Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2018/07/10 (2016-2018)Committee on Planning 28th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii July 10, 2018 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 11:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member (came in later) Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member CHR. EOFF: This morning, if nobody minds, I would like to kind of hold off on all the public testimony on the CDP (Community Development Plan) and Bill 108 until we've taken up our nominee, who has been waiting in Kona. He needs to go back to work. So, we're nominating him to the Cultural Resources Commission and I would like to just get that one out of the way. But, if there is anyone who would like to testify on the nomination, you can do so at this time. Okay, I don't think there is. You would like to --okay, we have a testifier. STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Shelley Mahi-hanai: Comm. 972, comment. CHR. EOFF: Anybody else wishing to testify on the communication? Okay then, Mr. Clerk, can you read Communication 972? Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Committee Members, of Business: the following item was taken out of order. PC -28 July 10, 2018 COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 972: NOMINATION OF BENJAMINE HELOCA TO THE CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Acting Mayor Wilfred M. Okabe, dated June 21, 2018, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Vote on Comm. 972: Ms. David moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. Benjamine Heloca to the Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. EOFF: Okay, now I'm going to start off the Public Testimony segment of our meeting. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business - STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to return to Statements from the Public on FROM THE Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Kekoa McClellan: Bill 108, Draft 3, (Comm. 739.83), comment. (representing American Hotel and Lodging Association) Cade Watanabe: Bill 108, Draft 3, (Comm. 739.83), comment. Carol Fuller: Bill 108, Draft 3, (Comm. 739.83), in support. Mary Begier: Bill 108, Draft 3, (Comm. 739.83), comment. Page 2 PC -28 July 10, 2018 Jim Cain: Bill 108, Draft 3, (Comm. 739.83); and Susan Melow: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), comment. Shelley Mahi-hanai: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), comment. Cory Harden: Bill 108, Draft 3, (Comm. 739.83), comment. Axel Kratel: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. Ken Church: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), comment. Dwight Vicente: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), comment. Morris Niimi: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in support. Steven Strauss: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in opposition. Stephanie Donoho: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in support. (representing Kohala Coast Association) Carlton Loving: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. Susan Forbes: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. (representing Hakalau Point Preservation Association) Laurie Mendonca: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in opposition. Susan Melow: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. Akiko Masuda: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), comment. Randall Duryea: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. June Kaye: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. David R. Longacre, Jr.: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), comment. Kurt Melow: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), comment. Brittany Anderson: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in opposition. Page 3 PC -28 July 10, 2018 Brad Kurokawa: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. (representing Hamakua CDP Steering Committee) Tom Catton: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. Steve Shropshire: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), comment. Melinda Clements: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), in support. Jennifer Weinert: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. Ken Forbes: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. Tyrone Gorre: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), comment. John R. Kaye: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. Glenn Carvalho: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. Farrah -Marie Gomes: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. Stefan Buchta: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. Jordan Sonner: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. Nadia Banning: Bill 108, Draft 3 (Comm. 739.83), comment. Carol Ignacio: Bill 161, (Comm. 967), in support. CHR. EOFF: Is there anyone else here that would like to testify? Okay, then we'll go ahead and close Public Testimony. I kind of want to talk over with the Council where we should go from here. I have a request to take a lunch break, maybe at least a half an hour. Our Council meeting is scheduled to start at three and we still have to review both the CDP Bill 161, as well as Bill 108. So, anyone have a great idea? Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, magically create more hours in the day. I would request maybe just 10 minutes, 1:30 break and then just power through the rest of it. We are far behind. Maybe I would urge Ms. O'Hara to consider that presentation to be postponed to another meeting. I know she invited someone. I don't know how we're going to get through it all. So, maybe if others have some suggestions. Those are my thoughts. Page 4 PC -28 July 10, 2018 CHR. EOFF: Okay. Any other requests or comments so we can figure this out? We do have two other committees. We have the presentation. Alright, so for now, we'll take a 15 -minute quick lunch break and see is if we can figure out how to proceed. Recess: At 1:20 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 1:48 p.m. CHR. EOFF: I'm going call Planning out of recess at this time. I'm just going to let everybody know that we've run into a little bit of a time crunch here, and I need to re -recess Planning in order to take the Environmental Management Committee, which was scheduled to begin at 1:30, and after that, depending on what time it is, we may have to go into Finance, which is going to begin at 2:30. So, Planning is going to be on hold for at least an hour or more, okay? I can't give an exact time. Sorry for the inconvenience. Okay, so I'll put Planning back in recess so we can take up Environmental Management. Recess: At 1:49 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 3:30 p.m. CHR. EOFF: Council Members, I think we're about ready. I would like to call the Committee on Planning out of recess. Thank you all for your patience today. Mr. Clerk, would you please read in Bill 161? We're going to go to the Hamakua CDP first. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills ORDINANCES: for Ordinances. Bill 161: ADOPTS THE COUNTY OF HAWAII HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for the adoption of the Hamakua CDP. The CDP Program is established by the County's General Plan to create a framework for residents and other stakeholders to participate in regional planning for their communities. The planning area for the Hamakua CDP encompasses most of the Judicial District of Hamakua, North Hilo, and a portion of the South Hilo District. Reference: Comm. 967 Intr. by: Ms. Poindexter Page 5 PC -28 July 10, 2018 Motion to Approve: Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend passage of Bill 161 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR. EOFF: Good afternoon, Planning team. Director Yee, would you introduce your staff and then go ahead? I know you have a presentation for us. MR. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. My far right, I have LeAna Gloor and Bethany Morrison. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. MR. YEE: I'm just teeing this up today. This process started almost 10 years ago, and so, before I came, this was well into the works of getting this done. I just wanted to comment that you heard some additional testimony today. By the time it even gets here, we've heard these issues over and over again in various meetings. None of the issues you've heard today came out of nowhere and weren't addressed and weren't debated. So, if you have any questions specifically, please ask the staff I will take a back seat because these folks have worked on it for years and it would be a disservice for me to even pretend that I know it as well as them. So with that, I'll let them proceed with the presentation. (Note: At this time, Staff Planners LeAna Gloor and Bethany Morrison came forward and gave a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 967. 1.) CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. I commend you for your diligence in sticking with this process for so many years. Thank you for being here today. I'll open it up to Council Members. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: I don't have any questions. Of course, I definitely support it. I think we've heard a lot of testimony today and through all those meetings. I just want to say to the Steering Committee, thank you so much for your commitment to our community. All those years, like Glenn had stated earlier about traveling through those three gulches, travel though it on stormy, rainy nights. It's dark with rocks, I mean so committed. So, thank you so much. And for the Planning Department, too, your commitment as well, sticking with us through it all, the ups and downs and calls and people bickering about things, but just being able to come together and finally have this document. So, really appreciate it. I don't have any questions. I just ask that my fellow Council Members support the CDP, and I'd like to hear from them of any concerns. Thank you, I yield at this time. CHR. EOFF: I forgot to ask, Bethany, if you had anything to add. Page 6 PC -28 July 10, 2018 MS. MORRISON: Thank you, Chair, I do not. I'm just here to provide support in any questions that you guys might have. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you guys for being here. I like the way this one's organized compared to the other CDP's that we had, especially because it gave the policy statement. It gave the community or the kokua-driven initiatives, and then the rationale piece. I did have a few questions, and this actually was related to Policy 30, "Conduct a feasibility study for a County -wide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)," and that conversation came up earlier today. So, we're in the middle of an event and we're under an emergency declaration and we have a lot of flexibility with that. But, I was trying to figure out the balance between being flexible and having the ability to think outside the box because of this event in Puna. Then, assuming that's done, how does this piece apply? Then I tried to understand it through the rationale, but go ahead, Bethany. Thank you. MS. MORRISON: Thank you, that's a very good question, and certainly related to our planning efforts that we're doing in relationship to the eruption event. TDR's, as Mr. Takemoto eluded to this morning, are a pretty complexed planning tool and he described them very well. They have been called for in the Puna Community Development Plan and I think maybe also in the Kona Community Development