Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2019/01/08 2018-2020Committee on Planning l't Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii January 8, 2019 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 1:40 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member (came in later) Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The Chair called Janice Palma -Glenne, who registered to speak to comment on Bill 1 (Comm. 13), and came forward when called. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. (There were none.) ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We have no communications or resolutions today, so, moving on to Bills for Ordinances. Mr. Clerk, if you could please read in Bill 1. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. PC -1 January 8, 2019 Bill 1: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 99-42 WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM OPEN (0) TO PROJECT DISTRICT (PD) AT KAUPULEHU, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-2-003, PORTION OF 1 (Applicant: KD Acquisition, LLLP and Hualalai Investors, LLP; formerly Kaupulehu Developments) (Area: approximately 1,078.63 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation to accept the Overall Status Report required by Condition BB, and to grant a 20 -year time extension to Condition B (Development Period). The property, known as the Kaupulehu Project District, is located between the 87 and 84 mile markers of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Reference: Comm. 13 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 1 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Steve, brief remarks kindly. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Steve Lim representing Kaupulehu Developments and Thad Bond, Project Manager for KD Acquisitions, LLLP, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. LIM: Thank you very much. I'll reincorporate my prior introductions. The applicant's request is two pronged. First, we're requesting a determination from the County Council that the status report submitted for the project is sufficient for full compliance with Conditions B and BB of Project District Ordinance number 99-42. Alternatively, if the County Council determines that a time extension to Condition B, 20 -year development time frame is needed, then we are also requesting a 20 -year time extension to allow for completion of the remaining development activities on the parcels what we call Lot 4-A, which is the Kaupulehu side and 4-13, which is the Hualalai Resort side. The documents that we passed out today as the applicant's submittals are the November 2, 2018 letter from Carlsmith Ball to Donald Smith, the Hawaii Island district engineer for the State Department of Transportation (DOT). This effectively commemorates, in writing, the commitment by Kaupulehu Developments and Hualalai Resort to assist the DOT with any commercially reasonable efforts to restripe the Queen Kaahumanu and Kaupulehu Drive intersection, to accommodate a new north bound, left turn acceleration lane on Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the removal of an inbound, deceleration lane and an outbound, acceleration lane at the Queen Kaahumanu and Kaupulehu Drive intersection. This is the result of one of the comments regarding the need for a traffic impact assessment report as one of the conditions in the Project District Ordinance. Page 2 PC -1 January 8, 2019 The State DOT's Hawaii Island district engineer has determined that it's not required at this time based upon existing traffic. The condition that was discussed at the Planning Commission recognized this factor. So, we wanted to make sure that the commitment of the applicants was certified in writing, so that's the reason for this November 2, 2018 letter to the State Department of Transportation. Second is a December 20, 2018 memorandum. This is from the Ka`upulehu Development Monitoring Committee to the State Land -Use Commission, the Leeward Planning Commission, and the Hawaii County Council. This relates to this Project District Ordinance number 99-42. It should read—and essentially, what the Ka`upulehu Development Monitoring Committee will hear people use the acronym KDMC, it currently constitutes a two -person, and always constitutes a two -person monitoring committee for cultural and resource management that was created through the State Land Use Commission's reclassification of land way back when. And still serving on this committee are Leina`ala Lightner and Hannah Springer. The current developer, Ka`upulehu Developments, has worked with them to initiate the stages of communication with respect to the continued development of the project. Hualalai Resort has also been in contact with them at the same time. So, this letter essentially says that they are appreciative of engaging KDMC in our preliminary planning process and look forward to monitoring the protection of the preservation and the natural and cultural resources of the area. That is I think, as far as I know, the major what you would call a community group and cultural group in the area. They're the monitors for the area. Lastly, we are very pleased to report the January 7, 2019 letter from the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), which essentially approved the Preservation Plan for lots 4a and 4b. So, SHPD is notifying the County of their acceptance of the plan and that they have no objection to our request regarding acceptance of the status report and/or an amendment to the Project District Ordinance. We are very happy to receive this. We want to specifically, for the record, thank and give our sincere appreciations to SHPD's Susan Lebo and her Hawaii Island representative Sean Naleimaile, both of whom worked overtime to get this through the process, and we're very much appreciative. This SHPD approval was the last remaining formal hurdle before the applicants can commence. This is primarily on Lot 4-A for Ka`upulehu before they can commence the final planning and implementation of the public access plan. What we expect to happen now is that the Ka`upulehu Developments team is going to compare the approved Preservation Plan with the integrated resources management plan and all of the other cultural and archeological studies. There's a burial treatment plan also for this area to make sure that all the cultural and historical aspects are addressed in the alignment of the actual corridor for the public access. As you know, this area is a pretty dangerous shoreline area. There Page 3 PC -1 January 8, 2019 are no sand beaches and some rocky and cliff areas. So, the other element, in addition to the cultural and natural resource preservation elements, is the safety element. So, we're working with the applicants to design appropriate warning signs for the public. So, all of those things will be collated into a report to the Planning Department for their review and approval. Once the improvements are all in place, we'll have the Planning Department come out and authorize us to open up the public access. We anticipate, and I think the developer is willing to make a commitment that they will open it no later than 12 months from the effective date of this action by the Council. We think we can do it sooner, but barring any significant hang ups, we think we can do that within the 12 months. So, we're willing to make that commitment for the record today. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Lim. I'd like to open it up for discussion among my Council Members, but before I do, I just want to acknowledge that Council Member Poindexter has rejoined us. Any discussion? Council Member. Eoff. MS. EOFF: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Lim. Thank you for making sure that we got this letter today to let us know that the Preservation Plan was approved. I know my fellow colleagues may or may not know, but both Council Member David and I were very much involved, I guess that would be maybe starting 22 years ago in the proceedings before the State Land Use Commission regarding the rezoning of this approximately 1,000 acres of land. The result of that Land Use Commission decision, which actually went to the Supreme Court, came back and is sort of what we see here. The result of the decision from the court made a very clear mandate for the developer to include a detailed preservation plan, cultural monitoring resource plan, and plans for public access, et cetera. So, it's been a long time, and when I saw this application come forward, it kind of piqued my imagination on what exactly are we going to do here? And then when I read the background report, I didn'tI wasn't able to attend the Planning Commission hearing, but when I read the background report and I read the transcript really carefully, I found out that it was a little