Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2019/04/09 2018-2020Committee on Planning 7th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii April 9, 2019 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 1:02 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair. R(1T T CAT r Present: Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member 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 following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called called by the Chair: Dwight J. Vincente Bill 47 (Comm. 196); Bill 48 (Comm. 197); and Bill 49 (Comm. 198), comment. Jeno Enocencio Bill 49 (Comm. 198), comment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: At this time I will be closing public testimony, and moving on to business of the day. Mr. Clerk, if you could please read in Communication 194. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. PC -7 April 9, 2019 Comm. 194: NOMINATION OF DAVID HUERTA TO THE KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION COMMITTEE From Mayor Harry Kim, dated March 20, 2019, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: May 3, 2019 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 194: Ms. Eoff moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. David Huerta to the Kona Community Development Action Committee. Seconded by Mr. Richards 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. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Chair Kierkiewicz informed Mr. Huerta that he does not need to appear at the Council meeting for final confirmation of his appointment. Comm. 195: NOMINATION OF KILOHANA HIRANO TO THE HAWAII COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated March 20, 2019, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: May 3, 2019 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Page 2 PC -7 April 9, 2019 Vote on Comm. 195: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. Kilohana Hirano to the Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder 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. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Chair Kierkiewicz informed Mr. Hirano that he does not need to appear at the Council meeting for final confirmation of his appointment. Recess: At 1:27 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 1:28 p.m. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions. (There were none.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Moving on to the next order of business. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills ORDINANCES: for Ordinances. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if you could please read in Bill 47. Page 3 PC -7 April 9, 2019 Bill 47: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-11 (LALAMILO-PU'UKAPU ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — FORTY ACRES (A -40a) TO AGRICULTURAL — FIVE ACRES (A -5a) AT PU'UKAPU HOMESTEADS 2ND SERIES, WAIMEA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 6-4-017:043 (ADDlicant: 64-560 Mamalahoa_ LLC) (Area: 10.94 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its unfavorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to apply for subdivision of the parcel and create a flag lot. The commission cites concerns over flood control and the applicant's request to construct two driveway access points to Mamalahoa Highway. The property is located approximately .42 miles west of White Road and 150 feet east of Pu`u Manu Place. Reference: Comm. 196 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) ; and Comm. 196.1: From Planning Director Michael Yee, dated March 19, 2019, transmitting the draft transcript from the Planning Commission's February 21, 2019, meeting. Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend passage of Bill 47 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Will the applicant and/or their representative please come forward? (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Zendo Kern and Manager of LLC Property Dan Kenight came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kern, if you could provide an overview of the project or the applicants request for the Council. I see that there was an unfavorable recommendation by the Planning Commission, however favorable recommendation from the Planning Department. MR. KERN: That's correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. MR. KERN: Thank you. So good afternoon, Madam Chair, and members of the Planning Committee. Thanks for the opportunity. So yeah, like you say, I'll give an explanation, and then I'll talk about kind of what happen to the Planning Commission as well. Page 4 PC -7 April 9, 2019 So this property is zoned Ag -40. As you can see it's a long narrow lot, it's a little bit over 10 acres, so we based on the land use criteria A -5a was acceptable zoning to the Planning Department. So we moved forward with a request for the two lot subdivision, both Ag five. Meets all the land use criteria from State Land Use. Ag, size, the area. If you look at the proposed subdivision map, to left of the property is the almost the exact same thing we're asking for. A flag lot there. That one also has a flood plain that runs through it. And to the right there's a larger parcel, one over that abuts the property towards the top. In 2011 that was rezoned to Ag -5 as well. So the Ag -5 zoning obviously meets the general makeup of that area, and would be the most advantageous zoning for that area as well. The large super long, long spaghetti lot is challenging in many ways. So yeah, we had a favorable recommendation from the Planning Department, with conditions. And the conditions were primarily acceptable. So when the Planning Commission gave a negative on it, the main issue was this floodplain that crosses over it. And I obviously failed to articulate in enough detail or depth, to have them think otherwise. The floodplain does not come from the applicants property, it crosses over it and that exists. And the second driveway situation, in the conditions that were provided, Department of Public Works requested a single access off of there. We did ask to see if we could get two access, because there was an existing driveway to the existing house. If they would have said no, we would have accepted that and moved forward. But to me that wasn't a criteria for a negative recommendation. The flood issue was the situation, but that's not really a land use criteria. Within the conditions, there are conditions that mitigate that. Specifically Condition J, "All development generated runoff shall be disposed of onsite, and not be directed to adjacent properties." So that's the standard condition, and that's County Code. And further more Condition K, "All development shall comply with Chapter 27, Floodplain Management, of the Hawaii County Code. And that section of code deals with areas that have flood issues, and there's ways to mitigate that. The applicant does have a Civil Engineer, and when it comes time they'll work on that and make sure that there's no additional affect. Unfortunately if this area had higher destiny, they could actually probably do something to mitigate the flooding and its entirety. But with the two -lot subdivision it's kind of—we have to work with what's there, and the applicant's fully aware of that. And they would have to make sure that it does not increase, or negatively affect any surrounding property owners based on that floodplain. As the property sits now, zoned Ag -5, the applicant could apply for an additional farm dwelling application agreement; possibly get one, which would also allow for another driveway in there. They could be doing large scale farming on there, Page 5 PC -7 April 9, 2019 and there could be a driveway and trucks going up and down that same area. So the issue is there. The request for the zoning does not, you know, take away from that or make it worse. Actually I think it brings further scrutiny to that, and so the applicant will have to work with that and make sure that they do not negatively affect that. And so the reason for the Planning Commission's negative recommendation was based on this, this floodplain issue, not based on land use criteria. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Well just to expand upon that Mr. Kern, in reading of the transcript from the Planning Commission, they had wanted the flood control plan to be presented to the Commission prior to making any decisions. MR. KERN: That's what they would've liked, correct. We didn't know this. At the time there was no request made of that, at the time. Obviously if there was, we of done something. It's hard to spend a tremendous amount of money on engineering, prior to having any approvals. And so the conditions basically control that afterwards, that has to be addressed. Like I said, the applicant does have a Civil Engineer that he's going to be working with to maintain that CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, I'm going to open it up to my colleagues for questions. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Did you have a chance to meet with the neighbors in that area? MR. KERN: I personally did not. I know that the applicant has made an attempt, I don't believe that they actually have, correct? No. And I couldn't get a phone number for him that was my challenge. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah. So I have a phone number. I've not really had a chance to sit with them, and that's why I would ask if, you know, this could be postponed until we can sit and meet with them. Because even with the letters that they provided, you know, of concernI would love to see this go through. Honestly right now, I cannot vote for it knowing that we didn't even meet with the neighbors there who are opposing it. And in small communities throughout the coastline, because this is in my district. We always come together first, talk about it. I mean even when we had a pig farm coming into the community, it wasn't the most attractive thing to have in a community, right. People fought and we worked through it with the community, and it's wonderful now. You know, we have good relationships. And I think we need to start with the relationships first, and understanding what their concerns are. And kind of easing some of their concerns, if you have something to offer them that will ease that concern of additional flooding. Page 6 PC -7 April 9, 2019 And when I speak with you Zendo, when I sat and met with you, it sounds reasonable. But it's not me that needs to be convinced. I know I hold the vote, but I speak on the people's behalf, so we need to meet with them. So I'm going to not ask for the postponement right now, because I would love to hear from the rest of the Council. But that's where I'm leaning. If I'm forced to vote today, it's going to be a no vote. But I wouldn't mind having a postponement meeting with the community there, and then coming back for a vote then. MR. KERN: In response to that Council Member Poindexter. If it's possible, I understand where you're coming from on that, to keep things moving along. Would it be possible that we could maybe move this forward and between now and the next meeting do everything we can to sit down and talk story, and if the timing doesn't work out for that perhaps we can could postpone it on the next reading? MS. POINDEXTER: So may I ask why the, what is—the time is of the essence for what reason? MR. KERN: It's basically the way that I like to keep things moving. It's more of a me thing. MS. POINDEXTER: And I respect you, but I think my belief is, I got to meet with them first. Because my vote to push it forward right now, it's not going to be a true vote. You know what I mean? MR. KERN: I understand that. MS. POINDEXTER: It's just to vote it through. I got to go with what I've always believed. Unfortunately I didn't have a chance to meet with them prior, but I would love for all of us to sit with them, yeah. MR. KERN: That would be great. MS. POINDEXTER: Eye to eye, you know, talk story and hear their concerns. But thank you. MR. KERN: Okay, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions from my colleagues? And I just want to note if you read the ordinance, there are no attached conditions. So we are going to need to amend this ordinance, to include the conditions that were originally recommended by the Planning Department. And I think it would be great if we could have maybe Jeff Darrow, or Christian Kaye, or Director Yee come to the front and talk about their recommendation on this particular bill. Page 7 PC -7 April 9, 2019 Could we just do a little thing of musical chairs real quick? Thank you Dan and Zendo. And I'm going to turn the floor over to Council Member Lee Loy. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Michael Yee and Planning Program Manager Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. MR. DARROW: Good morning Council. Jeff Darrow Planning Program Manager. MR. YEE: It is the afternoon now, Jeff MR. DARROW: Good afternoon. MR. YEE: I'll have Jeff talk about the details of my recommendation first, and then I want to come back to probably more of a 30,000 foot level. MR. DARROW: Good afternoon, Commissioners. As mentioned, Planning Director had recommended a favorable recommendation to the Leeward Planning Commission, basically looking at the consistency with the General Plan, the Community Development Plan. The area itself as mentioned by Zeno that there have been previous rezoning in the area, similar. There was one in 2011 just to the east of this particular property, that was zoned Ag -40 and went to Ag -5 to create two lots. Prior to that in 2005, there was a rezoning that created eight lots it went from Ag -42 to Ag -5. One of those was before the Community Development Plan was adopted, one was after that. To the west the property that's adjoining it, although it's zoned Ag -40 if you look on the map it does have two lots. So it's very similar as if it was Ag -5. Both of those lots consist of approximately five acres in size, so it is consistent with the general area. The General Plan is consistent with the zoning. The applicant had come in previously to try and go with a higher density, and we informed him that at that point we would have to move forward with an unfavorable recommendation. But they were contemplating whether or not to go forward, or to revise their application. They felt that it was better to revise and come in with an agricultural five acre, to be able to get a favorable recommendation from the Planning Director. At the Planning Commission hearing there was a number of issues brought up, mainly flooding. And you know, typically prior to the submittal of a change of zone application, we don't require extensive, you know, engineer flooding and grading plans to be able to address the flooding issues. We do have conditions in the ordinances that will require the applicant to make sure that they comply with Page 8 PC -7 April 9, 2019 those requirements. Mainly Chapter 27, Floodplain Control, and also making sure drainage doesn't increase off the properties. Whatever comes on and goes off has to remain the same or else they have to take care of through different types of improvements that will be required. So again, as mentioned Michael wanted to speak from the 30,000 foot level. MR. YEE: So at the Planning Commission meeting as Council Woman Poindexter had pointed out, if there were community concerns there are always options for the applicant to adjust there to suggest options to continue it or whatever, and that didn't occur. And so some of these options now could be discussed today, but it's not as if they didn't exist back then. So I just want to make that comment first. Second, you folks know I'm a firm believer in checks and balances, and then the democracy and the systems that we have. So I think I'm put in an awkward positon where at one place I'm asked for an opinion I deliver an opinion in this case. It could be favorable or unfavorable. And then the Planning Commission takes hold of the application, and makes their recommendation. And although, you know, a majority of the time they, you know, are in alignment with me. They're not. And I want to say from a 30,000 foot level, I'm a firm believer in the system we have here. And we have to be very thoughtful that when I come here, I cannot just come up here and say this is what I wanted as Planning Director. I still represent the Planning Commission when they've made that decision. And so I can't separate myself to just be Planning Director and say hey, this was my opinion at this point. I still have to come here and explain to you which Jeff did, of how the Planning Commission ended where they did. And to try and be able to give that information to you, to have you folks make a decision from that point. So I just wanted to kind of remind us of our roles here today. Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Darrow and Mr. Yee for that explanation. I too am a firm believer of the process. I often find myself walking back to the democracy of that processes. I think what Ms. Poindexter points out is there was a number of opportunities to engage with the neighbors, and seeing those letters of concern was a way to engage with them. I also heard from the applicant it was challenging to get in touch with them. From a land use perspective, what we have before is, you know, a bill, but it doesn't have any conditions that would actually help mitigate some of the concerns. So as Ms. Kierkiewicz points out, I want to see conditions of approval that provides the checks and balances. And then provides the applicant an opportunity to further engage with adjacent property owners to maybe even help refine that. But what we have before us is just a change of zone with no conditions, which doesn't address any of the impacts for the project. That being said, I'm willing to Page 9 PC -7 April 9, 2019 put a pin in it for one more meeting. I'd like to see that amendment come forward, so that there can be meaningful dialog between the adjacent property owners and the applicant. Because they're going to be neighbors, that's the bottom line. You have to be a good neighbor. And if this is, you know, the rock and hard place that everybody needs to between, I'm willing to do that. And it's rather interesting when people are put in those positions to rumble, and then talk about compromises and talk about opportunities and constraints. You need that rock and hard place. So I'm going to be looking forward to Ms. Kierkiewicz' amendments, as far as conditions of approval. I would speak in favor of putting a pin in it to the next committee meeting, which would then allow the applicant and the adjacent property owners to engage with one another. And who knows, maybe even refine those conditions going forward. But Mr. Yee is smiling at me, because that's how community really addresses community is with that kind of engagement. So with that, I think I sent a signal to where I stand on this one. I yield the floor. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Woman Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: In my short tenure, being on the dais here, something I'm noticing becoming very relevant on the west side in Kona, is developments happening at mauka affecting the waterways and floodplains of those below. I've had a number of different constituents come to my office and speak to me about that, and they were always given assurances that steps would be taken to mitigate the flooding of their homes or what not. But this seems to be theme and something that's very relevant, especially as we transition into different weather patterns as an island, so I have some concerns about that. And I also firmly agree being neighbors. And from looking at this property it already has a home. It looks like two structures, and so it's looking like that five acres basically just goes up that mountain. So I don't know what the extenuating circumstances are for the property owner or the landowner that they need—you know, they don't want to use all the land. I guess one of my other questions is, is it really being used for Ag or we're just once again subdividing properties that are theoretically being used for Ag and the County not getting the tax benefits of properties being zoned more accurately. So I have some concerns with those capacities. I also haven't seen a whole lot of Planning Commission negative recommendations, so I definitely take heed when there is one. And so that's kind of how I'm feeling on this, so thank you. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Woman Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, I think I'd just like to do a motion to postpone this till our next meeting on the 23rd, April 23. Page 10 PC -7 April 9, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Before I entertain that motion, I have some questions for Planning Department and the applicants. Because as part of this packet that we received, there are conditions I do want to discuss and question. If we're going to be moving it forward, then I want to make sure that we our doing our work as the Council as a policy making body to ensure that our next meeting is going to be productive, and that there are clear steps from the applicants and the Planning Department as to what everyone is going to do. I'm sorry what did you say? MS. POINDEXTER: No. I was just going to say, I was wondering if there was another way to work that, but that's okay. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I will entertain that motion, but I want to have a little bit more discussion first. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, I'll hold off on the motion. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Mr. Darrow, you have a steel -trap memory. So I'm just wondering and taking a look at this neighboring properties that have been rezoned similarly. Clearly on the map it indicates that there are some flooding issues on neighboring properties, so what sort of mitigation measures were explored? And I'm wondering what kind of engagement happened with neighbors? I mean was there any sort of precedence set on these properties that could essentially inspire the path forward for this applicant? MR. DARROW: Thank you, Chair Kierkiewicz. I actually brought the zoning ordinances for those two applications. I was a part of both of these. The first one that happened in 2005, is the one a little bit further east from this property that resulted in an eight -lot subdivision. And I recall that there was testimony at the hearing regarding flooding. People had come out and were concerned that the area was known for flooding, so this isn't something just related to this particular application. This is kind of a known factor in this particular area of Waimea. Again, the standard conditions—when a particular—if I could read a condition that was in the 2005 that was put in specifically for this particular rezoning. It said prior to the submittal of a subdivision application for the subject property, the applicant shall, upon consultation with surrounding property owners and other concerned public agencies, prepare and submit a drainage plan related to the proposed subdivision for review and approval of the Department of Public Works. The approved drainage plan shall reflect all development generated runoff to be retain or disposed of on site and shall not alter any existing water courses that may be entering or exiting the subject property or be directed toward any adjacent properties. Furthermore the approved drainage plan shall be implemented prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of final subdivision approval. Page 11 PC -7 April 9, 2019 This particular application or property was larger than the one just to the west of this one, and just to the east of the subject property. That was similar to this application where it was a two -lot subdivision. And there conditions are very similar to the conditions placed in this application. But again, everything is working in conjunction with the Department of Public Works, to submit this drainage study showing how they're going to direct and take care of any runoff on the property. Is that? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: That's helpful. And there is also something about directly engaging community. MR. DARROW: Correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: In that. MR. DARROW: That's unique to that particular condition. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. And I'm thinking and I wonder Council Woman Poindexter, if that condition that Mr. Darrow has communicated for us is something that you would be willing to discuss further with the neighbors? Because I think this is a nice balance that we are able to strike. Working partnership with neighbors to address their concerns, and making sure that is a condition that we can hold the applicant accountable to. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah. And I think that's all we need, is to sit down with everybody at the table, so that they can understand. A lot of times, emails going back and forth, or even phone calls don't do it. And especially if we don't have the applicant there, and they meet eye to eye. I mean and we have the contact number for Lisa, her cell number is in the documentation. For Gail Onodera, which is one of the but I'll arrange to have that meeting. So I don't mind doing it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: So Council Woman Poindexter will be working in partnership with the representative for the applicant, Planning Consultant Zendo Kern to meet with neighbors to discuss concerns and to also go through the proposed conditions of the ordinance. Okay. Yes, so it gets back to the original point I made earlier, this ordinance does not have any conditions. And so I want to make sure that we are moving this forward, but also engaging the community in a meaningful way. And we can engage them in a meaningful way, if we do provide proposed conditions for the ordinance. So at some point, I'm going to be looking for an amendment. Council Woman Villegas. You have your mic on. Page 12 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MS. VILLEGAS: Oh, yes, I apologize. I just wanted to point out, that I did just come across the contact cell number for Gail Onodera. So it's found right after the photos of flooding that were sent in on her behalf, so there's an email from Brain G, for Gail Onodera. So I just wanted to point that out. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. I see Robyn Matsumoto from Public Works, if I could call you up to answer a couple of questions about access. I see you hiding back there, just kidding. And I know that were at the Planning Commission meetings, and there was also some concern about multiple access points; and you had crafted a rough draft sort of map talking about one access point outside of the AO flood zone, so I'm wondering if you could just elaborate on that for the Council. (Note: At this time Civil Engineer Robyn Matsumoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. MATSUMOTO: Good afternoon, my name is Robyn Matsumoto. I'm the Civil Engineer with the Department of Public Works. So regarding the one access point, Mamalahoa Highway is arterial. So our common, you know, common is to just keep the access to one point, because we don't want to include any additional ones. And then regarding the flood map, we tried to look at some like different alignments of getting access onto there using the flag, but not coming straight off into the AO special flood hazard area. So we kind of made it like a wider boot area, if they insist on having it on the east side. Because our concern is that, once they come off the highway they are going to be straight into that AO area which is flood prone based on the complaints we've gotten. So we're just looking for alternate options. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And thank you for working with applicant to make that happen, appreciate that. Could I just call the applicant back up, Mr. Kern? Unless Robyn, do you have anything else to add? Director Yee? MS. MATSUMOTO: Have no other comments. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. Mr. Kern, there were a few letters that were submitted to I believe the Commissioner Planning Department about concerns around this particular application. And I noticed that you had follow-up communications to the department to address those concerns. But were any letters or communications via email sent to those neighbors addressing their concerns? MR. KERN: No. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Page 13 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MR. KERN: And just on that point, I've been looking at some hand written letters we got here, and then when you called that out—so honestly my fault on that one. I caught here on the back of the other report where I see that, so obviously that's going to happen in two shakes. But I was looking at these, and I would think, where is it? And obviously it's a different location. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, so you will be working with Council Woman Poindexter to meet with neighbors to talk about ways in which you can move this forward and assuage any concerns they might have with regards to flood control, mitigation plans, and access points. MR. KERN: That's correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MR. KERN: And the conditions in the recommendation would be probably the best format to go off of. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah. So I'm looking to amend this bill with the conditions that were put forth by the Planning Department, and including that additional condition that Mr. Darrow had mentioned. But also in taking a look at Condition E. Amending that further to say that the design of the driveway intersection shall meet with the approval of Public Works. Just want to be crystal clear, that any sort of access points are in fact signed off and approved by Public Works. MR. KERN: That's fine, we're in agreeance with what DPW came up with on that as far as mitigation goes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Council Member Richards, I didn't know you had your light on. You may have the floor. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you, I realize it's a long away. It's hard to see, but thank you. I not going to reiterate everything that's been stated. Reading through everything flooding concern of the neighbors, that's the long and short of it. And I think the metrics are in place to get that dealt with. I am very familiar with the property, I've known that for most of my life. And I've seen a good portion of the flooding that goes on there. And I think the request is reasonable, but the request of the Council is reasonable as well. And so going forward and the metrics are in place, and I look forward to the amendments coming before us. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Hi guys, how you doing? Page 14 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MR. KERN: Good. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thanks for being here, good to see you. I had a question about the two roads that are supposed to come through the property, and how you're going to work that especially when you start talking about flooding. And as well your access route from the highway, and I'm trying to figure out why. It almost sounds like we have three roads coming into the property. MR. KERN: Well what it is, the Planning Department the subdivision section, we looked at the Subdivision Code they wanted basically just a set aside for a future road, basically, blocks. If you look at this map, there's a set aside on this property here and then over here. This map is not labeled on the upper lot with that set aside. So essentially it's just an area that's set aside for future roads, which clearly says that sometime in the future something may happen there. It's just something we have to do. The road doesn't need to be improved. If that were to ever happen, if there were ever to be a road that was improved through there, it would basically bisect the lot there for automatically creating a subdivision of that parcel. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: The driveway would intersect those two road setbacks, yes? MR. KERN: Yes, by default it's going to have to, yeah. But who knows when the—that's what the subdivision, division of the Planning Department wanted. Whether those ever get done or not, to be determined. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I asked the Planning Department if there's a goal to extend Hauhoa Road and Uhiwai through the middle of the property. Is there a want or a need there? Is something coming up we need to know about or are we just future planning? Because that to me kind of destroys this property. MR. DARROW: Typically when we have a connector road that's kind of providing connectivity from adjoining areas, we try to continue that on. So Hauhoa definitely is coming across from the east. We've place that has a condition on the change of zone that I had mentioned previously. That's adjoining the property to the east, so they additionally have to have 50 -foot future road widening, that right of way coming across. And if this particular roadway is aI'm sorry, change of zone is approved it would also have that condition placed in there to be able to bring connectivity. We're just again, trying to provide connectivity in an area. That's a big part of planning, is trying to look at our options and provide connectivity where we can. Page 15 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's a big thing in District 5 as well, and District 4. It's across the island. I was just wondering about that, looking at your future plans, looking at the property, the layout, the driveway that goes north to south. And then you have two roads possibly intersecting, that it's just going to make that property very difficult to build -out in the future. MR. KERN: What would actually happen, if that road is ever constructed the property would be accessed by that road. The driveway wouldn't necessary intersect through it, the logical access would be like Hauhoa Road to get to it. Obviously the upper side of it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But we're also suggesting an access point from Mamalahoa Highway, as well correct? MR. KERN: For now, yeah. Well it's a flag lot, so both lots abut the highway, so it's not a road it's a driveway, right. It's a driveway, single access point. So that would be there until those other roads were eventually developed, which again, could be 20 to 30 years. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, I think it's really important we get the conditions on there, because there's so much going on with this property from flooding, two different roads being accessed to, and arterial road being the access point, that it be good to have everything written down. MR. KERN: I agree. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I yield. MR. DARROW: I'm sorry, if I could just—are you able to see the conditions that the Planning Director proposed? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: There in our packet. MR. DARROW: They are? So you're able to see those? So Condition G and H speak to both of those future road -50 -foot wide future roadway. So they are imbedded in the conditions. But again, those were in the conditions that were recommended by the Planning Director. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. I was just looking at the property, the width itself is 150 feet. So when you take away 50 feet for setbacks, it starts to get real skinny, it's wide. I mean am I wrong is that, you know, other way? MR. DARROW: Other way. Page 16 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, sorry. Yeah, but there's not a lot of room, little bit tight. MR. DARROW: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions or comments? If not I have a pretty clear plan in my mind of how I want us to march forward. Okay, here we go. So we as Council Members in our packet have a list of proposed conditions from the Planning Department, and I think this is a really great tool for Council Woman Poindexter and Consultant Zendo Kern to take to the community to review. I would like add in what I've mentioned earlier that change to Condition E, and also have as a supplement the proposed condition from the 2005 ordinance that Mr. Darrow shared with us. I want the community to have something that they can sink their teeth into. I think it's really important that we provide them with conditions that have been vetted and crafted by individuals with the technical expertise to really articulate conditions that are in line with our coding. So Council Woman Poindexter, I will entertain your motion to defer this matter to the Kona Council meeting on the 23rd in Planning Committee. But the expectation is a meeting must happen with community before then. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And then we are going to work on amending this ordinance to include the conditions that have been put forth by the Planning Department. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. And I'm hoping it will happen next Monday. Thank you, Madam Chair, if I can speak. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Excellent. Yes, you may. MS. POINDEXTER: So I just sent a message to one of the landowners, and asked if it could be possible next week Monday, so I'm waiting to hear back from them and then we'll go from there. So thank you for the opportunity. So did you want to say anything before we? MR. KERN: No, just look forward to meeting with you and the neighbors. MS. POINDEXTER: And I just want to say thank you. Thank you for reaching out several times that we've met and you know, I was trying reach out to them as well. You were there in the office when I was making some— Page 17 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MR. KERN: I know, and I feel like a knuckle head, because I didn't see that one on the backside. MS. POINDEXTER: But anyway, so hoping that it'll happen really quick. So I have a motion to postpone till the April 23, meeting. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Poindexter moved to postpone Bill 47 to April 23, 2019. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Chair, if I may? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah. MS. LEE LOY: In an effort to help expedite that, I'll go ahead and draft the amendment prior to your folk's meeting. That way again, as our Chair has shared there'd be something to chew on. There is a number of people who craft these conditions of approval, with the technical expertise and training. It's great when community engages, but it would kind of set us up for failure if they suggest conditions of approval that just don't meet the technical requirements or standards of our code. And as Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder always says, his grandpa likes it when it's in writing. So I'll be offering that to this body along with the applicant. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other discussion? If not thank you, Council Woman Poindexter, for just noting that it's important in these sort of situations where we all have to coexist to engage our neighbors. Just, you know, out of courtesy, that we all know what's going on and we're all taking care of each other. And just having a platform to discuss and find common ground. And thank you, Mr. Kern, Planning Department folks, and Mr. Kenight, for being here in support and available to answer questions. All in favor to postpone the discussion on Bill 47 to the Kona Council meetingoh, okay. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, I just have one question. How come the conditions in the approval weren't in the original submission? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Because of the unfavorable recommendation by the Planning Commission. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: So that was it. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Correct. MR. KANEALI'I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Page 18 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So going back to the vote, all in favor to postpone till the 23rd please say "aye." Vote on Motion to: The motion to postpone Bill 47 to April 23, 2019, was Postpone: carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) 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 all very much. Have a great rest of your day. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We are powering through. Okay, Mr. Clerk, if you could please read in Bill 48. Bill 48: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 12-156, WHICH AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 02-64, WHICH AMENDED SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — FIVE ACRES (A -5a) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — 20,000 SQUARE FEET (RS -20) AT KALAOA 4TH, NORTH KONA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-005:030 (Applicant: Ellen Garver Koizumi) (Area: Approximately 3.13 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to allow for a five-year time extension to Condition D (Final Subdivision Approval). The applicant proposes to develop a six -lot subdivision. The property is located adjacent to the Kona Coastview Subdivision to the south, at the end of Leimomi Street. Reference: Comm. 197 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) ; and Comm. 197.1: From Planning Director Michael Yee, dated March 19, 2019, transmitting the draft transcript from the Planning Commission's February 21, 2019, meeting. Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 48 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. David MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Will the applicants and/or their representative please step forward to address the Council. Page 19 PC -7 April 9, 2019 (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Greg Mooers came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. MOOERS: My name is Greg Mooers, Planning Consultant for Ms. Garver. I did the original rezoning for this project back in 2002, and recently she approached me and asked me if I would file for an extension. Ms. Garver and her husband, both been in ill health for a number of years. And if you look at the record there was an attempt to change the subdivision a couple of times, trying to modify to see if there was something she could afford to do. Fortunately her family has now stepped in and are taking over the financial responsibilities of completing this subdivision. So that's why we're proceeding at this time. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. My understanding very simple housekeeping measure of providing a time extension on this. There's been a tentative subdivision approval, and so now the applicant just needs additional time to meet the conditions in order to get final approval of the subdivision plan MR. MOOERS: That is correct. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Any questions or comments from my colleagues for Mr. Moore or folks from the Planning or Public Works Department. Just making note that this was a favorable recommendation from the Commission. Director Yee. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Michael Yee came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YEE: Go ahead with your motion, but I want to add a few comments after you take action. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: You can make comments right now. MR. YEE: Okay. I'm taking the plane up to 40,000 now. And so the reason is because time extensions have come in front of you folks recently, it was in front of both Planning Commissions recently. And so not specific to this application. But there's been this debate going on about how we go about time extensions, and I commented before like we have to be careful that there are folks that are that are focusing on a few high-profile cases around time extensions, and then wanting to create policy around a few very difficult projects. And I've given warnings out at both Planning Commissions that there are cases such as the one in front of you, where there are really good reasons for providing time extensions and not creating automatic kickbacks and saying, "Hey, applicant everything's a do over, come back in." We put at risk the typical resident, you Page 20 PC -7 April 9, 2019 know, property owner here, if we're going to start doing that all because of a few big projects that are high profile. So we haven't written any new rules or anything, but I've been going out and just warning folks that don't just create policies around a few big projects that you've been worried about. Because of courts don't distinguish between a mom and pop necessarily and a big developer if you're going to treat them differently, right. And so I just wanted to highlight this is a great case, where providing a time extension makes a lot of sense. And sometimes these occur automatically within the Planning Department, and we do them all time for a good reason. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And Director Yee just for the record, this approval that you have mentioned that's the Administrative time extension that you are allowed as part of conditions and bills, correct? MR. YEE: Correct. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I just want to make sure that stated for the record. Council Woman Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, and thank you for that comment, Director Yee, because I'm with you now at 40,000 feet. Because we as a body have seen a number of time extensions, and there are good reasons. Not only from the applicants' perspective, but from the County's perspective. Often times, subdivision application takes longer than the time provided. The comments go back and forth and the applicant works very diligently to get those plans approved. Subdivision approved meet those conditions of approval, pay for their water commitments, do final plan approval. But for whatever reason the Administration, the department is taking a long time. And so it's been my thought, and I'll put it out there, that some of these time extensions, five years, the clock should actually stop. Because the applicant has done their part to get that subdivision application in, and the clock should not continue to tick if it takes two, three, or even four years to get through Public Works. Or get through FEMA for, you know, flood zone management review or update or mapping. I think it's completely unfair to keep that clock ticking, when it's actually on the County to review in a timely manner. So with that, I will be supporting this time extension, because Director Yee is absolutely correct. This is poster child of why we should grant a time extension, but I want to put it out there not only to rest of my colleagues, but the other departments. That we cannot keep strapping our applicants over the barrel with these time constraints that they meet, but the County cannot. That's completely unfair, we're setting them up for failure. And we're losing out on economic opportunities. So with that, I yield. Page 21 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Councilman Lee Loy. Councilman Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And I'll go up to 45,000 feet just to have (inaudible) level higher. But all kidding aside, I think we've seen some of these extensions come forth. I think, Director, you and I have talked about this. It's not just timing that maybe family and family issues related, but also if we think back 10 years ago we're looking at not a very good financial climate. And so I think we have to give credence to that as far as why there's been a sequence events that come before us. So again, I appreciate your comments and your words, and I appreciate Mr. Mooers comments as well. But that's what we are supposed to do, we're supposed to be mindful of that for the reason articulated by Council Woman Lee Loy. So I will be supporting this, I yield. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions or comments? Because I'm at 45 too, and I'm going to skydive on down, and just say that we've seen a lot of time extensions come before us over the last few months. And so I that after we are through the budget process, Council Member Richards and I are going to be putting forward that communication to have that conversation on how we can make the system work for not just County, but for folks that are investing in critical developments that we really need in order to create affordable housing and other economic opportunities that will really carry our island forward. So no other comments, let's take a vote. All in favor of moving Bill 48 forward to the Council with a positive recommendation please say "aye." Vote on Bill 48: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 48 on first (Approved) reading was 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. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Mooers, have a great day. We're going to take a five minute recess. We will reconvene at 2:26, thank you. Recess: At 2:21 p.m. the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:26 p.m. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha everyone, five minutes has lapsed so we're going to get started. Going to pull us out of recess, and back into session. Just waiting for my Clerk, to read in Bill 49, and we will get started with the last order of the day. Page 22 PC -7 April 9, 2019 Bill 49: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 10-64, WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM PROJECT DISTRICT TO PROJECT DISTRICT AT PONAHAWAI, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-3-037:001, 2-3- 044:019, AND 2-3-049:053 (Applicant: Wailani Development LLC) (Area: Approximately 171.504 Acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to the Wailani Project District. The original project was proposed to be a mixed-use community, housing a medical office campus, commercial space, a business park, senior housing, single- and multiple -family residential lots, and recreational and open space. The applicant seeks to modify 11 conditions within Ordinance 10-64 to improve the projects feasibility. The property is located on the west side of the Ponahawai Street intersection, and northeast of the Moho`uli Street Extension. Reference: Comm. 198 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 49 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Will the applicant and or representative please come forward. And if you could please introduce yourselves for the record. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke and Dr. Peter Matsuura came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of this Committee. My name is Sidney Fuke I'm a planning consultant assisting Wailani, the applicant. MR. MATSUURA: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and County Council Members, Peter Matsuura, I'm a doctor in Hilo. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Go ahead, Mr. Fuke. If you could provide Council with an overview of the project and the requested amendments to the ordinance. MR. FUKE: Glad to. Before doing so however, I'd like to kind of like open up by responding to some of the public comments that were made. I think in summary like the comments that were made, were like from an archeological perspective. Just kind of wanted to share with this body that there already was an approved archeological inventory survey done, and it was updated and reapproved again, in 2017. Subsequently there was an interim preservation plan and a final preservation plan approved by SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division). All of those things needed to be placed before any grading or grubbing activity that one may currently see on the property occurred. Page 23 PC -7 April 9, 2019 So that's from the grading stand point. There also is a condition in the existing ordinance which called for a preservation of approximately 19 acres of land. And this 19 acres of land is kind of close to where some of the grading activity has occurred, but one of the preservation plan conditions calls for like setting up a buffer, and putting up a temporary fence so that there would not be any destruction. Actually the only significant item that was recommended for preservation was the existing pu`u they call it pu`uhonu. The other point that was made or the question that was made in relation to drainage. Yes, there is that Alenaio Stream that currently bisects the property, generally in the mauka makai direction, more on the southern end of the property. If you look at the existing zoning conditions right now, and also existing code, what it requires is that if you're going to do any development on the property, all project generated storm water must be contained on the sight. It cannot be diverted into the streams, it cannot be diverted to adjoining properties, and it cannot be diverted to public roadways. It has to be contained on sight. And the regulatory body, of course obviously on that is the County Department of Public Works, you need to have a drain prepared, you need to get the appropriate permits whether is the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System), UIC for the Underground Injection Control, so these are measures already in place. And so the short answer to the comment about whether the water is going to be diverted to Alenaio Stream or anywhere off property, is that from a regulatory plan standpoint and a policy standpoint that answer is no. Now getting back to, you know, what I really was going to say about the project. I think for the Council Members too, for the most part, you know, you're all new Council Members. I'd like to kind of give a history of the project itself. Basically for the members to understand, you know, the nature of the amendments, the request of amendments, I think one needs to understand first of all who Wailana LLC is. Well the man seated to my right, is the principal prime mover behind Wailani LLC. His office is at Ka Waena Lapa`au just across the street of this vacant land. And I guess everyday he comes to work and he sees this vacant property, and he has this vision. And the vision was to create this massive medical and residential campus in that area. But the only way he could do that, is that he had to buy the entire property. You know, which was at time the project entitlement was called University Terrace. So all though his goal was to have like about 10 or 15 acres, he had to eventually the only way he could get it was to purchase this 171 acre site. Now you have to bear in mind that he is a physician, orthopedic surgeon, he's not a developer. So but he was just driven, you know, he had this vision. So now he decides what he's got to do, like any other developer, normal developer, you have to get the funds, you have secure the required entitlements, and you actually have to develop this project. It's tough enough if you are a developer to do all of those things, but can you imagine he's a physician and trying to do it. Page 24 PC -7 April 9, 2019 So what he does is that they form a hui, and it's called Wailani Development LLC. And the hui is not mainland investors, or out of state investors. The hui is all family members, essentially they're all seated over here. So what happened, they purchased the property in 2009, and then they retained local professionals to do the necessary plans, do the drainage plans, have community meetings. Dr. Matsuura shared the vision with the community a number of times. And then finally the zoning was approved in 2010. And there was also a master plan that was approved by the Planning Director in 2011. That's the first phase. The second phase which is a little bit more complex and very cumbersome, I call it the heavy lifting. It's actually to develop the project. So how do you develop the project? He retained, you know, additional consultants, he worked on a water masterplan. He developed a sewer plan, he had the grading plan developed. He had roadway construction plans prepared, and he even paid thousands of dollars in the water commitment fees and it's currently all current. So exclusive of just the land acquisition cost they're in like about