Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2018/01/23 (2016-2018)Committee on Planning 17th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii January 23, 2018 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 1:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.) COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 685: NOMINATION OF TRISTIE K. LICOAN TO THE SOUTH KOHALA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE From Mayor Harry Kim, dated January 4, 2018, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 17, 2018 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) PC -17 January 23, 2018 Vote on Comm. 685: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Ms. Tristie K. Licoan to the South Kohala Community Development Plan Action Committee. Seconded by Ms. O'Hara and carried by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair Eoff — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Ruggles —1. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. EOFF: And you folks will not have to come back to the Council meeting in two weeks, but your final confirmation vote will take place then. But, it was just good that you were here today. MR. HENRICKS: Madam Chair, can we just correct for the record, I believe Ms. Ruggles is not in the room at this point in time. CHR. EOFF: She wasn't in the room for the vote? MR. HENRICKS: No, I don't think she's here. She'sno, I don't see here anywhere. So, eight "ayes"? CHR. EOFF: Okay, then that would be eight "ayes." MR. HENRICKS: Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Can you read Communication 686, please? Comm. 686: NOMINATION OF KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN TO THE SOUTH KOHALA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE From Mayor Harry Kim, dated January 4, 2018, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 17, 2018 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Page 2 PC -17 January 23, 2018 Vote on Comm. 686: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. Kevin McLaughlin to the South Kohala Community Development Plan Action Committee. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. EOFF: Mr. Clerk, Communication 687. Comm. 687: NOMINATION OF J WILLIAM SANBORN TO THE SOUTH KOHALA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE Vote on Comm. 687 (Approved) From Mayor Harry Kim, dated January 4, 2018, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 17, 2018 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the appointment of Mr. J William Sanborn to the South Kohala Community Development Plan Action Committee. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. EOFF: Communication 688. Page 3 PC -17 January 23, 2018 Comm. 688: NOMINATION OF RUTH ANNETTE SMITH TO THE SOUTH KOHALA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE From Mayor Harry Kim, dated January 4, 2018, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 17, 2018 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 688: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Ms. Ruth Annette Smith to the South Kohala Community Development Plan Action Committee. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. EOFF: We'll take a brief recess. Thank you. Recess: At 2:06 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:10 p.m. CHR. EOFF: Alright, I'd like to reconvene our meeting, calling us back to order. Mr. Clerk, could you please read Bill 92? ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Page 4 PC -17 January 23, 2018 Bill 92: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-001:184 (Applicant: Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation) (Area: 6.569 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to the State Land Use Boundaries Maps, which would allow the applicant to develop 92 units of affordable senior housing. Reference: Comm. 689 Intr. by: Ms. Eoff (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 92 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. CHR. EOFF: It looks like we still have Director Yee and several other people in Hilo. We have Jeremy McComber here in Kona. So, would you like to come up, Jeremy? And Mr. Kato? (Note: At this time, Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation's Development Manager Jeremy McComber and Executive Director Keith Kato came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. EOFF: I think before Council Members ask or comment, maybe you could give us a brief overview of this Bill 92. MR. MCCOMBER: Sure. Good afternoon, Jeremy McComber with Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation. We're the developer of the project, which is going to be on State-owned land, EO to the County, leased to our organization. The project is 92 -units of senior housing, and typically, how we approach entitlements with a project, is we utilize the affordable housing statute, the 201H exemption to address boundary amendments and changes of zone. In this particular situation, we were advised by Planning because there was some question in the way the Land Use Commission (LUC) was interpreting the affordable housing statute, and so, just to comply and follow suit with the typical requirement for land entitlement, we are pursuing a boundary amendment for the project site. CHR. EOFF: Mr. McComber, just to clarify that, is that because it was not certain that doing it through a resolution process actually change the zoning? Page 5 PC -17 January 23, 2018 MR. MCCOMBER: I'm not sure. We're just following the standard process so that it doesn't hold up our project. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Alright, I can ask Planning that after, but I'm going to go ahead and—Mr. Kato, would you like to comment first? MR. KATO: The way that the 201H statute is worded, it seems kind of unclear. It implied that it's under the jurisdiction of the County if it's less than 15 acres. Then separately, there's another provision that says that the County can run through these exemptions through the normal exemption process toward things that is under its control. And we had been doing this for years in this way. MS. EOFF: Right. MR. KATO: Last year, the Land Use Commission staff, I guess, reread the statute and they pointed out that there's a specific section in 201H that is being referred to, 205, which is the Land Use Commission law, specific provision in that one, that was being referred to with the 201H statute. So, they're saying even if the County can do these exemptions, it still needs to run through the regular LUC process. Apparently, that County attorney has agreed with that and so, we're here basically to clean it up. For your information, there's also a bill that's being introduced at the Legislature that will eliminate this conflict that just say that whatever the County's decision-making body is, can make that decision as part of the 201H process. MS. EOFF: Would that affect prior? MR. KATO: I don't, you know, I had raised that whether it could retroactively do that, and I didn't get a clear answer on that. CHR. EOFF: Okay, alright, well thank you very much. Council Members? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Kato, for that explanation because I was just wondering—and I was a huge advocate for that amendment or that exception piece for Chapter 201 H, which provided exception to kind of accelerate the building of affordable units and for this case, senior housing. Do you have a bill number on that exception that would clean up, I guess, this Chapter 205, as it relates to special? MR. KATO: You know, I don't really know right off -hand. I'll find out and get it to you. MS. LEE LOY: So, in total now, does that mean we urbanized that entire lot? Page 6 PC -17 January 23, 2018 MR. KATO: Yes. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. Alright, I yield at this time. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you, other comments? Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Not really towards this project because I absolutely agree with it. Amy, was Amy Self there? CHR. EOFF: Yes. Ms. Self (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SELF: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Amy Self. MR. KANUHA: Hey Amy, just to kind of go over the process that we've been doing in the past and the one that's been interpreted now into the future, given that the State Land Use staff has interpreted it differently, is that the consensus of the Corporation Counsel? To go off of this process now? MS. SELF: Yes, I receivedI actually wrote a letter to the LUC to Mr. Orodenker, and this was pertaining to another issue but same—another subdivision, but same issue, and that's when we got the response back from him and he had obviously worked with his Deputy Attorney General to come up with this. I disagree somewhat with his letter, but then I spoke with a Deputy Corporation Counsel who advises the Planning Department on Maui, and he said that our County and Kauai were the only ones that had been interpreting it the way we were interpreting it. And so, I guess what Dan Orodenker from Land Use Commission is saying that the same process for 201H-38 exemptions that go through the County Council for zoning changes, for exemptions for zoning, that same process is provided for State district boundary changes to go through the Land Use Commission, same process applies. And it's not really clear under 201H-38, but the way they're interpreting it is that even if it's less than 15 -acres, if it's a 201H exemption, which takes you to a different chapter in the HRS, and not just chapter 205, that you have to go to the LUC to seek the exemption, instead of just County Council being able to give the exemption. And that's just for the State district boundary changes. MR. KANUHA: Okay. I mean that makes sense. I mean I still think you can interpret it our way too, that the counties could do it our way, even though it's the same provisions provided for by both the State and the County, but I don't have a Page 7 PC -17 January 23, 2018 problem. I mean if it's going to be the same process, not the same process but oaky, I'll yield at this time. CHR. EOFF: Thank you, any other? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: I have a follow-up question for Ms. Self With the back drop of the resolutions prior to this, they went from County A 1-a zoning to RM -3. Is this property now considered County zoning RM -3? And it's contained in the background report at page four. It's County zoning Al -a, according to Resolution 536-16, the zoning is considered RM -3. MS. SELF: Yes, because the Council provides the exemptions, the 201 exemptions when it concerns zoning, but what's happening now is LUC is saying that the LUC controls whether or not you get the 201 H exemptions when it comes tolike for instance, they're asking to change the State district boundary or exempted from that classification by just going to County Council. But now what's happening is the LUC is saying no, if it's a, you know, a State district boundary change, if that's what you're asking for under 201H, you have to go to LUC to get that. So, this doesn't affect zoning. The zoning can be, they can change the zoning through 201H by going through the regular process with Council, but LUC is saying Council doesn't control the State district boundary in that instance, it's the LUC that controls it. MS. LEE LOY: So, will we be seeing a zone change come forward on top of this State Land Use Boundary amendment? Or is it already being controlled by the resolution 536-16? MS. SELF: Yes, it's already changed by resolution for the zoning, just the zoning though. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. MS. SELF: Now they're trying to change the district boundary with this resolution, right? Yes. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Self. I yield. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: I just wanted to make a comment, and it really doesn't have to do with the State district boundary change issue, but insofar as the zoning has already been set, this is really the mechanism which is going to facilitate the development on that property, and this property is in my district. I fully support the Page 8 PC -17 January 23, 2018 development, okay? I think Keith and Jeremy have proven that they can come up with a terrific product. If you guys haven't been to their development, that phase one and two, you guys should take a look because it is first class. But there is a collateral issue that has been brewing and, you know, we've been in discussions, and it has to do with some money that they had given the County many years ago to put in a stop light on Mohouli. And now, I don't know, I want you guys to visualize this, okay? Where the property is, there's a street light at Komohana and Mohouli. Now, what's being proposed is a street light at the entrance of their development, which is only a few hundred yards from that major street lighted intersection at Komohana and Mohouli. I'm not an engineer because they have the support of Ron Thiel, but this is counterintuitive to every principle of common sense that I have, and it's not going to serve the greater good of that area, if you put a traffic light at that intersection. It's ridiculous, actually. And I don't think these guys are wedded to that idea, quite frankly, I mean you guys don't have to say anything right now. Because I think the more common- sense thing is to get an egress out on Komohana, so these guys have two ways to get out of that development. But what I'm concerned about is that by increasing the density here 92 units, it's now going to trigger the necessity for some kind of, you know, traffic lights at that intersection, which is crazy. Every person I've talked to in that area says that is nuts. But I support this right now, but we still got two more cracks at this and hopefully you guysI told you guys, if you guys can get Mayor Kim to sign off and say that he is in agreement with this idea, then I will certainly give it the weight it deserves, but I haven't received that yet. I'm still waiting. So, I had to make that comment. I'm going to vote in favor of it today to move this thing along and hopefully it does move along smoothly, and then we can get this issue resolved at some point. So, let's continue working on that. Thank you, you guys. CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chung, any other comments? Did you folks want to add anything at this point? Okay, well thank you for being here and we'll look forward to an answer to Mr. Chung's query, and we'll see you in a couple weeks. Council Members, all in favor of moving Bill 92 to Council with a positive recommendation please say "aye." Page 9 PC -17 January 23, 2018 Vote on Bill 92: The motion to pass Bill 92 on first reading was carried by (Approved) the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: I think that brings us to the end of this agenda. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 2:26 p.m., Mr. Richard moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: This meeting's adjourned. Approved: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Planning Committee KE/j m (Date) Page 10