Plan as a planning tool to help us move development from places that we don't want it to places that we do want it. This is consistent as another tool in the Hamakua planning area for considering places where we want to encourage the growth. That being said, because it's in of all of those Community Development Plans, it is a priority for our office to pursue. And I think there are opportunities with the event now to do that sooner than later, so that we have that tool in our tool belt. In case we decided to go ahead and use it. So, it does require—there's already the state enabling legislation for TDR's, but there isn't any county legislation for that at this time. So, that would be something that the Council would have to vote on, and then it does require setting up understanding where those sending and receiving areas would be and the incentive packages that would go along with that. So, it is a little bit complex but I think it's something, as I mentioned, that we have an opportunity to pursue now, instead of waiting for implementation through maybe our Community Development Plan Action Committees individually pursuing. MS. LEE LOY: And then a follow-up question to that because I understand the sending and receiving and value for value. I'm afraid to ask this out loud because—would that also apply to zoning where we would transfer zoning? Page 7 PC -28 July 10, 2018 MS. MORRISON: Usually, the incentive packages that go along with the TDR Program are something that you would actually increase the zoning. So, increase the development potential in areas where we want it. So, you might be trading one unit somewhere where we don't, where you can now build two units in someplace that we do, and that's part of the incentive package that would be considered. So zoning, because zoning is what gives us those development rights and the density, that's where that would come into play. MS. LEE LOY: Maybe this is getting down in the weeds because if I'm a property owner with zoning, that through this plan we're not encouraging the development of my unit, is there a value placed on that and then an offset? It's okay if we haven't gotten that far down. MS. MORRISON: Yes, it is value based. So, from my understanding, folks have to be wanting and willing to participate and that's why the incentive package is important. Then, folks also are willing to sell their development rights. So, it's kind of a bank that gets set up where people sell them to this bank and then other people purchase them from this bank. That's kind of, if you think of like a monopoly example maybe where you would say, "I don't want to build a hotel, so I'm going to sell those rights." Then someone else could take those rights and apply them to a place where we would want that development to be. MS. LEE LOY: Maybe I'll just have a more in-depth discussion because then all of a sudden, affordable housing credits came up in my head and how are we satisfying conditions of zoning? So, I'm going to stop there and have a very separate conversation with you folks on that. The other one was, I'm sorry, Policy 27, which would revise Planning Commission Rule 6 for special permits. MS. GLOOR: Do you have a specific question? MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I read the rationale and I guess I'm trying to understand because so much of the land in Hamakua are zoned ag, I just wanted to understand that framework a little bit better. MS. GLOOR: According to the rationale, since it's a short paragraph, I'll read it. "This policy addresses the need to provide more transparent and consistent parameters for the Planning Department in evaluating applications and to ensure the evaluation criteria is clear to applicants. Transparency and predictability for these types of evaluations will aid efficiencies for all concerned and ensure that mitigating conditions are consistently applied." So, this policy is basically calling for clarity on the potential impacts to be evaluated in the process and to clearly articulate the types of mitigating conditions that may be required. Because in the research for the CDP, we learned that it's quite on a case by case basis, which is appropriate, but it's not always clear, through the application process, what might be a mitigating condition and what the applicant might need to be offering during Page 8 PC -28 July 10, 2018 the application process to clarify what they're willing to do for that specific application. So, it's more about transparency of what might be asked of you, what the special permit process entails even possibly just clarifying the form language of the special permit. So, it's mostly about process. It's not changing the criteria itself. MS. LEE LOY: Great, so we know, as an applicant, you set the standards of this is what it's going to be expected of you. So, not necessarily changing, it's more getting them ready for what might be asked of them? MS. GLOOR: Yes. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. I also had a question. I know through some of the Hamakua CDP, we identify areas of encouraged growth. Have they been smashed upon our 201H program where affordable housing—or we can leverage, and that's another question that came up, has there been an analysis of these growth areas or encouraged growth areas through the Hamakua CDP where we can use that as a leveraged opportunity? MS. GLOOR: I will speak to the first part. There wasn't an analysis of each of the urban areas in the planning area, and there was analysis of the projected growth expected. So that was definitely in the recommendations for the Land Use Guide Maps within the CDP. There was a lot of analysis going into what the infrastructure available was, what the zoning was, and what even was vacant and available for development. So, as far as that, yes. But, as