I support a postponement of all of this because our job is to represent the
community and the community's voices have spoken today and I think they are an
authentic reflection of those that don't stand to make money off the project. With
that, I yield.
CHR. KIMBALL: Any further discussion? Yes. Council Member Kaneali`i-
Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm actually on the other side. I think I'd
actually like to see the amendment pass, which gives us our floor level, solid,
zoning ordinance with everything included and we've locked that in at least, and
that gives us something to discus and work from. Otherwise, we're dealing from
a blank slate. And the community is here; the developer is here, the applicants
here; the applicants actually agreed to the communication which creates the
zoning requirements and the ordinance requirements, and I like that methodology
better than just postponing it and leaving it a blank check to maybe come back to
us completely blank again. That's my thoughts.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kagiwada.
Page 16
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. I would rather postpone the amendments
because I think if we're giving the community and the developers and perhaps the
Council Member from this district the opportunity to get together to discuss this.
If we've made all the decisions before they discuss it, then I feel like we're not
really being truthful about what that meeting could be about. So, I really feel like
if we are going to do that, if we're going to postpone, to allow the community and
the developers, and the representative from that area to really have an honest
discussion, we shouldn't make decisions today before they've had those
discussions. So, I'm happy to support a postponement if the Council Member
from that district is wanting to do that.
And I'm really looking a lot to the Council Member from this district because it is
a tricky one. A lot of the things in the proposed project seem to be aligned with
what should be allowable and legal and everything but then at the same time
you've got neighbors on either side and behind this project, I believe, that's my
understanding based on when I met with the developers on this that are not in
favor this project, then that's a really hard spot, I think, to go forward from. So, if
there could be the ability to have that open and honest discussion with everybody,
I think we should support that chance. I yield.
CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member Hustace.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I do agree with Council
Member Kaneah'i-Kleinfelder; at least setting kind of a baseline on some of the
standards here in the Conditions for the applicant and for the project here. Yeah.
And I appreciate the thoughts from my colleagues, and I'm merely speaking to
the —I know Council Member Villegas, you want to speak at large more to the
bills themselves and, you know, that's why I kind of being a little bit more
reserved and I'm trying to really just speak to the amendments here. so, that's
where my mind is right now. But, yeah, I appreciate the sentiment from
colleagues. So, thank you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Alright. I think it's not clear where we all stand. But I'm just
going to weigh in that I think it is kind of sits in one half does and then the other.
I mean, even if you go with a blank bill, you have the amendment contained in a
communication that can be shared with the community. If you go in with a bill
that has the terms of conditions and make it clear the community can amend it,
then I think that is equally acceptable.
I think from just the standpoint of process, my preference would be to just get it in
the bill so that next time we're looking at Draft 2, it looks more like a typical
rezoning application, rezoning ordinance. And then whomever, if there is
community meetings that happen, as long as they communicate effectively that
this is open for discussion and those potential conditions -may be adjusted, I think
that that's sufficient. So, I suggest that we defer to the Council Member whose
Page 17
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
district this is in as they'll be conducting this meeting. So, Mr. Hustace, would
you like to proceed with the vote on this amendment?
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. You know, this is something that the
applicant has agreed upon. I think with your recommendation and the thoughts
from their conversations with Council Members on how to make this more
presentable and work with the community. And to that affect, you know, I didn't
really want to speak outside of the amendment, but we've already had kind of that
conversation so if you'll allow me just momentarily.
You know, my interaction started with the applicant in 2021 with I sat on the
Traffic Safety Committee. So, they did take consideration from community and
community groups. So I'm grateful that they have considered this and that they
are, you know, agreeable to these pieces here. So, with that, I would recommend
that we have at least their conversation they had with you, so at least that's a
starting point. That is something that they can present to the community if that's
the case maybe and then go from there to see what else needs to be amended or
changed, whatnot. But at least it is something that they worked with you on to
present in that sort of frame of reference. Thank you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Okay. Given that, unless there are any objections, Council
Member Onishi, did you want to weigh in on the amendment?
MR. ONISHI: Yeah. I don't know; you can correct me. But we just got this
picture and just to let you folks know, if you're looking at this photo, on the left
side is where Fukushima, okay. And if you go towards mauka, the property that
we're talking about is the second one to the right. So, Fukushima is on the top
where it says Fish and Hog, okay.
So, it was mentioned about how important these ag lands are in this area. But if
we look at this whole thing, there's a lot of development, right. And so, I just
wanted to share that with you folks because it's always being talked about how
crucial these ag lands are, right, and if you look at it you see a lot of development
in this area. So, to me it would match to what is happening right now. Okay.
Thank you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Onishi. Okay. We're going to
proceed with the vote on the amendment. All those in favor of amending Bill 199
with the contents of Communication 1015.47, say "aye."
Page 18
LAAC-3
Vote on Motion
to Amend:
.(Approved)
Motion to Postpone:
February 4, 2025
The motion to amend Bill 199 with the contents of
Comm. 1015.47 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kimball — 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KIMBALL: We will return to the discussion of the bill as a whole as
amended. Any further discussion? I think some of it has been covered. Council
Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to postpone Bill 199 to
the Call of the Chair. Seconded by Mr. Inaba.
CHR. KIMBALL: Any discussion on the postponement? Council Member
Villegas and then Council Member Onishi.
MS. VILLEGAS: I just had a comment. What comes to mind, I'll be supporting
the postponement because something that I see and hear quite often when we sit
in zoning changes and land use planning related meetings is, we look at maps and
say, it looks like everything that's going around it and it's just five acres; and it's
just this and it's just a small thing, but each one of those becomes the next thing
and that sets the precedent for what happens. And then we look back 20 years
later and say, how did we end up where we're at.
