HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN COUNCIL 2016/07/19 2014-2016
Hawaiʻi County Council
th
46Session
West Hawaiʻi Civic Center
74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Building A
Kailua-Kona, Hawaiʻi
July 19, 2016
INVOCATION: Council Member Maile Medeiros David gave the morning’s invocation.
CALL TO The regular meeting of the Hawaiʻi County Council was called to order at
ORDER: 9:05 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha,
Chair.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Chair
Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Vice Chair
Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member
Ms. Maile “Medeiros” David, Member
Ms. Karen Eoff, Member
Mr. Greggor Ilagan, Member (via videoconference from Hilo)
Mr. Dennis “Fresh” Onishi, Member (via videoconference from Hilo)
Mr. Danny Paleka, Member
Ms. Margaret Wille, Member
PLEDGE OF The Chair directed the Council to the next order of business, Pledge of
ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance.
(At this time, Ms. Poindexter led the Council in the Pledge
of Allegiance.)
PETITIONS, The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
MEMORIALS, Petitions, Memorials, Certificates of Merit, and Expressions of
CERTIFICATES Condolence.
OF MERIT, AND
EXPRESSION OF (Note: At this time, Council Member David presented Certificates of Merit to
CONDOLENCE: Meg and Nick Greenwell and Rhonda Kavanagh on behalf of Kealakekua Ranch
Center/ChoiceMart for winning the 2016 US Small Business Administration
Family-Owned Business of the Year.)
(Note: At this time, Council Member Wille presented Certificates of Merit to
Nancy Lindsey, Rolf Soder, Robert and Kathy Leopoldino, and Michele
Stevenson for their Tropic Care 2016 community contributions.)
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Recess: At 9:32 a.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9:34 a.m.
STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Council 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:
Simmy McMichael: Bill 216 (Comm. 911), in opposition.
Farrah-Marie Gomes: Resolution 551 (Comm. 921), in support; and
(representing Hawaiʻi Island Resolution 556 (Comm. 929), in support.
Women’s Leadership Forum)
Deanna Kackley: Resolution 551 (Comm. 921), in support.
(representing Hawaiʻi Island
Women’s Leadership Forum)
Arlene Kimata: Bill 217 (Comm. 908.1), in opposition.
Jon Olson: Bill 206 (Comm. 876), in support.
Terry Allio: Bill 216 (Comm. 911), in opposition.
Mike Allio: Bill 216 (Comm. 911), in opposition.
CHR. KANUHA: Is there anybody else wishing to testify here in Kona? How
about in the outer sites? Please let me know. Okay, hearing or seeing none, I’ll
close public testimony and move on with the agenda.
APPROVAL The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Approval
OF MINUTES: of Minutes.
Page 2
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Vote on Approval of Ms. Poindexter moved to approve the Minutes of July 2,
Minutes: 2014 and July 24, 2015. Seconded by Mr. Paleka and
(Approved) carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Now we can go to Communications. I do want to take a few
out of order, but if we could just start with this first one, Resolution 551.
COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
CATIONS: Communications.
(There were none.)
ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions.
TRANSFERS/APPROPRIATES AN APPROPRIATION OUT AND FROM A
Res. 551-16:
DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT AND CREDITS SAME TO A
DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT TO PROVIDE A GRANT TO FRIENDS
OF THE FUTURE FOR THE 2016 HAWAI‘I ISLAND WOMEN’S
LEADERSHIP FORUM
Transfers $2,000 from the Clerk-Council Services – Contingency Relief account
(Council District 1); and credits to the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Other
Current Expenses account.
Reference: Comm. 921
Intr. by: Ms. Poindexter
Motion to Approve: Ms. Poindexter moved to adopt Res 551-16. Seconded by
Mr. Paleka.
CHR. KANUHA: Ms. Poindexter.
MS. POINDEXTER: I’d just like to say, I think Ms. Farrah Gomes said it
perfectly, so I ask for your support. If you have any questions, we’ll be happy to
answer them. Thanks.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Is there any other discussion,
Council Members? Mr. Onishi.
Page 3
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MR. ONISHI: Yes, Mr. Chair.
CHR. KANUHA: Go right ahead.
MR. ONISHI: Can we have Ms. Gomes—?
CHR. KANUHA: Yes, she’s here.
MR. ONISHI: Can she come forward, please?
CHR. KANUHA: Okay.
(Note: At this time, Chair of Hawaiʻi Island Women’s Leadership Forum
Farrah-Marie Gomes came forward to address the members of the
Council.)
MS. GOMES: Aloha.
MR. ONISHI: Hi, thank you for coming forward. I just have a couple of
questions. One, I was listening and you gave a great description of what the
summit is all about and what the organization is all about, but my question is—so,
we’re trying, or you folks are trying to help the women in the community to, I
guess, move up, right? I mean to get more educated into getting like a higher
paying position. Is that correct?
MS. GOMES: That is only partial of the overall mission. We recognize that not
everyone is even in a job, in a career at this point. So, while career and
professional development is absolutely one of the main objectives, we are also
focusing on younger women, emerging leaders, and getting them to recognize
what their potential might be and how to further develop that as well.
MR. ONISHI: Okay, that’s good. And then, so if we can get, I guess, developers
to develop or to create opportunities where we have businesses coming in to
either any district, that would help support part of your goal, correct?
MS. GOMES: Absolutely. So, some of the partners that we’re actually working
with right now are Zonta of Hilo, the YWCA, which is also based out of Hilo.
AAUW (American Association of University Women), which has a branch both
in Hilo and in Kona, are some of our additional partners as well. So, really taking
an island-wide approach and looking at community partners who are willing to
bring to the table what they experience and what their expertise is. Because
individually, we cannot do this on our own.
MR. ONISHI: Right, and then also, with job creations, that’s where we can have
this opportunity for them to be able to afford things for their families, correct?
Page 4
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MS. GOMES: Absolutely. So, what I didn’t mention in my earlier testimony was
some of the workshops that we have scheduled for this year is a panel with two
chamber executives. So, Kirsten Kahaloa, who is the Executive Director for the
Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce, alongside Kaʻiu Kimura, who is the
immediate past President for the Hawaiʻi Island Chamber of Commerce. They
will be doing a panel together.
The Hawaiʻi Community Foundation will also be holding another panel.
Roberta Chu is slated to be one of their panelist, Executive from Bank of Hawaiʻi,
with a local Philanthropist. So, really having people take a look at the concept of
philanthropy and how that emanates on different levels throughout our
community.
But Deanna Kackley, who testified there in Hilo, a recent graduate of Shidler
College, has also coordinated for Doctor Rosita Chang, Business Professor from
Shidler, to present a workshop on personal finances and planning for futures for
these women as well. So again, looking at what women need on multiple levels
to be successful, wherever they’re at. I think that’s the most important part of
what we’re doing is we’re recognizing that many women are starting this journey
from multiple points, and we cannot do great things in one day if we’re trying to
spread ourselves too thin. So, it is still the very beginning of something that we
hope to be able to build.
MR. ONISHI: Good. And then my last thing is that I think I talked to someone
before in your organization about how we could tie in like family violence
because, you know, I’ve been an advocate for over like three or four years now
and you know, trying to—or I recognize the problems that our victims have,
especially the women. Part of it is, you know, one is financial, one is housing, the
other one is transportation, right? And so, how can we enforce them or how can
we get them out of that situation that they’re in and give them more, I guess, pride
to be looking forward to bettering themselves.
So, is it a possibility where we could somehow—because we’re going to be doing
our third summit for our family violence, and so we’ve gotten the legislators
there. This last year’s summit, the year before that, we had like all the different
agencies with nonprofits and State agencies to find out what is the problem?
What do they need? What kind of help do they need? But, is it possible to have
that team work?
MS. GOMES: Absolutely. So, I actually thank you for bringing that point up
because that was something else that I wasn’t able to get in my six minutes here.
We are organized as an individual entity, but one of our other partners is the
Hawaiʻi County Committee on the Status of Women, which is supported by the
Office of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. Two of the components that I would
have mentioned, given the time, would be Title Nine, as it pertains to ongoing
Page 5
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
gender discrimination. That is the one piece of federal legislation that has been
attacked the most number of times at the national level, 27 times to try to overturn
that.
Gender discrimination, most people think about as it pertains to sports, but as
we’re seeing on the college campuses, it has so much more impact than just sports
alone. The other piece of legislation is (VAWA), Violence Against Women’s
Act, and that pertains to domestic and sexual violence, sexual harassment,
stalking, dating, violence prevention. And so, as we’re—as Hawaiʻi County
Committee on the Status of Women, which I feel somewhat entitled to speak on
because I am currently Chair of that organization as well, as we’re organized
under the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, we are very much aware of
the societal issues that women face. I did mention the oppression and the
marginalization earlier, whether you want to talk about occupy or black lives
matter. All lives matter and so when we’re taking a look at the issues relating to
women, we do need to take a more systemic approach to some of these things.
But as you’re aware as Council Members, dealing with County funds
sometimes—trying to work with State government and federal government to just
bring one event to fruition, it isn’t always the easiest thing to do.
So, we are very much working closely with Mitch Roth in the Office of the
Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and we thank his office for the support that they
have given us. And we’d love to have additional conversations on ways that we
can streamline some of these efficiencies so that the real beneficiaries, who are
the people on the ground in our communities, can receive those services.
MR. ONISHI: Great. Right on, and I agree with you that, you know, sometimes,
it’s very hard to get all of these different government agencies together, and
we’ve fallen into that. But, I’m going to have my staff contact you and see—
because we’re looking at our summit being in September, I think it was like the
th
28 or something like that. So, if maybe we can get you folks involved in that
summit.
MS. GOMES: Absolutely, we’d love that.
MR. ONISHI: Okay, thank you very much.
MS. GOMES: Thanks.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Onishi. Thank you, Farrah. Any other
discussion? Okay, hearing or seeing none, all in favor of the motion to approve
say “aye.”
Page 6
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Vote on Res 551-16: The motion to adopt Res. 551-16 was carried by the
(Adopted) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. I know there’s one from Mr. Ilagan as well, so
Resolution 556, Mr. Clerk.
Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the
of Business: following items were taken out of order.
Res. 556-16: TRANSFERS/APPROPRIATES AN APPROPRIATION OUT AND FROM A
DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT AND CREDITS SAME TO A
DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT TO PROVIDE A GRANT TO FRIENDS OF
THE FUTURE FOR THE 2016 HAWAI‘I ISLAND WOMEN’S
LEADERSHIP FORUM
Transfers $2,000 from the Clerk-Council Services – Contingency Relief account
(Council District 4); and credits to the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Other
Current Expenses account.
Reference: Comm. 929
Intr. by: Mr. Ilagan
Motion to Approve: Mr. Ilagan moved to adopt Res. 556-16. Seconded by
Mr. Onishi.
CHR. KANUHA: Go right ahead, Mr. Ilagan.
MR. ILAGAN: Thank you. I’ll just make this really brief and I actually wanted
to give some money last fiscal year, but when the first annual conference came
up, I already spent all of my money, so I wasn’t able to give any. I really want to
commend Council Members who did step up and supported the conference, and I
also want to thank Council Member Poindexter for taking the lead and initiating
Resolution 551 and giving the money to this conference as well. So, good luck
and I’m sure it’s going to be a great conference this time around. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Ilagan. Council Members, any other
discussion? Okay, hearing or seeing none, all in favor of the motion to approve
say “aye.”
Page 7
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Vote on Res 556-16: The motion to adopt Res. 556-16 was carried by the
(Adopted) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, we do have an
applicant that needs to leave to catch a flight, so if we could go to Bill 217.
Bill 217: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8,
CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAIʻI COUNTY CODE 1983
(2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) TO
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL – 10,000 SQUARE FEET (CN-10) AT
ST
WAIĀKEA HOUSE LOTS 1, WAIĀKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAIʻI,
COVERED BY TAX MAP KEYS: 2-2-027:038, 039, AND 058
(Applicant: James Ishii) (Area: 58,500 square feet)
The Windward Planning Commission forwards its negative recommendation for
this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to consolidate three
contiguous lots on which the applicant’s three existing dwellings would be
removed to develop a 14,000 square foot commercial building to be used as office
space with on-site parking provided.
Reference: Comm. 908.1
Intr. by: Mr. Ilagan (B/R)
Approve: PC-71
Motion to Approve: Mr. Ilagan moved to pass Bill 217 on first reading and
adopt Planning Committee Report No. 71. Seconded
by Mr. Onishi.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Ilagan, did you want to have the floor first?
MR. ILAGAN: Yes sir.
CHR. KANUHA: Go right ahead.
MR. ILAGAN: Thank you. First of all, before we talk about the main bill, I’d
like to do some amendments and then we can talk about the bill as amended.
Page 8
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Motion to Amend: Mr. Ilagan moved to amend Bill 217 with the contents of
Comm. 908.2. Seconded by Mr. Onishi.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Ilagan, go right ahead.
MR. ILAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This communication has conditions
that will apply to this rezoning, and all the conditions are stated here. I’m going
to ask the Council for your support to add these conditions, and then we can really
talk about the heart of the bill. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Ilagan. So, we are on the amendment, on
908.2. I think everybody has a copy. Mr. Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: I support the amendment.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, Council Members, discussion on the amendment.
Ms. Wille.
MS. WILLE: I’d like someone to sort of clarify what the difference is. I don’t
have—I’m just trying to find it here. Anyway, perhaps the Director could come
forward. Director Kanuha.
CHR. KANUHA: And again, the applicant is in Hilo as well too.
MS. WILLE: Okay.
(Note: At this time, Planning Director Duane Kanuha came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MR. KANUHA: Good morning members of the Council, Duane Kanuha,
Planning Director.
MS. WILLE: Are you able to summarize what differences the amendment makes
from the original bill?
MR. KANUHA: The differences in—I’m sorry, I was talking to Mr. Brilhante, so
I didn’t hear the question.
MS. WILLE: Okay, so they submitted an amendment to Bill 117 and I wondered
if—are you—maybe you’re not aware of the differences.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Just point of information. I think a better way to go is to ask
Mr. Ilagan what the differences are and then ask Mr. Kanuha for comments.
Page 9
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: Yeah.
MS. WILLE: Well, I was—I put my little hand up and I asked—
CHR. KANUHA: No, just—Mr. Kanuha doesn’t have the amendments in front
of him.
MS. WILLE: If he doesn’t have it, then he can say no and I can move on.
CHR. KANUHA: But Mr. Ilagan’s the one that submitted the amendment, so he
might be a better—
MR. KANUHA: I’m familiar with the amendments.
CHR. KANUHA: You’re familiar with it as well?
MR. KANUHA: Right.
MS. WILLE: Okay, you are familiar with the amendment?
MR. KANUHA: Yes.
MS. WILLE: Okay then, if you could just give me your thoughts on what—how
does this change the original bill?
MR. KANUHA: Okay, basically what happens is Pāhoa is like a lot of small
towns that just developed, where they’re all the time, okay? So, what happens in
situations like that is, the right of way widths, not actually the pavements itself,
but the right of way widths that go through towns like Pāhoa, and I think Mauka
Kona, areas like that where a lot of the buildings, a lot of the infrastructure, the
telephones poles, electricity poles, a lot of them are within the right of way.
They’re already within the—they’re constructed within the right of way.
Point of Order: MR. ILAGAN: Point of order. Director Kanuha, are you referring to Bill 206
or—?
MS. WILLE: Excuse me.
MR. KANUHA: Oh, I’m sorry.
MS. WILLE: Excuse me.
CHR. KANUHA: Sorry, point of order by Mr. Ilagan. Can you state your point
of order?
Page 10
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MR. ILAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the Director was referring to
206 not to 217.
CHR. KANUHA: There might have been some confusion on what bill we’re
actually on. So, we’re currently on the amendment to Bill 217, which is the
Waiākea one.
MR. KANUHA: 217? Waiākea.
CHR. KANUHA: Yeah, Mr. Ishii I think is the applicant.
MR. KANUHA: Okay.
CHR. KANUHA: The amendment is 208.2, I think which you—I don’t know if
you have in front of you right now. We’re just trying to get clarification for
Ms. Wille on what the differences are between the original bill and what this
amendment is. Mr. Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I want to reiterate—she’s usually very reasonable, I don’t know
why she wants to stick with this process. Just ask Mr. Ilagan, he’s the person who
proposed this amendment, what the differences are, and then we can solicit
comments from Mr. Kanuha.
MS. WILLE: If he doesn’t know, then I will, but I asked the Director his take on
it, and that’s all.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, thank you, Ms. Wille. I think that’s the best way to go,
but you definitely have the floor to ask your questions.
MR. CHUNG: Or maybe take a short recess.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Kanuha, do you need a little bit more time?
MR. KANUHA: Yeah, give me a couple of minutes here.
CHR. KANUHA: Ms. Wille, I think in the meantime, did you want to just ask
Mr. Ilagan?
MS. WILLE: Okay, go ahead.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Ilagan, go right ahead.
MR. ILAGAN: Thank you, Ms. Wille, for asking me. So, Communication 908
includes conditions to Bill 217 before passage through committee. There were no
Page 11
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
conditions and I want to make sure that there are proper conditions attached to
this rezoning. So, what you see here are basic conditions that the developer
would have to meet.
MS. WILLE: Director Kanuha, if you could summarize what those changes in
conditions.
MR. KANUHA: Yeah, that’s actually correct, okay? The department made a
favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning
Commission made an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. So,
that came up with no conditions.
MS. WILLE: Okay, do you have a handle on what the conditions are? That’s
what I’m trying to—maybe—
MR. KANUHA: Well the conditions basically the same as they were in the
original bill. I believe it may have been updated for the fair share component.
MS. WILLE: Okay, maybe if I hone in on traffic. What are the differences in—
that would be done in terms with the amendment that were not in the original bill?
(Note: At this time, Assistant Corporation Counsel William Brilhante
came forward to address the members of the Council.)
MR. BRILHANTE: Good morning, Councilwoman Wille, William Brilhante,
Assistant Corporation Counsel. Just to clarify the question, I guess we’re having
some confusion here. Are you asking what conditions were added to the original
application? What happened in this application is that the application was
submitted, the Planning Department recommended denial of the application to the
Planning Commission, favorable, yes, and there were conditions attached to that
favorable recommendation. But since the Planning Commission denied it, they
gave it an unfavorable recommendation, none of the conditions were attached to
that unfavorable recommendation when the application was forwarded to
committee. So, I think what’s happening now is a—Council Member Ilagan is
attempting to get the standard conditions attached to the application so that the
package is—
MS. WILLE: So, just putting in terms of apples and oranges, let’s go through
what the conditions concerning traffic would be.
MR. KANUHA: The conditions that are attached to this bill are basically the
conditions that we had recommended, you know, favorable recommendation—
Page 12
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MS. WILLE: Let’s just go through what those would be. I mean there’s been—
raised a lot of concerns about traffic, so I’m trying to hone in on how we’re
addressing the adverse impact on traffic.
CHR. KANUHA: And just so we’re clear, Ms. Wille, this is on—the testimony
that was brought up before is different from this. Just an FYI (For Your
Information).
MS. WILLE: Yeah, I’m aware of that.
MR. KANUHA: I don’t recall that traffic was an issue. The main issue in this
application was whether or not that residential neighborhood should be converted
to commercial use. Now, Manono Street has just been approved. It’s widen, it’s
paved, there is curb, gutter, and sidewalks, so if anything, traffic efficiency has
improved significantly. So, as it relates to traffic being an issue, for this particular
application, I don’t recall that to be the case. It was a matter of whether or not
this property should go from residential use into commercial use. Also
understanding that you may have residential and multi-residential uses within this
commercial zone as well.
MS. WILLE: Okay. I assume that switching from residential to commercial, that
part of the concern was that there would be an increase in traffic or the impact of
traffic. Maybe what I need to do is ask the person who testified, Kimata or
somebody, if she could come forward so I can—if it’s not a matter of traffic that I
can correct myself in terms of what the community concern is. Is she still there in
Hilo?
(Note: At this time, Arlene Kimata came forward to address the members
of the Council.)