far as specific to 201H, it was not specific to that, but it definitely could fit into that. But, 201H has a lot of exemptions. So, it wasn't specifically addressing that but it certainly wasn't addressing infill in the existing urban areas, which is what we found that there was, in pretty much all the urban areas of the planning area, adequate room for infill within the existing towns. MS. LEE LOY: This is my last question, and this was a policy statement on the apiaries about being a thousand feet from—is there any guess as to what that distance will be or are we identifying major thoroughfares because there's a lot of roads in Hamakua. Some in limbo, some gain all roads. So, is it going to be more of an identified certain carrying capacity of our thoroughfare or are we looking at distance from a road type? MS. GLOOR: It could be either. It's calling for a relook, a re-evaluation of the Zoning Code. Just to clarify, this is 118. So, 118 is basically asking forno, it's a good question. It's to evaluate the Zoning Code relating to livestock production, and currently, it's—there's a minimum distance of 1,000 feet from any public street or other zoning. So, that applies to piggeries and apiaries, Page 9 PC -28 July 10, 2018 apiaries being bees, to make it simple. So, it's asking us to re-evaluate that. I don't have a yes or no about how that could be—it could be anything. I believe Honolulu, during the CDP process, Honolulu adopted an urban beekeeping into their zip code, I believe. So, they have gone that far. I'm not saying that will be what is initiated in this, but certainly, other areas are recognizing specifically for the apiary issue of beekeeping that the previous zoning kind of—distances like 1,000 feet from a road or a different zone was very difficult for small farms and beekeepers and specifically for that. That is why that is in here. It's acknowledging that it was difficult and probably have a lot of small beekeepers who could not possibly be 1,000 feet away from public street. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I yield. CHR. EOFF: Okay, Council Members. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thanks. I haven't voted against any of these CDP's and I'd be very surprised if I started today. I just have some questions and first of all, I wanted to echo on some of the statements made by Ms. Lee Loy regarding the readability of this. I'm really impressed. It's better than the other ones that I've seen. I'm looking at some of these maps, I'm just kind of curious. In the Pepe`ekeo and `O`okala maps, if you can just tell me what those industrial uses are there for there right now? What's going on? MS. GLOOR: Pepe`ekeo first? MR. CHUNG: Yes. MS. GLOOR: Those exist already in the General Plan (GP). One of them is what is the Hu Honua site, and the other one is in—it was recently, I'm not sure if it's still being used as a metal recycling. It might be, I drove by it recently. Anyway, those are existing in the General Plan as industrial, so they were not, in that case, because it was still in use, they were not recommending any change. MR. CHUNG: And same thing with the one in `O`Okala. MS. GLOOR: They moved to the `O`Okala map. Actually, the `O`okala shrunk. It originally went all the way to the coast, that one gray area that's industrial went all the way to the coast so it was shrunk back because it's not in use. Although I know that every once in a while, there are proposals for a mill to be in `O`okala. Right now, it is not in use but it was shrunk away from that makai and shoreline parcel, which is consistent with what the CDP generally recommended for industrial. MR. CHUNG: It's not in use right now at all. Page 10 PC -28 July 10, 2018 MS. GLOOR: Especially the makai parcel. That's as far as I know, I should say. MR. CHUNG: Okay. Then a concern came up about those view plains and I kind of looked over the language and I don't think it's a problem quite frankly, so, I'm not going to even worry about that. Now, Mr. Shopshire came up and he was concerned about this possibly being a taking and then I think Mr. Carvalho, he said this was basically a wish list, it's advisory. When I look at your regulatory policies, I'm not really clear. It seems that these maps would take precedence on a regulatory scale. I'm not too sure. What's your answer to that? Maybe Joe should come up because I'd be very concerned if we are creating a defacto down zoning of a person's property. I know as someone was leaving, they said the landowner still has to comply with SMA (Special Management Area) requirements and this and that. I just don't want to be confused by things. I just want a straight answer. Is this advisory? Is it a wish list? Is it changing of a person's vested rights? MS. GLOOR: So, the CDP does not change the zoning with the entitlements that come with it. The Land Use Guide Maps are referenced in Policy 1, which is one of the regulatory policies. It says in Policy 1, "With the adoption of the Hamakua CDP, Figures 2-13 (pages 40-51) are adopted as the Land Use Guide Map" MR. CHUNG: Where are you looking? MS. GLOOR: Policy 1, so, page 33 on the CDP. So, "With the adoption of the Hamakua CDP, Figures 2-13 (pages 40-51) are adopted as the Land Use Guide Map for the Hamakua CDP Planning Area. Future land use decisions in the Hamakua CDP planning area shall be consistent with the Land Use Guide Map, unless the CDP and the General Plan are in direct conflict, in which case the General Plan shall be controlling." So, does that answer part of your question? MR. CHUNG: Quite frankly, I don't know what's on the General Plan as it relates to this gentleman's MS. GLOOR: As far as Hakalau, that area is industrial on the General Plan currently, but it does not change the zoning. This CDP does not automatically