CHR. KIMBALL: I appreciate that comment, but I'm going to keep us on the
postponement. Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: Can I ask the consultants to come up?
CHR. KIMBALL: Yes.
MR. ONISHI: You guys can introduce yourselves.
(Note: At this time, Attorney Katherine Garson with Carlsmith Ball LLP
and Land Use Consultant Daryn Arai came forward to address the
members of the Committee.)
MS. GARSON: Good afternoon. Katherine Garson from Carlsmith Ball. I'm the
attorney for the applicant.
MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai. I reside in Hilo. I'm the land use consultant.
Page 19
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
MR. ONISHI: Okay. So I'm calling you up because the motion right now is to
postpone so the applicant can go meet with the community. My question to you
folks is have you folks reached out to them prior to this meeting?
MS. GARSON: So, the applicant themselves have met with a number of people
in the community, and I would rather have them respond to that question.
MR. ONISHI: But you folks were never involved with these community
meetings?
MS. GARSON: There were for Leeward Planning Commission meetings that we
ended up attending. One on the first application and then three after, right. And
so, what it was, was there was a lot of testimony that come up and one of the
things that the applicant did was listen and take testimony and go back and make
changes and come back. And so, you know, their individual discussions with
various people, I think Joni said, you know, there's 50 people. DOT (Department
of Transportation) actually asked them to go talk to people, so Mr. Metzler went
and talked to their neighbors. So they did that. Again, they went to the South
Kohala Traffic Committee; they went to the Waimea Design Committee actually,
and so all of those things I think sort of accomplished that.
I mean, it might not be what's being suggested with like a public forum outside of
a meeting, but there were four meetings and if you could South Kohala, I think
they went twice —I mean, the Traffic Safety Committee, I think they went twice
and it had to do with cutting down on the number of driveways because initially
there were three proposed and I think the Traffic Committee wanted them to cut it
down to two, and so they did that and they went back again when they changed
the plan. So, there's been a lot of that kind of community engagement already.
And again, I know that they have done via email, phone calls, they have contacted
a lot of people and had conversations.
MR. ONISHI: Okay. You have anything, Daryn?
CHR. KIMBALL: If you're going to make a comment for the record, you have to
come to the mic. Mr. Arai.
MR. ARAI: Yeah. The Metzler's wanted to engage with members of the
community directly, which is why we weren't the forward facing people. But
anyway, it was that one-on-one conversation, you know, as Ms. Garson
mentioned, that helped frame what you have before you right now. A lot of that
was focused on mitigation because there were concerns about floods, concerns
about traffic, concerns about water allocation, and that's where a lot of the follow
up efforts pursued. It's trying to address and how can you make sure that the
project itself can mitigate appropriately those type of perceived impacts.
Page 20
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
Now, to the broader discussion regarding agriculture land, food security, that's
part of why the project itself has evolved from what was back in 2021, I think was
10,000 square foot lots and more focus on residential uses to now a half -acre
concept that is more aligned with the South Kohala CDP regarding small farms
and ranches. So yes, there has been this sort of evolutionary kind of thing, but
never in a single setting where there's a dynamic flow of ideas and discussions.
That to my knowledge has not occurred. But at the same time, I don't want to
discount the sheer efforts that Mr. and Mrs. Metzler has made in trying to reach
out to the community.
MR. ONISHI: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ARAI: You're welcome.
MR. ONISHI: The only thing for me is that they went through the Design
Committee; they went through the Traffic Committee and so forth; they're
following the CDP, following the County, you know, all their land use and so
forth. So now, if an applicant does a proper thing to do, follow everything, go
through the Planning Commission and so forth; there's the public testimony, you
know, people are going to speak up. But now we're saying, okay, we want to
hear back from the community, right. So, should we just wash everything else,
those design committees and don't even care about them and just care about what
the community thinks and how this development is going to happen, or we've got
to kind of stick to what the law is what the applicant did, which is follow what
was required. And we depend on the Planning Department to make sure they did
the proper procedures, right, and they meet all the requirements.
So to me, I don't think we should postpone it and have them to go back and talk
to the whole community because I've seen that, we've done that before in the past
and it's still going to be split because you're never going to satisfy everyone. But
to me, we have a process for any applicant coming in to get a rezoning and if the
department gives us a negative, then we look at that. But if the department is
giving us a positive, then I think we should support the department because
they're the ones that are the experts and not us. I mean, we're listening from
testimony from residents that is against it, but we also heard residents that is for it.
So to me, I won't support the postponement. Thank you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Onishi. Anyone else on the
postponement? Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Arai, what was the Leeward Planning's
decision on this?
MR. ARAI: Keeping it simple, it was a favorable on the state land use boundary
amendment from agricultural to rural on the back half of the property, the south
Page 21
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
half, and an unfavorable recommendation on the change of zone that would
rezone the property to commercial in the front and residential ag in the back.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I am listening and I am being
open. I'm also remembering about a month ago when we had a discussion about
a similar rezone ordinance in Puna for a medical facility. Does that ring any
bells?
MR. ARAI: Yes.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Since then, and I'm highlighting this
because the community came and spoke, and they found an opportunity to do so.
The medical facility actually decided to not look at that parcel anymore and is
looking at other parcels that are less contentious and I find that to be a good
example of when community comes in, speaks, and then we as government and
applicants and whoever else listens; that's the importance of this body and our
demographic process and in transparency. So, just highlighting that and thank
you for those words.