MS. KIMATA: I’m here.
MS. WILLE: Can you reintroduce yourself and correct me if I’m wrong in terms
of whether it was traffic or what the issues in terms of switching this over to
commercial would be?
MS. KIMATA: Okay, Arlene Kimata, and I’m a resident of the Waiākea House
Lots area. I don’t believe traffic was—it was not mentioned by me and I don’t
believe it was mentioned by any of the other testifiers at the Planning
Commission meeting. This morning, there was another testifier on a different
issue that was talking traffic, so maybe some of this—
MS. WILLE: Yeah, so just focus then, what are the issues in terms of converting
to commercial that are disturbing.
Page 13
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MS. KIMATA: To me, it’s just that once taken out of residential, it will never be
residential anymore, and in a community where affordable housing is a key, top
issue, I really feel like we need to preserve the zoning to allow residential use in
an area that is actually well suited to preserving older homes, which are
automatically going to be more affordable than building a new one.
MS. WILLE: Okay so, it’s partly a sense of place for the neighborhood and—
MS. KIMATA: Right, it’s also a question of need at this time.
MS. WILLE: And a question of need. But in terms of someone could be a little
ahead of the curve and looking at future needs and that perhaps having that
commercial location would be good for the community. But for you, it’s really—
I’m just trying to get a handle on this, why moving towards commercial is
disturbing. So, it’s basically attempting to preserve the residential atmosphere
and neighborhood and sense of place in that community?
MS. KIMATA: Yes, because there are other commercial properties that are
available very close to this particular block that are actually vacant, unused, or
actually even unbuilt. So, it’s not that we will have, even in the near future, a
deficit in commercial properties that can be used for, you know, whatever startups
and businesses and whatever, which I actually agree is a good thing to continue to
have that kind of facilities available. But I’m just saying right now, it doesn’t
appear to be a need that will be pressing for the next, I’m throwing out, three to
five years kind of thing.
MS. WILLE: So, it’s unnecessarily disturbing the residential zoning?
MS. KIMATA: Yes, and on this particular block.
MS. WILLE: Okay, that helps me. Okay, thank you very much.
MS. KIMATA: Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Council Members, still on the
amendment, 908.2, any other discussion before we move forward? Okay, all in
favor of amending Bill 217 with the contents of Communication 908.2 say “aye.”
Page 14
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 217 with the contents of
Amend: Comm. 908.2 was carried by the following voice vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Now onto the main motion as amended.
Mr. Ilagan.
MR. ILAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Council Members, for
working with me on just getting the conditions onto the bill right off the bat. And
now, to discuss the bill and—I just want to let you know that I do support the
approval of Bill 217, and what we tried to do is look for guidance in our State
Land Use Maps, also the General Plan Land Use Pattern. The State Land Use
Boundary Map designates the subject parcel’s surrounding area as urban and the
General Plan Land Use Map Allocation Guide map designates the subject parcels
in medium density urban, which would allow this type of neighborhood
commercial.
Reading over the transcript that were mentioned, the testifier had similar concerns
as the testifiers in the Planning Commission and they are concerned that they
moved into a residential area 20 years ago, and now it’s being zoned commercial.
I can understand the testifier’s concern about do we have a need now for this
commercial area? My answer to that is I believe that the need is there in the
future and also presently. There was also mention about the Puna area and how
there are residents who would love to move to Hilo and have this affordable
housing. Most people in the Puna area are there because they can only afford
units in the Puna area, and the units in Hilo are out of reach on affordability.
At the same time, as well as housing, people also needs jobs to be able to provide
for their families, and commercial zones like these helps out that opportunities.
So, I want to also mention that with the current conditions that are attached now, I
am more supportive of Bill 217. Before the amendment, I would have probably
denied the passage of it without the conditions. Right now, I hope that the
Council Members will support Bill 217 and move it to the next hearing. Thank
you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Ilagan. Mr. Onishi.
Page 15
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I have the applicant come up? And
then he can maybe, I guess explain or describe what kinds of, maybe possible
businesses he’s looking at this office space. Go ahead, you can introduce
yourself.
(Note: At this time, the applicant James Ishii came forward to address the
members of the Council.)
MR. ISHII: Hi, my name is James Ishii, the applicant. Thank you, Council for
today. But anyway, my intention of this area is to build a better community. I
was born and raised in that same community. I just talked to Ms. Kimata back
there and actually had a good talk with her because if get approval, I told her, I
want her to be incorporated as far as the development of this property, looking at
hopefully getting a small bank there, a family bank, a coffee shop. Something
that would help the community because I foot walked the community and talked
to, I would say, 75 percent were available that I could get in contact with and I
would say about 95 percent were in favor once I got to speak to them.
And also, one of the biggest concerns, I guess, was crime in that area. So in the
meantime, I started correspondence with the Police Department. So, I did get a
letter back from Harry Kubojiri, the Chief, and I was offering them a space in
there for a community police office, so their sense of security would kind of be
more for the community, because my mom still lives in the community, she’s 89
now. But, they’re very interested so we’re corresponding. I’m working with
Lieutenant Fujitake right now, the CP (Community Police) and that’s what I want
to bring up here, and if you guys have any questions, definitely, I’m here now.
MR. ONISHI: Okay, thank you, Mr. Ishii. You know, what I’m going to—
because Mr. Ishii has to leave pretty soon, so I’ll yield to any Council Members
who have any questions for Mr. Ishii. If not, then I’m going to continue my
discussion. So, Mr. Chair, I’ll do that right now.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, thank you, Mr. Onishi. Mr. Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I just wanted to hear from the applicant his thoughts on the
amendments that were just passed.
MR. ISHII: As far as the amendments, I’m fine with the amendments.
MR. CHUNG: Okay, fine.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Council Members, any other
discussion before—with the applicant? Ms. David.
Page 16
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Ishii, this is Council Member David. I just
have one question and the timeframe of five years to complete your project, is that
something that you anticipate accomplishing within the five-year period of time
that you are being allotted to do your project?
MR. ISHII: Yeah, I’m hoping that it’ll be completed within the time frame. I
know—one year, year and a half for planning and permitting.
MS. DAVID: Okay.
MR. ISHII: Yeah. Thank you.
MS. DAVID: All right. If you see yourself doing it in five years, thank you very
much.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Paleka.
MR. PALEKA: Good morning, Mr. Ishii.
MR. ISHII: Good morning.
MR. PALEKA: I’d just like to commend you for reaching out to the community,
especially Ms. Kimata in getting some feedback from your community. You
know, I’m very familiar with this area and not too long ago, we had a very
devastating act committed in that place, where, I don’t want to be too graphic, but
somebody actually shot, you know, shotgun right around the corner.
MR. ISHII: Yeah, across the street.
MR. PALEKA: So James, if you can work with the community and get that
place—little bit spruce it up and have some commercial entities that the
community can really get behind, I think you’re off to a good start.
MR. ISHII: Thank you.
MR. PALEKA: Thank you for reaching out and I would support this. Thank you,
and thank you, Ms. Kimata, for stating your concerns.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Paleka. Ms. Wille.
MS. WILLE: Yeah, to the applicant, so, one of the concerns seems to be just that
it’s residential and that sense of place. I think that in how you go about doing
something commercial can really make a difference if you’ve got whatever kind
of store or bank, or restaurant where it really fits into the neighborhood sense. I
would hope that if you go forward, perhaps getting some of the people in the
Page 17
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
neighborhood together and maybe even whether it’s still preserving, I see one
of—there’s a couple particularly nice trees there, sort of some sense of that you’re
not just cutting down every tree and having it all—some big, commercial
buildings. So, I don’t know if you have any comment on that but that would just
be, I think—once you get this rezoning for commercial, it really, despite these
general conditions, really gives you, theoretically, a lot of leeway to just put
anything—be able to put any commercial structure you want. So, I don’t know if
you want to comment on that, but it’s a suggestion to you.
MR. ISHII: Yes, I do understand. That’s why while I sat back there, me and
Mrs. Kimata had a great discussion and we actually traded numbers. So I told her
if I do get the approval, I’ll definitely keep her as a good advisor for me.
MS. WILLE: Okay, thank you and you know, just sort of, the greenery and the
trees and maintaining that neighborhood atmosphere is just what I would
encourage and thank you for reaching out and walking the neighborhood. And
also, I know Ms. Kimata was here for another matter. She’s a strong advocate, so
it’s good to have her on your side. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Mr. Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also wanted to thank and
congratulate the applicant for his community outreach. You know, Ms. Kimata
raised, you know, some valid points. I’ve always often thought about the need
aspect with regard to zonings or rezonings, but at the same time, I think this is all
a matter of perspective. Ms. Wille speaks about maintaining the lifestyle there. I
come from a different perspective from Ms. Kimata somewhat.
Now, I moved into the house lot area in 1972. Based on my calculations, that’s
about 45 years ago, or 44 maybe. My mom still lives over there so I don’t want
that area to become a bad area, but it’s inevitable. There’s a lot of development
going on over there and I think it’s good development.
Many years ago, when I was on the Council, I voted in favor of the Big Island
Candies development and I think it has enhanced the area. And at that time, there
were some who were critical of that, as it would set a bad precedent, a bad
direction for that area. But, I think that area can really be a mixed-use area.
Kekuanaoa, the road, it’s really bad. The traffic is really bad right now, but with
necessary improvements, it’s inevitable, that’s going to be a commercial corridor,
as is Manono. Cannot help, you have the improvements there. It starts from the
Afook Chinen Civic Auditorium, moving all the way up. Now they have a really
good—you have Tokunaga now coming in over there, you have another, I’ll call
it a strip mall, maybe that’s the best way of saying it, but you know, you have, is
it called Hawaiian Style Café over there? Miyos, Takenoko, fabulous. The
Page 18
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
enhancements that its done to our Hilo community, and it’s going to work its way
all the way up through Manono, going towards the Community College. It’s
inevitable.