change the General Plan map designation for Hakalau into industrial. It's a recommendation for MR. CHUNG: Right, because all I heard earlier was that these Land Use Guide Maps, insofar as they would be inconsistent with the General Plan, then the General Plan would take precedence, but I didn't hear anything about zoning. MS. GLOOR: The CDP does not change zoning. MR. CHUNG: Okay, so that's understood too? Page 11 PC -28 July 10, 2018 MS. GLOOR: Yes. MR. CHUNG: Perfect. Okay, thank you. So, I support it. CHR. EOFF: Go ahead Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Repeat that one more time because I'm going to have a follow-up question. Okay, so the maps contained within the CDP are—go from there. MS. GLOOR: They make recommendations to amend the General Plan LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide) Map. They do not automatically amend the General Plan LUPAG Map and they do not change the zoning. MS. LEE LOY: But there will be a process to amend the General Plan LUPAG Map? MS. GLOOR: Yes. MS. LEE LOY: And if there's still a conflict, which is controlling? MS. GLOOR: If there's a conflict between—well, the General Plan is controlling. So, if the General Plan, when it's amended, if it does not change—if the LUPAG does not change to reflect what the CDP is recommending, the General Plan is controlling. It stays controlling, and I would imagine that the CDP would be amended so that there weren't two conflicting maps displayed. But, that would be a separate process. MS. LEE LOY: But, the zoning would stay intact? MS. GLOOR: Yes. CHR. EOFF: That would have to be another separate process. MS. LEE LOY: I can have a separate conversation with you folks on acts. I keep having a hiccup with that one because it doesn't foreclose the option for the LUPAG Map to change, right? But then the zoning is controlling, so, there seems to be a conflict. Bethany, help me. MS. MORRISON: I can just offer a little bit of clarification. Our General Plan is our long-term plan for the County, and it sets out future land uses that are preferred. So, if someone comes in for a change of zone, we look to our General Plan for guidance about what that change should be if we want to support it or make another recommendation. So, very similarly, the CDP is making a recommendation to the General Plan about what the future land use in the area Page 12 PC -28 July 10, 2018 should be. It would go through that separate process with the General Plan. Then, if someone wanted to come in and do a change of zone, we would look to the General Plan to provide guidance about whether we would support that or not. So, the zoning will always be there unless we were to initiate it, a rezone of that property. It's just that any future change of zone, we would look to those guide maps to provide our recommendation. MS. LEE LOY: Thanks. I'm going to yield. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Any other questions or comments? Go ahead, Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: I still support it, but I have to say that I find it rather odd that and I'm not supporting this person's development, but I'm just kind of concerned that you would retain industrial areas that aren't being used within these maps and then yet now designate it as open some areas. I know it's a hot button issue over there, but I did go to Hakalau about say two years ago when I heard about this controversy. I just wanted to take a look. I've got to say, I was surprised by the gentrification in that area because I hadn't gone for a long time. I spent a lot of time countryside when I was little because my family is from that side. But, it's really different. It's not all these plantation homes like I remember it being. So, I just find it rather odd. I don't want to be putting ourselves into a position where we are in fact setting the stage for a down zoning of anyone's property, okay? If this is something that has to go through the process, I have no problem, but I don't want it to be a situation where it is in reality, even if it looks like this, is something that sets a process. It is not. I don't know if you guys follow me, but, I guess that kind of concerns me that we didn't give deference to an existing zoning. Also, what made me more confused was that we only reference the General Plan. In the event that there is a conflict between the map and the General Plan, there's no reference to zoning. I think we all understand the difference between the zoning and the General Plan and all of that stuff It's my concern. I still support it though. It doesn't really merit any discussion, but I just wanted to state what my concerns were for the record. Thanks. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: You bring up a good concern, but I just wanted to explain on my end. I know in `O`Okala, before I even ran for office when we did the breakout sessions and they had us divided into our different communities. So, I was in a room with `O`okala, some Papa`aloa, and we started talking about how would we want to see or what would we like to see? I know we came up with we wanted to have it, in our area, still remain in the industrial use because our Page 13 PC -28 July 10, 2018 community was still like the plantation community. We still had that community built around the industrial zoned area where in plantation days, it was perfect, that you had your workplace right there where you could just walk to work or just take a short drive and get to work. So, it was a surrounding area, industrial -zoned area with all the residents surrounding it. I guess every community throughout the coastline was that way during the plantation days. We wanted to keep it because we knew that we wanted to have—at one point, they were going to have a veneer mill. Most recently, they were going