MR. ARAI: You're welcome.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Arai.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Council
Member Galimba, did you have a comment before I return to Council Member
Onishi?
MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. And I think I agree with Council Member Onishi, I
just feel like we shouldn't be creating new steps, you know, creating different
processes based on sort of specific cases. So, I think it sets a precedence that I
don't particularly like. So, I will also not be voting for the postponement.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Galimba. Going to Council
Member Villegas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. Very interesting perspectives. For me, in this role of
government we have administration, and these are experts in their fields. Many of
them have extensive education in land planning or waste management or
whatever it is. So, developers and projects have to go through that whole
administrative process which is the list of exact requirements based on specific
laws and procedures. Then it's got to come to us. We're not all experts in all of
these fields, but we were elected by our districts and the members of our
communities in order to be their -voices in these seats. And so for me, that is our
job, is to be the people who listen to the people. And when enough of them come
out, we hear all the time how difficult it is for community members to get to
Page 22
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
meetings and to even figure out our systems, you know, technology is wonderful
but sometimes it alienates a whole other demographic to write letters, to make the
phone calls. If you're as lucky as I am, you get DMs (Direct Message) on social
media.
But so for me, I see that as being our role and that's why the community comes to
us and that's why we get to be a vote here amongst the nine of us, to be the voice
of our community. Authentically, those that don't necessarily benefit directly
from developments or projects but may potentially be harmed by or adversely
affected by, or economically harmed through increase in property taxes, through
all the different things I mentioned earlier. So, that's my humble interpretation of
this job and our roles and why we have that kind of government set up as a
democracy so that there are people in positions of leadership who get to vote on
issues who are intended to be the voice and the vote of the people that live in their
district. I yield.
CHR. KIlVIBALL: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. Anyone else who
hasn't spoken before I turn to Council Member Onishi? Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: I understand that's the process. But then say okay, today we had a
majority of support, so we wouldn't be in this situation right now then, as you're
mentioning. But to me, I didn't hear a majority of negative, right. We're hearing
that there was a lot of testimony and so forth but, I mean, we're basing that on
what they had at the Planning Commission, right. So, that's the thing that I
cannot see. But to clarify, okay so, with the Planning Commission on the front
area, it was a negative. But what was the vote on that?
MR. ARAI: And if Ms. Garson can make sure I state it accurately, this state land
use failed by a vote of three -three.
CHR. KIMBALL: I think this might be a Planning Department question. Do you
folks recall the votes on the Planning Commissions on these two pieces of
legislation?
MR. ONISHI: Planning Director, can you come up? Because to my
understanding the vote was three -one but because they didn't have the four, that's
why it became a negative.
MR. DARROW: So there were two meetings. One was on June 20w, there was a
favorable motion for the state land use boundary amendment. It failed. It didn't
pass. Then there was a motion for an unfavorable recommendation for the
rezoning and it passed five to zero. Then at the July 18a' meeting, there was a
vote on the state land use boundary amendment for a favorable recommendation.
It passed four to zero. Then there was a motion to reconsider or rescind the
Page 23
LAAC-3 February 4, 2025
previous motion for the unfavorable recommendation on the rezoning; that failed
three to one.
MR. ONISHI: Okay. But if it had gone four -zero, then it would've been
approved?
MR. DARROW: Correct.
MR. ONISHL• Yeah, okay.
MS. GARS ON: May I? Just a little bit of color though because I believe what
happened at the June 20°i hearing is the SOU DBA (Statement of Understanding)
(Doing Business As) motion went three -three. And then the next motion, they left
it like that, and they went on to talk about the rezone. So when they took the vote
on the rezone, what some of the council members said is, well, we want, you
know, we're just going to vote negative because they can't get a majority. And
so, they wanted to send it forward —
Point of Information: MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Council Members or Planning Commission
Members?
MS. GARSON: I'm sorry. It's Leeward Planning.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Planning Commission Members, not
Council Members.
MS. GARSON: No. Sorry.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: A lot of people get it confused, and I hate it
when it gets confused because it's two separate bodies, two separate duties.
MS. GARSON: I understand.
CHR. KIlVIBALL: We've got it. It's been corrected. Thank you.
MS. GARSON: Thank you. So, at the Leeward Planning Commission, those
members, when they were voting on the rezoning, they didn't want to send it up
to you with basically no recommendation. So, some of the members said they'll
go along with the negative recommendation because they wanted to send you
something. And it is on YouTube. I watched it over the weekend, so I'm very
certain that that's how it went down. There are minutes you can feel free to
review it. But that's how I recall what happened.
CHR. KMMALL: And to the Council Members, the minutes are available
through the links on our sharedpoint drive.
Page 24
LAAC-3
February 4,2025
MS. GARS ON: Well, it may not be there if you watch it. It's the why, I mean,
some of the commission members did say they're just going to go along with the
negative recommendation on the rezone so they could have something ready, have
a statement coming up to you.
MR. ONISHI: Okay. Thank you very much for that clarification. The last thing
I have is about the medical center. I mean, that was totally two separate issues,
right. One was—
CHR. KIMBALL: I'm going to keep that we're still on the postponement.
MR. ONISHI: It was the rezoning for the property to one acre and the other was
just a special permit, which we all got shocked to hear about that. And so, I just
wanted to mention that because the public, you know, they're going to be
watching this, and I just wanted to clarify.