bit of a confusing exercise, as maybe everybody here knows after looking at what we've been presented. You didn't touch on it too much but yes, there were two questions. First of all, there's no question that you produce the status report, which was required in 20 years and I don't think anyone has a question about that. But because the condition was a little bit vague about what that exactly meant and whether or not we need to now look at amending the ordinance, not only to take out some of the conditions that don't apply any more, but to add a possible time extension that you have requested for another 20 years. So, reading over the recommendation Page 4 PC -1 January 8, 2019 that came from the Planning Department and then subsequently was adopted by the Planning Commission, I interpret what we have before us to be an ask. They did it in two parts. The motion of the Planning Commission hearing was number one, to accept the status report, which they voted in favor of, and the number two question was to accept the recommended revisions that the Planning Department sent through. So, I wanted to support that as well. The Planning Commission also had a short but pretty important discussion about the public access plan and the timing for actually implementing and allowing the public access. And I saw in the transcript that there was a request that the developer and the Planning Department work together to possibly amend Condition S as well. We don't see that in our Bill 1, but I'm wondering if there were discussions about that now that you do have the Preservation Plan from the State approved. And you indicated that you think you can open public access within 12 months. Are you willing to help us make that amendment? We have time, I mean this is a committee, we have two more readings. But I think we need to clarify Condition S a little bit more because right now, it just says it's tied to the opening of a golf course, which we have no idea when that may or may not happen. And so, I believe was Commissioner Vitousek and his colleagues agreed that we would further review that proposed recommendation. MR. LIM: I think because of the changed circumstances, the main one being that the State Historic Preservation Division has now issued its approval, we have been waiting probably about eight years to get that, I think that changed the game for us in terms of now we know we have it and now it's up to us to perform. We think that although the zoning ordinance has an opening of the public access time frame concurrently with the golf course, the public access plan that was approved by the County provides that we would do it in conjunction with the occupancy of our first residential component. The only reason why it hasn't yet happened is because of the SHPD approval. Now that we have it, we're ready to proceed and that's why we feel comfortable making the commitment. Now this is only up to us and so we're willing to do that in one year or less. We don't think that the ordinance needs to be amended to put in a hammer, I think the hammer is already there through the public access plan. MS. EOFF: Okay, where is the public access plan? Is there somewhere we can MR. LIM: It's a public access plan required by the ordinance and the SMA (Special Management Area) approvals, and that was approved back— MS. EOFF: Do we have a copy of that? MR. LIM: I do not know. I don't think so. That's the matter of the Planning Department files. So effectively, the public access plan said that we open it in conjunction with the occupancy of the first residential phases. Page 5 PC -1 January 8, 2019 MS. EOFF: Which has already happened? MR. LIM: Yes, to some degree. There's probably 15 or less homes that are built there and the residents there live only part time, as far as I know. And we would have done that, and we thought we would have done that already but for the SHPD approval. So now, I think we got that, we can now take the ball and run with it. And we're committed to do that. MS. EOFF: I completely trust Hannah Springer and Leina`ala. I worked with both of them and Hannah was part of our Ka Pa`akai team. So, I trust that they're on top of it. I'd like to hear later on, after colleagues have also had a chance to talk to you, regarding solidifying the opening of public access a little bit, just for the comfort of the public. It seems only fair as we move forward that there's some definite commitment to that. So, I'll yield at this time. MR. LIM: Well, we're making a commitment right now. MS. EOFF: I hear you and I thank you for that. I'll yield right now but I just wanted to say those few things. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Eoff Council Member David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Aloha, Mr. Lim, and thank you for being here. I won't repeat what Ms. Eoff has just stated because as she said, I just would like to actually make a disclosure because of what she mentioned to you folks of our involvement 20 years ago. I would just like to mention the fact that the case that you cite or that has been cited in most of our land use planning applications since then was made up, not only of Council Member Eoff and I, but former Council Member Angel Pilago. And Ms. Eoff, representing Protect Kohanaiki `Ohana, myself, and Charles Young, representing Ka Lahui Hawaii and Hannah Springer, former Council Member Curtis Tyler, and Leimana Demonte. It's been that and my memory is notso, the importance of that and the Supreme Court decision in guaranteeing the continuation of the protective rights of the Native Hawaiians to access and gather is basically started with your development. So, we're thankful about that because we came a long way, and I really appreciate the fact that we got that report from SHPD. However, I'm having an issue about the way this ordinance reads and your promise that within a year, public access will be open. I know there is some public access already granted and thank you for that. But the general public access that's tied to the golf course, I'm not sure whether we can go forward with the ordinance saying that it's tied to the golf course or completion of the golf course and the statement that's being made here. As far as being accountable down the road one year from now, whether you come back in a year and let us know how that's going, I'm not sure how we would work that. But I'm looking at Page 6 PC -1 January 8, 2019 the terms of this ordinance, and what's happened now are different. So, that's my issue on making sure that how we move forward and whether we go forward with a 20 -year extension, that's up for discussion also. But like Ms. Eoff said, we have committee and then we also have Council. So, during that time, I would like to entertain more discussion on conforming the ordinance to what the current situation is. MR. LIM: Effectively, what the applicant for Lot 4-A is doing is voluntarily moving forward the opening of the public access, and like I said, we are making a commitment to the Council. We can agree to submit to you progress reports as we reach certain milestones in this progress. One of them, the primary one I think would be getting the report to the Planning Department, of the final details of how we're implementing the public access plan, and we can get you copies of that. And then any notification that it would be open, we could do that also. We're thinking it's going to happen, and I'll let Thad say when he thinks it can happen. But it will happen before one year, we're just trying to plan for contingency, so we don't over promise and under deliver. MS. DAVID: Thank you. MR. BOND: Sure. Good afternoon. MS. DAVID: Good afternoon. MR. BOND: I think to both of your questions, we're very open to now moving forward. I think, as Steve said, we feel like there is a commitment already in that comprehensive public access plan. And I think, Steve didn't say this, but I think I will, is that if the Council decides that an amendment is more appropriate, we're open to that as well. There's really nothing else in the amendments proposed that affect us because everything that's there is more administrative. The fair share is something that we're already paying current fair share contributions on. The transportation is also already required in the original, just a clarification to current standards and representing what's going on currently. So, we don't feel like there are any impacts on us, we're just following the lead. If there's a desire on the Council's part, we're okay moving in that direction. MS. DAVID: Thank you very much for that because I think it would even make it more clear and transparent as far as having a provision that says the public access is going to open at the time the golf course is completed, and your statement that it's going to be done in a year or within the years' time. So