But, we can still have a residential-commercial mix in that area, it doesn’t
preclude that. I think, you know, the applicant, Mr. Ishii, has a good reputation in
the community for doing good developments. So, I’m certainly in full support of
this, but not to say that Ms. Kimata doesn’t have good points. She certainly raises
good points, but I just have a different perspective because where I grew up, it
was right across from the Waiākea Villas, so it’s already, you can see where she
and I might have a little different perspective, growing up in the same place. So, I
just wanted to make those comments. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Council Members, any other
discussion for the applicant before I give it back to Mr. Onishi? Okay,
Mr. Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I don’t really have any
questions to the applicant because, you know, this is my district and the thing we
have to remember too, Mr. Ishii wasn’t the original landowner. The original
landowners sold this property. They wanted to sell the property because they
didn’t want to live there any more, or they wanted to give it up, or maybe their
parents passed away so the children didn’t want to stay there. They didn’t want to
build a home or they didn’t want to fix that home that’s on that property, and so
they offered to sell it. And then just so happen, Mr. Ishii bought it and he bought
those three lots in a row.
So to me, whoever buys a property in that area can decide on what they want to
do, but they need to follow what the General Plan is. And part of it is that you
have where, you have Manono Street, Lanikāula, Kekuanaoa, Kanoelehua, and I
think was Piʻilani, that you’re allowed, in the General Plan, to put in commercial
areas. And when we did approve one of the rezonings at the corner of Kekuanaoa
and Laukapu Street, some of the concerns that were given at that time was about
sidewalks. So to me, with this project, there is a sidewalk. The County came in
and did everything, the infrastructure for the traffic and they also put in bike
paths. And because this is going to be like commercial where it might have office
space, and like as the applicant mentioned, banks, maybe like a small store, or
coffee shop, or whatever. It could have maybe a doctor’s office, you know, some
services that can provide people in that walking area that lives in the community,
walking area or bike paths, like from the University. If there’s a, like I said, like a
dentist like we just heard about we need more services for the children, for
dentistry.
Page 19
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
That’s all in that community area that people can use bike paths or they can walk.
We also approved a resolution for the leadership for the women, right? And so,
that could also help with this development and with whatever businesses come in,
there could be a possible link to what we’re going to be having this leadership
forum, to enhance, to have these women, you know, getting better jobs. And so,
I’m just asking for your support and like I said, in this location, it’s an ideal—and
then as the applicant had mentioned, he did go around the community in his area
and he got to talk to them and as he mentioned, over 90 percent of the people he
talked to was in favor, and they understand what he was doing. So, I’m just
asking for your support. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Onishi. Council Members, any other
discussion on this motion to amend, I mean the main motion as amended? Okay,
hearing or seeing none, all in favor of the motion to approve as amended say
“aye.”
Vote on Bill 217: The motion to pass Bill 217, as amended to Draft 2, on
(Draft 2) first reading and adopt Planning Committee Report No. 71
(Approved) was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Council Members, it’s 10:45, I want to take a
brief recess and we’ll reconvene in 10 minutes. Okay, we are now in recess.
Recess: The Chair called for a recess at 10:48 a.m.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:58 a.m.
CHR. KANUHA: We’re coming out of recess. Next, I do have another request
to take an item out of order. Mr. Clerk, if you could read in Bill 214.
Page 20
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Bill 214: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8,
CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAIʻI COUNTY CODE 1983
(2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM
AGRICULTURAL – THREE ACRES (A-3a) TO FAMILY AGRICULTURAL –
ND
ONE ACRE (FA-1a) AT WAIĀKEA HOMESTEADS 2, WAIĀKEA,
SOUTH HILO, HAWAIʻI, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-034:044
(Applicant: Chris Brilhante) (Area: 3.5876 acres)
The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for
this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property
into three lots. The applicant states that the lots will be conveyed to family
members.
Reference: Comm. 906
Intr. by: Mr. Ilagan (B/R)
Approve: PC-68
Motion to Approve: Mr. Ilagan moved to pass Bill 214 on first reading and
adopt Planning Committee Report No. 68. Seconded
by Ms. David.
MR. ILAGAN: No comment at this time
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Council Members, the applicant and/or his
representative is in Hilo if there’s any questions. I don’t think there was any
questions the last—during committee meeting but—Ms. Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Is the applicant at the table or—?
(Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Zendo Kern came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MR. KERN: Aloha, Mr. Chair and Council Members, Zendo Kern here as the
applicant’s representative.
MS. EOFF: Good morning, Mr. Kern, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to
let us know if this is consistent with the surrounding—I’m looking at the map but
just the consistency with the surrounding area and any other comments you’d like
to make.
MR. KERN: Thanks, Council Member Eoff. Yeah, it is very consistent. I think
you folks saw a couple change of zones right on the neighboring properties here
in the last year or two. So yeah, it’s very consistent, it makes sense for that area.
You know, it still allows them to do ag on there, you know, with one acre. All the
Page 21
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
infrastructure is in place. Anything that needs to be done we’ll put them in place.
Yeah, like I said, it’s really straight forward, I don’t think there’s really any issues
with it and it makes sense and I humbly ask for your support.
MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you.
MR. KERN: Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Council Members, any other
discussion? Ms. Wille. This is either in Danny’s district or Greggor’s district, I
don’t know. Oh, Fresh’s district, am I on the wrong one? Yeah, I’m on the
wrong one.
MR. ONISHI: It’s in my district.
MS. WILLE: Council Member Onishi, it’s in your district, if you had any other
comments.
MR. ONISHI: No, I do not. Like I mentioned before at committee, is that I never
received any negative phone calls or emails, and so I’m supporting this. And as
Mr. Kern had mentioned in other areas, we did approve zoning, so it’s consistent.
Thank you.
MR. KERN: And if I could mention real quick too, we sent out the letters to
surrounding property owners and I have not received anything negative at all,
whatsoever as well.
MS. WILLE: Thank you very much.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Council Members, any other
discussion on this? Okay, we can go for the vote. All in favor of the motion to
approve say “aye.”
Vote on Bill 214: The motion to pass Bill 214 on first reading and adopt
(Approved) Planning Committee Report No. 68 was carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Page 22
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. And I do want to say it’s good to see Zendo up
in the testifier’s table, haven’t seen you in a long, so, great to see you.
MR. KERN: Thank you, Chair Kanuha. It’s interesting being on this side of the
table, but I enjoy it and you guys are doing a great job. Thanks for the support
and I’ll be seeing you guys more
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, thank you. If we could, Mr. Clerk, go to Bill 216.
Bill 216: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 04-56, WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM
AGRICULTURAL – FIVE ACRES (A-5a) TO SINGLE FAMILY
ND
RESIDENTIAL – 7,500 SQUARE FEET (RS-7.5) AT PUAPUAʻA 2, NORTH
KONA, HAWAIʻI, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEYS: 7-5-020:071 AND 072
(Applicant: Aliʻi Palms, LLC) (Area: 10.142 acres)
The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for
amendments to Condition B (final subdivision approval) and Condition J
(construction of drainage improvements); and its unfavorable recommendation to
amend Condition V (fair share contributions). The proposed project has not
changed from that presented by the former applicant to develop a 58-unit, single-
family residential subdivision and related improvements.
Reference: Comm. 911
Intr. by: Mr. Ilagan (B/R)
Approve: PC-70
Motion to Approve: Mr. Ilagan moved to pass Bill 216 on first reading and
adopt Planning Committee Report No. 70. Seconded
by Mr. Paleka.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Ilagan.
MR. ILAGAN: It seems like the Council is a bit chatty today, so I’m going to
defer the floor to the Council Member in this district. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Ilagan. Council Members, discussion—we
have the applicant here. Ms. Eoff.
MS. EOFF: I’d like the applicant to come forward, as well as the Planning
Director, if he’s available. Director Kanuha, are you going somewhere or are you
available?
(Note: At this time, Planning Director Duane Kanuha and developer
Stanford Carr came forward to address the members of the Council.)
Page 23
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MS. EOFF: Well, this isn’t in my district but this is in North Kona and Chairman
is currently chairing the meeting, so I’m just going to take some liberty to ask a
few questions for clarification, and then I don’t know if Chairman Kanuha would
like to chime in at some point. So, there’s been several concerns raised in the
committee and today through the testimony. I have been speaking with
Mr. Tyler, so I’d like to get the first one out of the way, and I think Mr. Carr can
answer that, because Mr. Tyler had brought up some concerns about the burial
treatment plan and why we were taking some language out of the original bill.
My understanding is that’s because you are going to comply, or you have
complied with the plan. If you could just explain your conversation with
Mr. Tyler and if that one is cleared up, I’d like to hear from you what your plans
are.
MR. CARR: Good morning, for the record, my name is Stanford Carr, President
of Stanford Carr Development, developing Aliʻi Palms in Kona. Yes, in fact,
subsequent to the Planning Committee hearing, Mr. Tyler did call me because he
was not aware that I was the developer and took over the project. Quite frankly,
Mr. Tyler called me this morning to say that he would not be attending the
hearing, but now knowing that I am the developer, he trusts me. We’ve had a
long—many years of a working relationship and he is familiar with our
capabilities and how we conduct doing business and feels very confident we will
always do the right thing.
You are correct, the amendments to the bill is a housekeeping measure because
the SHPD, State Historic Preservation Division has approved the monitoring plan
and burial treatment, which we will be maintaining in place. So, that is correct.
Mr. Tyler did call me again this morning to reaffirm his support.
MS. EOFF: Okay, and so I understand that, but I have some kind of deeper
nagging issues. I don’t know whether the community understands that this is
actually not a rezoning that we’re currently looking at today, we’re looking at a
time extension for three conditions. And I’m not sure how we deal with
something like this when the original approval for the rezoning was done at a time
when conditions were different, different on Aliʻi Drive, different in the
surrounding community. And now, I do believe that the Planning Department has
inserted some language to require updated traffic impact analysis studies be done
prior to final subdivision approval. Is that correct?
MR. KANUHA: Members of the Council, Duane Kanuha, Planning Director.
That’s correct.
MS. EOFF: Okay, so that is the Planning Department’s way to kind of get us up
to current conditions, given that the rezoning is already approved.