CHR. KIlVIBALL: I think it's been addressed here a couple of times that the
lesson learned is what we're actually agreeing to with respect to rezoning is that
the use that is in the zoning that we're assigning makes sense; all the uses, and
that there is no commitment to any given project regardless. There may be
conditions on the project but there's no commitment to any given project. It's just
to all of these. We're back to the motion to postpone to the call of the chair. Any
further comments on that before we vote? Council Member Hustace.
MR. HUSTACE: What does postponement look like for this body in terms of
when it's up to the call of the chair; but what does that look like? You know, if
it's community interface, if it's 30 meetings, if it's two meetings, I don't know
what that looks like and so I'm looking to my senior colleagues here as to what
your recommendation is. If this is kind of the action and the path you want to go
down, what is logical, what is reasonable, and what do you expect that comes
back before this body in a reasonable time; do you have limitations on what the
applicant and their representatives have to undergo? I'm just putting it there to
the body to see, is this postponed forever? These are questions that I'm unclear
about. So, I'd love some insight.
CHR. KIMBALL: I'd like to provide some insight on that, but I'll go to you,
Council Member Inaba, first.
MR. INABA: Thank you. I think the opportunity based on the testimony we
received today, making sure that community, now that we have a draft with
conditions, has the opportunity to review; you as the Council Member of that
district to engage further and if you come back with no changes, then the
meetings were held and we're able to move forward. But how exactly that works
out to be however many meetings that is, I think that's ultimately up to the
Council Member of the district and the community. You know, if they feel their
Page 25
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
voice was heard and they have nothing further to share then, you know, I think
that's what we're looking to accomplish here. I don't think anyone has specific
recommendations as to how. It's just the opportunity. And if we have those
meetings and we're ready to bring it back in a month, then it's a month, and that's
the call of the chair. The chair of the committee can bring it back then. Thank
you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I'll just add to that. I think the point here is to
socialize what could potentially happen on that property with the community. I
know that it was stated that there have been years of engagement going to a
design committee and traffic review committee, but I don't know if individuals
that serve on those bodies are a representative of the community at large. And so,
this presents an opportunity to cast a wider net, share what potential opportunities
there are for development because when I met with community members, people
aren't saying no development, but they want development to solve community
issues. Things like food insecurity keep coming up and the Metzler's have
property and resources to help community good will and implement solutions that
increase food resiliency in the area. That's just an idea.
I don't think 100 percent of folks are going to get on board with all of the ideas
but if there can be a majority win -win here, I would be good with that. And I'm
happy to help in any way, shape, or form to be there to help facilitate whatever
that's needed because I know you're two months on the job and I want to support
you in your effort to engage community in a meaningful way.
CHR. KIMBALL: Alright. I'll just weigh in on the postponement. I'm actually
going to concur with Council Member Galimba and Council Member Onishi that
there is a process that is defined that it does allow for political engagement, civil
engagement, by the community as they have done today. And I will acknowledge
at the same time that we have kind of an unusual situation where we have the state
land use as a favorable, the rezoning as an unfavorable, and that does need to be
taken into account.
I would also say that I completely understand that there are community members
that would not come, feel comfortable, in this particular forum to have a
discussion with the Metzler's about this and, you know, that's completely
understandable. Michelle is really scary. She bites. But all kidding aside, I think
if we start a precedence where we're adding a step that is ambiguous in terms of
what the outcomes need to be, I think that's problematic. What I would say is that
we have two more hearings at a minimum around this. I'm sure the Metzler's
have heard, and their representatives have heard, the community is asking to sit
down and talk.
Page 26
LAAC-3 February 4, 2025
Actually, what I heard today was they were like, let's find a way to work together.
To me, that was an opening. It wasn't all like, no, no, no. It was, let's find a way
to make this work. So, you know, we have two more weeks till the next hearing.
We'll have another two weeks at a minimum till the next hearing after that. My
inclination is not to postpone, certainly not to postpone to the call of the chair. I
do think this sets a precedent that is problematic.
And if I can just speak more broadly, you know, when there have been
evaluations done about why we're not addressing our housing needs more
quickly, one of the things that comes out is the more bodies that have decision -
making authority that touch it, each time you have a 30 percent chance of getting
through. So, if we now have the Planning Commission; we have us, and then we
have some arbitrary citizen's group that's going to weigh in, we've basically
made it impossible for any housing project to go forward. So, I will not be
supporting the postponement and suggest we maintain typical scheduling and
course of action. Alright. With that, I will take the vote on the postponement to
the call of the chair. Can I have a roll call, please?
Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 199 to the Call of the Chair
to Postpone: failed by the following roll call vote:
Failed
Ayes: Committee Members Inaba, Kdneali`i-Meinfelder,
Kierkiewicz, and Villegas — 4.
Noes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace,
Kagiwada, Onishi, and Chair Kimball — 5.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
(Note: Mr. Inaba voted "kanalua" then "aye.")
CHR. KIMBALL: Okay. We are back to the main motion, which is Bill 199, as
amended. Further discussion on the main motion? Council Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: Yeah. You know, after what you said here, I understand that
the Council Member from that district did not want that to happen. So, happy to
go along with that. I'm wondering if the Council Member from District 9 wants
to consider postponing just for a month or something like that. I guess I'd like
feedback on where you're at. Is it no postponement or the call of the chair and
having this ambiguous timeframe felt off. So, I'd love more feedback here.
CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member Hustace. Sorry.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. That's okay. Appreciate the question. You
know, happy to work with the community on trying to find a path forward on this
and I'm happy to work with the applicant to see what is this best path forward.
Page 27
f1I:�C�dc'.
February 4, 2025
But the ambiguity of the postponement to the call of the chair bothered me some.