personally, I'd like to see that in the ordinance. I'll let my Council Members weigh in on this and I'll yield at this time. I'm sorry, excuse me. So, what is your position on the additional extension then, since that's what's before us also? The 20 -year extension. Page 7 PC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. BOND: Well, I thinkI don't know if there's a standard in the current planning department's world as to whether there is a 20 -year development period for PD's. I don't know if there has been one recently, but we'd be happy with a 20 -year extension. We'd be happy with an open-ended kind of continuance of the PD. Obviously, that is an easier thing if there's another recession or something that interrupts the development period and we don't have to go through this again. But we're open to the 20 -year extension as well. MS. DAVID: Would you be also opened to going back to what was inadvertently left out as far as the planning director's administrative granting of a five-year extension? I think in your correspondence or your background for this project, the planning director's administrative authority to grant extensions and then the second 5 -year extension would have to go through the Planning Commission and then to the Council. Would you be open to having that included as opposed to the 20 year? So, it gives the public, it gives the Council, the opportunity to follow the standard requirement of the administrative review to grant an extension. MR. LIM: Let me repeat your question because I'm not sure if I understand. Are you saying that instead of a 20 -year time extension that we would go with only a five-year time extension? MS. DAVID: Well, in the background, for some reason, this project did not include the standard administrative review after five years, which up to the planning director, if he decided to grant one, he would, and then you would have five years. After that, if you came in and said, "Hey, we can't complete our project because of these issues that came up," then the planning director would refer that request to the Planning Commission. So, my understanding is that process was left out of this initial development condition. MR. LIM: That's correct, and it would have been a 20 -year extension. MS. DAVID: So that would have been as opposed to the five year, a 20 year? MR. LIM: Correct. It's typically for the same amount as you had of the original. MS. DAVID: And then there was a question about whether that was the actual it was an estimated 20 years that the project would be completed. So, to me, there's questions, and I'm just really concerned that for some project that's huge and has been ongoing for this long, that we have some sort of checks and balances as we move forward. Just in the interest of transparency because it is a huge project. So, you'd be okay with a 20 -year extension with annual status reports? MR. LIM: Yes, we'd do that too. Were you suggesting an additional extension? Page 8 PC -1 January 8, 2019 MS. DAVID: Well, what you're feeling is about going—whether we could go back to the regular administrative review since your project is almost done or half way done. MR. LIM: I think it's within the Council discretion to add that administrative time extension for the original period also, if you'd like. MS. DAVID: Okay. Thanks for that discussion. I'll yield at this point. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any other Council Members? Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. So, we have a few things on the table right now. But what I want to do is walk back to the public access plan because what you mentioned is in addition to what's before us, there is an existing SMA permit which requires the public access. And maybe not so much, Mr. Lim, but maybe Mr. Darrow or even Ms. Self, if you could help to express to the rest of this body that there is a timing element or there is a connection between the SMA and the requirement of the developer to actually get this done. And what I hear them committing to here is that, you know, they're willing on making the representations here that they're willing to open it sooner because there is another entitlement document with the SMA that requires them to get it done. So, Amy or Jeff? (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self and Planner Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Could you state your name for the record, please? Thank you. MS. SELF: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Amy Self. The thing that was going through my head at the time that all this is going on is the conditions that are in the ordinance are what the Planning Department is required to enforce. So, if you're going toanything that's going to change about Condition B or S, it should, in my opinion, you should go ahead and amend the conditions because that's what Planning is going to be relying on. We've got some in the past where it's so confusing because there is a turnover in employees, turnover in administration, and you've got these things hanging out there that are in conditions that 20-30 years later haven't been complied with, and Planning is trying to figure out, okay, what are we going to do about this? It becomes a total mess. So, my legal opinion is it's much better, if you want them to comply with certain deadlines or certain conditions, just go ahead and amend the conditions. It's a simple process. Just like you said today, it's only in committee, you have two more readings, there's plenty of time to do it. But I wouldn't leave it with the Page 9 PC -1 January 8, 2019 conditions like they are now and then saying—and I don't doubt that they'll do this, but just having it out there as a promise because then the Planning Department has to—they have a checklist. They go through all the conditions of the Zoning Ordinance to make sure everything's complied with. So, it really helps the department if it's cleaned up in the ordinance. MS. LEE LOY: Sorry, I have a follow-up question, and this is related to what Ms. David was speaking of about the administrative time extension, because I read that same part. But my understanding is an administrative time extension is given for the same amount of time for the ordinance itself. So, when Ms. David is asking for a five year, it actually deviates away from what the original timing was. So, if we put in a condition for an administrative time extension, it would be 20 years. Is that? MS. SELF: Well, where that comes from is that—and I don't know, this is really bizarre, I guess that's the way they did it back in 1999. But the language that they put in now for the conditions, it does state that they can get a one-time administrative extension allowing for the same time that they originally had, which would be 20 years. However, that condition is not in here. So, it's up to the Council toyou're the ones that put the conditions, you're the ones that approve conditions for zoning. It's truly up to you whether you want to state the same kind of language that is now usually put in as a condition for these rezoning ordinances, but it's really up to the Council. Hold on. MR. DARROW: Aloha, Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. I did want to mention something about that. We've already gone through the department's recommendation, through the commission's recommendation, and now we are at Council. So, if we add in an administrative time extension at this point, it's almost as if we're saying we're granting a 20 -year time extension and then we're also putting in an administrative time extension. Again, if that's what the Council's direction is, that would be okay, but then we would have 40 years now before we would see that applicant at that point. Just to bring that up. Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. You know, I've heard the representations of the applicant and I just have to mahalo them for being so tenacious on getting it done. I have had my own experiences with the State Historic Preservation Division, and it is not a lie that this took eight years. So, my general concern actually is I don't want to create more hurdles because we're going to set them up for failure if another agency cannot meet a certain timing element. And I just know from other projects that I've done that they are five, almost six years behind in various permit approvals at the State Historic Preservation Division. So, allowing them a little bit more flexibility, I think is ideal because they have demonstrated over the last 20 years, the ability to get their conditions satisfied. But also, there is a bit of a check with the status update reports that they'll provide annually. So, there is a way for the administration and the Planning Department to see if they are on track. Page 10 PC -1 January 8, 2019 But I also did hear a commitment from the developer that they are willing to commit to a one year opening date, and with this body, and I've done it before where we've gotten through committee and I'll be more than happy to craft a Condition S to be reflective of the representations that are being made by the developer that would allow them the one year. And again, they can do their part, but if we put it into the Planning Department for approval and they're short staffed or they can't get it done, it's a similar situation like SHPD. But I am more than willing to move this out of committee with the understanding and commitment that I'll be working with Ms. Self along with the developer to craft language that would bring in the public access plan to fruition within a year of the approval. I'm going to yield at this time. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I just want to point out that it is 1:45. We still have two other items on the agenda for the Planning Committee. GRED (Governmental Relations and Economic Development) was supposed to convene 15 minutes ago, so, I will allow Mr. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder to ask his question and then I will entertain motions for action on Bill 1. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I appreciate getting down to the root of the problem which was a two-pronged approach. I did meet with the developers and I had a nice discussion with you, and I appreciate that, thank you. My main goals in that discussion were cultural concerns being addressed and public access. After our meeting, I felt like there was public access, but right now looking at it, I'm not sure if that does exist or not. Can you clarify it for me whether there is or is not public access at this moment to the project? (Note: At this time, Steve Lim representing Ka`upulehu Developments and Thad Bond, Project Manager for KD Acquisitions, LLLP, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. BOND: So, public access at this point is limited to groups that are invited by Aunty Lei who is running the cultural center there because we don't have the protocol and we don't have the preservation protection and really guides for open public access, which is pending the SHPD approval of the report. So, that's what we need to get done between now and the actual physical opening of the unmonitored public access. We stillas a part of the comprehensive public access plan, there's a goal to get people to check in because of safety and because of a little bit of orientation on the archeological artifacts that are there and to make sure they understand what they're coming in contact with or coming close—going to go look at and respect that. So, those are the two—it's a lot of process and a little bit of improvements that we have to put in place before we open it up. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Can the average Joe drive down there and park his truck and walk down? Page 11 PC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. BOND: Not right now, not at that access within Ka`upulehu. There are other public accesses through Hualalai and other places where they can do that, but since this isn't a normal shoreline, it's not open as of yet. Until we get that we have it, but we had the SHPD approval, which then we implement the signage and the guidance for them and a program for them to check in and then meet with Aunty Lei, get oriented, and then go down on their own. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I do appreciate you taking into account as well the safety turn lane because I have left that subdivision during my other—working from my other job and that is a little bit interesting getting across the highway, and we talked about that. So, I'm glad you're addressing that. Thank you, I yield the floor. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Kleinfelder. Ms. Eof£ MS. EOFF: Thank you. I know we're getting short of time, but I was going to offer the same thing Ms. Lee Loy did, to try and work with Planning Department and you folks to look at Condition S to make it a little more guaranteed that the public will have access in a timely manner as was represented. But without being able to be involved in it, I mean I don't know if Sue wants to work with me on it. I kind of felt that maybe Maile and I would help with that but three of us cannot. So, I'm not sure whether to postpone it here in committee or to move it through, but I would like to be involved in that process with Ms. David as well. MR. LIM: We'd request to move it forward out of committee. We'll commit to work with each of you individually so it's not a Council meeting, on the language. We already have something in mind. MS. EOFF: Great. Okay well, I would be all right with that. There's already a motion on the floor, and I guess unless anyone else has anything else to say, I'll yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Council Member Chung. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. CHUNG: I'm just wondering if I could just be able to ask one question of well first, Steve, you stay there and Ms. Self. Amy, was that original ordinance, 99-42, was it violative of our zoning laws? Were there any provisions which were violative? Specifically, is there a requirement that a development period be included in a rezoning ordinance? MS. SELF: I'm sorry, could you repeat that last part? Page 12 PC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. CHUNG: Is there any provision in our Zoning Code which requires that there be a development period like in this case, 20 years? MS. SELF: That's set by the County Council. The County Council puts the conditions on rezoning. MR. CHUNG: Right. Correct. So, there was nothing in that zoning ordinance or rezoning ordinance, 99-42, which was in violation of any zoning laws, correct? MS. SELF: No. MR. CHUNG: Okay then, Steve, Ms. Lee Loy referenced an SMA requirement relative to public access and the development of a plan, a public access development plan. What was that? Can you explain what that requirement was? MR. LIM: The final comprehensive public access plan is requiring both of this ordinance and that is Condition S. MR. CHUNG: Right. MR. LIM: And of the SMA permits. So that comprehensive public access plan was submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. MR. CHUNG: Was there a timing element in the SMA permit? MR. LIM: Not in the SMA permit, but in the public access plan, the applicant voluntarily agreed to, in a quote from the implementation clause of the Ka`upulehu Public Access Management Plan, "the public access road and associated signage, parking, and restrooms are planned to be completed and available for public use concurrent with occupancy of the first residential units within Lot 4-A." I want to stress the words that they were "planned to be completed" because they were but the SHPD delay held us up. So, now that we have that, we're ready to proceed. I think we're going to get this done very quickly. MR. CHUNG: See, this is a problem I have. I tried to adhere to the letter of the law. The threshold question that we have before us is whether we need to go to Bill 1 or whether they complied with the conditions of their rezoning ordinance by virtue of submitting their status report at the end of 20 years or before, which I understand they did. There may have been a mistake or an oversight on the part of the Council many years back. You know, Curtis was on the Council at that time and so was I, but nonetheless, the law says all they had to do was submit a status report. Now we have some assurances and perhaps that's all we have, but I think it's better than nothing because if we go by the letter of the law, even with the current Page 13 PC -1 January 8, 2019 ordinance, it says that the development plan will come on board upon the completion of the golf course. And we don't even know if the golf course will ever come to fruition given the current state of how golf courses and demands for them are right now. So, I would prefer, actually, to go with something like what they have, even if it is only a promise. I think it's better than nothing. It's going to move this thing forward much faster because they want to move ahead with their buildings. I don't know about this golf course, you know, tying it into this golf course. So, that's why I wanted to say something because I don't know if we need to go to Bill 1, quite frankly. All we have to say is, "Yeah, you submitted your status report." You guys complied with the rezoning ordinance, how jammed up it may have been, and just go on your way. I don't think we're in a position to require them to do anything, but I don't know how you guys feel about that. MS. SELF: Well, if I may, it would still have to comply with Condition S because it's in the ordinance. MR. CHUNG: Right, but what I'm saying is there is actually a chance