Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN LAAC 2025/05/20 (2024-2026) DRAFT Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions 9th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii May 20, 2025 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions ORDER: was called to order at 3:48 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 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) Absent& Excused: Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals;registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Keala Hill: Comm. 100; in support. (representing Roots and Rise Hawaii) Zak Shimose: Comm. 100; in support. (representing Hua O Lahui) Momi Naughton: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 199, Draft 2 (Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. Kristin Counter: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 199, Draft 2 (Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. LAAC-9 May 20,2025 LaDonna Shively: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 199, Draft 2 (Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. Ceci Davenport: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 199, Draft 2 (Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. Nancy Carr Smith: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015) and Bill 199, Draft 2 (Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. John Kawano: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 199, Draft 2 (Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. Deena Hurwitz: Bill 19 (Comm. 1015); and, Bill 199, Draft 2 (Comm. 1015:52), comment. Ana Kahoopii: Bill ,,1,98 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 190,Draft (Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. Pua Case: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 199, Draft'2(Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. E. Kalani Flores: Dill 198 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 199,Draft 2 (Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. Victor F'erger'strom: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 199, Draft 2 (Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. Jan Espere: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 199, Draft 2 (Comm. 1015.52), in opposition. Patti Cooke: Bill 198 (Comm. 1015); and Bill 199, Draft 2 (Comm. 1015.52), in support. CHR. KIMBALL: It is 4:56 p.m., I am going to put this meeting into recess until the conclusion of the Special Finance Meeting. Thank you. Recess: At 4:56 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 5:12 p.m. CHR. KIMBALL: Alright, folks. We are going to get back to Legislative Approvals. The time is 5:12 p.m. I'm going to call this meeting back to order. Just let the record reflect that Council Member Onishi and Council Member Kierkiewicz have joined us and Council Member Kagiwada as well. Alright. Page 2 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MR. ONISHL Would it be possible to take Resolution 187-25 out of order? Because it's just basically CHR. KIMBALL: Yeah. Communication 100 will be really fast too because it's just a close file vote. MR. ONISHL Okay. And then after that? CHR. KIMBALL: Yeah. MR. ONISHL Okay, good. Thanks. 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 tAR 2025-26 WAIWAI NONPROFIT GRANTS-IN-AID AWARDS From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated January 14, 2025. Postponed; February 4, 2025 (Note: There is a motion by Council Member Kagiwada, seconded by Council Member Galiamba, to close file on Comm. 100.) and Comm. 100.1: From Finance Director Diane Nakagawa, dated March 7, 2025, transmitting applications from eligible nonprofit organizations. Comm. 100.2: ; and From Finance Director Diane Nakagawa, dated April 1, 2025, transmitting a revised list of nonprofit organizations and applicable information. ; and Comm. 100.3: From Council Member Heather L. Kimball, dated April 30, 2025, transmitting recommendations for Waiwai Nonprofit Grant Organizations for Fiscal Year 202 =2026. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay, with this there's already a motion on the floor to close file. This is the report. We will discuss that actual awards when the resolution comes before us. So at this point, there's only questions on process; no questions on content. Otherwise, we'll move forward with the vote to close file. Council Member Hustace. Page 3 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. We had that discussion earlier with the auditor. And it was my understanding that that information wasn't available at the time that the ad hoc made its decisions. So I guess the recommendation and made in front of you as well with the auditor is to hopefully expedite that process so that criteria can be somehow incorporated into the ad hocs decision. And I don't how that kind of gels with this here at the moment, but it's just a thought and recommendation moving forward. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. Any further questions about process only with respect to Communication 100? Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Just following upon that. my understanding is that the information pfesented,by the auditor wasn't really for the purposes of helping us make any decisions around individual grants per se, but it's really just about process. So I think it's good going forward, I don't think there's a lot we could do about it al this point with the process. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. I think we're tiptoeing into discussion. MS. KAGIWADA: Yeah. CHR. KIMBALL: But I would concur with your assessment there. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. I yield. CHR. KIMBALL: Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Yes, I just want to take this opportunity to share the process on the record. �o' r those who don'tknow, four of us sat on this ad hoc committee; Council Members Kimball, Galimba, Kagiwada, and myself. Every Council Member did have the opportunity to score all of the applications. The applications were then-any application that was scored less than 70 percent was disqualified and the ad hoc committee met on a couple of occasions to go through the remaining eligible applications and review those applications for alignment with public' purpose and proper alignment also with overhead and admin rules per our County Code. So that's how we had that recommendation before you. But just wanted to state that on the record. Thank you. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you very much. Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thanks, Chair. Just back to that, the process of it. I had opportunity to review those applications so thank you for granting me that. It wasn't easy, I would say. There were 120 applications, so it took some time to kind of go through them. I mean, my first kind of go at it, my first stab at it, it was definitely a learning curve to kind of see how would the ad hoc kind of make Page 4 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 that comparison across the board. But I would stress that theI don't know how the timing works for the ad hoc on your end, but it was a pretty tight turnaround as a reviewer of those applications. So receiving that information must've been pretty strenuous, stressful, to kind of get that turnaround into this report here. Thank you. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Hustace. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Just want to provide a little bit of history for Council Member Hustace because this is your first term. You know, the last couple of cycles every single Council Member had the,opportunity,to review, evaluate, score applications. Prior to that it was members of the ad hoc that basically had the ability and you could say power to review all of the applications, score them, and then make recommendations to the Council. We wanted to,be more equitable in the approach and so shifted away,from four people making the decision to opening it up to all. In the past, the members of the ad hoc actually had the nonprofits come to Council and do a presentation on their application. And my understanding is before that, maybe this is duringyour first time on'the Council, Council Member Onishi, but Council Members would actually do site visits to the various nonprofit organizations. So this kind of process has evolved over time and Sunshine Law really precludes our ability to do work efficiently. Everything has to be agendized done in a public sphere. So again, this process of evaluating the applications, it's very stressful because there is a very limited amount of time for you to review 120 really worthwhile applications to make a decision. But I think it was one way thatwe thought we could just open it up to more of our colleagues seeing what was offered and having the ability to weigh in and score. What you folks choose to do next term I'm really interested in. Thank you for your great Work.-I yield' CHR KIMBALL: How many months now, Council Member Kierkiewicz? Yeah, okay.. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Okay. Just wanted to bring up about the past since Ms. Kierkiewicz mentioned. But to me, I believe with the ad hoc committee of the four members, having them come in front of the four members, to me, was better because then if you had questions about their program and why they're requesting all this money, the funding, they would have to answer it to you at that time. So it would be much more clearer for the members of four to decide, okay, who's going to get awarded and who's not. And like, you know, when we were there, we had 100 plus applicants and we only had, I think, at that time $2 million or even $1.5 million back then. And so it was hard. Page 5 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 So I guess I'll be looking into seeing how we can increase that to help out the nonprofits because like you look at this whole thing, it's based I think on $4. something million, right. So we can go up to maybe $5 million and we can award everybody who's requesting the funding. But that's a little bit of history of why I would be in support of having them come back in front of the ad hoc committee to do their interviews. Thank you. CHR. KIMBALL: Alright. Any further comments,questions on the process? I will say it is very challenging. As mentioned before, there are some really unique nonprofits out there doing some really unique work. So it's like comparing apples and oranges and pears and bananas and cumquats, and you know, everything out there. So coming up with a more standardized approach and letting everybody participate has been part of making sure that had a fair process. And I think the other thing that it lends to for folks that haveapplications thatdon't get approved through the Waiwai grant, because everybody has an opportunity to review those, there's the chance that we can go back with CRF,(Contingency Relief Funds) for those that aren't awarded and support Berme of those programs directly as Council Members. So with no further comments, we'll take the vote to close file on Communication 100. All of those in favor please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 100: The motion to close file on Comm. 100 was carried by the Filed following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Onishi, and Chair Kimball —7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Villegas-2. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL; Go on to the next item please. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS Order of Resolutions. Page 6 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 Res. 187-25: AUTHORIZES THE GRANT OF A GAS TANK AND PIPELINE EASEMENT, UNDER A PORTION OF KAWAILANI FIRE STATION AND HILO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEYS: 2-4-002-001 AND 2-4-002-128, SITUATED AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, COUNTY AND STATE OF HAWAI`I Allows for a grant of easement from the County of Hawaii to The Gas Company, LLC, for a tank and underground pipeline purposes. Reference: Comm. 299 Intr. by: Council Member Kimball (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Galimba moved to recommend adoption of Res. 187-25. Seconded by Mr, Hustace CHR. KIMBALL: I believe we have Finance presenting on thin Thank you. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Diane Nakagawa came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. NAKAGAWA: Good afternoon, Members of Council. Diane Nakagawa, Finance Department. Mostof itwas just summarized but yes we are here requesting authorization to grant an easement to The Gas Company. And I will say that they have a representative here today as well to answer any questions. But it is a renewal of an easement for 65 years. The cost is $7,496, and it is to maintain and operate gas facilities at the property to allow service in the area. But if there are any further questions, he's also available to answer. CHR. KIMBALL;: Thank you, Director. Any questions for the Director or The Gas Company's representative on this matter? Alright, seeing none. All those in favor please say,"aye." Vote on Res. 187-25: The motion'to recommend adoption of Res. 187-25 was (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Onishi, and Chair Kimball—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Villegas — 1. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL: We'll now move on to Bills 198 and 199 please. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Page 7 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 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, January 7, February 4, and March 6, 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-PUUKAPU ZONE MAP), (Draft 2) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY (2022-2024) 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 (Applicant: Kaupulehu Land;LLC) (Area: 5.349 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission'forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to the State Lan ,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 M5malahoa Highway and five residential agricultural lots. This property is located at 64-983 Mamalahoa Highway. Reference: Comm. 1015.52 Intr. by: Council Member Inaba(B/R) Postponed: September 16, October 15, 2024, January 7, February 4, and March 6, 2025 (Note: There is a motion by Council Member Kierkiewicz, seconded by Council Member Galimba, to recommend passage of Bill 199 on first reading.) (Note; Comm. 1015.180, from Council Member James E. Hustace, dated May 16, 2025, transmitting additional context was circulated.) CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Alright, before we begin discussion and deliberations, I want to share with the body some of the events that occurred in the intervening period. So at our last hearing there were some concern and conflicted feelings about passage and whether or not some of the folks that had testified in opposition could potentially work together, come up with some Page 8 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 additional amendments or some proposals that might make this a win-win for everybody. And so in the first intervening period I had a meeting with the Metzler's and their representatives to discuss any types of changes or amendments to the conditions that they might be willing to consider. Subsequent to that I had a meeting with some of the members who testified in opposition today, sharing with them that, you know, what some of the perimeters might be with respect to what would be allowable in terms of additional conditions made to the amendment and expressed the intent to bring this back before this committee at the very beginning of April, the first Committee hearing in April. At that time it was expressed tome that the community members wanted a little more time to prepare a,response. I shared with the Metzler's that the community Would like to have more time and opportunity to communicate and meet. They were willing to extend this out to be heard today to provide that opportunity for the community to create feedback. The members of the community 'did,organize and„provide the documentation of this meeting. I'd like to make it especially clear that Council Member Hustace and myself were not party to organizing this or involved in any way. This was entirely community led. At all points in these conversations it was made absolutely clear to all parties that they were not"obligated to take any action as far as accepting any amendments or putting forth any,amendments. This was just an opportunity for the community as awhole to have a'dialogue. So that's the background. I'm happy to take any questions from the body about going forward. We have representatives from the applicants. We have the applicants. We have the Planning Department. And therive have members of the community that organized this meeting and provided this report for your questions. With that, I will open:up the flour for discussion. Council Member Inaba. 1VIR. INABA Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I would like to call, I don't know who the community's speaker is, but if anybody wants to from the perspective of the community,,, give a summary and then, you know, would love to hear from the applicants as well, you know, your mana`o on the meetings that were held since out last hearing. CHR. KIMBALL: Mr. Flores. MR. INABA: And if we can please be brief. We want to get the meat of what happened at those meetings. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Kalani Flores came forward and addressed the members of the Committee.) Page 9 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MR. FLORES: Thank you for the opportunity to present on this community engagement meeting. I'll be brief because you do have a summary of the report before you. So we were tasked, when I say we, the community members were tasked with putting on a community meeting to engage the community further on these Bills 198 and 199. The over 80 participants who came to the meeting that was held on May 13, 2025, Council Member Hustace made his availability to be there as well. So in the report is all the written comments compiled. An analysis was done from that community engagement meeting. I want to just point out that really the burden, the time, and the cost to put on a community meeting was a burden brought upon the community members. This is actually a type of community engagement meeting that the applicant should have done l6ng,ago even before they went to the Leeward Planning Commission. They went to the Leeward Planning Commission in 2021, and it was presented there and there was opposition at the initial application, and they withdrew the application, and they came back to the Leeward Planning Commission. When there was already overwhelming opposition,at that point, we believe that they type of community engagement meeting should have occurred, but it didn't, and that's one of the reasons why this Leeward Planning Commission voted to it in unfavorable for what is now Bill 199. And just real quickly, the meeting objectives were just real simple; introduce the community for the proposed project, what is the project that's happening, which many people were not familiar with. The second objective was to solicit comments. So it was opened up for comments and the way it was done was we had a facilitator there that coordinated, and there were three breakout groups, and they wrote their comments, andyou'll see in the back page of the report an example of some of the comments and how it was set up. And there's photos in the back demonstrating that. People posted up their comments, then we regrouped and then we looked at discussing those various different comments of what people put up there. And the third part of the objective was to discuss options. It was made very clear that we weren't there to tell the applicant what to do with his property. It was made very clear. So we weren't there to tell them, "Oh, you should do this, you should do this." No. We made it very clear that whether it's amendments or anything else, what people were suggesting. And so basically, we were