So, I think setting a, you know, some sort of timeframe to engage a little bit more
with the applicant is admissible. Yeah, so I'm happy to work with the applicants,
work with the community if that's really, you know, kind of trying to find this
balance between it all. We do have this due process of working through the
timeline of all of this, so I do want to honor that and honor the steps that they've
taken as well to engage with the community and come before us there. Yeah, a
short timeframe for a postponement wouldn't be bothersome to me.
CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: I support what the Chair had mentioned earlier about there's two
more meetings. We pass this now; they have like two weeks to talk to the
community, come back to the Council and then report like what, with the Council
Member in the district, what we're going to do, postpone at the time of the
Council Meeting or we can move on to the next meeting, right, to the second one.
But to postpone it here is almost like saying, okay, we should've just postponed
the amendment, right? So, to me, we should move forward, move it to Council,
but the only problem might happen is that at the Council, we might spend a long
time discussing it again. So, that's one thing. But I've seen it before, this
Council, this body from before it went to Council meetings and discussions were
long too, so I don't see any difference. And even back then when I was on the
Council, we had those situations too. So to me, we should move it out of
committee, have the applicant with the Council Member in the district meet with
the community; hopefully they can work it out in two weeks, come back to the
Council and we have something that we can vote on. Thank you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Onishi. Council Member
Villegas.
MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. I would just like to point out that the Metzler's
themselves have postponed this four times. So, you know, here we have the
community asking for a postponement, which I don't think is outside of their
purview when the developers themselves have done that.
CHR. KIMBALL: I'm just going to interject here because one of the reasons for
postponement was the development of this amendment and I was actually
unavailable to do it. So, I'm a bit concerned about an insinuation. Let's stick to
the merits of the concept of a postponement.
MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. In another merit of the postponement is, you know,
there have been hundreds if not thousands of people who have testified over the
years on this project who've shown up before the Leeward Planning Commission
over and over and over again, who've called in and mailed in, and the fact that
they're all not here today is one of the challenges for us serving at this given time
Page 28
LAAC-3 February 4, 2025
when a project like this has been in the works for so long. So, I don't want it to
be disregarded, that because there aren't as many people sitting in the room today,
that there aren't as many voices that continue to be in opposition of this particular
development because I don't think that's fair to our community and I would be
remised not to mention that.
CHR. KIMBALL: Further discussion on the main motion? Okay. With that,
Council Member Hustace.
Motion to Postpone: Mr. Hustace moved to postpone Bill 199 to March 6, 2025.
Seconded by Ms. Villegas.
CHR. KIMBALL: Discussion on the postponement to March 6`s9 Council
Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Council Member Hustace, for
finding a date so that we can move forward with the postponement and get
somewhere. I appreciate that. Thank you.
CHR. KIMBALL: Any further discussion on postponement to March 6? Alright,
seeing none. All those in favor, please say "aye."
Vote on Motion
The motion to postpone Bill 199, as amended to Draft 2, to
to Postpone:
March 6, 2025 was carried by the following voice vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace,
Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder,
Kierkiewicz, Villegas, Chair Kimball — 8.
Noes: Committee Member Onishi —1.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Motion to Postpone:
Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Bill 198 to March 6, 2025.
Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz.
CHR. KIMBALL: Any discussion on postponement? Council Member Hustace.
MR. HUSTACE: Thanks, Chair. I'll work with the applicant and the community
to set a time between now and then. So, I appreciate the support from my
colleagues on, you know, establishing an opportunity to meet with the
community, discuss further, especially on the conditions that were presented
before the body here, and then see where we can kind of work together on that.
And I appreciate the opportunity to work with the applicant and the community.
So, thank you.
Page 29
LAAC-3 February 4, 2025
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Any further discussion? Alright. Seeing none, I
will say, Council Member Hustace, I'm happy to help join you in that meeting
especially if there's going to be food from the Fish and Hog. Alright. All those
in favor of the motion to postpone Bill 198 to the March 6`s meeting, please say
"aye."
Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 198 to March 6, 2025 was
to Postpone: carried by the following voice vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace,
Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneah'i-Kleinfelder,
Kierkiewicz, Villegas, Chair Kimball — 8.
Noes: Committee Member Onishi — 1.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KIMBALL: Coming back, do we need a break, everyone? Five minutes?
Okay. We will take a five-minute break and return here, let's say 4:55 p.m.
We're in recess.
Recess: At 4:50 p.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 4:59 p.m.
CHR. KIMBALL: Alright, I'm going to call this meeting back out of recess.
Mr. Clerk, if we can read in Bill 16, please?
Bill 16: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 06-28, WHICH AMENDED SECTION 25-8-33
(CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP)•ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE)
OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED)
BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM
AGRICULTURAL (A -la) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-20)
AT PONOHAWAI, SOUTH HILO, HAWAI`I, COVERED BY TAX MAP
KEY: 2-3-036:018 (POR)
(Applicant: Kristin Frost Albrecht) (Area: 8 acres)
The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for
the applicant's request for a ten-year time extension to Condition D (Complete
Construction) for the development of the Hawaii Island Agricultural Innovation
Park and Food Systems Campus. The property is located on the south side of
Ponahawai Street, approximately 1,300 feet east of its intersection with Komohana
Street, Ponahawai, South Hilo.
Reference: Comm.76
Intr. by: Council Member Kimball (B/R)
Postponed: January 21, 2025
Page 30
LAAC-3 February 4, 2025
(Note: There is a motion by Council Member Kagiwada, seconded by Council
Member Galimba, to recommend passage of Bill 16 on first reading.)