for this thing to happen faster because if we're going to wait for a golf course to be completed, it might be "Waiting for Godot." MS. SELF: That's why you would amend this condition, so it reflects what's actually going to happen. MR. CHUNG: I understand that, Amy, but if there's no requirement—see, I'm just thinking what would happen if we took this kind of position on all other types of ordinances where we can just on our own say, "Well, we think it's better if you do this." Yes, I understand that there is a requirement and there are some conflicting situations here, but I would rather just move ahead with something that can be done faster. I don't see the necessity for a bill, but look, if the developer wants to voluntarily say, "Yeah, we think it's a cleaner way to do it," I have no problem. Then let's move ahead with Bill 1. I'm just saying there's another way of looking at this thing and I don't know what their position is in that regard. MR. LIM: I think the position as expressed by Mr. Bond today was that if we can get this done pretty quickly and cleanly without any other additions on other issues, then the developer is willing to proceed on that. I want to make it clear because I also represent Hualalai Resort. Their public access has well been constructed and underway for many years now. In fact, they have more parking spaces than they actually need to have. So, this is only for Lot 4-A. MR. CHUNG: I will say this. It would be cleaner to have it done via Bill 1, but there's no assurances that Bill 1 will be passed. Page 14 PC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. LIM: Right. And that's what worries us. We feel that the status report was all that was required by Condition BB because it says that the applicant shall submit an overall status report for the project, then it's forwarded to the County Council for review and action. It doesn't say anything about amending—it doesn't say you have 20 years to develop and that's it. MR. CHUNG: If this was just pro forma that everybody would vote in favor of it and move it ahead for the sake of making a better bill, then no problem. But what kinds of assurances do you have that it will pass and what kinds of assurances that you guys are now not going to get leverage for more conditions? I just wanted to throw those things out, but if it's the will of this body to move ahead with something that's cleaner, which I agree, it would be cleaner, let's go. I mean I'll vote in favor of it, I'll tell you right now. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Chung. Before I get to you, Council Member Eoff, I want to open it up to Council Member Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I listened very carefully to what Council Chair Chung has said and he brings very valid points. We want to move this forward and not preclude getting things done. If I'm understanding what's being presented, we would more quickly assure public access, which is a plus. We'd also move towards a safety factor as far as the highway, which is a plus, and I think we're all in agreement that the direction of that area for what has been done for the last 20 years is a direction that needs to continue. So, I'm glad we have Council Chair's perspective on this because I don't think we want to cloud things. I think we need to move things expediently forward and not get tangled up. So, I'm going to yield at this point. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Eof£ MS. EOFF: I really don't see it as moving things forward any faster or slower. I believe that it was unclear exactly what that condition said originally, but because it required the submission of the update report, that also—part of the, I don't know the exact language, but it's something about the department would then review and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and subsequently the County Council. So, I think that's what happened. I mean, you could interpret it to mean that all they needed to do was give the director the status report, but in doing that, the condition said he may review it and make recommendations, which he did by submitting Bill 1. So, I don't see really any problems with Bill 1 except for the condition regarding public access. I think we can tighten up the language and like we said, we're all willing to work together to do that. So, I don't see any time delays or anything in just doing that to make the public more assured that the meaningfulness of the intention of granting public access is secure. That's kind of my—what I believe my main concern, the one—seems like it's gone through the normal process with Page 15 PC -1 January 8, 2019 the Planning Commission and now to the Council. So, the background, the Planning Commission, and us seem to be on the same page. MR. LIM: If the Council does elect to continue with Bill 1 amendment of the Project District Ordinance, we'd also suggest a reinsertion of a phrase relating to fair share credits for Conditions M and N, which are the offset roadway conditions. That was inadvertently deleted from the Planning Department's report. We would be working with the Council Members to share a red line of what the Planning Department has done plus the amendments that we're talking about today. Hopefully, if we can stick with that plan, then I think my client will be agreeable to proceed on that basis. MS. EOFF: Because I did see there is other clean ups, too, like updating the fair share. MR. LIM: Yes, we're including all of those that have come to you already. MS. EOFF: So, you could submit to us an amended version? MR. LIM: That's what we're going to do. MS. EOFF: Okay, and you feel you'd be more comfortable with moving it out of committee to do all that, or do you want to keep it here? MR. LIM: I feel comfortable moving it out of committee because I don't think it's that complicated. MS. EOFF: Most of it has been done? MR. LIM: Yes, most of it has been done. We can get you amendments after the close of this meeting. MS. SELF: I would just ask that the language be very clear because you have to look at it from the Planning Department. They're the ones that have—they take what you write and that's what they have to enforce. It's really difficult for them when—like for instance, if you left Condition S the way it is, well, they're not going to be looking at anything until the golf course comes in. That's the problem when the language—because this is what they look at. When anything comes in for a project, they go straight to the rezone ordinance to look at the conditions to make sure and they check them off to make sure everything is done with them. For this particular Condition S, they're not going to be looking at when the public access is done. There's not going to be a deadline because they're going to be waiting until opening of the golf course. If you put that amendment in, that's great. That's very specific. This is his recommended amendment, "shall be completed within one year from the effective date of this amended Project District Ordinance." It's very clear to them. Page 16 PC -1 January 8, 2019 MS. EOFF: Can you say that again? MS. SELF: "Implementation of the public access plan shall be completed within one year from the effective date of this amended Project District Ordinance." Or I would probably say MS. EOFF: You said or sooner. MS. SELF: Yes. This amendedI'd put the ordinance number. MS. EOFF: That kind of tells me it's as soon as possible but not longer than one year. MS. SELF: Right. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'm sorry, I didn't hear Ms. Eoff yield the floor. MS. EOFF: I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. Thank you. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Aloha. Thank you, Amy, for your insights. I just would like to add, being from and living on the west side and watching the transition of our coastline, some good, some more challenging, having a constituent from my district speak today with some concerns about this, I really appreciate your insight and your input. It's my belief that moving fast isn't always the best way to move. We are still living with repercussions of decisions that were made in the interest, not always of the constituents, but of developers all over the island. And I think there's wisdom in taking things slow and looking at all the p's, q's and s's, and making sure that things are written as specifically as possible. Meeting with these kind gentlemen about a week ago, they expressed to me that there was already some confusion coming in here that was created years ago accidentally, but that we have the opportunity now to clarify some of these issues and make sure that the language is succinct and fully incorporates all of the different parameters. So, thank you for your hard work and diligence and advocating for that. I appreciate it. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Chair Chung. MR. CHUNG: I just wanted—all I wanted to do was bring up that technical point. I have no problem with voting in favor of Bill 1 because I know we want to move ahead. But I just want to make sure that my vote in favor of Bill 1 should not, in any way, preclude the developer if it gets to that point, from arguing that they had actually complied earlier. Let's say this thing all falls apart at some Page 17 PC -1 January 8, 2019 point and Bill 1 doesn't get approved, I think they still should be entitled to make an argument that they had complied earlier. That's all. MR. LIM: Thank you very much. From the developer's perspective, we hope that we can work this all out very smoothly. In case something unforeseen happens and it doesn't work out smoothly, then we'll be reserving our legal right to maintain our position that only a status report is required. MS. SELF: To add to that, if it doesn't get approved, then you're back with this. So, as long as you're in compliance with this, with the original, with the rezone ordinance, the 99-42right, but that's—well, it would just be, Planning would be requiring them to have the public access plan be completed by the time they open the golf course. MR. CHUNG: Submitted their status report. It's getting us back to my original—so let's not go there already. I'm saying let's go ahead with Bill 1, it's fine. Because that argument would take us right back to what I was arguing, right? MS. SELF: Back to the beginning. MR. LIM: One final request before we end here. Did I understand that the Council is willing to entertain adding that administrative time extension to the 20 -year extension? For purposes of us drafting up the proposed legislation. MS. LEE LOY: Chair, if I might respond. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, please. MS. LEE LOY: I'm not, only because of the recommendation that came up from the planning director, and if he felt that was a critical part to be infused into Bill 1, it would have been dovetailed in. I think the development horizon of 20 years, and you folks have demonstrated the ability to put those assets in the ground and get it done, I think provides you folks enough flexibility. Like Mr. Bond mentioned, the ebb and flow of development and real estate as it goes. Again, to the rest of my colleagues, I'll be more than happy to work with them. What I heard Ms. Self read into the record was at the end of Condition S would be, "Implementation of the public access plan shall be completed within one year of the effective date of this amended Project District Ordinance." I also heard some language about "or sooner." I think that's nice, tight language and a great place to start. So, with that, I'd really like to call for the question. I think we can get it done between now and the next full reading at Council. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. All in favor of moving Bill 1 forward to the Council on first reading please say "aye." Page 18 PC -1 January 8, 2019 Vote on Bill 1: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 1 on first (Approved) reading was passed by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. MR. LIM: Thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Lim. Thank you, Mr. Bond. Mr. Clerk, Bill 5 please. Bill 5: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL - THREE ACRE (A -3a) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — 15,000 SQUARE FEET (RS -15) AT WAIAKEA HOMESTEADS 2ND SERIES, WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-039:026 (Applicant: Hilo One Incorporated) (Area: approximately 12.728 Acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into 30 lots. The application states that the subdivided lots will be sold on the open market to the general public. The property is located along the south side of Haihai Street. Reference: Comm. 27 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 5 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Eoff CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any discussion? Sorry, I'd like to call up the applicant and/or their representative. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Please state your name for the record. MR. KERN: Zendo Kern, Planning Consultant. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Committee. To my left I have Roland Higashi, one of the developers here and behind me is his daughter. Page 19 PC -1 January 8, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kern, do you want to provide some brief opening remarks and then I'll open it up for discussion by Council Members. MR. KERN: Perfect, that'd be great. So, what we have is a relatively straight forward rezoning from ag three (A-3) to RS -15. It's essentially infill development there off of Haihai Street. The RS -15 zoning will allow it to have a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. It will result in a 30 -lot subdivision as far as land use is concerned. It meets all the criteria, low-density urban, no SMA issues, county water available, county dedicated streets, et cetera. Overall, like I've said it's pretty straight forward. We've talked with the Office of Housing and Community Development, we had a preliminary discussion with them. So, we'll continue moving forward with them talking about them, how we're going to meet the affordable housing requirements on that, which will be relatively straight forward. We talked story with the neighbors, really no issues, we addressed any concerns that they had. Like I said, the project's needed. Hilo desperately needs lots. So, with that, I'llMr. Higashi, would you like to say anything? I'm happy to answer any questions. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Questions from Council Members. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Zendo, for being here. Mr. Higashi, thank you for being here. I always ask this question. The conditions of approval, are they? MR. KERN: Yes, we've reviewed those, went over those, and we're okay with them. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. For the rest of my colleagues, this is a project that's in my district. Everything Mr. Kern has stated for the record is true and accurate, but the road actually there is really ripe. It's ready for more housing. There's a signalization on Haihai Street and `Aina`ola that could continue to handle this extra units, and as stated, we do need housing. We lost a lot of houses down in Puna. So, this is actually just ripe for us to take advantage of and maybe even increase our real property tax revenue base. So, I'm going to be urging my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Any more discussion? Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Thank you for coming in, nice to see you, very familiar faces. My only concern is you're surrounded as well by Ag -3a lots. As we set a precedent for opening up Ag -3 to RS -15, I can just see from this zoning map that we will slowly be moving into that on a large scale Page 20 PC -1 January 8, 2019 once we do this. I am all for infill and all for growth. I just want to be mindful of keeping our communities as green as we can and as well thought out as we can. MR. KERN: Absolutely. To address that concern, actually, the properties mauka of it are zoned RS -10. Across the street from Haihai you have RS -10, RS -15, and RS -7.5 zoning. There are some Ag -3 parcels around there. Some of those larger parcels have some waterway issues on them, probably one of the reasons that they stayed an Ag -3 for right now. So essentially, that area has already grown out, it's grown past it and there is some small pocket of some Ag -3, but it is truly an infill, state land use urban, so it's not state land use agriculture any more. There's no state land use boundary amendment required as well as in the General Plan LUPAG Map, Land Use Plan Allocation Guide map is a low-density urban which calls for this. As I can see what you're saying with that there, it actually meets all that criteria and would be different than if it were further out on the sprawl, which would then be a different decision because you're looking at further sprawl out. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Mr. Kern, I just want to clarify that the project that is being proposed is definitely in line with future growth of the area. MR. KERN: Absolutely, and—level from the state and county. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And just to confirm, was it ever used for farming activities in the past? MR. KERN: Many years ago. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Many years ago? MR. KERN: Yes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. And then I noticed in reading the transcripts from the Planning Commission that there that Mr. Higashi had mentioned a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) study. So, I was just wondering what the status is for the CLOMAR, Conditional Letter of Map Revisions. MR. HIGASHI: The engineering company that did this county flood study, we engaged them to further study the whole area. The reason we have—this parcel was divided into two parcels. We took the area that's not in flood and rezoning. The area that's in flood will be further studied and mitigating the flood in that area. We're working together with the neighbors as partners to mitigate all of that water so it doesn't get into Mr. Higa's property also. It's a neighborhood project that we're working together. We're footing the bill but we're trying to mitigate that flood on the other side. Page 21 PC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. KERN: This 12.7 -acre parcel has one minor little spot that goes into the—is touched by the flood zone. But otherwise, it's completely in flood zone X. There are no issues with flooding. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I just want to echo the sentiments of my colleague Ms. Lee Loy. Thank you for adding additional housing to our inventory. Puna lost a lot over the course of last year so it's nice to see additional homes on the market. Any other questions or comments? If not, I will take a vote. All in favor of moving Bill 5 forward to the Council with a positive recommendation please say, "aye." Vote on Bill 5: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 5 on first (Approved) reading was passed by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. MR. KERN: Thank you very much for your support. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for your time. Mr. Clerk, Bill 6 please. Bill 6: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 07-26, WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM OPEN (0) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 1,000 SQUARE FEET (RM -1) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-057:029, PORTION 030 AND PORTION 031 (FORMERLY 2-4-057:001) (Applicant: Hawaii Island Veterans Memorial, Inc.) (Area: 4.888 Acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation to grant a 10 -year time extension to Condition C (Complete Construction), and its unfavorable recommendation to defer the requirements of Condition B (Water Commitment) and delete Condition F (Install Street Lights and Traffic Controls). The applicant's current plan is to establish the Ka Hui Koa development project consisting of approximately 96 rental housing units and a community center, located at the north corner of the Kawili Street and Kapi`olani Street intersection. Reference: Comm. 28 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 6 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. Page 22 PC -1 January 8, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Could I also get the applicant and/or their representative to the front, please, to make any opening remarks? (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Yukie Ohashi came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: State your name for the record please. MS. OHASHL My name is Yukie Ohashi, I'm a planning consultant to the applicant, Hawaii Island Veterans Memorial (HIVM) Group. We've been working on this project since 2006, received approval in 2007. At this time, we're asking for a time extension to get our zoning renewed and to bring you up to date on where we're at. So, it's been a number of years. HIVM, Mr. Bob Williams here has worked diligently on the property maintaining it, and then more recently in 2015, he partnered with a housing developer, EAH (Ecumenical Association for Housing) Housing. And at this point in time, the lease for the property has been separated so that HIVM now holds the lease for the parcel that will be developed as a combined veterans center and clinic. And very recently in the last few weeks, EAH has received a 65 -year lease for the housing parcel. So, we would like to ask for a time extension of 10 years to get this project completed. With regard to the two other conditions, with the lease in hand at this point, EAH is able to secure funding and will be making a payment on the water deposit. The water deposit for the combined veterans center is up to date. With regard to the condition regarding the traffic conditions, it was our misunderstanding that the traffic lights were actually traffic signals. But in reality, it was clarified to us that it was streetlights for illumination and traffic controls would be things such as striping right in right out. So, we have no problem with deleting that condition. I'd like for Mr. Williams to just give us an update on the status of the combined veterans center to be followed with an introduction by Ms. Marian Gushiken who is here representing EAH Hawaii. (Note: At this time, Bob Williams and Marian Gushiken came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Yukie. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, good morning, and to some of the folks I've not met yet, hello. Aloha. This is not my first rodeo in front of this Council over the years. I'm really happy that we've been able to bring it to this point, add 96 units of senior living, affordable—and the rules not just Section 8 but all the way up to Section 80, 80 percent. It totally meets our expectations. We want a project for the community, that's what it is, preference to veterans, thanks, appreciate that. The lower project is all the architectural designs that have been completed, all the engineering plans have been completed for it was all designed from the CBOC, Page 23 PC -1 January 8, 2019 what they call the Veterans Administration Community -Based Outpatient Clinic planning manual done by local architect Scott Fleming, and we put in our entrance according to Cede. It's been accepted by DPW (Department of Public Works), it's finalized in our water commitment. Those plans, the engineering plans have passed approval and all we're waiting for now is zoning renewal. And so, we have final plan approval. Upon receipt of final plan approval, we will move this forward to the Mayor, to the Governor, to the secretary of veteran's affairs and say, "Here it is, you want a piece of the action?" We are in a great position to do that. We've got --our congressional delegation has appropriated $10 million to the veteran's administration to prepare their RFP (Request for Proposal), which would be happy to bid on. If they want to sole source it, we'll take it, too, either way. So, that's where things stand. That's all happened recently. Where the RFP design is probably ongoing and the VA (Veterans Affairs), the way they move, you know, only God knows how long it would be. But I think probably within a year we'll have it out, so, we've done our due diligence and now we have this project moving and one to go, and I'm going to retire. Questions? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you both. Any comments or questions from my colleagues? Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Gushiken, for being here. Ms. Ohashi, thank you for really summing it up. I just want to remind my colleagues from last Council, this body actually passed the resolution for the executive order that allowed this property to become part of this inventory. So, I'm just really grateful that something we did a year ago, we're beginning to see the fruits of our labor with this change of zone ordinance. I think we're right on track as to the commitment we made over a year ago with the resolution, and I'm just glad to see the partnerships that you folks have, to bring some housing forward for our veterans. I'm going to be supporting this. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. Most of that year, Council Member Lee Loy, most of that year was spent with attorneys negotiating the fine print of the verbiage of the lease that they actually got. So, happy that was done. Amy Self was quite helpful in that regard. So, that's all done. I just want to say one final word in closing before passing the torch to Ms. Gushiken. We searched high and low for a developer who would do more than just Section 8 blueprint housing. We wanted something that would be more aimed at affordablea lot of retirees living on $26,000, $18,000 or $20,000 a year, they're elders usually. We found the perfect fit with EAH. We've been talking for years before we negotiated a settlement with them, and they're a local firm. Actually—but local gal and a local haole guy back here as their team so they get it, and we've got a great development agreement going on with them. Page 24 PC -1 January 8, 2019 We think everyone will be really happy with—architecture for the whole approach. It's going to take place on 5.6 acres by the way, on the upper parcel, the entirety of 5.6 acres. That's the housing. So, with that in mind, I'll just ask Marian to introduce herself and EAH Housing. She's the director of development and so, thank you. MS. GUSHIKEN: Thank you, Bob. Marian Gushiken with EAH Housing and I want to thank you all for hearing us this afternoon. As Bob said, we have been working with HIVM now for probably the last few years, mainly to get some tweaks to the original executive order which would now allow us, which we did get done and subsequently to the Council, which would allow us to propose the 96 plus or minus units of affordable senior rental housing. What we're proposing is that the majority of those units would be available to households that are below 50 percent of AMI (Area Median Income). Ten of those units would be affordable to folks at 80 percent AMI and below, and that was to specifically target—because we have a preference for veterans and spouses of deceased veterans. Those specifically allow us to target those veterans who might be getting 100 percent disability payment, because they would otherwise be over income for tax credit purposes, which is how we would propose to finance our project. As Bob mentioned, EAH has been around for quite a while. We just celebrated our 50th anniversary last year. We came to Hawaii in 1996 to preserve two properties originally on Oahu. We still own and operate them, and have since refinanced them, and of course still maintain them as affordable housing. Since then, we've expanded our activities to include some additional preservation work as well as new construction work, and we're really excited to be here on the Big Island. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Member Lee Loy, did you have anything else you wanted to add? Council Member Eof£ MS. EOFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you, Bob, I know you left the table, but without people like you spearheading and championing, a project like this don't happen. What Ms. Lee Loy said is right, it makes us feel really good that we were part of something that we see now turning into reality. So, I'm sure for you it does feel rewarding, too, but I just wanted to thank you for all of your efforts. This is a significant contribution to housing inventory for veterans as well as just a model of affordability. So, looking forward to working with you in the future. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Eof£ Any other questions or comments? If not, I'd like to ask a couple of questions of Ms. Gushiken. Okay. What is the total project cost for this Veterans Housing and Community Center? Page 25 PC -1 January 8, 2019 MS. GUSHIKEN: We're still in the preliminary stages but it'll be roughly in the low 30's total. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I was reading in the background report that so far, $425,000 was secured in GIA (Grant -in -Aid) money and that was for a driveway that was completed about a year or so ago, and then over the years, $110,000 has been raised via community fund raising. And I know that a friend of mine, Sonya Juvik is involved in those jazz concerts which are really fun for the community. I just want assurances, you know, we're going to be granting a 10 -year extension, but I want to make sure that funding is available. You folks are going out for funding, I know that trust fund loans are on the table, tax exemption, bonds, vouchers, but I just want to make sure the financing piece is set so that we can realize this incredible housing and community resource. MR WILLIAMS: Great. Actually, Marian can speak to the housing financing, I can speak to the other component. MS. GUSHIKEN: So, very quickly, on your question about the financing, since we were able to secure the ground lease last month actually, we submitted last month, two applications to the county for little bit of home funds as well as some project -based vouchers which we would hope to secure. We still expect to continue on through the design process, come back to you all for the final plan review, and also target probably a 2020 application to the state for the bonds and rental housing revolving fund, the balance of the financing that would necessary to break ground. MR WILLIAMS: With regard to the veteran's center, right now it's looking very bright. We actually have $10 million appropriated to do a one-stop shop project which took us eight years to convince the VA to buy into this. So now they've done it and now it's in the process. Nothing guaranteed. They'll probably come forth with an RFP which we'll happily bid. We don't think anybody can touch us on the RFP because we're ready to go. The total price of that project estimated thus far by two different general contractors, Les Isemoto and Mike Singer from Hardwood, it's about $10 million for the veteran's center, and that's what was appropriated. Hopefully, they won't blow it in-house, you know, they'll survive. I anticipate—the backup plan by the way, is to work for the nonprofit developer of health care facilities, of which there are many, not just Bay Clinic and a few others, but there are a lot in the woodwork. It's kind of a growth industry. So, we've explored it with a gal over in Hana, Maui, whose got a great track record of putting those facilities online. But that's a backup plan, as such time as we do bring a developer/operator like a developer/operator we have here to the table, back in front of you again, for all the necessary permitting approval. For example, 65 -year renewable lease won't go through that thrill again with the developer/operator, and so you'll have some more time to weigh in on this. Does that answer your questions? Page 26 PC -1 January 8, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, it does. Just a couple more, and I just want to confirm that you are okay with meeting all the conditions that are laid out in the ordinance, including the water commitment and the traffic signalization. MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, last thing. Bob, you mentioned in your report that you had missed annual filing progress reports and I just want assurances from your team that you will be making those annual filings. That way, the Planning Department is aware of progress that you're making on the project. MR. WILLIAMS: We have the best planning consult on the island to remind us on that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Excellent, that's all I wanted to hear. Thank you so much. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Bob, I put solar on your house. Are you putting solar on this structure? MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. It's solar PV's (Photovoltaic). MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Water or PV? MR. WILLIAMS: It's PV's. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Hot water, I haven't gotten that far. That's Marian's kuleana but we know that— MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You're going to do that? Because there was a senior housing that was built up off of the new road to Kaumana side. I forgot the name right now, but there was all that hot water that was put up but no actual solar on the buildings. Great roofs, great project, didn't happen but it just— MR. WILLIAMS: That was assisted living. Down at the puka down there, it was an assisted living facility by a for profit firm that operates on the West Coast. Yeah, I wouldn't want to live there. Page 27 PC -I January 8, 2019 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I can't speak to that but I would like to see, I was just thinking environmentally and also, it's going to lower the bills for anyone who lives there. That's mutually MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, we're pretty green. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Good. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Bob. I've known you a long time, since high school. You still have so much energy. I appreciate you championing this project for decades. MR. WILLIAMS: And I lived in Hawaii before she was born. How's that? Thanks a lot for the Council, all the Council Members involved in this project for bringing along and bearing with us here. It's been—if you can imagine, nonprofit is a long slog, as the saying goes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, seeing no other discussion, all in favor of the motion to forward Bill to the Council for first reading please say "aye." Vote on Bill 6: The motion to recommend passage of Bill on first (Approved) reading was passed by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion to adjourn? Page 28 PC -1 January 8, 2019 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 2:32 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Villegas and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Approve Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair Planning Committee AK/j m 2�[ 312-011 (Date) Page 29