looking at like a blank piece of paper and what do you think should occur there. And so some of the comments came when we looked at it in general was the applicant has Ag-5; what can you do with Ag-5. You could put two existing buildings; you could put ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Unit), or somebody suggested maybe you break it up into five family one-acre lots. And so the various different comments was not to tell the applicant what to do with his Page 10 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 property but to provide some options that the community might be more favorable for. In the end, there's overwhelming opposition. At the end of the day, at the end of the meeting, we took a hand poll, there was no one for that project. There was one person who was undecided and everybody else was opposed to the project as listed for the reasons as stated in this report. I'm going to reemphasize community members bore the cost for holding the meeting„ for getting the PA (Public Address) systems, to doing all the printing of visuals, to do handouts, to do forms; that was all the cost bore by the community members. This is something that should've occurring long ago with the applicant. And when you look at the report that was done, the time andeffort to put all these comments together for all of the community members who were there is reflective of all the other testimony that have been opposed to this project from the time it went before the Leeward Planning Commission. It's not much different: And so at this time, if there's any specific questions that people might have regarding this report I could answer them at this time. Thank you. MR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Flores. I don't have any specific questions for you at this time. I want to mahalo the community's for organizing the meeting. I would like to hear from the applicants or the applicant's representative if there's any additional information you want to provide regarding the community organization or the application itself. `(Note; At this time, Attorney Catherine Garson with Carlsmith Ball LLP, Applicant John Metzler, and Planning Consultant Daryn Arai came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. GARSON' : Thank you., Good evening, Chair and Committee Members. I'm Catherine Garson. I'm from Carlsmith Ball. I am the applicant's attorney. Also in the audience is Gnaona Theone from Carlsmith Ball who is also representing the applicant. Darya Arai is our Planning Consultant. And to my left is Mr. Metzler; He's a member of Kaupulehu Land. First of all,I do want to thank you community for having the group of testifiers that had opposed the project the last time, got together and created the new, for the meeting that took place which resulted in the report. So we do want to thank them,for doing that. We were not invited. This was something that they did on their own and we didn't realize that it was happening, so we were not able to engage. And I understand that the Planning Department was also not there. So this was purely a meeting with the people that got the notice and not everyone. What I do want to point out and remind the Committee is that the applications are compliant with the General Plan and the CDP, and also the front of the property is zoned urban. And I know you've heard all before, but I think that that's Page 11 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 extremely important because what the applicant is asking for is not that dissimilar from the things that came out in this report, and they are in fact allowed in the zoning that is being requested. So for example, the state land use district boundary amendment to rule for the back part of the property. In the rule designation you can do everything that you can do in ag. That is in the rule; you can do everything that you can do in the ag. And as I said, the front part is already urban. So the point of the application was to bring the zoning in compliance with the state land use urban designation in'the front of the property and also make some opportunities in the back by changing it to rural. When we went through this report yesterday,and this morning—so first of all, ag uses can be done in the rural designation; ag uses can be done in residential ag; in commercial neighborhood zoning, you can do crop production,you can have farmers markets. Those are all permitted uses. They are not taking those uses away from people, they are still allowed. So agriculture; the emphasize on agriculture, you can do apiaries, farmers markets in neighborhood commercial, youth-based `aina education are highly valued; you can do schools in neighborhood commercial. Housing maybe acceptable if local affordable. You can do duplexes in neighborhood commercial.. There were, let's see, ecol6gical and cultural restorations, so there was talk about botanical or native gardens. In residential ag, it's a permitted use to do a botanical garden. It's specifically listedin,your Zoning Code. Same is true for public spaces;parks, public uses and structures. One of the things that is listed is elder and affordable housing. In the residential ag and neighborhood commercial, group living facilities, adult daycare homes are allowed. So for this specific recommendations that had come out of this meeting, which we weren't invited to, I was actually pleased to see that it seems to me when I look at this that we,have chosen the appropriate zoning designations for these parcels because they give the broadest opportunities to do what the community wants and to implement those and they're consistent with the plan. So it gave me comfort to see thatthis is what"came out of it. And again, the agricultural use, residential ag, you can do' everything there that you can in rural that you can do in agricultural district. And I'm going to ask if Daryn has anything to add in case I got anything wrong. 1VMR. ARAL Daryn Arai. Ms. Garson spoke very well. This is really about creating opportunities. I remember Chair Kimball has mentioned numerous occasions that you're not approving a specific project. You're approving a land use designation and that land use designation and that land use designation creates the opportunities for a land owner to explore what is appropriate, what is right for a particular area. What has been presented to you throughout the application process. It's just a concept. But in order to realize that concept and in order to frame it, you need the zoning in place and then once the zoning is in place, then Page 12 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 the applicant can take the next step forward. Zoning is just pretty much step one. After, should the zoning be granted, you have all of these administrative level processes that the landowner needs to go through in order to stand up any project. And in this particular area, especially in Draft 2 of Bill 199, we were amenable and agree to including a condition that ensures that the Waimea Design Plan is engaged in developed this property. So again, there are mechanisms in place. People have spoken today and in past meetings about the lack of evidence, the lack of studies. The applicant has, and the record will show, the type of studies that was prepared in support of the application. Butit doesn't necessarily stop there. Should the zoning be approved, the next steps will occur and that's additional studies to ensure that appropriate traffic mitigation is put into place, that drainage and floodways are all properly managed, you know, so it doesn't have a deleterious effect on adjoining properties. Again, we are at step one and we're hoping that you see it reasonable to support the zoning that°will allow the applicant to take the next steps forward. MR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Arai. Mi.NMetzler, anything to add? MR. METZLER: Daryn'and Cathy have done a great job. I want to say just a few quick things. First of all;t Dope that the County Council and this Committee will realize that despite the opposition testimony, I Have not been disconnected from the community. I'm a big park of the community. And so, I just want to make sure that everybody here understands that just because we're proposing a subdivision,doesn't mean that I'm bailing out on my neighbors. One testifier said something about the evidence; that she would like the Council to follow the evidence. I would say that there's overwhelming evidence today that our young people are moving away. Our young people are not farming. And I think that through this whole process the resulting zoning of the ag residential parcels at a half-acre is virtually going to guarantee what this community meeting and the report is requesting and that is you're going to have five half acre ag lots for some young families and I'm sure that based on what I've heard, there are going to beta good number of youngsters who want to purchase an ag lot. You have within the record, I don't know how many, but there's a good number of testifiers in support of the project who have written letters of support. So I would ask if there's any question about the public's support for the project, if you would just review some of the letters from our local residents and community members. I think that's all I have to say. MR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Metzler. With that, I think everybody had at least their opportunity to share, you know, what's happened in the interim. Interested to hear from my colleagues and the Council Member of the district. Thank you. I yield, Chair. Page 13 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair Inaba. Anyone else? Going to you, Mr. Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. I first want to start off with pointing out that in your folder is Communication 1015.180, and that references the Waimea Design Plan as one of the conditions on Bill 199. So that references Condition P on Bill 199 just for your reference there because we're having some of the conversations about what that means. So if you have any questions about that I would refer you to that there. In terms of, you know, a lot of the community conversationsat a number of the meetings with community members and community groups have been about the roads in Waimea and kind of the traffic congestion and the challenges there. And I feel bad a lot is being placed on this property as terms of the regional traffic that we face in Waimea. Maybe I should put a little blame on District l for that. I don't know. But that regional cross island traffic is really the challenge that we deal with in our communities that have limited infrastructure. And I think that's pretty transparent for all the community members here. We've had a lot of conversations about what would another large-scale infrastructure be for Waimea, like that bypass road or somthng like that. We've had those long conversations for many years in Waimea. Andy it's been unfortunate that there was no compromise that was ever found on that scenario. I think it's possible that there are voices that want to revitalize that disco 9sion and conversation specifically in the Pu`ukapu area because they would be, you know, impacted by that sort of decision and conversation. It would need to involve some of our state partners in that conversation to kind of find that solution. So at the moment we are stuck with our role roads, and we feel the impact of the transition and,transport of"goods from our major Kawaihae Harbor as well as our daily commute of traffic to and from the resort communities. And then of course that high peak times during school traffic hours. So that problem already exists, and I think a lot of us know that problem is there and I highly acknowledge that challenge we have in Waimea, and we need to work together on finding that solution for sure. And with the other development that we see in the area for other projects, you know,this is just going to be adding to it all. So we have other large landowners that are considering ideas within the core of Waimea and then really that need to fulfill the needs of the community. So one thing I wanted to note, and I want to mahalo one of my colleagues for sharing this, in the housing ad hoc committee regarding a research study on Hawaii Housing Planning Study 2024, it is staggering how many homes and home units we need. So we need 50,000 units, you know, between the years of 2020-2025. So we're in this huge deficit and we need jump it up to 64,000-65,000 in a couple years. And the challenge has been Page 14 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 about how do we meet this need if we're not finding solutions, we're not agreeing to solutions about where our keiki could come back, where does community expand, and how do we meet these housing needs of our community. So I just want that to kind of sink in about data that's out there and the progress we need to make. We've had conversations here about affordable housing andwhat that means and trying to redefine that language to, to make it more equitable for community. Yeah. But it's pretty staggering where we need to go in terms of growth. I know it's a strange word to say we have to grow when,a,16t of our communities are already constrained. So we do have to find some solutions in that capacity whether it's greater density in the core of our urban environments of thinking outside the box about what do our housing structures look like multi-family, shared walls, townhouses, all these sort of things. I guess a question I have for Mr.'Metzler, the applicant, Mr. Arai, and Ms. Garson, if you would elaborate on:this a little bit. I know we have Director Darrow here as well. The five house lots on the back portion of the property, if the zoning goes through, one of those by code of—thank you, Chair. I'll finish this and I can pass it over. One of those as defined in the Bill 199, Chapter 11, one of those is defined as an,affordable unit. What does that look like with regard to mapping this property out. What'does that affordable piece look like? MR. METZLER: I'm not an expert on the affordable housing, Councilman Hustace. Butthe fact that there are two homes existing there, which were original homes build by the Ishihara family probably about 100 years ago, Mr. Arai, and our legal team will have to determine which properties will be affordably priced per the County Code. We've had,tenants in both of the houses until a few weeks ago, one of our tenants got tired of waiting for us to get through this process and left so we have one vacant house, one house is rented, and then there will be three vacant lots. So' by Code one of those properties will have to be designated as affordable. We don't know which one that would be. If we had to decide tomorrow,we could'probably figure out something. But I think it's a little premature to make a commitment. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. If I just ask one more MR.METZLER: Can I ask Mr. Arai to opine on that? MR. HUSTACE: Sure. MR. ARAI: Again,part of this, the easiest solution is to designate one of the properties as affordable, whether it's for rent or for sale and it has to meet Page 15 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 Chapter 11 guidelines, affordable housing guidelines. So whatever that metric is that is what the applicant will have to do to satisfy. So that's the best we can do at this time because we haven't run through any of the numbers. MR. HUSTACE: So my understanding is it would be 10 years affordable, for sale, and then twenty years as a rental at affordable rates, and that's kind of the conversation to have with Office of Housing and Community Development on what is affordability; what does that look like? I guess the"question to just ponder on, to think about is would you be willing to have more of the house lots be at the affordable rate beyond the one that's required by Chapter 11, because one of the challenges is with the zoning that accessory,dwelIing units are not allowed on the back parcels, right. So I'm trying to look at another lens of would you consider other affordable properties in the back and those kind of— MR. METZLER: Councilman Hustace, we would consider something,Jike that. We have indeed considered and talked to various entities about the perpetual leasehold of options for a lot or multiple lots. Again, it's a little premature but we have already discussed that. So yes, we would consider such a thing. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. I yield for now. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member. Anyone else? Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Director Darrow, can I get you up here for a quick minute? Thank you. Thank you, Director. So the applicant's attorney was eloquent in speaking to what uses the new proposed zoning would allow being similar'to some of the uses currently allowable. But could you just please for everybody's identification one more time, describe what uses the new zoning would allow that are not currently allowable both for the .5 acre ag and the commercial? (Nate: At this time, Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Sure. Thank you, Council Member. Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. That's a long list, so I can't go through it. In the commercial zoning that's being proposed you have different types of commercial use is offices, restaurants. You do have neighborhood type uses; community buildings, churches, schools, those kind of things. But you do have some ag uses as well. You have crop production is one of them that's in there in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning. Page 16 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MS. KAGIWADA: Not to interrupt but just to underline I'm just looking for any additional uses that are not permitted in the current zoning. So anything that's not permitted and that's the commercial. MR. DARROW: Yeah. I mean, so right now the zoning is ag-5. You have a split zoning on the state land use urban and ag. In the ag zoning you actually have two lists of permitted uses; state land use zoning as well as County. They line up pretty well but there's some discrepancies. In the RA (Residential Agriculture) your uses are more aligned with the agricultural uses but they're much more limited. I was speaking to one of the testifiers earlier and, you know, when you look at it you have some agricultural uses in,there but it's mainly a dwelling and you have some livestock production, but very limited; some ag. But again, it's not something where you have a lot of difference in the two zonings. Agricultural zoning actually allows a bit more other than the additional dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit, which currently is limited by a condition"here.�� In the commercial zoning that's completely,different,right? So there's a number of commercial type uses. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you. I think you touched on those. I just wanted to be clear because they are very much emphasizing the similarities but there are some major differences,especially in the commercial zone change. MR. DARROW: Yeah. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. And just to reemphasize, currently the zoning does not allow for ADUs? MR. DARROW: The current zoning could allow for ADUs on the portion that is zoned agriculture and state land use urban. MS:KAGIWADA: Okay. So the front portion basically. MR. DARROW: Correct. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. And just to reiterate because we just went through all of this, the ADUs are limited in size that they can be built, correct? MR.FARROW: Correct. MS. KAGIWADA: Whereas once you do say if you were to open it up for multiple parcels they will not be limited in size except for based on what the land or the parcel can hold. Is that correct? MR. DARROW: Well you would be limited to the amount of dwellings, right. Page 17 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MS. KAGIWADA: Right. MR. DARROW: We would only allow one dwelling. And even with a parcel that allows ADUs, the first dwelling is not limited. So it's any additional dwelling or accessory dwelling. MS. KAGIWADA: Right. Okay. Alright. MR. DARROW: So basically it's the same but you're just not afforded the opportunity for the additional dwellings. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Well I guess it was mentioned,I think in some of the discussion here that ADUs could be developedn the front-parcel and being that they're limited in size, they're more likely to go to people when could need affordable housing or lower income. They're not going to be these massive properties that are, you know, as somebody mentioned, for families to move here so their kids can go to HPA (Hawai`i Preparatory Academy) or whatever necessarily, right. So I guess there are some strange or some different considerations there on what is allowable and what the limits are of the different pieces, and some of them seem to be like maybe good agriculture. There's still a lot of possibilities there, but there's also a lot of possibilities. And as was pointed out, I guess the concern I have as was pointed out is we're not talking about the specific designs or proposals for this. We're talking about just general zoning. So could be used for restaurants, bars, stores,that kind of thing, right, if it's rezoned commercial. Okay. Okay. I guess I'm hearing from the community that they have some deep concerns about this and continue to. I understand that maybe that meeting was not like an open, giving all sides and having debate kind of meeting, and so I'm taking it with a grain of salt,that the meeting; the results that came out of that meeting are probably pretty erne sided. But we've also heard from the adjacent properties all directly around this parcel being very concerned. So yeah, at this point I'm not inclined to support the rezone. Thank you. I yield, Chair. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHL Thank you, Madam Chair. First thing is, Madam Chair, you can correct me if I'm wrong but at the last meeting when we postponed this, I guess you're supposed to contact or get involved with the community to get this discussion done to see how we can move this project forward or don't. Did that ever happen? CHR. KIMBALL: Yes. As explained earlier, I met with the Metzler's, the applicant, as well as members of the community; provided some guidance there in Page 18 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 terms of how they might incorporate some feedback and suggest some amendments. MR. ONISHI: And nothing was decided? CHR. KIMBALL: Well this report and what you had in front of you is the recommendations from the community group. But I will say is that there's nothing in here that is in the form of an actual amendment. And maybe Council Member Hustace can speak to that a little bit. Butthe direction given was that you can provide suggestions in the form of an amendment or whatever feedback and this is the feedback we got. MR. ONISHL But then what I understand'you weren't there at the meeting that they did? CHR. KIMBALL: That's correct: MR. ONISHL Yeah. Okay. Okay. Moving forward. So during the testimony we heard about housing and affordability, traffic, right? So let's talk about housing first. So basically to me, the way I feel affordable housing, the land on this island is very expensive. Soy that's already hard where, you know, a young family trying to get housing and'to purchase this property unless, like this morning's news I heard mortgage interestis now at seven percent, right. And so have you guys ever thought about if this is approved to do like a leasing program like a 50-year lease for housing, so this way this young family could lease that property for 50 years and build their home of what they can afford on this property. Have you guys ever thought about that? MR. METZLER- Councilman Onishi, we have, and the results have been so far directed at the perpetual lease programs that are available. There are a half a dozen,or a dozen of them here in the State of Hawai`i, whereby the current landowner conveys the title to a 501(c)(3) entity, they become the perpetual landowner and it's in their charter therefore to lease to available and needy families. So that's been a discussion that's been ongoing. So far nobody really wants to talk turkey, if you will, until we have our zoning and everything is ready to convey, if you will. 1VMR. ONISHL But you'd be willing like or committing those five lots to that program? MR. METZLER: Well right now we have only considered that with one, doing that with one lot. It's an interesting proposition that you bring up and I'm kind of an inventive type of person. I think that we will have not problem conveying or selling three vacant lots and two lots with houses on them. And it may easily come to pass that we would do some seller financing just to keep these young Page 19 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 folks in them in a position where they could afford something like that. I a little bit shy away from leases just because they're a long-term commitment. But certainly we're very interested in finding five families that want a house on a half-acre lot. MR. ONISHL Okay. That thing about traffic, and Council Member Hustace, you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mamalahoa, that's a state highway. So for me it's like what our problem is the state highways, Department o'f Transportation (DOT), they're the problems of not improving our roadways. We look at Kainaliu Crawl, going up to Kainaliu takes you about an hour from Kailua or even longer because of the traffic. Then what the County did was we did the bypass on Hokuli`a. That helped relieve some traffic there. We had problems in Pahoa, right. And what happened was they did the bypass in,Pahoa and that helped a lot of traffic that was on the Pahoa Old Road. Coming into Pana`ewa, you have state highways again and now you have people from volcano to lower Puna coming into one area into a bottleneck and now we're having problems again. But everything is done on state roads and that's where we, the body of the County, need to push our state legislators that is representing your guy's districts to bring in funding to improve your guy's roadways. But they never do that, right, for some reason for how many,years, I mean, my family to go to Kona we had to drive throughamakua, go through Waimea, and then go to Kona, right? Saddle Road was so bad abut thank God for Senator(Daniel) Inouye, he got the funding from all over the place to improve that. So now a lot of the tars are going on Saddle Road if they need to either go to Waikoloa or they go'to Kona, right, In fact, they're not going through Hamakua anymore. So I think this body, with the leadership of Council Member Hustace, needs to do a resolution,to get our state legislators on that side, our senators, our house representatives, to get and fight for the funding to improve your roadways. And you know what was interesting was that back then when they were doing the shoulders coming into Waimea, I thought they were going to make it wide enough, right, and maybe even having like a turn in the middle so cars that's going to turn off to the different streets wouldn't block or stop the traffic from flowing. But that never happened. And I was like shocked, like all that work for nothing, right. I don't know why but so maybe, Council Member, do the push, night, get your roads fixed with the state. Tell them get the investments and put in that money, right. And then if the County needs to help match maybe a little to help out our residents, then we do that. But so, traffic, I mean it's not like really your problem, it's the state's problem, right. But the housing part, the affordable part, that could be you guys that could help out the community. Okay. But I'll yield. Page 20 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 CHR. KIMBALL: Yes, you may but you have to come up to the microphone. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Applicant Joni Metzler came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. METZLER: The main thing I want to address is throughout this whole process over the last six, seven years, what we have tried to do is address all of the comments from the public, from the local people. And in planning this project we've taken everything they've said to heart and the main thing with the five half-acre lots is everybody was pressing we need agriculture; you've got to keep the ag in Waimea. This is the most important thing to us.,'So when we made those five lots we wanted them to be large enough where someone could build a house and then keep agricultural on the property. And then it was suggested to us, well the people of the community, they were concerned that ewe were going to build too much and so the suggesting Qf limiting the ADU; do not allow ADU. We'll go either way. We will, if you want A tj we'll do ADU, if you want ag, we'll do ag. Through this whole process we've tried to please all of the people. And as you guys probably appreciate, you can't please all the people. And then also to address you concern is we don'tplan, nor do we have the ability to build restaurants on those commercial properties.', There's not enough water, there's not enough ability to,do a restaurant. What we have planned is small buildings to accommodate small'local businesses, doctors, whether it's insurance people,whether it's lawyers, whatever it is to keep the community within the community so someone could actually live there and work there. And we've had, like I've told you in many meetings before, we've had many doctors approach us that would like'to build a building to suite their practice, a dermatologist. We've also had architects that want to design the building and have a building that fits in with the Waimea Community Plan. We are trying to build something so that when people drive in or out of Waimea, they look at it and they say, "God, isn't that Waimea." That is exactly, when you drive through these little communities, like driving over to Hilo, the architecture fits in with the community. And that's all we're trying to do is to provide small ag lots for young people to come in there, build a house. John and I will help them. We have the expertise and the ability. Like John said, we're willing to carry back the loans to make the interest rates lower. All we're trying to do is help the community. That's basically all I wanted to say is, we've always listened through this whole process to try to help people and make it a better looking community instead of just a vacant lot with nothing out there. We're trying to provide housing. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Ms. Metzler. One more brief comment, Council Member Onishi. Page 21 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MR. ONISHL Okay so it was mentioned you folks never reached out to the community to do a community meeting. MS. METZLER: We did. I mean, we didn't hold a community meeting, but I can tell you both John and I MR. ONISHL No, my question was did you folks hold a community meeting? MS. METZLER: Well we went to a community meeting that was held by Mr. Hustace. MR. ONISHI: No, previous for this? MS. METZLER: No. Never held ecommunity meeting. But I can tell you that we met with the Waimea Community and Design Committee. We've presented our project to the South Kohala Safety Committee. We met with DOT; we met with the Department of Public Works(DPW);we met with both when the highway was controlled by the County and,then now when it was controlled by the state. We met with all those people. We hired Nancy Burns as a consultant that went and met with a bunch of the County officials to make sure that we had done everything that the County officials want. MR. ONISHL Okay. Thank you. MS. METZLER: Yeah. MR. ONISHL I mention that because to me the rule of thumb is, and I always even with County projects is you go out and meet with the community, explain to them what the whole situation is get their feedback. And this is when you have a proposal. And then get their feedback, we fix what the concerns were and then go back and report back to them and let them know this is what we're doing, and this is hove we're takitig care of your concerns. I mean, that's like how I do in Hilo, in my district; that's what I do with projects that's happened here. The only one I don't have a full record is about the Hilo Muni where they're putting up this fencing, and I've told the golf course people, that's what they should've done earlier because the neighbors around that area thought that since County housing got that property, they thought it was going to get a low-income project over there. So they were kind of upset. But so, like for me in my district, that's what I do is to get the community out. MS. METZLER: We did do that, Council Member CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Mr. Onishi. I kind of want to limit the back and forth. So your time is up, Mr. Onishi. And then you can give a brief response and then I want to go to other Council Members. Page 22 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MR. ONISHL Okay. Then I'll yield. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you. MS. METZLER: I mean, John and I got in his pickup truck and went door to door with all the commercial buildings and met with all of the people that own those businesses, up and down throughout the whole community. We did meet with a lot of community members and also on the telephone with a lot of neighbors. And there were a lot of neighbors I cari tell you that they are relatives, or connected, went to school, with some of the opposition people and they told us, "You know, we support you. We know the quality of John's work, but we don't want the wrath of these people." And there are a lot of people that support us, but they don't want to get involved because they don't want the wrath of the people that don't support us. CHR. KIMBALL: Okay. I'm going to stop you right there. The Clerk has reminded me that you actually didn't introduce yourself for the record. My bad. Can you just introduce yourself for the record? MS. METZLER: I'm sorry. I'm Joni Metzler; I'm John's wife. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Ms.Metzler. Going back to discussion from the body. Anyone else before I go back? No. Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder; MR: KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. To the applicant, to whoever wants to speak on behalf of the applicant, has there been a state study for the roadway,access from the state highway? MS. GARSON. We have had a traffic consultant do a traffic impact analysis report:,(TIAR). MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And where is that? MS. GAkSON: It's attached to the application, the rezoning application. And he has done some supplements. The TIAR is attached to the zoning application, and he did numerous updates to it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Clerk, do we have a record of the TIAR they're referencing? MR. BROWN: Offhand, I'm not sure. But if it was attached to some of the planning documents, I'm not sure if Planning wants to weigh in on that? Page 23 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MS. GARSON: Yeah. You should've been sent a link. The link was contained in the recommendation from the Planning Commission when it was sent to Council to the application. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. I was looking back. I think the original recommendation, given the recommendation from the Planning Commission is unfavorable. This ordinance came to us basically with nothing attached because it had come unfavorably from the Leeward Planning Commission. Mr. Arai, do we have a copy of the TIAR anywhere that's been given to us so far? MR. ARAI: According to the record it was included as Exhibit 6 of the Planning Director's background reports. So if you have the background report it should be part of it as an Exhibit 6. CHR. KIMBALL: It was never provided as a hard copy. It's available in the SharePoint directory as well as Laserfiche and then it was attached as mentioned as a link or it was made available as a link unthe PDF (Portable Document Format) level. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, okay, Thank you, Chair. So not a hard copy, but we have a copy online. Then the public has one as well. MR. ARAL, It's accessible online through the Council's Laserfiche link. MR: KANEALI`I-KLEINFELI)ER: Okay. MS. GARSON,-' 1,believe the whole application is attached to the background report. Mit. ARAL Exhibit 6 is the entire TIAR. And I should note too and correct me because I came oti,board a little bit late, but then they've had numerous discussions with the State DOT, which resulted on the number of access approaches onto the highway being reduced to only a single access. I think a lot of us who have had experience with State DOT knows that they're very concerned about impacts to their roadway systems, which is why a lot of upfront discussions was held with them, and which is why the site plan itself and the project concept and including the conditions of leave reference a single access approach for this project. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So that singleI'm looking at the revised proposed plan that was provided to us by the or within the Waimea Community meeting report. Is that still appropriate to look at? It looks like this. Page 24 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MS. GARSON: The one access; that's the—correct. Wait, I can't see that part. If it has one access into it then that would be the one to look at. That would be the conceptual site plan. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Should have one easement on the Honoka`a side of the property that services the commercial aspect of the property as well as the five lots in the back. Is that correct? MS. GARSON: There's a five-lot easement driveway that will serve the residential lots, which is called Ishihara Farm Road: And then the commercial lots have an access. So the Ishihara Farm Road already exists there. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. ySo is the state aware that there's actually two access roads; one to the five lots in the back and then one access road in the front to the commercial property? MS. GARSON: Yes, they are. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Andthey approved to that in their TIAR? MS. GARSON: Correct. No,the TIAR was done by our consultants. But the HDOT (Hawai`i Department of Transportation) is aware of the Ishihara Farm Road access as well as the one access,to the commercial. MR,KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, one more time. The state approved or is aware? MS. GARSON,` Is aware. They are aware. There's nothing for them to approve right now in front of them: So they were provided the copies and they're aware. They had asked us to reduce the number of access to the commercial portion down from two to one. But the remaining Ishihara Farm Road serves the residential so you're not going to get the conflict between the commercial and the residential. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So the Ishihara Road originally serviced two homes but will be servicing five now and there's no issue there for the state? MS: GARSON: No. And it's that same access point. There're two other lots that also take access. It's like a flag lot with easements over it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, I can see that. There's two lots or three lots, well maybe more. There's at two that I can see that have a flag lot easement to the highway fromsorry, using that Ishihara Farm Road. MS. GARSON: Correct. Page 25 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So we actually have five lots in this proposed site plan you've provided as well as easements for two other lots behind it all using the Ishihara Roadway? MS. GARSON: Correct. Yeah. The plan is seven residential. And just so you're aware, there are already two homes on the one property. So there's basically four. So it would be three additional for the residential. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And the state doesn't have to be notified that we're increasing the density of the,existing lot to five lots versus the original one with two homes one it that Ishihara was servicing? MS. GARSON: They have the plan. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: They have the plan? MS. GARSON: Yeah. The had`the conceptual plan. They had the draw; and that's when they asked us to reduce thecommercial.access. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Interesting. Okay. Mr. Arai, is that all in the document that the study was including the new lots with the new homes as well as the commercial activity happening in the fr6nt. MR. ARAI: Yes. I do recall there were multiple variations on the TIAR. So it wasn't just one document prepared, and it was"based on the initial document subsequentceinversations and comments from State DOT that then resulted in adjustments to the site plan to reduce the number of approaches. Am I correct, Cathy? MS. GARSON: Yeah. MR. ARAI: "Yeah. So, you know, again it was a result of the initial TIAR that resulted in multiple follow up amendments to the study as well as revisions to the design, all to address concerns that were predicated on State DOT reviewing the application,and the original TIAR. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I'm going to review that. Thank you. Chair, I yield for now. CR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member. Back to you, Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Sorry I had to step out for a moment. I think in reviewing the testimonies submitted and, you know, having the conversation over the last I don't know how many hearings and months, I'm comfortable with the zoning as it currently stands if I had to choose. And not too often do we get an Page 26 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 unfavorable recommendation from the Leeward Planning Commission unless there was an unfavorable recommendation from the Planning Director. So with that, I today and for the foreseeable future, cannot support this application. I'll be voting no, and I just wanted to get that ball rolling. Thank you. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member. Anyone else? Council Member Hustace. MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. Kind of going back to the TIAR and that question there. I'll try to pull it up here as well,butwere there recommendations back for DOT beyond the single access point for the commercial lots? CHR. KIMBALL: Can you please offer your name and then,make your response into the microphone. Thank you. MS. METZLER: Joni Metzler. Ve hired Nancy Burns as a consultant. She went to the Department of Transportation and,there's an'email correspondence with him looking at our project and saying thathe, I don't know the exact language, but he acknowledges the one driveway, and he was fine with one driveway. MR. HUSTACE: So there was no other discussion on other improvements along the commercial frontage then? MS. METZLER: I'll let Cathy. MS: GARSON-,' Not coming from HDOT. And I do believe that email is part of the record and I'm sorry I don't have>a communication number for you. But if it's not then we'll make sure that we get it to you before the next hearing. So the recommendations are in,the TIAR, and I don't know if our traffic consultant is still online, bathe was available. MR. HUSTACE' 'So I'll be a little bit more specific in my question. Do you presume that, you know, if DOT has to review the process after proceedings here at Council and you have to kind of formalize that TIAR, and then with the conditions with HDOT finalize their requests and their requirements. Do you think they will presume and require curbs, gutters, sidewalks as a part of the frontage along the highway? MS. GARSON: Can you answer that? MR. ARAI: Maybe Director Darrow can assist me with this, but my recollection is state DOT looks primarily at mitigating vehicular turning movements and not necessarily pedestrian facilities along the roadway. They're just trying to ameliorate the impacts of traffic generated by a project. Now, during the design review stage if they feel that certain pedestrian facilities are needed because of a Page 27 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 specific safety concern, then maybe that's something they can look at. But I don't know if it's something that's always imbedded in the review and design considerations. MR. HUSTACE: Sure. Is this something that the applicant would be amenable to having as a condition for road improvements that abuts the frontage and the state highway; curbs gutters and sidewalks. MS. GARSON: But I think it's a—okay, so you're saying in addition to the condition that the applicant will do whatever HDOT says. MR. HUSTACE: Because we don't know what HDOT's going to say, right. We can assume. We don't know at this point: MR. ARAI: I remember a discussion because there was discussion about curb, gutter, sidewalk improvements along the entire frontage, but it was also in recognition that there is a shallow drainage way that runs along the front end. It's come up on numerous discussions, right: 'Sei even installing curb, gutter, sidewalks will have an overall effect on the overall drainage pattern in the area. So it's something definitely the applicant can take a look at, but I wouldn't hard bake it into the ordinance because of that type of consideration. If it has an effect on the drainageways in the area then best they take a look at it, but not necessarily mandate it. MR,HUSTACE: If part of that frontage is in that floodplain area, which would have to be mitigated after the fact, some of those infrastructure improvements could ameliorate those challenges, right,putting in storm drain gutters, those sort of aspects in the commercial area? MR. ARAL It could. I mean, in the end the applicant is compelled to comply with all of the requirements of State Department of Transportation. It's their system,,their roadway,they're going to demand whatever level of improvements they feel is necessary in order to ensure proper turning movements and safe pedestrian passage. MR. HUSTACE: I'm just trying to join a couple of challenges here where we have, you know, potential pedestrians in that area for commercial structures, as well as potential flooding in that area. So trying to join all of that in terms of some of that infrastructure need. But just putting it out there. I'm going to move on to another question that kind of came up in past conversations. Mr. Metzler, you know, any other thoughts we've talked about this, we've talked about it with community on legacy projects and if you had any other thoughts on like a community legacy project in the area; what does that look like; what does that mean for this space; is it appropriate? Page 28 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MR. METZLER: I'm not sure I know what a legacy project is. I know there are various definitions floating around on the internet at least. Some are defined as landscape or reforestation or native, and some are simply high-quality, well- designed projects that fit into the community. So our intent is to do the right thing in Waimea. MR. HUSTACE: Okay. Thank you. And then the last„question I have for now is on the commercial side, you know, some of the concern is,the—well, there's actually two things because Council Member Kagiwada kind of, you brought this up about your thoughts on what's allowable in those areas and it was in reply that there are limitations to the water. What else cannot be developed because of the limitations to the water there? You said restaurants; I mean it's going to be a range of things, right, that are kind of at that sole where you have that limit. MS. GARSON: He has two existing water credits because of the two houses, and he has 20 more. So whatever is done on that property, needs to be,accomplished within their 20 water commitments. MR. HUSTACE: Okay. Thanks for that number. I appreciate that. So the other last question I have is on the commercial side, and it relates to traffic impacts, congestion, people maneuvering in and out of that facility that's those spaces, and if you are at all amenable to limitations on the building height in that area to one-story commercial? MR. METZLER: I think we're stated on various occasions that we are very much amenable to a limitation on heights in the commercial space. MR. HUSTACE Okay. Thank you, Mr. Metzler. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Galimba. MS:GALIMBA;, Thank you. You know, we may have discussed this at an earlier time. It's been,a"bit. But I was wondering about this sort split between the changing of SLU(State Land Use) from ag to rural in the back, which then allows for the quarter acre lots; half-acre lots, sorry. Yeah. Could you do those in the front as well? Because there's been a split, like actually the Leeward Planning Commission voted favorably for the SLU change and unfavorably for the change of zone, if I'm reading this correctly, and it seems like a lot of the heartburn is around the commercial zoning, which could be wonderful, but I think a lot of people are also thinking like worse case scenarios of what could be commercial. So would you do half-acre lots in the front as well? MS. GARSON: Yes. Neighborhood commercial is 10,000 square feet, so you can do lots as small as 10,000 square feet. MS. GALIMBA: With the? Page 29 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MS. GARSON: Neighborhood commercial. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. You could do that with neighborhood commercial. What about—if it was the same, and I know this is not what you would want to do, if we didn't approve the change of zone to commercial; number one, could you change it to agricultural .5? MS. GARSON: It's currently five. MS. GALIMBA: It's five acres, right. It's five Acres now. MS. GARSON: Yes. And so it would take another change of zone; a different change of zone. MS. GALIMBA: And a different bill. MS. GARSON: A different bill. Yeah,restarting the whole process again. And I don't know if this is helpful but, you know, Ms. Metzler talked about the various different revisions that have been made to the plan. And it was interesting because one of the firsttimes we went to Leeward Planning Commission they actually were not in favor of the residential in the back,but they realized that because the front of the propertywas designated urban and then neighborhood commercial was consistentwith what; You know, across the street and on other sides of them did, they had almost less of a problem that they did at that time with the RS'40 Wh4t we are proposing in the back. So it's kind of flipped back and forth between'What people want and what people don't want. And so what I was trying,to explain,initially was with the neighborhood commercial zone, there's flexibility with what you can do in that. MS. GALIMBA: Right. And so you could do residential in neighborhood commercial, correct? Right. MS. GARSON: And multi-family. But again, we are constrained by the 20 water commitments that we have. The applicant is constrained by the 20. MS. GALIMBA: The water, right. Okay. And you could also do like these sort of retail'bottom floor residential on top. That's kind of become popular in some places. That would also be possible. MR. METZLER: Not if you want to restrict the height. MS. GALIMBA: Right. I get that. I know. Yeah. So yes, we must think about that carefully. Okay. I think just to get to the like as Chair Inaba said; I continue to support this. I think there's—and it's mainly because as you said, it's urban zoned; it's, what is it? I'm having trouble with words today. Yeah, all the things, Page 30 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 all the plans, it fits with it. So to me, it seems just fair. If this is going to happen anywhere, it should happen here where we've planned for it. But also wanting to explore some other possibilities and also would hope that the sort of spirit of what folks are asking for would be respected in going forward should this pass. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member Galimba. Anyone else before we wrap it up? Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Arai, where in this document is any of the affordable requirements located in the ordinance or is it? MR. ARAI: I'm sorry the requirement? It's Condition B, which speaks to complying with the requirements of Chapter 1 I of the Hawdi"i County Code. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And what is that speaking to? MR. ARAI: The applicant,prior to gaining a certificate about occupancy for any of the residential units, he would have to comply with the County's Housing Code, which is basically 20 credits. MS. GARSON: So 20 percent: So if he does five lots, it's one credit. MR. ARAI: 20 percent. MR,KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So we're going to require that one lot, this ordinance requires that20 percent or one lot be affordable for this project? MS. GARSON: But it's one credit, so you can earn credits in different ways. So you could get'two credits if you build a house and sold it for; to people within a certain median: So it's all laid out in Chapter 11 how to earn new credits. So it's probably easier if we talk about one credit than one lot necessarily. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Is it a requirement that you do so or is it an option at the end? MS. GARSON: Compliance with Chapter 11 is a requirement. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Not so much the compliance with Chapter 11, sorry, but that you will build a portion of the property to affordable housing standards of the County. MS. GARSON: It is by law. It's required by law. It's in the County Code. Page 31 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So just having Condition P requires the developer to have one affordable housing unit; that's it? Okay. Thank you. CHR. KIMBALL: Alright. That's it. Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Very quick;just very quick to add onto that just to be clear for the public that that requirement can also be filled by providing an affordable unit within 15 miles, currently in the Code, of this property. So that's not the only way. It could also be finished lots. There are lots of different ways to; it doesn't have to be one home out of five. Just to be very clear. That isn't a guarantee. Okay. Thanks. I yield. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Council Member. Alright: I have a couple of quick questions. What's the wastewater situation; are these properties at all serviced by sewer at this time? MS. GARSON: No. It's going to be individual wastewater. CHR. KIMBALL: Okay. So that also constrains some of the commercial activities, right, in terms'of what is permitted 6n:an IWS (Individual Wastewater System). And I don't know, Director Darrow, cari;you maybe share what sorts of commercial activities permitted n'CN are prohibited by a lack of a municipal wastewater? It's a quiz and if you don't get,a passing grade, well, you don't want to know what happens. MR: DARROW; Thank you, Council Member Kimball. Can you please repeat that?,It sounded like you were saying, what commercial use would be restricted with the lack of municipal wastewater. CHR. KIMBALL: That's'correct. MR. DARROW:, Se unfortunately I'm the wrong guy to talk to about that. I would, you know, in'this particular area of Waimea you see a lot of different types of uses; restaurants, you see large hardware stores; you see Ace Hardware; you see McDonald's. There's quite a bit going on. So however they were able to do it, it seems like they were able to meet some sort of wastewater standard for commercial uses without the municipal system. CHR. KIMBALL: Is it, it seems likely if not highly probable that those were permitted prior to the existing DOH rules with respect to municipal wastewater for commercial facilities because now, as I understand it, you can't do a restaurant without wastewater. You can't do a restaurant on an IWS. Page 32 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MR. DARROW: Yeah. We've seen some. So I'm not sure how that's getting passed. But again, I'm probably not the right guy to answer that particular questions. CHR. KIMBALL: Who would be the right person? MR. DARROW: That would be our Department of Environmental Management (DEM). Yeah. CHR. KIMBALL: So for the next hearing I will ask somebody from DEM to come and maybe shed some light on that because I chi think that that's a restricting factor. It's certainly a restricting factor with the ADUs, right, because that would limit—you can only do five bedrooms per one individual wastewater system. You need to have 10,000 square feet for the leach field. MR. DARROW: Right. CHR. KIMBALL: So that already limits, even without the condition in there, the ability to build ADUs on any of the parcels or on the parcel. MR. DARROW: So they'could do multiple because of the fact that they are over 10,000 square feet. CHR. KIMBALL: Well they need,20,000 square feet and a zero square footage house. MR:DARROW.- Yeah. I will also try to find the answer for that as well. Thank you. CHR. KIMBALL: Okay. Alright. I raise these point to highlight that there are, in,addition to water, some pretty significant constraints on what actually can be done on this property including the development of ADUs. And like Council Member Galimba, I have concerns about the situation where we have the General Plan, State Land Use, and the Community Development Plan, which were all developed,through community-driven, mediated processes that line up that support an action. And then we're requiring all of these other things, which are not that are exceptional, right. And I think that sets a dangerous precedence. ,'m still optimistic that there's possibility for improvement in this through continued dialogue. But just so that public is aware that's here, we do,regardless of what happens today, have at least one more hearing on this. So if it goes through with an unfavorable recommendation or a favorable recommendation, it's going to go to Council for a reading there. So just be aware of that. So unless there's no further comment I think I'd like to go ahead with the roll call vote. Seeing none. Mr. Clerk, we're going to start with Bill 198, please. Page 33 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 MR. BROWN: Okay, thank you. Yeah. Just so the public is aware, this is a rare occurrence where we have two pieces of bills on the floor at the same time for discussion sake, but we will take each one up separately. So on the floor right now, the motion we'll take a vote on is Bill 198; on the motion to send Bill 198 to Council with a favorable recommendation. Page 34 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 Vote on Bill 198: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 198 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Onishi, and Chair Kimball —4. Noes: Committee Members Inaba, Kagiwada, and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—3. Absent: Committee Members Kierkiewicz and Vllegas —2. Excused: None. CHR. KIMBALL: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. With that and seeing no further business, we are adjourned MR. BROWN: We gotta do Bill 199. CHR. KIMBALL: Go ahead please— , , MR. BROWN: So on the motion to forward Bill 199 to Council with a favorable recommendation. Vote on Bill 199: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 199, Draft 2, Draft 2 failed by the following roll call vote: Failed Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Onishi, and Chair Kimball—3. Noes: Committee Members Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada, and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—4. Absent; Committee Members Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and Villegas—2. Excused: None. (Note: Council Member Hustace voted "kanalua"then "no. ') CHR. KIMBALL: Alright. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Page 35 LAAC-9 May 20,2025 ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Kimball adjourned the meeting MENT: at 6:49 p.m. Approved: Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Chair (Date) Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Committee HI/tk Page 36