(Note: Communication 76.2 from Council Member Jennifer Kagiwada dated
February 3, 2025, and Communication 76.3 from Council Member Heather L.
Kimball dated February 3, 2025 transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 16,
were circulated.)
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And thank you for your tremendous
patience. It's been a long day. And before we begin this discussion, I just wanted
to make a quick disclosure. I believe you met with my husband this morning. So,
for those, actually mostly Council Member Onishi. For those who don't know,
my husband is an architect; has been in conversations with the Food Basket about
this site. There are at this time no contracts or any previous contracts that would
present a conflict per the Ethics Code. But I did want to disclose in case there
were to be one at some later point. So, unless anybody else has concerns, I'm just
disclosing that I don't see need to recuse myself from this conversation. Alright.
Great. Thank you. Moving forward then. Any discussion on Bill 16? Starting
with Council Member Kagiwada, you have an amendment.
Motion to Amend: Ms. Kagiwada moved to amend Bill 16 with the contents of
Comm. 76.2. Seconded by Mr. Onishi.
CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: Yeah. I'd like to call up the applicants so that they can
explain this. This was upon their request and after they had consulted with our
Planning Department. So, maybe we could have somebody; Director, if you
could come up and also somebody from the application? That would be great.
You want to go ahead and introduce yourself and then you can just explain this
particular amendment.
(Note: At this time, Project Director Justin Clayton of the Food Basket,
Inc. came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MR. CLAYTON: Okay. Chair, thank you. My name is Justin Clayton. I'm the
Project Director for the Food Basket. So originally, we requested a postponement
because we had some current concerns with the original conditions. Primarily,
they stipulated that there would be one access point permitted for the property.
We did have concerns give the footage of the property and we'd likely have to
consult with the Fire Department and other departments just regarding an
emergency access and additional concerns.
The second element is, I believe it was Condition F, if I'm correct here. But it
stipulated that we'd have to make full frontage improvements on the property
Page 31
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
before occupancy was granted. So although we have funding to do that and
execute those improvements, the concern was given the complexity of the project
and that the full site plan wasn't developed. We were requesting an additional
five years to make those improvements. And so, those were really the two, I'd
say, the major concerns we wanted to address before a final vote.
MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Yeah. And you met with Planning, and they
helped you figure the wording out and they asked me to please draft it. So yeah, I
think, basically they asked for the five years in order to comply with all of the
work needing to be done and there might be some phasing issues and sequencing
issues as far as not wanting to put things in and then have to tear them up again as
you proceed with the project.
MR. CLAYTON: That's right.
MS. KAGIWADA: So, I think these things were amenable, Director, to Planning,
is that correct?
(Note: At this time, Planning Director Jeff Darrow came forward to
address the members of the Committee.)
MR. DARROW: Correct.
MS. KAGIWADA: Do you have anything else to say about this?
MR. DARROW: No. I think we covered it last time we went over this project.
Everything appears to be in order. I think we've addressed the concerns. This is,
I believe, a nonprofit so we need to keep that in mind and allow grace being able
to make the project work.
MS. KAGIWADA: That's right. Thank you so much. So, just love to hear
everybody's input on this.
CHR. KIMBALL: Any further discussion on the amendment? Council Member
Kaneali `i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, not on the amendment.
CHR. KIMBALL: Okay. Thank you. Alright, seeing no further discussion on
the amendment, all those in favor of amending Bill 16 with the contents of
Communication 76.2, please say "aye."
Page 32
LAAC-3
Vote on Motion
to Amend:
(Approved)
February 4, 2025
The motion to amend Bill 16 with the contents of
Comm. 76.2 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Onishi,
and Chair Kimball — 6.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Members Hustace, Inaba,
and Villegas — 3.
Excused: None.
CHR. KIMBALL: I do have one more amendment, which is a housekeeping
amendment. So, if I could get a motion to amend Bill 16 with the contents of
Communication 76.3.
Motion to Amend: Ms. Kagiwada moved to amend Bill 16, as amended to
Draft 2, with the contents of Comm. 76.3. Seconded by
Mr. Onishi.
CHR. KIMBALL: If I can just give a little bit of background on this. We made
some changes on the Code since this was drafted, so this is a housekeeping
measure really to clarify the language around the tolling and then what happens if
the conditions are not met within the terms provided. What you see here as the
amended version will be the standard language coming from Planning moving
forward based on the Code amendments we have made. The applicant has seen
this. Again, just a housekeeping measure and aligning us with the current Code
language. Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, all those in favor
please say "aye."
Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 16, as amended to Draft 2, with
to Amend: the contents of Comm. 76.3 was carried by the following
(Approved) voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada,
Kaneah'i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Onishi,
and Chair Kimball — 6.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Members Hustace, Inaba,
and Villegas — 3.
Excused: None.
CHR. KIMBALL: Back to the main motion, Bill 16, as amended. Council
Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
Page 33
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Appreciate the —well, there's
the ordinance itself and then there's the timing element that we're moving around.
But looking over the background, it's a $134 million project in total.
MR. CLAYTON: Yeah, that's correct.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I drive past this parcel every day of my life
practically. So, I've seen it's cleared; you have grubbed it, but no grading has
been done. So, the $134 million project asking for a five-year deadline to get
basic infrastructure in. Is that what I'm seeing so far?
MR. CLAYTON: Essentially, yes. We don't currently have a final site map. It's
still being developed. So, in order to do that and install the frontage, it's likely
going to be potentially up to five years to do that.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Has there been funding secured for what
you're hoping to do in five years?
MR. CLAYTON: So, for the entire project, no. We still have a capital campaign.