Page 24
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MR. KANUHA: That’s correct, and the other thing, it may not be really clear in
this application, is that the present developer made a lot of effort to comply with
the time, the time conditions. So, this project is right there. I believe we just—
we’re working closely with them on putting together final subdivision documents,
complying with all of the conditions, and we just, we, the department and the
developer, we just weren’t able to make the time, and that’s basically the only
reason they’re up here for this time extension, versus some other projects that
have just language and had not made any effort to comply. So, I wanted to point
out that particular difference with this project.
MS. EOFF: And I understand that as far as where we’re at today, and there’s a
good faith effort to proceed. But I think what people who have testified, and I’ve
also heard from others, myself included, you know, I don’t want us to come to a
point where we’ve diminished the quality of life for our residents, and the safety
issues on Aliʻi Drive. I know we’re looking at, not only this one, but soon, there’s
others that will be moving ahead that have languished for a while or that may be
coming to the Planning Commission just for to get a start.
Given that I don’t think we have too much that we can do here besides, I do have
some more questions about how we will address the potential traffic and the level
of service in that regard. But I’d just like to make sure that as we see future
proposals come to us in the same area, especially if they’re not coming to the
Council, but going to the Planning Commission, that we will start to take a look at
what the cumulative impacts of the build out on Aliʻi Drive is going to do, and
how we will mitigate the increased traffic. If there isn’t a—
Point of Order: MS. WILLE: I have a point of order, but I wasn’t trying to interrupt you. I just—
I think—is that point of order that we do re-evaluate when—say with new
conditions coming in or concurrency law, we don’t, just because they’re coming
in on—
MS. EOFF: No, I think that’s why the Planning Director put in the requirement
for an updated traffic impact analysis. And if there’s an indication there that a
level of service at the time prior to subdivision approval has diminished to a point
that is unacceptable, then that’s where my question is leading up to. Then, what
do we do?
MS. WILLE: So, I just want clarification on that.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, thank you, Ms. Wille.
MS. EOFF: Because we do have our concurrency requirements and our
concurrency table, and without the prospect of Aliʻi, I think it’s called Aliʻi
Highway now, or Kahului to Aliʻi Parkway, or whatever mid-level road was
supposed to be, and may not ever be built. Will we have a requirement for
Page 25
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
mauka/makai connector to be built? Would this developer do that? Is that what
his fairshare would go to? I’m just not sure what do we do in the event that the
level of service is determined to be sub—I’m not sure what the grade requirement
is, but you know, to a point where some kind of concurrency requirement would
need to be met. What would be our plan?
MR. KANUHA: Perhaps the applicant can address that.
MR. CARR: Councilwoman Eoff, we first invested on the Big Island 18 years
ago, after being invited for many years by public officials from the Big Island.
When we downzoned Kahakai Estates, off of Kuakini Highway, it was a 109-acre
parcel that had entitlements for over 300 homes owned by Kumagai Gumi. We
purchased the property in 1998 to downzone the property to 100-home lots, which
has been built out. Part of our entitlement process before the Council and the
Planning Commission was we willingly donated nine acres of property bordering
the southern portion of Kahakai Estates to the County, for the Aliʻi bypass road.
We also built out and donated a critical stem that leads down to the Aliʻi bypass
that would allow for emergency exit off of Aliʻi Drive up to Kuakini Highway. In
addition to that, we donated four acres of land to the Department of Education,
Kahakai Elementary School because they were facing the loss of two acres with
the future development plans for Aliʻi Drive. So, you could say that we have a
major contribution to the County because we willingly donated that land to the
County, those lands qualify as the 20 percent matching funds with 80 percent
federal funding for the bypass road, if and when it does get built.
In response to the Planning Department’s request on our traffic or comments to
our TIAR, Traffic Impact Analysis Report, we submitted to the County a
supplemental report through 2020, and we also brought today our traffic engineer,
Mike Packard from SSFM who was commissioned to do the Traffic Impact
Analysis Report. He’s really the expert witness that can address any technical
inquiries you may have with respect to traffic concerns.
MS. EOFF: Is what you just stated to satisfy this Condition D, or there would still
be required, a revised—?
MR. CARR: The supplemental report prepared on June 13, 2016 list the
movement and traffic controls, both in a.m. and p.m. hours with levels of service
between a, b, and c. There are no indications of any anticipation of any d level of
service with the construction of this, addition of these 58 homes along Aliʻi Drive.
MS. EOFF: Okay, and as far as the fair share assessments that we’ve updated in
the amendment, does any of that money go towards road construction in the area
should the mauka and makai road be—or maybe to improve this emergency
access? Would that be a proper use of it in the future?
Page 26
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MR. KANUHA: Any of the—
MS. EOFF: The fair share that’s collected from this project.
MR. KANUHA: Yes.
MS. EOFF: That could go towards—
MR. KANUHA: Yes.
MS. EOFF: Road improvements or mauka/makai or improving that emergency
access? Okay. And what is the projected time of building these lots and potential
homes?
MR. CARR: We hope to break ground a year from now. We anticipate about a
two-year build out. And just for the record, I’d like to comment on the prior
testimony of we building in Mauna Lani for an ongoing project for 16 years. That
project actually started eight years ago. It did stall in 2008 when Layman
Brothers went bankrupt. It took me four years to purchase the loan from a
Swedish bank in Stockholm Sweden that ended up with a portfolio of loans that
Layman Brothers hypothecated for a repo line of credit. So that would, I guess,
serve as an exemplification of our commitment to fulfill our obligations, and I
have never not completed any project in our 26-year history.
MS. EOFF: I think we all know there’s always a lot of unforeseen events that
could occur, well intentioned things get stalled or—
MR. CARR: Understood, which is why we were tenacious in pursuing to acquire
the loan from Swedbank in order to complete Kulalani.
MS. EOFF: But with this one, you said in two years, but what do you anticipate
in two years?
MR. CARR: Well, we’ll be another year of build out in Kulalani, in Mauna Lani,
pending the outcome and approval of this time extension, we will complete our
construction drawings and documentation and submit for grading and building
permits.
MS. EOFF: Are you building the homes or will they be custom?
MR. CARR: No, we will be—
MS. EOFF: You’re building the entire project?
Page 27
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MR. CARR: That’s correct. We believe that the market is there. There’s no
production housing that has been built in this portion of the island for over a
decade, which is reflected why the median home prices are continuing to soar and
become out of reach because of the lack of inventory.
MS. EOFF: And I understand that dynamic. You need inventory to keep prices
reasonable. But I’m still concerned over the cumulative impacts of traffic on Aliʻi
Drive, and I’m not sure how we feel with it, but I just wanted to put my concerns
out there and see how this discussion unfolds and what else we can do. So, I’ll
yield at this time, my time’s up.
MR. ONISHI: Mr. Chair?
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Onishi
MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have Ron Thiel in front of us, so Ron,
maybe you can kind of give some comments or, you know, what you have about
the traffic.
(Note: At this time, Traffic Division Chief Ron Thiel came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MR. THIEL: My name is Ron Thiel, Chief of the Traffic Division for the
Department of Public Works. When this extension first came to my attention, the
Traffic Division was asked if we needed to have the TIAR updated to reflect the
current traffic conditions. My understanding of this particular area is that the
traffic has been decreasing over the years and I didn’t ask for a new TIAR
because I basically knew that it was going to show less traffic rather than more
traffic. But this condition number D was put into the amendment and SSFM
prepared a supplemental that addressed this information that they asked for. In
the supplemental, it did indeed show that there was a decrease in traffic at various
locations along this road.
People have a hard time understanding that, but one of the ideas that I had when
we originally put the all-way stops in at Lunapule and Royal Poinciana was to try
to discourage through traffic, and the study that I see that SSFM did, actually did
show that we have discouraged through traffic and the conditions of the traffic are
better now than they were before. So, I would encourage you, or I would say it
would be okay to drop item D in this submittal now. Thank you.
MR. ONISHI: And I yield, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Thiel.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Onishi. Ms. Wille.
Page 28
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MS. WILLE: Thank you for being here and I wanted to just ask about, in terms
of the Kona CDP (Community Development Plan), and I’ll just tell you what my
understanding is and then I’d like you to correct me if I’m wrong, is that the Kona
CDP placed this parcel within its concurrency-zone L district, which would
require that the following roads be constructed before occupancy, and that would
be the Kahului to Keauhou Parkway and the Lako Street extension. And that
the—you were asking to be excused from that concurrency zone L, with respect to
the parkway, the Kahului to Keaʻau Parkway, as it has been indefinitely placed on
hold, due to the discovery of significant, architectural findings. And then it goes
on about that surrounding, so I just—if you could just expand on that or comment
on that situation. So, I mean, just the census that there should not be any more
development there unless there is a better traffic circulation, and that these two
roadways were how it would be addressed. And that however, due to
circumstances that are out of your control, you’re unable to, you know, it’s been
placed on hold so you’re waiting—you have to wait until that happens doesn’t
make sense. Anyway, just sort of looking at it from the CDP perspective.
MR. CARR: I’ll comment, although I feel that question is more appropriate for
the Planning Director to address.
MS. WILLE: Okay, so let me just then switch over to the Planning Director.
Thank you.
MR. KANUHA: That’s—the section of the Kona CDP that deals with this
concurrency zone L, and again, the CDP was adopted in 2008, so it was in
development prior to that time. The resolutions to the anticipated traffic situation
on Aliʻi Drive also contemplated development of the Aliʻi Parkway, or the Aliʻi
bypass. But it also incorporated other measures including more emphasis on mass
transit, transit hubs, other ways to separate user traffic along Aliʻi Drive, you
know, bicyclists, things of that nature. What has come to pass over the last eight
years since adoption of the Kona CDP, is none of those components have actually
been fully implemented.
So, the approach that we take with the Kona CDP and in consultation with the
action committee members is to look at projects and look at concurrency areas in
terms of not the ultimate resolution that the Kona CDP calls for, but what
mitigation measures on a project by project basis can be done. And if those
mitigation measures cannot be accomplished, or are not—the developers not
inclined to pursue those, then I think we would take a more negative
recommendation against the project.
In this particular circumstance, we felt that the ability to achieve some of these
mitigation efforts, obviously, are not going to be accomplished within a particular
time. And given that a new developer of this project has proceeded to the point
Page 29
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
where he’s ready to actually do it instead of, you know, talking about why he
can’t proceed, Those factors led us to come up with a favorable recommendation
on this particular application.