to have a sawmill. I know it's for sale again, so, I don't know what's going on. The water well is on that property. That was our water source for `O`okala. It's a very great piece to do some type of industrial business, and the community was willing to keep it that way because we wanted something there that was industrial. So, I think that's—when the communities had all of those breakout sessions, I think we started developing our little areas on where our growth was. I'm now, just currently working withI mean Council Member Lee Loy brought up the 201H and working with a landowner who has property in `O`Okala, Pepe`ekeo, and all, and just talking right now about the possibility of those growth areas in the CDP to start looking at those kind of affordable, or I should say, low-income housing opportunities. So, the CDP is a great guideline for us, when talking with some of the landowners there. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Okay, Council Members, any other—Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: I'm glad that Ms. Poindexter brought up that background and I think for that very reason, I'm surprised that there aren't more pockets of light industrial areas within the Hamakua Coast. If I'm not mistaken, and I could be wrong, because I haven't been down `O`Okala way for a long time, right? But that gray area, if I'm not mistaken, I might have visited a guy's place many years ago, a woodworker by the name of Peter Ziroli. This might have been over 15 years ago. He's a wonderfulI don't know, he might be there yet, I don't know. But, there's a need for those types of areas, and we're getting to it now on a different topic. I just wouldn't want to foreclose the possibility of those different pockets that would be blend into the fabric of these rural areas. But, I still support it. MS. GLOOR: Can I speak to industrial for just a second? Because we identified that there was a need for more industrial. One of the challenges with using the LUPAG designations is that the gray color that you see that's industrial, opens the door to the full gamut of industrial uses, the heaviest type of industrial uses to the light, commercial -type industrial uses that you referred to. It was the—through research and through the community's desires, not really advantageous and Page 14 PC -28 July 10, 2018 desirable to have the heaviest uses of industrial right along the coastline and right along our river banks, which is one of the issues with Hakalau Point. But, Policy 6 identified that, "Until the General Plan can identify appropriate areas or criteria for industrial development to occur in the Hamakua Planning Area, industrial uses may be permitted outside LUPAG Industrial designated areas through the following regulatory processes." So, we wanted to—then it goes to describe the two processes available. We wanted to make it clear that we thought that on a case by case basis, there should be flexibility, especially for the lighter industrial, the service industrial uses around in these other towns and villages. Because we do acknowledge there's a need for that and there needs to be flexibility on a case by case basis. CHR. EOFF: Okay. More thoughts. MS. LEE LOY: Forgive me, I can't take off my planning hat so I'm trying to apply these things. LeAna, you said something, Policy 1 sets these maps as regulatory. Did I misread that? MS. GLOOR: Policy 1 is regulatory but it also makes the caveat, unless there is a direct conflict with the map, the GP is controlling. MS. LEE LOY: You know where I'm going with this, right? That the maps now contained in the CDP are regulatory, but that's not the case. MS. GLOOR: The maps provide guidance. MS. LEE LOY: Guidance? MS. GLOOR: That's why they are referred to as guide maps, not policy maps. MS. LEE LOY: Guide maps. Okay, thank you. CHR. EOFF: Still thinking. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Nothing of substance. Everybody brought up the issues that I was going to talk about. I just wanted to say mahalo for all of your hard work and the community as well. You guys got here and it took a long time to get to this point. So, congratulations to you guys and I'll support it as is. CHR. EOFF: Okay, Council Members, did you guys have any final comments? No? Okay, then I'll just say thank you again. Thank you to the rest of the Planning Department and Planning staff and all of your steering committee members. Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. I think unless there are any other Page 15 PC -28 July 10, 2018 comments, we might as well vote to move this to first reading, okay? Alright, all in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 161: The motion to pass Bill 161 on first reading was carried by (Approved) the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members O'Hara and Richards — 2. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: Okay, Council Members, I'm going to throw a thought out here now because the only thing left on this Planning agenda is Bill 108. However, Mr. Kanuha needs to leave. Ms. O'Hara and Mr. Richards have left and I know yeah, she has amendments and Ms. Self needs to leave pretty soon. So, if there aren't any objections, I'd like to recess our meeting and start fresh. I'm not sure the date of the next Kona committee day, but -24th? Yeah, I guess you can make a motion then we can discuss it. I'm okay with— MR. MAEDA: We don't need a motion to recess. CHR. EOFF: Okay, well if there's no really objections right now, I'd like to recess this meeting until July 24th. That'll be a Kona meeting. Okay. Alright, thank you, we're in recess. Recess: At 4:31 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Approved: uwyt/ Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Planning Committee KE/j m '%14.19 (Date) Page 16