So ultimately, the original was $135 million. I think we can reduce it
significantly after meeting with our architects and restructuring what the project
might look like. So that all kind of plays into what the site map's going to look
like and that all needs to be developed. And so, yes, we have raised a certain
amount of funding; nothing near $135 million. We have commitments; we have a
capital campaign that we're starting effectively this year. And so our goal is to do
all that and complete the construction within ten years.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you.
CHR. KIIyIBALL: Thank you, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Anyone
else? Council Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: I think this is a fabulous project. Really happy to see this
nonprofit coming through for our community and really help us start to address
those issues of food shortages and making sure we have food on the island for
people as well as just a lot of really great community collaborative parts to the
project. So, thank you so much. Appreciate it and look forward to supporting as
we go along.
MR. CLAYTON: Great. Thank you so much. We appreciate it.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. Council Member
Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, that's okay. Thank you.
Page 34
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
CHR. KIMBALL: Alright. Council Member Kierkiewicz.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to also lend my support
for this particular request. I'm a big fan of the Food Basket and really do
appreciate the leadership that's being demonstrated here with Ho`olaka.
MR. CLAYTON: Yup. That's correct. Ho`olako. Yes.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Ho`olako, sorry. Forgot about that. And I know that a lot
of work was done during COVID (Coronavirus Disease) during the Build Back
Better grant to bring a lot of community partners together to really envision this.
And so, once it's built out, I think it's going to be a lot of really great innovation,
and the proper infrastructure needed for us to really move the dial to become more
food secure as an island. So, thank you, Justin, Kristin, for your leadership in this
space. Again, I'm going to be supporting the request here today. Thank you.
CHR. KEVIBALL: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. Back to Council
Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Just thinking on the rezone
itself. All your activities, do you need the commercial zoning?
MR. CLAYTON: Yes.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then given to what we've talked about
so far, I didn't mean to cut you off but just given that you're kind of moving and
playing with the overall finished idea.
MR. CLAYTON: Yeah. So, the commercial zoning is required for the food bank
portion of the project, right. So, that's going to be for essentially at that location
we'll have food and produce that aren't from island, right. They're not from the
actual property itself. So, looking at ag zoning, we can't. It's not permitted for
the current ag zoning. We'd have to have a CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
zone to it to operate a food bank out of that location.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Planning Department, do they need
to rezone the whole thing commercially; should they keep some agricultural?
MR. DARROW: The site plan pretty much spells out what types of uses they're
going to do on the property. The structures and uses that are located in the
commercial zoning are appropriate there. Outside of the commercial zoning in
the agricultural zoning, they are consistent with agricultural type uses. So, they
don't really need to. I, in fact, my understanding is that they wanted that
flexibility. They wanted to be able to do agricultural type uses to support part of
the food bank.
Page 35
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I don't have the site plan in front of me.
MR. DARROW: It's Communication 76.1, under the PowerPoint. You might
have to turn it. But it's ambitious.
MR. CLAYTON: Yeah. So just to clarify, the remaining 16 acres of use, a large
portion of that is going to include intensive agriculture. So, we'll have farmers on
the property leasing, so there'll be subsidized leases for those farmers to cultivate
the land and that produce will feed into the food bank and food distributions. And
so, the project is meant to take a holistic approach at solving food insecurity and
sustainability on the island. So, it's not a typical food bank model. It's the food
bank plus addressing food sustainability on the island.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I'm just trying to make sure you guys
aren't doing work you don't need to. If you need agricultural land, keep it ag; use
your commercial property for what we you want to use it for. I like the idea. I
get what you're going for. I'm just making sure, because we're talking about
plans changing and timelines changing and funding changes and I haven't seen
that site plan. So, in not seeing that, making sure what you're doing aligns with
what the Planning Department thinks and that you guys are cohesive going
forward. That's it. Okay. Thank you. I yield, Chair.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Back to Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Madam Chair. Director, in Condition F, for sidewalks
and gutters, so this is going to be the frontage of the whole property, right?
MR. DARROW: Yes. That's correct.
MR. ONISHI: Okay good. Because I do also travel on Ponahawai and then it's
really interesting how it's piecemealed like with the sidewalks, right. And then
you have a couple residential there too. So, we know the County is going to have
to put in that, right? And the other thing I just have is about the sewer. So,
because of a potential of your developments, are you guys going to be required or
is there a sewer line that's on Ponahawai?
MR. CLAYTON: There is not a sewer line. And that's what complicates matters
and that's really why we're requesting the five-year extension because if we were
going to install the frontage today, there's certain parts of the project that would
trigger us to have to install the full sewage line, right. So if you look at the site
map, we have an innovation center that uses a significant amount of water. It's
going to require sewage. And so, depending on how we phase the project, and
which elements come first, are going to trigger that sewage line installation. And
so, allowing us the five-year extension provides us some flexibility in determining
the site map and where those utilities need to run. The concern in my original
Page 36
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
concern is if we install the frontage now, we could potentially have to rip it up to
install the sewage lines. And so, by year, I'm thinking, by year one or year two,
we'll have that site map finalized and that would give us a couple years to do the
frontage improvements still.
MR. ONISHI: Okay. And like that project on your property because it's kind of
wide. So, your development is on the downside close to the graveyard or is it like
upper or middle of that property?
MR. CLAYTON: So, the development would span a large portion. So, if you
look at the map, the front half of the property facing the road would be primarily
where the development would be, and the back half of the property would be for
agricultural use. So, I mean you would have buildings spanning across the street
frontage for about 75 percent of the street frontage.