MS. WILLE: Okay, and I think the one thing that I, I’m not sure if we agree or
disagree on, but you know, because this development was approved in whatever,
2004 and the CDP in 2008, it would still apply at this time, given that there’s—
this reopens it, in terms of the request. But, you know, I do think that locating
more housing in that area makes it in some ways, that people are not having to
drive there. I really see that our Mass Transit Plan is really important, you know,
getting it so that people can feel that they could actually, say live there and not
have a vehicle and could get around.
I think in other localities, they’re actually saying, and we’re not going to give
garage space for two vehicles or we’re not going to—you’re living here in this
very congested area, we’re not going to facilitate having a lot of automobiles at
the development and are putting conditions on developers to not really, you
know—do you accommodate mass transit and will there will be bus stops and
facilities there, and are you contributing to that? Versus, are you accommodating
everybody to have more automobiles going in and out of there?
So, you know, I really appreciate the testimony and understand that and in a way,
I’d like to say that we hold up until we get our upgrade in mass transit island-wide
and really do that since we’re not doing the parkway. So I’m just, you know, I
understand and appreciate that you’re trying to do it as responsibly as is possible
at this time, without holding up—you know, do we just hold up development or
not? But I think, you know, trying to look at some of the ways that they’re
encouraging developments where it’s going in and really facilitating mass transit
as the priority is important.
I did want to ask, there were a couple of things that said delaying doing the
drainage areas, I assume that’s not such a big deal, I’m not quite sure what that is,
and what was the holdup on that?
MR. CARR: The drainage improvements would go in contemporaneously with
the civil site work, which we plan to do.
MS. WILLE: And the, sort of, the fair share, would you still be giving the fair
share funds at the time of final approval?
MR. CARR: Yes.
MS. WILLE: Okay, so there’s not a holdup. You know, just being in Waimea,
and the 2020 plan, and this would be done before this and we’d have the road, and
we’d have the sidewalks, and we’d have the low-income housing, and then it gets
Page 30
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
changed to concurrent, and then all of those got basically eliminated. It makes it a
little bit hard just also to be precautionary. what are we doing here when we keep
moving things and making more allowances where we may never be able to
change it or correct it in the future?
MR. CARR: I understand. However, we intend to fulfill all of our obligations.
MS. WILLE: Okay, thank you. I yield.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Mr. Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hello again, Mr. Carr, it’s been a
long time.
MR. CARR: Councilman Chung.
MR. CHUNG: You know, I was on the Council many years ago when Kahakai
Development was brought to the Council, and that’s when I first became
acquainted with this gentleman. You know, I wanted to thank Ms. Eoff for
pointing out that this is actually just a time extension measure and it’s not a
rezoning. This property has already been rezoned. But within the context of the
time extension, we certainly have to look at the traffic situation, and that’s why I
also wanted to thank Mr. Onishi, who’s not there anymore for bringing our traffic
division head, Mr. Ron Thiel, to the floor to explain the impacts from his
perspective. And I think we’ve really grown to respect Mr. Thiel’s expertise in
terms of traffic because I have to say, when these people came up, wow, I
thought, you know, these are really significant concerns, and what Mr. Thiel
explained is, you know, he said people can’t understand it, but it’s actually going
to get better. And it kind of runs counterintuitive to what we would think, but
he’s our expert, and he’s a straight shooter, okay?
But, my message today is just about Mr. Carr and the developments that he has
put forth on this island. You know, as I said, I first became acquainted with
Mr. Carr during a really contentious rezoning, or downzoning. I mean it was a
really long and drawn out, and you know, his development did get the approval of
this body. Curtis Tyler, ironically, was one of the Council Members on this body
at the time. He voted against it, but about five years ago, Curtis and I were having
lunch as we periodically do over the years, since we both left the Council, and for
no reason at all, he drew my attention to the Kahakai development. He said, “You
know, that development really turned out well.” And of course, I had to kind of
give him a jab, so I said, “Naturally, because I voted in favor of it.” But, you
know, I wasn’t too certain at that time, because we didn’t know who Mr. Carr
was. But since that time, really, he has really come through on a lot of good
developments and I think the best way to describe this would be to say what kind
of testimonials he’s had.
Page 31
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Our present Mayor, Billy Kenoi, has publicly stated on many occasions that this
man is really a poster boy for responsible development. But really, it’s so funny
because many years ago, when Harry Kim was the Mayor, I remember attending a
Mayor’s Cup Fundraiser at some place, and Harry Kim also singled out Mr. Carr
as being an example of responsible development. He only singled out Mr. Carr,
and Mr. Carr wasn’t even there. So that was, to me, that’s just really interesting.
You know, remember we had a development that just came up recently, it was
for, you know, that medical, that Hualālai Development? And I made a comment,
I said, “Look, I don’t know you guys.” It all comes down to trust because we hear
a lot of stuff when developers come before us, and a lot of them, I would say the
majority of the talk that comes out from developers, never comes to fruition. It
really doesn’t. I mean I’m speaking from long, many years of experience, but
I’ve been able to observe this gentleman’s track record over the years, from that
first time that I met him 16 years ago to now, and it’s been impeccable. And it’s
just not, it’s not only my opinion, but it’s the opinions of sitting Mayors and I feel
very confident that he’s going to come through.
From a community standpoint, I walked the Kapiʻolani Hospital in Honolulu, I
see Stanford Carr donating, you know, a wing to—hopefully you can do
something like that on the Big Island. I’m not trying to put you on the spot or
anything like that, but you know, his community involvement has just been
incredible and you know, that shouldn’t be the reason for approving a
development, but he is really a person who puts his money where his mouth is.
So, I wanted to just say that on your behalf, Mr. Carr. Nice seeing you again after
all these years. I’m certainly voting in favor of this. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. David.
MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Kanuha. Aloha, Mr. Carr.
MR. CARR: Aloha.
MS. DAVID: I think my question is going to be is, correct me if I’m wrong, this
is the second time extension on this? Not from Mr. Carr, but we’re here on the
second five-year extension? One was the Planning Director approved and then
now we’re coming in for another one, right?
MR. KANUHA: Yes, that’s correct.
MS. DAVID: Okay, cool. That is why this request is before this body. So,
Mr. Carr, my same question to you is the question that I asked Mr. Ishii. Is the—
how do you see yourself completing this project within this five-year extended
time? My only reason is because I think what we’ve been seeing is like multiple
extensions, and as time goes by, geographic change, population changes, and I’m
Page 32
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
not sure how to address that, but that is a concern that, in 10 years, a lot of things
happen in a small community. So, my question to you is what is your
commitment, and I know you’re very well-known and very well respected, so,
what is your commitment on getting your project completed on time and meeting
all the conditions that is stated.
MR. CARR: Sure, Council Member David, I just want to do point out though,
with the financial collapse of 2008, and it was a deep recession with very little—
the ability for people to obtain construction financing during that period while
they were overhauling the policies of lending institutions. It was a basic hiatus of
three or four years. We were approached to take over this project in 2013 or
2014, I’m sorry, but literally ran out of time by probably 30 days, in order to
effectuate a final subdivision approval. So thus, we had to begin the process
again. It is our intentions, as I’ve stated earlier, that we plan to, pending the
approval from this body, to proceed with our construction drawings and
documentation, and then come forward and apply for our grading and building
permit.
Any project such of this size is predicated on sales. We’re not going to build
unless we have sufficient presales with qualified buyers in order to meet the
conditions of any construction lender, which would be subject to presales, and
then further commence construction upon obtaining sufficient presales and
satisfying the conditions of the loan. We expect to be able to break ground within
the next year to year and a half at most on the outside date. On a 58-unit project
such as this, we expect a year to 18-month build out process. So, I feel very
confident, barring some catastrophic event in the world, which forces things
beyond our control, but feel very confident that we will be able to complete the
project within the next five-year period.
MS. DAVID: Thank you, I appreciate that, and the period you speak of, is I think
a period that affected all of us. You know, people in the County took furloughs
because of that bad time for everyone. So, I thank you for your commitment and I
yield.
CHR. KANUHA: Ms. Wille, go right ahead.
MS. WILLE: Will you be able to accommodate a bus stop here along that—?
MR. CARR: I’m not—I can’t comment on that because that would be something
that we would coordinate with the County traffic review branch, as far as the bus
stops along the—
MS. WILLE: But just putting it in your head to put that in.
Page 33
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MR. CARR: Yeah, I would have to go back and review the—you know, let me
respond, Councilwoman Wille. We are always very accommodating to work with
the counties on any community issues. So, if we have the ability to accommodate
a bus stop, we would advocate for it because it makes it easier for our residents to
eventually commute and use transit.
MS. WILLE: I would think it would be an improvement.
MR. CARR: It would be an asset.
MS. WILLE: Yeah, an asset. Okay, thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Ms. Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Thank you. Is Mr. Thiel still there in Hilo? Oh, thank you.
Mr. Thiel, you were speaking about the level of service at a particular intersection
and stated that there’s less traffic now than before. Is that the only area you were
really focusing on?
(Note: At this time, Traffic Division Chief Ron Thiel came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MR. THIEL: This is Ron Thiel, Chief of the Traffic Division. Actually, I was
looking at the entire length of Aliʻi Drive. We have—the supplemental report that
was submitted addressed information at two intersections, Lunapule and Royal
Poinciana, but I was looking at the entire Aliʻi Drive.
MS. EOFF: Okay. So, something that—okay, so I know this zoning isn’t
something that we’re really looking at, but because we are here for the time
extension, it does open us up to being able to better mitigate whatever conditions,
including traffic, that we could perceive to be a problem or, in my thinking now,
I’m perceiving it to be a requirement of the Kona CDP. So, I’m looking at what
was mentioned, the widening of Queen—I’m looking not so much just the
intersection or even just along Aliʻi Drive there, but the area in general. I guess
that’s why this is part of the official concurrency requirement was stated that we
wanted to see the widening of Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway, which that is
happening concurrently with the development, they call it the Kahului-Keauhou
Parkway, which I think is sometimes called the Aliʻi Highway, which is probably
not going to be constructed concurrently, if ever, right?