MR. ONISHI: Okay. And you'll be having phases being built?
MR. CLAYTON: Yeah. It would have to be in phases, yes.
MR. ONISHI: Okay. And then so, in the meantime you'll have septic tanks or
something?
MR. CLAYTON: So, we had a pre -engineering report completed and so initially
it would be onsite wastewater treatment that would be required. And we have the
funding to start that, to complete that; about $1.6 million to complete those pre -
developmental costs. But that's a temporary solution until the sewage lines are
installed.
MR. ONISHI: I see. Okay. Thank you.
MR. CLAYTON: Yup.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Anyone else? Back to you, Council Member
Kaneali `i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Just putting this out there because this came
up in 2022. I was going back to my memory banks. Are you working with
Environmental Management with the idea of installing a sewer line and how that
project can be tied into the County system, but also how you can work with
funding mechanisms that are in place? We had an interesting conversation in
2022. I'm not going to go through every detail, but have you?
MR. CLAYTON: We have. I think that was part of the engineering report too.
They investigated that. So, we'd actually have to run sewage lines all the down to
Kilauea is my understanding because the capacity at —I'm just trying to think
where it ties into, it would actually have to tie into the Kilauea sewer. And so,
Page 37
LAAC-3
February 4, 2025
that investment for us right now is significant. We would rather spend it on
getting some of those developments up and running and then later on we'll do the
sewage installations.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, I think the discussion was something
along the lines of if you pay for the infrastructure to get it from one point to the
other, but by doing so, you create the possibility of connections for everyone
below you to the sewer system between you and there.
MR. CLAYTON: Right.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You've actually done the County benefit
and you're getting more sewage out of individual wastewater systems or
cesspools and into the County system, which is the direction they want to go. So,
there are some interesting funding mechanisms and work together so that can
happen within that space.
MR. CLAYTON: Yeah. And so, I think that's probably; to be open with you and
candid, I think that's a larger discussion that needs to happen across the County.
Just to give you an example, we have a warehouse right on Kilauea across from
7-11 that's on a septic. I mean, there's these pockets within Hilo, within
Downtown Hilo that don't have access to sewage and so it seems to be a broader
issue. I mean, that's a great point. I don't think we went in too much depth on
how that could be funded or how additional funding could be raised for that
project, the sewage installation.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Poke around a little bit and you
might find a way forward.
MR. CLAYTON: Yeah. No. I appreciate that. That's good insight.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you.
CHR. KIIVIBALL: Alright. Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Thank you. Just an editorial finding since we're going to make a
new draft. The title of the bill, I think the spelling of Ponahawai is incorrect. So,
if we can get that corrected. So, if we can get that corrected as part of the second
draft. Thank you. I yield.
CHR. KIIVIBALL: Dot, you watching? We got a spell check. Okay. Anyone
else? Alright, seeing none. All those in favor of approving Bill 16, as amended,
please say "aye."
Page 38
LAAC-3 February 4, 2025
Vote on Bill 16: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 16, as amended
(Approved) to Draft 2, on first reading was carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
Kagiwada, Kaneah'i-Meinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kimball — 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
MR. CLAYTON: Okay. Great. Thank you. We appreciate your help.
CHR. K]MBALL: Thank you for your patience once again; appreciate it.
Abight, last but not least, Communication 100. Look at that cool number.
Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business.
of Business:
COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
CATIONS: Communications.
Comm. 100: REQUESTS FORMATION OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REVIEWING APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPING
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 WAIWAI NONPROFIT
GRANTS-IN-AID AWARDS
From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated January 14, 2025.
Motion to Close File: Ms. Kagiwada moved to close file on Comm. 100.
Seconded by Ms. Galimba.
CHR. KIMBALL: It is that time of year again, folks, when we just have received
168 applications for Waiwai grants for this coming fiscal year and just asking for
members of the body to volunteer to participate in the review of those
applications. I just want to mahalo, Jessica Valdez, who's been amazing in terms
of public outreach to our nonprofits to make sure that every year we get a little
better at this process and improve the intake and improve the experience for the
nonprofits. You're lucky, Rebecca, that you walked back in because I was going
to automatically going to assign you since you were out of the room. But I'm
looking for three volunteers to join me on the ad hoc committee. Council
Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Thank you. I will volunteer to continue improving the process
with you. Thanks.
Page 39
Iff.MW
February 4, 2025
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: Yes. I'm happy to volunteer as well.
CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. May I have one more?
MS. GALIMBA: I will volunteer as well.
CHR. KIMBALL: Mahalo. Yes. Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada,
Galimba, and Inaba, for your assistance in this really important work. We are not
certain how long it's going to take Finance to turn around their part of the process,
which is to just ensure everybody meets eligibility requirements. So, I'm going to
request a call of the chair postponement on this.
Vote on Motion Mr. Inaba moved to postpone Comm. 100 to the call of the
to Postpone: chair. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada and carried by the
(Approved) following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba,
Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz,
Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kimball — 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
BILLS FOR
ORDINANCES:
ADJOURN-
MENT:
Approved:
CHR. KIMBALL: With that, who is the vice chair of the ad hoc? I'm the Chair
of the ad hoc, yeah. You want it; you want to fight for it?
The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
Bills for Ordinances.
(Note: Items in this category were taken up previously, out of order.)
CHR. KIMBALL: Alright, seeing no further business.
There being no further business, Chair Kimball adjourned the meeting
at 5:26 p.m.
�1. Heather L. Ki b 1, Chair
Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Committee
HI1tk
l rO Z2z3
(Date)
Page 40