And then the Lako Street extension, which I think is on the radar. Is that correct?
Lako Street extension may be a reality?
MR. THIEL: Yes, the Lako Street extension is on the radar. I understand the
developer is looking at starting construction pretty soon. I’ve already seen the
Page 34
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
plans and reviewed them and made comments that they responded to and added to
their plans, build Lako Street, the connection, and then they actually improve
Lako Street all the way up to Kuakini Highway and also including a right-turn
lane at Kuakini Highway. So, it’s increasing the traffic all around there, the
traffic accommodations all around that area.
MS. EOFF: And I’m thinking these are the kinds of things we might have to look
at for area mitigation if we’re not looking at a mid-level road. At least we need
additional mauka/makai, I guess you would call them access roads or escape
routes or whatever. I mean I’m kind of concerned about the safety issues. And
like we’re saying right now, with this one particular, you know, isolated
development, maybe we aren’t overburdening or totally adding to infrastructure
and road issues, but I’m just kind of also keeping in mind that I know there’s
more planned in the future and I’m not sure how we will deal with that.
But I guess what I’m going to ask you, Mr. Carr, is there anything that you could
commit to besides your fair share, which Director Kanuha has stated could be
used towards road mitigation in the future? Is there anything else we could give
or include something to do with that emergency access road or any way we could
kind of try and meet these concurrency objectives at this time?
MR. CARR: I thought I did give when I gave the County nine acres that would
count towards the County’s 20 percent contribution with 80 percent federal
matching funds. As well as constructing the roadway improvements in Kahakai
Estates and providing for a through stub out so that eventually, that could serve as
an emergency route to get off of Aliʻi bypass.
MS. EOFF: So that would be, I guess, a question for me to talk with Public
Works and Planning then, is that a future potential mauka/makai road? Or only
an emergency road?
MR. CARR: Only emergency because Kahakai was not designed, much like
Royal Poinciana, was not designed to be a parkway road where there are homes
and driveways, and curb cuts along the road, which makes it very dangerous.
MS. EOFF: Okay, so, Mr. Ilagan, did you want to—? Well, I’m sorry if I’m a
little bit expressing concerns.
MR. CARR: I understand.
MS. EOFF: I just want to make sure that for one thing, that we aren’t going to
further jam up traffic, but on the other hand, I’m also concerned that we don’t do
something that isn’t consistent with our concurrency goals and objectives. And I
don’t know what we’re replacing for the Kahului-Keauhou Parkway. That’s my, I
guess, still my concern.
Page 35
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MR. CARR: I would like to point out to Councilwoman Eoff, that what we’ve
seen or at least witnessed over the years is when we were developing or seeking
our approvals for Kahakai Estates, we went through an arduous contested case
hearing with the subdivision next to us. I think it was called Kuakini Makai
Subdivision, and the issue there of why the residents file a contested case hearing,
was they did not want to allow us to connect to their roadway adjacent to us. So,
what you have in the Kona district are a lot of dead-end roadways because of
neighboring communities adverse to connections, and that has limited the drivers’
options to traverse through the community. And that—by us agreeing to not
connect to their neighborhood causes more dead-end streets, which again, in
hindsight, it’s a mistake, but I would bring this up to say that one option would be
to take a 10,000-foot level look up above and see where those dead-end roads
exist today and providing the connectivity could offer other options and solutions
to mitigate the bottle neck of traffic within South Kona area.
MS. EOFF: Thank you for your insight and sharing that with us. So, Chair
Kanuha and I have been—because this is North Kona, we will be looking at
potential, cumulative impacts of the future proposals for Aliʻi Drive, and I think
that’s something that’s going to be incumbent on us and this Council to figure out,
given some of the dead-end situations and the needs that we’re going to—this is
in the urban core and I know that’s consistent in just about every other way with
the General Plan and the CDP. Thank you for answering some of my questions.
MR. CARR: Sure.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Any other discussion in Hilo?
MR. ONISHI: No.
CHR. KANUHA: Any other discussion here before I say something? Well, I
can’t say anything before you to lead anybody but you know, basically,
everything that’s been stated here today is absolutely true. It was always a
concern that I had. You know, I said a lot of my concerns during the committee
hearing, which were consistent with Mr. Tyler’s concerns, and I think those were
addressed and you know, Ms. Eoff was talking about the traffic concerns and
that’s the biggest one for me. I live, or used to live right off of Aliʻi Drive in the
Royal Poinciana subdivision, which was never meant for a mauka/makai
connector, so Lako Street will be the future for that area, the mauka/makai
connection.
But, you know, looking at the bigger picture, this might be just a guinea pig type
of situation because we don’t see too many things come up that are on Aliʻi Drive.
This is one of the first few time extensions. I know there are developments
happening all—I mean there are zone developments that are all along Aliʻi Drive
that were zoned a while ago and hasn’t really happened within the last, I don’t
Page 36
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
know, 10 years like you said, but, they’re all kind of coming up. There’s a lot of
action happening now, you know, SMA (Special Management Area) permits,
time extensions here and there, and you know, the concern was the cumulative
impact on the entire area. We saw from the traffic studies, that sure, there might
have been, you know, less traffic than there was, I don’t know when the study was
done, I forget when that was, but you know, just the perception wise, we all travel
on Aliʻi Drive, there are a lot more, not only vehicular traffic, there are a lot more
runners, there are a lot more bikers, there are a lot more cars parked on the side of
the roads. So, the vehicular traffic, yeah, there might be less than what it was, but
we got to look at everything. What’s the impacts on the people who are walking
there every day? That’s the public safety issue that I think a lot of—everybody
who came here, not only the vehicular, but that situation too is something that’s
extremely worrisome for me, not only now but in the future.
So, there is a—we’re going to have to look at what’s the general traffic impacts
on all these developments into the future, when they’re all going to come up at
some point. So, that’s a serious concern that I have. Just because, like I said, this
development is coming forth. I’m going to vote in favor of this one because there
have been—the impacts have been mitigated and you know, I’m not real adverse
to the extension of time that we’re going to be giving, or hopefully be giving
today. But, you know, I don’t know if—we’re going to have to work with Public
Works on that traffic study or whatever needs to happen to, you know, show that
these impacts are real to everybody on Aliʻi Drive. I mean this is a serious, this is
one of the bigger concerns, so by saying that, you know, that’s something we
need to look at now.
But, in that case, I really do agree with a lot of the things that were said. This is
within town, I would rather have people, you know, biking to town, walking to
town, and the Mass Transit plans that are in place need to be further enhanced for
these areas because this is part of the urban core. We want people to live there, so
that was a great point, Ms. Wille. But saying that, I think we are okay in moving
forward with this and there is a lot more that we need to do for this entire area. So
again, mahalo for coming and I’ll ask for the vote at this time. All in favor of the
motion to approve Bill 216 say “aye.”
Page 37
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Vote on Bill 216: The motion to pass Bill 216 on first reading and adopt
(Approved) Planning Committee Report No. 70 was carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
(Note: Ms. David, Ms. Eoff, and Ms. Poindexter voted
“kānalua” then “aye.”)
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Thank you. Okay, Resolution, we can go to
the top, Mr. Clerk, Resolution 554.
Return to Order The Chair directed the Council to return to the order of business.
of Business:
AUTHORIZES THE ACCEPTANCE OF A MONETARY DONATION OF
Res. 554-16:
$1,724 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Donated by Polynesian Adventure Tours, LLC. Funds would be used for the
Pana‘ewa Rainforest Zoo and Gardens.
Reference: Comm. 926
Intr. by: Ms. Eoff
Waived: FC
Motion to Approve: Ms. Eoff moved to adopt Res. 554-16. Seconded by
Ms. David.
CHR. KANUHA: Ms. Eoff.
MS. EOFF: It’s a donation, so I’d just like to say thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Any discussion on Resolution 554? Okay,
hearing or seeing none, all in favor of the motion to approve say “aye.”
Page 38
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Vote on Res 554-16: The motion to adopt Res. 554-16 was carried by the
(Adopted) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Resolution 555.
MR. ILAGAN: Mr. Chairman?
CHR. KANUHA: Yes.
MR. ILAGAN: May we take Communication 931 out of order and Bill 213?
CHR. KANUHA: I don’t see a Communication 931 but we’ll just—I mean we’re
going to get there. Resolution 555.
Res. 555-16: AUTHORIZES THE ACCEPTANCE OF A MONETARY DONATION OF
$100 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Donated by M. E. Greenwell. Funds would be used for the West Hawai‘i
Veterans’ Cemetery.
Reference: Comm. 927
Intr. by: Ms. Eoff
Waived: FC
Motion to Approve: Ms. Eoff moved to adopt Res. 555-16. Seconded by
Ms. David.
CHR. KANUHA: Any discussion, Ms. Eoff?
MS. EOFF: I would like just to say thank you very much.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, any other discussion? Hearing or seeing none, all in
favor of the motion to approve say “aye.”
Page 39
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Vote on Res 555-16: The motion to adopt Res. 555-16 was carried by the
(Adopted) following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Bill 206.
Bill 206: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-26 (PĀHOA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8,
CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAI‘I COUNTY CODE 1983
(2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) TO
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL –10,000 SQUARE FEET (CV-10) AT NĀNĀWALE
HOMESTEADS, PĀHOA, PUNA, HAWAI‘I, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY:
1-5-011:008 AND 1-5-011:009
(Applicants: David and Charlene Ewing) (Area: Approx. 17,994 square feet)
The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for
this change of zone, which would allow the applicants to develop a 2,400 square-
foot commercial building into an internet coffee shop and retail business complex
on Pāhoa Village Road in downtown Pāhoa.
Reference: Comm. 876
Intr. by: Mr. Ilagan (B/R)
Referred to the Planning
Department: June 3, 2016
; and
Comm. 876.3: From Planning Director Duane Kanuha, dated June 29, 2016, transmitting revised
language for Condition G, as agreed upon between the Applicant and the County.
Motion to Approve: Mr. Ilagan moved to pass Bill 206 on first reading.
Seconded by Mr. Paleka.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Ilagan.
MR. ILAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I would like to make an
amendment on Bill 206 with the contents of Communication 876.3
Motion to Amend: Mr. Ilagan moved to amend Bill 206 with the contents of
Comm. 876.4. Seconded by Mr. Onishi.
Page 40
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Ilagan.
MR. ILAGAN: I apologize, I said the wrong number.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Ilagan, go right ahead on the amendment.
MR. ILAGAN: Thank you. As the Director mentioned earlier, this amendment is
to conform this rezoning into what’s happening in the Pāhoa area. If you have
any further questions, I’ll be happy to answer those questions at this time. Thank
you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Ilagan. Discussion on the amendment. Any
other discussion? Okay, we can take the vote on that. All in favor of amending
with the contents of Communication 876.4 say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 206 with the contents of
Amend: Comm. 876.3 was carried by the following voice vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Now, onto the main motion as amended.
Mr. Ilagan.
MR. ILAGAN: I ask for your support. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Any other discussion? Mr. Paleka.
MR. PALEKA: I also ask for your support.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, thank you, Mr. Paleka. Hearing no other discussion, all
in favor of the motion to approve say “aye.”
Page 41
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Vote on Bill 206: The motion to pass Bill 216, as amended to Draft 2, on first
(Draft 2) reading was carried by the following voice vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Now, Mr. Clerk, Bill 213.
Bill 213: AMENDS CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE 10, DIVISION 2, OF THE HAWAI‘I
COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO
MOVING VEHICLES
Adds a portion of Old Māmalahoa Highway to Section 24-265, Schedule 13
(Yield locations), subsection (b), North Hilo, to limit traffic to one vehicle at a
time over the Hakalau Stream Bridge.
Reference: Comm. 905
Intr. by: Ms. Poindexter
Approve: PWPRC-46
Vote on Bill 213: Ms. Poindexter moved to pass Bill 213 on first reading
(Approved) and adopt Public Works and Parks and Recreation
Committee Report No. 46. Seconded by Ms. David and
carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. I think Bill 215.
Page 42
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Bill 215: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 06-114, WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS
FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10)
TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL – 20,000 SQUARE FEET (CG-20) AT
WAIĀKEA HOUSE LOTS, HAWAIʻI, COVERED BY TAX MAP
KEYS: 2-2-034:066, 078, AND 079
(Applicant: Big Island Candies, Inc.) (Area: Approx. 45,450 square feet)
The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for
an eight-year time extension to Condition C (time to complete construction) as
well as Conditions D, E, and F (roadway infrastructure improvements). The
applicant states it intends to construct an additional two-story, 25,000 square foot
production/storage facility and open visitor rest area.
Reference: Comm. 907
Intr. by: Mr. Ilagan (B/R)
Approve: PC-69
Motion to Approve: Mr. Ilagan moved to pass Bill 215 on first reading and
adopt Planning Committee Report No. 69. Seconded by
Mr. Onishi.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Ilagan.
MR. ILAGAN: I’m going to yield the floor to the Council Member in this area.
Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, is that Mr. Onishi?
MR. ONISHI: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just ask for your support. I haven’t
received any negative emails or calls for this project, for the extension. Thank
you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Onishi. Any other discussion on this?
Hearing or seeing none, all in favor of the motion to approve say “aye.”
Vote on Bill 215: The motion to pass Bill 215 on first reading and adopt
(Approved) Planning Committee Report No. 69 was carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
Page 43
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Mr. Clerk, Bill 220.
Bill 220: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 16-73, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCING THEREOF FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2016, TO JUNE 30, 2017
Adds the Parks and Recreation Hilo Bayfront Trails - Federal project for
$165,667 to the Capital Budget. Funds for this project shall be provided from
Federal Grants Receivable ($165,667). Funds would be used to construct a
paved multi-purpose pathway along Hilo Bayfront.
Reference: Comm. 928
Intr. by: Ms. Eoff
Waived: FC
Note: Requires 2/3 vote of the entire
membership to amend, pursuant to
Section 10-6(e), Hawai‘i County
Charter
Vote on Bill 220: Ms. Eoff moved to pass Bill 220 on first reading.
(Approved) Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Bill 221.
Bill 221: REPEALS ORDINANCE NO. 15-81, WHICH INITIATED AN AMENDMENT
TO ARTICLE VI, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 6-3.4, OF THE HAWAI‘I
COUNTY CHARTER (2014), RELATING TO COUNTY BANDS
Reference: Comm. 930
Intr. by: Mr. Ilagan
2/3 Vote: First of three required readings
Motion to Approve: Mr. Ilagan moved to pass Bill 221 on first reading.
Seconded by Mr. Paleka.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Ilagan.
Page 44
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MR. ILAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the Council’s familiar with
what I’m introducing at this time, on repealing the Charter amendment that we
made previously, and I’ve asked the—I didn’t actually ask the members to attend
because we have heard what they have voiced out and at this time, we are taking
action. So, this is the action that is voiced in the previous meeting and I don’t
believe I have to go any further as the Council’s familiar of what’s happening.
Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Ilagan. Council Members, discussion on this
one. Yeah, we’ve had a lot of discussion so I think this is the right thing to do.
Okay, Mr. Chung.
MR. CHUNG: I have one question.
CHR. KANUHA: Sure.
MR. CHUNG: How many readings is this going to take? Three readings to
undo—
MR. ILAGAN: Yes, three readings.
MR. CHUNG: We don’t really know for sure. I mean it could be two, right?
MR. ILAGAN: Three readings for sure.
MR. CHUNG: Where is that?
MR. HENRICKS: It’s not necessarily provided for anywhere, how to repeal a
Charter amendment ordinance, so we’re operating basically on the principle of
same to pass, same to repeal, two-thirds vote, three readings. But yes, I
understand.
MR. CHUNG: And I have no problem with erring on the side of caution of
course, but I wanted to make this one point. I think this is the best way of doing
it, you know, repealing the measure, but I don’t think it’s necessary. I disagree
with the Corporation Counsel in that regard. Our County Charters prescribes the
process by which these matters go on the ballot and the approval of the resolution
is a necessary condition of that happening, okay? Even if it’s not necessary, I
think it’s the best way and I’m in full support of course, but I just wanted to make
that comment. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Chung for that. Okay, any other discussion,
Council Members? Hearing or seeing none, all in favor of the motion to approve
say “aye.”
Page 45
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
Vote on Bill 221: The motion to pass Bill 221 on first reading was carried by
(Approved) the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Okay, is that everything?
Communication 931.
ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
THE DAY Order of the Day (Second or Final Reading).
(SECOND OR
FINAL READING): (There were none.)
REPORTS: The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Reports.
(There were none.)
REFERRALS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
EXECUTIVE Referrals for Executive Sesison.
SESSION:
Comm. 931: IN THE MATTER OF COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I (HILO DRAG STRIP AND
HILO TRAP AND SKEET RANGE), HILO, HAWAI‘I; PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SECTIONS 1423 (C) AND 1445 (A) OF THE SAFE DRINKING
WATER ACT, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300H-2(C) AND 300J-4(A) DOCKET NO.
UIC-09-2016-000X
From Deputy Corporation Counsel J. Yoshimoto, dated July 11, 2016, requesting an
attorney-client confidential discussion to consult with the Council on the above-
entitled matter, including matters pertaining to a proposed settlement agreement
between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the County of
Hawai‘i regarding the operation of large capacity cesspools at the Hilo Drag Strip
and Hilo Trap and Skeet Range.
Motion to Enter into Ms. Eoff moved to enter into Executive Session in order to
Executive Session: hold attorney-client privilege discussion regarding
Comm. 931, as authorized by Section 92-5(a)(4) of the
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Chung.
Page 46
Hawaiʻi County Council-46 July 19, 2016
MR. CHUNG: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I’m just wondering if Mr. Yoshimoto can
come and explain to us before we take that vote as to the necessity of going into
an executive session on this matter.
CHR. KANUHA: I agree.
(Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel J Yoshimoto came
forward to address the members of the Council.)
MR. YOSHIMOTO: Good afternoon, Council Members, Mr. Chairman, Madam
Chair, J Yoshimoto, Deputy Corporation Counsel. Let’s see, Council Member
Chung, you had a question about the necessity for going into executive session?
The purpose, as articulated on the agenda, is to discuss something we’ve been
involved with EPA for maybe the last six months or so. And in doing so, my
concern is that as we discuss the details of this agenda item, things may be
disclosed that may affect, should this matter not be resolved today—in other
words, there’s things being discussed when you’re doing settlement negotiations
that are only subject to settlement negotiations. So, if the Council would keep the
discussion more, what’s the word, general in nature, then we can stay in open
session. But if you would like to know details in terms of what transpired that
may delve into things that again, would be privileged, then I would suggest we go
into executive session. So in other words, my suggestion is we would go to
executive session and then we could have an open discussion and open session if
the Council feels more comfortable that way.
CHR. KANUHA: Anybody else? Everybody good? Okay, all in favor of going
into executive session say “aye.”
Vote on Motion to The motion to enter into Executive Session was carried by
Enter into Executive the following voice vote:
Session:
(Approved) Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and
Chair Kanuha – 9.
Notes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: We are in executive session.
Recess: The Chair called for a recess at 12:15 p.m. to allow the Clerk to clear the room.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 12:33 p.m.
Page 47
Hawai`i County Council-46 July 19, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: We are out of executive session, I think we've had—anyways,
can I have a motion to concur with the recommendations of Corp Counsel to
settle?
Vote on Motion to Mr. Paleka moved to concur with the recommendation of
Concur: Corporation Counsel regarding Comm. 931. Seconded by
(Approved) Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan,
Paleka, Poindexter, Wille, and Chair Kanuha– 8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Council Member Onishi– 1.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes.
OTHER The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
BUSINESS: Other Business.
(There was none.)
ANNOUNCE- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
MENTS: Announcements.
(There were none.)
ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 12:34 p.m., Mr. Paleka moved to adjourn the
MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff, Ilagan, Paleka,
Poindexter, Wille, and Chair Kanuha– 8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Council Member Onishi– 1.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: We are adjourned.
Council Approval: MAY 0 9 2018
COUNT 'LE'
SM/jm
Page 48