over quarter of a million dollars and they've got nothing to show for it. So what they did was, at the same time their doing all of this kind of planning stuff they were also looking for potential tenants. And they were able to find to find two really good potential tenants. One was a local supermarket, and the other one was a local pharmaceutical company. But they went in, you know, these two potential tenants came in, and the idea was they were going to split some of the infrastructure cost, but the infrastructure cost was so heavy. So unfortunately nothing could be consummated. So they're kind of like sitting on a wayside. So Dr. Matsuura and his group is like, "Well we are not really developers, what we really need to do is to find someone who has extensive development experience." So they reached out to one of their friends on Maui, who has had extensive development experience. Brought him in and then have him look at the project, and with the firm look at the whole project, and then try to figure what can be done, what needs to be adjusted to make the project feasible. So where we are right now is that under the guidance of their so called development consultant, they came forth with a series of proposed amendments that they feel, Wailani feels, are necessary for them to complete the project. I know there are like a number of amendments, but before kind of like going into, you know, summarizing these amendments. One thing I kind of like to point out is that the Wailani Development, it's a family owned, family developers, they have no intentions of flipping the property. They're here for the long haul. True, they may sell portions of the property, they may go into joint venture, but at the end of the day it will still have their name and signature on the different components of the project. So as a result of, you know, this getting together with Page 25 PC -7 April 9, 2019 this development consultant, then we came forth. You know, because I was kind of assisting in some of the drafting of the language with—there's a total of 17 amendments that's currently before you right now. And of these 17 amendments the applicant had requested 11. Of the 11 amendments the Planning Director and the Commission had favorably recommended eight of these. And I'll just kind of summarize what these eight amendments were. First of all was that they proposed to decrease the commercial area from 480,000 square feet to 420,000 square feet. Sure, that's Condition E. And then if you look at Condition D, as in delta, the number of eligible residential units was increased from 518 to 700. And the basis behind this increase in 700 units is that, you know, we all know it's a standard requirement that you have to put forth an affordable housing plan. And then the affordable housing requirement is at least 20 percent. So the idea based on the discussions with the development consultant is that, you know, you need to have a little bit more dwelling units, you know, allowed on the project such that you can address these affordable housing requirement. And that's the basis for increasing the residential component from 518 to 700. At the same time, we understand that there's going to be potentially different impact, and that's the reason why some of the commercial component was reduced. So sort of like to balance that out. Further, to make the affordable housing affordable and really like developable, Condition HH, HA, on the fair share requirement we're asking that the fair share component not be applied towards all of the affordable housing units. Just for your background and information, the affordable housing unit requirement, if you're doing a multiple family project, then the affordable housing requirement per unit is little more than $9,000. If you're doing a single-family residential lot subdivision, the fair share requirement is $14,300 and change. So if you take it along those lines, and you know, you add it up, and it can be kind of sizeable. The other condition we had requested, and the Director and the Commission has also accepted, is the old condition, and as in, I think it's nowoh, it was old Condition N. It just says "All project utilities shall be underground." And so that condition was deleted. There were also like, you know, time extensions, and there were time extensions relating to like three different conditions. Conditions L, P as in Paul, and 00. But they're kind of like parallel with one another. I think interesting to note on the time extension, and that, you know, like hearing the discussion earlier and what the Director had to say. The way that this time extension is written, or at least like the construction requirement is written, I think it's very good and very helpful. Because first of all it says like, you have to start construction within five Page 26 PC -7 April 9, 2019 years, not do the completion within five years. And then your completion requirement begins after you start. So I think that's a very positive way of looking at it, because there's a lot of lead time leading up to start. But once you start construction it's very, very rare you're going to find a situation that they're going to abort. I mean you know, you have situations that they've aborted projects, but very unlikely. There were three of the applicant's recommendations that the Director did not agree with. One was we wanted to create, and this was Condition Q, we wanted to create, relating to getting an access to properties, we were proposing to have access where, you know, even like on Komohana Street or Moho`uli Street, or Ponahawai Street, to give the Planning Director or more specifically the Public Works Director the option to allow additional access. And the reason, you know, we suggested that, is that it was a typical KTA situation down at Puainako Town Center. Because for the longest time, the State Highway refused to allow any more access to the KTA shopping complex. Until they realized that, you know, if they don't at least allow right turn in, right turn out it's going to further compound the intersection at Puainako and the main highway. And so all we wanted to do is that if, and hopefully the project is very, very successful especially at the Komohana end where they're proposing to have the commercial area, perhaps, you know, if Public Works decide it might be appropriate to have a right turn in, right turn out kind of movement maybe that should be allowed. The staff and based on input from Public Works, essentially said that "Nah, I don't think we want that." Long story being short from the applicant standpoint, you know, it doesn't create a heartburn. We were just thinking maybe being more proactive, in allowing that kind of possibility. But it's one condition that the applicant is willing to kind of basically concede. There are two other conditions that the Director had recommended denial, but from the applicant's standpoint we would wish this body to pay, you know, attention and accede to what the applicant's suggestions are. This relates to having Ponahawai Street, the extension, be constructed with curb, gutters, and sidewalk. And I'll explain to that a little bit more in detail. And the other one is that within the entire project area, also to have the entire project area be developed with curb, gutters, and sidewalk. So those are the two areas we'd like to request this body to take consideration of like what like we're going to be proposing. The Director also had proposed seven other amendments of its own, all of which the applicant has no qualms or disagreement with. This deals with the requirement that the entire project connect to the County sewer system. The director also deleted the requirement that the streets, you know, do not connect. And there was some other editorial things like, you know, some changes to master plan language and updating the water commitment fees. And some conditions Page 27 PC -7 April 9, 2019 were deleted like Conditions FF, GG, and HH. These are all dealt with the archaeological aspects, for which the project's requirement has already been fulfilled. So they became very redundant. Relative to the Ponahawi Street extension, the current proposal that the Director has submitted before you, it calls for like an 80 -foot wide right of way on Ponahawai Street. And that it must be completed at the end of the day, you know, full on with curb, gutters, and sidewalks. What we're recommending, what the applicant is proposing on the other hand is that we can accept the 80 -foot wide right of way; however, it would be built without curb, gutters, and sidewalk. Maybe I should just explain why. An 80 -foot wide right of way, just to give you some example as far as where is an 80 -foot wide right of way. If you look at the Moho`uli Street extension currently today, that's an 80 -foot wide right of way. An 80 -foot wide right of way, when the County constructed that using the state and I don't know whether federal funds were involved. But they constructed it without curb, gutters, and sidewalk. So we're asking ourselves from, you know, the developer's standpoint, the County construction that uses public money but they don't see a need for curb, gutters, and sidewalk. You have a private developer comes in, same 80 -foot wide right of way, now you're asking them to put curb, gutter, sidewalk. So there are some measure of like hipocracy, and also the sense of equity. So that was one point. You know, related to the 80 -foot wide right of way, you know, that's again, the main highway, Komohana Street, Moho`uli Street, they're really like what you call cross-town, cross-town roadways. They're like regional roadways. If you look at this section of Ponahawai Street, this extension, it's more like a feeder street into this cross-town roads. Normally the feeder streets are like 60 -foot wide right of way, the street right next to the proposed extension is called Kukuau Street. Kukuau Street has a 60 -foot wide right of way. Within that area that has a 10,000 square foot lot subdivision on the makai end, you have curb gutters and sidewalks. As you approach further mauka, you know, where the lots are one acre, it's a 60 -foot wide right of way, but you don't have curb, gutters, and sidewalk. You just have full on pavement. So if the idea behind like an 80 -foot wide right of way is that to have this area served like a regional need, then the question of rational nexus and proportionality come into being. You can't expect this one developer to do something that's good for the big community not necessarily on only his project. That's where like the proportionality comes in. So from their standpoint their saying okay, we'll concede to a 80 -foot wide right of way. And we will concede to having the improvements made exactly like how the County did Moho`uli Street. That they believe is kind of like you would at least fulfill the rational nexus, you fulfill the proportionality criteria. Page 28 PC -7 April 9, 2019 The other proposal that we disagree with the Planning Director's position was that their current condition, Condition R, right now it states that all streets within the project has to be built dedicable standards with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. What we're saying is that the concept is nice. It's not only from the monetary standpoint but from a equity standpoint. Because all we're saying is that we want to be able to build roads that are consistent and allowable within the Subdivision Code. So the Subdivision Code says that if you're doing a six -lot subdivision you could have like a right of way of 20 feet, you can have 16- or 18-footwide pavement. That's allowed in the Subdivision Code. The project may have like a number of single-family residential lots subdivision, so to say that all of the roads have to be built to dedicable standards, which is dedicable standards means you need to have a minimum right of way of 50 feet. And now you have to have curb, gutters, and sidewalk. And we're saying, where's the equity? Then when the Subdivision Code says that we can do this. So all we're saying over here right now, all we're proposing is that if the project has a residential subdivision that has less than 50,000 square feet, then yes, we will have curb, gutters, and sidewalk. And also those streets that connect to existing adjoining streets we will also have those streets be built to dedicable standards, and with curb, gutters, and sidewalk, because that's the connectivity. But over and beyond that, let the prevailing regulations, you know, apply. So those are the only two, you know, like amendments that we're asking for in addition to the others that what the Planning Director and the Planning Commission have already accepted. I have the proposed language, you know, that would accomplish that, and at this point and time I don't know what the protocol is to present that, but I'll defer to the Chair. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. So I just want to get clear on the conditions you're referring to. The Condition P? MR. FUKE: P as in Paul. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: P as in Paul. MR. FUKE: Yeah. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Where there are two stages of construction for Ponahawai Street, you would like an amendment to that? MR. FUKE: Correct. Page 29 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Where we eliminate second stage to include curb, gutter, sidewalk. Just for the record, want to be clear on what my colleagues and I have now deliberate. MR. FUKE: Correct, yeah. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And then you also want to amend Condition R, to be consistent with Subdivision Code, which is curb, gutter, sidewalk for lots 10,000 square feet or smaller. MR. FUKE: Correct. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Correct, okay. And then Condition Q, but it's not a deal breaker, is to discuss access right in, right out. MR. FUKE: That was more like an editorial change. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: An editorial change, okay. And this is along the Komohana Street side where the commercial park would be. MR. FUKE: Among all of those streets. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Among all of those streets. MR. FUKE: Because if you look at that Condition Q, the first part of the sentence, it talks about access, and then when it goes down it talks only about road lots. And so we just kind of wanted to make it clear, road lots or access. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, so we are looking at P, Q, and R where there are differences in opinion between the applicants and the Planning Department. MR. FUKE: That is correct. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I do want to give the Planning Department an opportunity to make a statement on these conditions. And Director Yee can you establish at what elevation we are at, 30-40,000 or just 4,000. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Yee and Planning Program Manager Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YEE: I'm changing the analogy. How about we go with the good, the bad, and the ugly, and now play the role of all three. Okay, I got to stick at 20,000. Okay, here we go. Complete streets. There was a resolution passed by the Council, several years ago for the support of complete streets. And complete Page 30 PC -7 April 9, 2019 streets talks about walkable communities, curb, gutter, sidewalks. Some of you have even been on a mobility tour, prior to Seattle and Portland to take a look how other places do this. Now, if it was just me showing up from the continent and saying, "Hey, do everything like the west coast," I'd be open to that criticism. But you have adopted a resolution to think about these things that make a more walkable community, and more livable community. Something that's a little more blue zones oriented. And I certainly bring that lens to projects, and in this case where it is a Project District, it's give and take on many different issues. And so I think it's a little difficult to sit there and say hey, we want the flexibility of an entire project but then say, in this one specific area we'd like the County to play by the subdivision rule. I don't like to kind of like handpick where it's convenient to do so. And so from the greater scheme, I've tried to work with the applicant on the give and takes. There was being able to give them fair share relief, giving them relief from underground utilities, right. And these are all part of, you know, the relationship you have with the developers and trying to create a good project for the future. And in the end we're all trying to develop a project that is worthy of our kids someday. And you know, whether or not it survives on just curb, gutter, sidewalks, no. I know the project can go forth, and people live there and it'll be okay. But I want it to better than okay. And this is where we get into Moho `uli. I wasn't around there, and it's alarming that a major roadway in Hilo was built to that standard. Again, I can't criticize everybody that made that decision then, it is what it is. But I certainly don't want that to become the standard which to how the County wants to about building our streets and roadways for future generations. There are many examples and we covered in Planning Commission around all the different surroundings and subdivisions. And some were required to put in curb, gutter, sidewalks and some were not, it's been inconsistent. Well luckily I'm the Planning Director, and I bring a certain lens which is, you know, I'd like to be consistent with connectivity. Which I pushed on a lot of different projects. I'm pushing curb, gutter, and sidewalks, to make them walkable for folks. And I would lastly say, Wailani is this last, maybe not the last but one of the few big, big projects we can have in Hilo. I'm terribly supportive of the family to get this project going, it's really important that we do. And it's going to be connected to commercial, it's about the closest we get to kind of mixed-use development here in Hawaii. And so I wanted for folks to be able to walls to the grocery store, to walls to the medical facilities, right. And Moho`uli is not the great example of people feeling safe, they may use it plenty of users on it. But doesn't necessary—if you were to Page 31 PC -7 April 9, 2019 go out and survey how comfortable they are on walking on this 80 -foot wide roadway. I'm not sure you'd get great, you know, support for wanting to have it to be that way, so. That's my 20,000 foot level of it. In terms of—you know, I think it was fairly clear, the same debate, everything we debated here, was debated at the Planning Commission. They heard all the arguments from Sid and the applicant to all these issues, and the Planning Commission went in favor of most of my recommendations except for one. And I would just generally say I support what the Planning Commission brought forward to you, you've heard from the applicant. Again, I think what's most important is that this project moves forward in some fashion today, that's the underline. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you Director Yee. Mr. Darrow, did you want to comment on this project at all? Maybe elaborate on somethings that the Director has stated, and maybe even if you can comment on some of thinking that went behind the decisions for the Moho`uli extension. And why the curb, gutters, and sidewalk were not included in that project. MR. DARROW: Well first of all, I would like to take time and acknowledge Planner Maija Jackson, for her incredible hard work on the background recommendation for this report. This was one of the more extensive requests and that we've had in some time. And the way everything was laid out, the clarity was just superb. So I want to take time to acknowledge that. With that, as the Director stated, we went into great detail on each condition that was requested, to kind of bring into light what the issues were. As the Director stated our focus has been on complete streets, and that's what we've been focusing on. This is a new development, this is going to provide a lot of residential housing, affordable housing. It's going to be a walkable community. And so we wanted to be able to implement that idea going forward. There was the argument between Moho`uli and Ponahawai extension. And as Michael said, you know, we're unsure as to why that happened for that. And as Sid mentioned it kind of seems like it's not fair, but again, we're focusing on our consistency with our projects going forward. If we consistently say no curb, gutter, sidewalks, because Moho`uli didn't have it. That doesn't make sense either, that begins to provide poor planning going forward. We want to keep that consistency going forward with our neighborhoods that we're looking to create. I do want to add a friendly amendment that was brought to my attention. This was an overwhelming application, and you know, as we go through it sometimes we find something that we overlooked, so I'd like to add that. I believe was, this would be on Condition R. There was a change that was added on your Condition R, let me just bring that up. Apologize we just had actually excepted Page 32 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: No need to apologize. This was quite a beast. MR. DARROW: No. So if you refer to the previous Condition R and the new Condition R, there's a—the last two sentences it says, "Including the provision of curb, gutters, and sidewalks," and there's a period. But there was an addition at commission that says, "Except for the first stage construction of Ponahawai Street extension as described in Condition P." That should be underlined as a MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Condition P, underlined? MR. DARROW: Yes. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Because it's in our ordinance, our draft ordinance. But that is an amendment to R. MR. DARROW: Yes. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MR. DARROW: I'm sorry, I'm not going into great detail. As mentioned, this is very extensive. But again, our main focus from a higher level is going forward with these good planning principals. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. And I just, I want to quickly elevate one of your comments about the work that Maija did on the report. I mean really bravo, well done. It was so clear and concise the way you broke down each of the conditions, and really explained for us what the Planning Department's thinking was, what the Commission's thinking was, and ultimately what was put forth to the Council. So thank you for that, really well done. At this point I want to open it up for discussion among our Council. Council Woman Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah. You know, while I believe in when we're talking about complete streetsI went on that trip and visited, you know, Portland, we went to Washington we did great stuff But I want to reflect back on growing up, and when we had communities. We didn't have so much cement, and I think the cement today is killing us with flooding. Because there's no place to absorb. I mean we went to one community in Portland. And they had so much walkable areas and paths that had walkways, and a lot of drainage areas that were natural. You know, ground cover and all those things that need to happen. So when we talk about curb, gutters, sidewalk, I kind of feel yucky about that being in Hawaii all the time. I'd love to see more of that natural type of landscaping that would, you know, absorb a lot of that water that we're getting. Some trees that will absorb a lot of Page 33 PC -7 April 9, 2019 that water, and prevent flooding from happening. So I just wanted to say that curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, I don't buy into that. It wouldn't fit in some of my areas anyway, it would take away the beauty of Hawaii. You know, were turning this into cement, I don't want to look like the mainland, you know. So I believe in walkable communities, but we need to possibly look walking paths to the health facility, the store, you know, visiting neighbors, doing gardens, doing, you know, more like a agri-hood were everybody could have their own gardens. You don't need a car, you can live within your own community, you know, whatever. And once a month go to Taniguchi store, as we used to call it. But anyway so, I just wanted to give you my feedback on curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, which I don't really buy into, so, thank you. MR. YEE: Quickly I just want to add that, we definitely have applications where we have not had curb, gutter, and sidewalk. And so we do make those decisions in certain areas, I want to remind folks this is still basically in the urban core of Hilo. So we're not talking out in a rural agricultural little town right now. And so we are talking about walking to a medical facility, we are talking so, yeah I just— MS. POINDEXTER: We can have walking paths, because even if it's, you know, Hilo is, you know, we're still in Hawaii. You know, we're not in Los Angeles, or someplace where, you know, it's just all cement. But I'm just worried about the amount of rain water that comes down, yeah. Because when you have so much cement it will flow like hell, right. When you have ground cover and the way some of the places we visited in Portland where you have some of the diversion going under into a collection pond, or whatever. Being creative that way where you can recycle water or something, but you have a lot of ground and you don't lose the beauty by covering it with cement. MR. YEE: But, you know, I'm totally in agreement with you if the applicant wants to move the bio-swales and other things, I'd love that. I bet they'll come screaming for curb, gutter, sidewalks when I start talking about that. MS. POINDEXTER: I'll yield at this time. Thank you, Chair. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Chair Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thanks. Sidney. What kind of road construction are you guys contemplating for the commercial? MR. FUKE: Within the commercial area it's going to be curb, gutters, and sidewalks. And then also, what's also being proposed and what Jeff had indicated, which is something that I didn't pick up but I had actually included and, you know, if there were going to be an amendment to Condition P relating to the Page 34 PC -7 April 9, 2019 proposed extension. To make it clear that the first portion or what you call it first stage, you know, which starts from Komohana Street on and you going up on Ponahawai Street extension up to the first road, which is like all the commercial area, that section would be entirely curb gutter and sidewalk, within the 80 -foot wide right of way. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, that makes sense. You know, this development is in the district that I represent. It's probably going to be the biggest development in that area for a long time. I'll just give you guys my thoughts. No offense to you Mike. But you know, I may not agree 100 percent with the caparison between Moho`uli and the Ponahawai Street extension, and it certainly would be nice to have sidewalks there, curb, gutter, sidewalks. But let me give you guys a little more background than Sidney had provided earlier. I noticed that this was a 2010 rezoning, right? But prior to that this thing came up, right. And I know at that time, I think Steve Yamashiro was the consultant. This was in 2004, I know that because that was probably one of the last actions I took before I left the Council at that time. And I supported it on a 5-4 vote. And one of the reasons that I supported it is, I felt that it was very important for us to have the Ponahawai Street extension constructed. Absolutely vital. It couldn't have, you know, the potential for alleviating a lot of our traffic problems, you know, coming down from Ainako and then, you know, then resting into that intersection by Moho`uli and Komohana couldn't have been, you know, overstated. But I suggested an amendment—well the Ponahawai Street extension was a requirement—but I suggested an amendment, which was shot down, because I knew the construction of this roadway which I viewed as being vital, was going to be problematic in the future. I thought the cost was going to be prohibitive. And it has proven to be that, and I think one of the reasons why it's been mired in just, you know, some vacant property, being a vacant property for all of these years. And I suggested, I actually made a floor amendment at that time, that in the event the developer could demonstrate that they could not fully fund the construction of that roadway that the County could assist in its construction financially. And that, you know, my concerns actually proved prophetic. So right now, I have to believe that if you guys, if the developers were required to install curb, gutter, sidewalk, it would be cost prohibitive. And we probably not have the Ponahawai Street extension again. You know, I did state, I thought that, you know, it would be nice to have those nice complete streets. But sometimes we can't always have it. And, you know, I will say, that I'd probably feel more safe on a sidewalk rather than walking up or down Moho`uli Street. But I see Harry Kim riding his bicycle there every single day, right, and he doesn't seem to mind. And it is used by a lot of people, and notwithstanding the fact, that it may not provide a much safe feelings as we would like. Page 35 PC -7 April 9, 2019 And it doesn't make for a real nice community, but it's our community none the less. And I think one of the reason why it wasn't included, the curb, gutter, sidewalk way back when is because of the cost. So, you know, we recently passed a GET (General Excise Tax) bill, and I stated one of the things that we overlooked was the use of those funds for building sidewalks, right. So maybe we can revisit that at some point, and we can use some of those monies too. You know, if it's so important to have curb, gutter, sidewalks on that road, then maybe we can help build it later on with the monies that we generate from the GET. But I don't think it's necessary. I want to see this project completed, I want to see it get off the ground. And I think 80 feet actually would have told you guys go maybe a little narrower, but if you guys want to go 80 feet, fine. And it would make for a safer, more walkable area anyway. So that being said, and you know, because I made those statements for the purpose of just maybe keeping the discussion short. This is the district that represent, and I'm hoping that I have the support of, you know, my colleagues on this one. So Mr. Fuke, I can't really say exactly what you wanted, but I know basically it's to obviate the necessity for a curb, gutter, sidewalk. If you could work with my staff and coming up with the amendments. Were only talking about P, Q, and R? MR. FUKE: P, Q, and R. MR. CHUNG: No, no, wait, wait. Didn't you say that you guys MR. FUKE: Q, was really like non substantive, I believe like MR. CHUNG: So just P, and R, right? MR. FUKE: Just P and Q, yeah. MR. CHUNG: Then I'm okay. MR. FUKE: I mean P and R. MR. CHUNG: Yeah. And I do apologize, I know the Planning Department did a great deal of work on this. But that's how I feel about it, yeah. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Council Woman Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chung. I mean it is your district, and you know it intimately. And walking into this meeting and reading all of the extensive work from the Planning Department, I really began to take a look at streets just in general. And we drive over to Kona all the time, and we drive Page 36 PC -7 April 9, 2019 down Ane Keohokaole to West Hawaii Civil Center, which was a federal project. And only one side get curb, gutter, sidewalks. The other side has a walking path. And I began to think that money was matched with federal money and state money, and county money and they only could get curb, gutter, sidewalks on one side. And so I began to look at the walking path on the other side. And I thought well, the Council adopted complete streets we're looking at blue zones. Was there a way through future projects, to maybe dovetail some of those design guidelines as far as our streets went to create a safe walking path for our kids, for our kupuna, which isn't as cost prohibitive as curb, gutter, sidewalks. Then we had the Mass Transit Plan, right, and so we're going to need bus stops. So how wide does that road have to be? Eighty feet sounds more than enough. Right of way to have a bus pull out, where we could continue to achieve walkable communities using our Mass Transit Plan, carving out places for bus stops where they could jump on a walking path or bike a path. And at the end of the day it was about reasonable compromise. Because if the federal, state, and County cannot achieve curb, gutter, sidewalks on both sides of a road, why would we strap a family developer with those kinds of conditions. I think that's completely unfair. So taking a very pragmatic approach, I think there are ways to do that within the right a way that, you know, the developer, the family is willing to set aside. And then as Mr. Chung mentioned, you know, maybe bringing in some GE money or fuel tax money and doing some real partnerships, because at the end of the day, I'm going to be selfish, I need the zoning. Because the zoning is going to drive real property tax, and real property tax is going to pay for more services with Police, Fire, Parks, and Planning Department to come up with more great plans. And that's just my very simple pragmatic approach. Maybe going forward Mr. Fuke, if there is a way to talk about the return on investment by way of real property tax revenue that a project like this generates, and compare it against what we could see five years down the road, eight years down the road, I think it would help this body better understand that we cannot front load people with so much infrastructure costs that we end up with nothing. was even willing to entertain maybe phasing it in at some future point after so many units, but I am getting the sense from this body that, you know, we've got to make something happen. This has waited a long time. Those are my thoughts, I'm going to be supporting Chair Chung. This is his district, and I think there's some really good compromises within this. But I also think we can look at future opportunities, because that roadway right of way is so large. I yield. Page 37 PC -7 April 9, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Woman Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. I appreciate all this input, and I guess there's just a couple of concerns I have once again going back into the conversations we had earlier today about variances. And I want to make sure that this project has the opportunity to become the model, which I believe is your vision as a family and your ohana working together to do that. So my only concern is that a precedence not be set, that then eliminates the possibility of holding future developers responsible for putting in and paying their impact fees, and for all the different parts and pieces of a development of this scale. So that's just my concern or where that capacity lies. Yeah, those are my concerns, that we not set a precedence that then becomes something that future developers on the west side, because that's where my district is, then turn back to and say well, "They didn't have to, so why do we have to?" I also do appreciate the story that Ms. Lee Loy spoke about. And the community came together and built the walking path on the other side of the highway there. So opportunities to create new models. You guys have bitten off an amazing vision. Which I'm sure you know more than anybody. But I appreciate the vision of that, and becoming kind of an all encompassing community, and everybody's insights in that, but boy this is multifaceted in its number of complexities. So with that I yield. I just have that concern about setting precedent. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Woman. Councilman Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And Sidney thanks for bringing this forward, I think this is a longer conversation than anybody expected. But I think it's a very good conversation, and I'm going to just springboard off of Chair Chung. I've been listening to the conversation about the complete streets, and it's nothing new to this body that I've been arguing against complete streets for about the last year and a half. And as though I completely understand, I think they have their place. We start talking about walkable communities there's a group, Transportation for America, that I think Councilman Lee Loy, and I attended a presentation two years ago now maybe. And they talk about walkable streets, but we're not going to have that. We're not going to have walkable communities until we fix our zoning, and our planning. And that we engineer these roads an 80 -foot easement that we're going to expect what 25 miles per hour, maybe 30 miles per hour, but in reality people are going to drive 50 or 60 because it's engineered for that speed. And I'm not a plannerno, let me rephrase that I'm not someone that can work in the Planning Department but I do like to plan. But I'm listening to conversation, and Council Woman Lee Loy points out something in Kona that is glaringly evident. We need to learn from that. We need the development. We Page 38 PC -7 April 9, 2019 have a family working on bringing that forward, and we need to be mindful of that. I think that if we truly are interested in having those blue zone walkable communities, we have to have the structure set up. And when we're talking about complete streets, I'm thinking about in Waimea I have a complete stream. I got a path along a stream that we're talking about walking, and it's not going to be paved. You like the country, yeah, Sue, you like it. I don't mean to make light of it, because I think Chair Chung is very succinct in his conversation. And as we go forward, I don't think we're not being considerate of our community, I think we're being quite considerate of our community. There's actually good evidence that shows our kupuna-aged people, do better on uneven paths than on flat concrete. And there's evidence and reasons for that. So going forward, I'm looking forward to the amendments coming forward. Sidney, I'm looking forward to those coming. I'll be supporting Chair Chung's position, how this is crafted. Because I think this conversation is setting us up for a good direction, and I truly support this development going forward. So with that, I'm going to yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Councilman Richards. Council Woman Eof£ MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. I kind of like the idea of curb, gutters, and sidewalks in part of the project. And part of the project maybe doesn't need. I think that some of it would be walkable. But I just wanted to say one thing about the highway in Kona. I believe that the reason the one side doesn't have curb, gutters, and sidewalks is because there's plan to widen that road. So they left it like it is. But that doesn't mean it's still not a good idea to have a walking path, as a means for people to get around that community as an option. I don't know if that's something to draft into this as a condition, rather than leaving it. Because the other idea that Chair Chung mentioned could happen too, concurrently that the GE surcharge could help pay for improvements to the roads at some point and time. Possibly concurrently with the build out of the project, I don't know, I have no idea about timing. But just that there's a lot of options out there, whether you want to draft anything in here or leave it as is. But I think there's options for keeping it not really rural, but more Hawaii rather than mainland, and yet make it walkable. MR. FUKE: I'd like to just kind of just follow up all of this conversation with just one comment. You know, on the Ane Keohokalole and the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, you know, there right of way is 120 feet. And on the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway for the longest time it was always on one side, so when they needed to expand that to a four lane highway, all they did was went on the makai side. Now considerably you could do this like within an 80 -foot wide Page 39 PC -7 April 9, 2019 right away, you know, you just take half of it. And, you know, maybe just do only 40 -foot wide improvements. The problem is like on the opposite side, you know, it takes a long driveway to get access to it. So it really doesn't work. I think the fundamental question here, in my opinion anyway, is like whether you need to have an 80 -foot wide right of way which would be very counter I think to the whole idea of creating walkability. Because as I think Councilman Richards pointed out people going to speed, you know, like how people speed on Moho`uli Street. You know, the wider the right of way, easier it is to speed. So, you know, that's kind of like ironic. But, you know, so if it's an 80 -foot wide right of way verses like a 60 -foot wide right of way, you know, what is more appropriate? I think the dilemma that we all face, I mean, you know, from planning and from the developer standpoint. We look at the General Plan, we look at the zoning map, it says like an 80 -foot wide right of way. So like, you know, we got to be a little bit anal about it, because it says 80 feet we have to have 80 feet. Now the question however is like, well if you have an 80 -foot wide right of way do you necessarily, you know, just for that small section between Moho`uli Street and Komohana Street. Do necessarily need to build it entirely like to an 80 -foot wide right of way like how Moho`uli Street is? Really? Why? Or do you construct it only to possibly be like a 60 -foot wide right of way, but you still keep the right of way at 80 feet. And conceivably since the developer had already conceded making an 80 -foot wide right of way improvement, that you build to only a 60 feet, you know, for a roadway and all that stuff And use the balance of the right of way to maybe just create like a walking path. I mean, you know, and that's kind of like doable. So this is something I think between now and first reading maybe we can, I don't know what the engineering complexities of it will be. So I'd like to at least have a conversation or discussion with Public Works, and also Planning. But if it can be worked out, from the cost standpoint the developers already made that concession to do the 80 -foot wide improvements. So possibly you can reduce level and, you know, accommodate the pedestrian walkway and address the safety considerations. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: So I guess, Director Yee, the question to you is can we adapt the complete streets model to be more in line with the characteristics of Hawaii? And what we see as, you know, wanting to encourage walkability and active lifestyle, but without necessarily the curb, gutters, and sidewalks. Without all of the cement. MR. YEE: Absolutely. And just great timing, I think it was today we kicked off our complete streets kind of partnership with DPW (Department of Public Works) today. And so I think it comes at a good time for us to try to have the different departments really think about how do we implement. I totally agree with Chair Chung that, we have to be creative about how we pay for these amenities, you know, and not just put it on the developers. You've consistently heard me Page 40 PC -7 April 9, 2019 say, that infrastructure has been our issue; that we put it on developers. And that's created most of our problems here on this island. And so I'm in totally in favor of—now that we have a revenue source for us to go back and take a look at, and I'll be the first one to say, I'd love to give an 80 -foot right of way to a road diet immediately. Like I can already tell you that's not necessary. But as Sid said, it's kind of, we kind of have this code now we kind of live by and not really questioning. And so I think this is a great time to really have this conversation. Lastly, I think you know me well enough to know that I really respect the voices that have been around much longer than I have, and that's everybody probably in this room. And I highly respect everybody involved in this project, and you folks. And it's clear to kind of where you folks want to go with this. And I think what gives me comfort in knowing this, is that we're working with developers that are locally here. And the conversation with them will continue. So if there are good ideas and new ways of doing things, they're accessable to have those conversations. And they act with high integrity. And so I feel comfortable as things progress, and we need to be flexible that a family that can turn to do that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. Chair Chung. MR. CHUNG: Sidney, you know, now we're talking about 60 feet right? No, I mean, I just wanted to explore the idea. First of all, how long is it going to be from Moho`uli to Komohana, how long will Ponahawai extension be? MR. FUKE: I would just guess, about how long? MR. CHUNG: Not even a mile, right? Almost a mile, but less than a mile. What kind of right of way is there between Moho`uli and Komohana on Kukuau? MR. FUKE: That's a 60 -foot wide right of way. The entire right of way is 60 feet, on the lower side you have curb, gutter, sidewalk. Because that was a subdivision built within 1,000 square feet or less. On the mauka side, you know, which is like the beginning of the Sunrise Estates. You know, you have the one -acre lots, it's also 60 -foot wide right of way without curb, gutter, sidewalk. MR. CHUNG: Okay. Maybe we might have to go with 80 feet though. You know why, it's pretty narrow. Because a lot of people are going to be going down there, because you guys are going to have a traffic signal, right, at the intersection. So you can anticipate a lot of guys going down there in the morning and in the afternoon. I don't know we can talk about it. So it's a little bit different, if you said that Kukuau was narrower than 60, then I might say, well okay, 60 might work. We can talk about that. Page 41 PC -7 April 9, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Councilman Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, just a quick follow up to that. Director, you mentioned your partnership with Public Works concerning your complete street initiative. I would offer that this Transportation for America, and I think it's still valid, Department of Transportation, Hawaii State, have them either on retainer or they have some working relationship with them. And they've offered that to us as a Council previously, as far as seeking input. So that maybe something to reach out, if you need help I'm happy to help you. I yield. MR. YEE: Okay, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Hi, guys. So in Condition I, it says that the revised master plan on the project district shall be submitted to the Planning Director. It doesn't say anything about the Council. So do we—does this come back to us ever again, as far as the master plan, of what's happening? MR. FUKE: In conjunction with the application, there was a preliminary master plan prepared. And so what this condition is designed to do, is to show a little bit more definition to that revised master plan. And that would be done all administratively. So the Council basically, you know, the short answer to your question Councilman, is like no, the master plan would not be sent back to the Council for review and approval. What this body would be charged through this process is basically establishing the perameters, whether how many units, curb, gutter, sidewalk, non -curb, gutter, sidewalk those kinds of things. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So it doesn't come back to us? MR. FUKE: No. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It just goes to Mike? MR. FUKE: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Correct? So we don't see it ever again. MR. YEE: Never say never; but no, you shouldn't. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I shouldn't see it again. So I don't see the master plan ever come back to us, so we can yes, no, we like this, we don't like this. Page 42 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MR. YEE: Hopefully if we all do our jobs well, you don't have to see it. And it's built the right way, and it gets built. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Then this also speaks to deleting Condition N, yes? All utilities will not be underground anymore. And your reasons stated for that is, it's not financially, it's not lucrative. MR. FUKE: Well it was just based on the discussion with the applicant's development consultant, he said that almost becomes like a deal breaker as well. Because it adds substantially more, you know, per cost, per unit. And essentially that becomes an aesthetic requirement, rather than a safety or health safety issue. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So when I drive into different neighborhoods, Waimea, Kona, different areas in Hilo, they've taken time to build neighborhoods that are aesthetically pleasing. And then if the idea is, when it's not financially feasible, we just don't want to. That raises a question to me, as to what we're trying to do for future standards of our building here on the island. So when it just becomes down to, "Financially feasible, I don't want to do it" that's interesting to me. I don't feel that's in the best interest of what we're trying to achieve, we're talking blue zones, we're talking about Vision Zero, all these different standards setting up to make things safer, cleaner, this really is about aesthetics, I understand that. But are we doing what's right for future? MR. FUKE: I think in a perfect world, and, you know, we would want that. And probably the best way to handle, you know, this kind of issue like undergrounding utility requirement or curb, gutter, sidewalk requirement, is like basically to have like a separate legislation. Just dealing with that, because otherwise you'll have like some developers that maybe be exempt from that, you know, like when you go through this process others would be tagged with that obligation and that affects the value of the respective project. But if everybody plays by the same rules in terms of the infrastructure requirements, then we all know the cost will appreciate or depreciate accordingly. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So there's no rule in the County that says, new utilities should be underground, it's just open to interpretation? MR. FUKE: Yes. MR. YEE: And I do want to add that—Michael Yee, Planning Director that I said earlier this was a package of give and takes. And that was clearly something that I gave away in terms of aesthetics for the curb, gutter, sidewalk. Again, this is what we negotiate, right. And so it's just one of those things, where I was willing to give up the aesthetics in this case for a curb, gutter, sidewalk. You give them back the curb, gutter, sidewalk without having to do it, you don't have them do underground. You know, they're getting the break that they're looking for, Page 43 PC -7 April 9, 2019 which again, we want this project to go through. So these are the hard choices we make. And all though the ordinance was written many years ago, with different, you know, economics. You know, hopefully they're trustworthy in terms of what the economics are today, and what they're presenting and the difficulties of trying to do it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It is interesting that we're being asked to compromise on the beauty of what we're trying to build as we move into the future. So that we can all get what we want. MR. YEE: So now you know what keeps me up at night, sometimes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I don't agree with that, I think you should go underground. I've been in a lot of different neighborhoods. My job takes me to a lot of different areas. I appreciate the communities they're taking the time to build themselves out, nicely. Verses the communities that just to put things up and get it done quickly, and less finances involved. I can appreciate what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. MR. YEE: Lastly, I want to add that the Subdivision Code is 35 years old. Granted, if I get a little bit more time as Planning Director, that would be one of my top three things to do is to really try to attack the Subdivision Code. And that's where we're going to address curb, gutter, sidewalk, and underground utilities that, you know, hopefully the things stay the same. Make it for everybody then. You know, have the standards of when you institute or don't. Again, that would be a much bigger fight, not in the next year and half, I could promise you that. But, you know, it is something the County needs to do. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Page 14 kinds of hints at this again, that the addition of cost from $8,000 to $13,000, is in regards to amending Condition KK. And you go back quoting this, because the profit if any, and the wording on that I find interesting. Because it's justyou're just talking about money. Am I off, on this document? No? I keep seeing the same kind of wording, it's just financially. MR. FUKE: Yeah, it was just directed, you know, it's a fair share component, you know, that provision. And so what the consultant has advised the applicant, is that to make the project more feasible as well as to be able to more successfully deliver the affordable housing component, you cannot add all of these small little requirements. And so what I was pointing out over there was, that, you know, if you do a multiple family there's already not only the infrastructure cost, but you have to pay this $9,000 or $10,000 more in share fee per unit. If you do a single-family residential lot then you want sell it at affordable housing rate, you have to add on $14,300 more. And then that adds to the cost, so that added cost would have to be spread among the other projects. Page 44 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes, I'm not arguing that wouldn't be fair. I'm just saying the wording is interesting. It's bringing it back to, it's kind of like a, it's a subtle kind of a poke when you say because the profit "if any" is saying we're not going to make any money on this. So I'm just letting you know that. It's an interesting way of wording that, in a document that you're going to hand to somebody. That's what I'm trying to say. As far as your right of ways, you know, I can see what you're saying about right of ways. You do go on to say that this community is a walking style community, and we're making it accessible. People can get around easily, but in the same conversation we start saying well we don't really want to do curbs, or sidewalks here, or there. It's interesting that you're using those two in conjunction with each other. How can you say I want to make a nice walkable, livable community and start taking things away like, sidewalks and pedestrian rights of way and that kind of things? They don't equal each other. MR. FUKE: Well, in this particular situation you have the Ponahawai Street extension is the one that little bit more problematic, because that's the main highway that kind of separates the north part from the south part of the property. That's like having a freeway running through your project. So when you have the freeway or like the main roadway going through your project, that area is hard to create like the walkability. We're saying that if you have on the north side and the south side, you're going to have like those street systems. And those street system are going to be built according to County dedicable standards. For those street systems where it connects to existing streets, you know, off property, those streets will be built to County dedicable standards and have curb, gutter, sidewalk. The rest of the roadways, well it depends on the level of density. And so the level of density ain't going to govern, if you're going to do single-family residential. The level of density then going to govern, whether you have curb, gutter, or sidewalk. If you do a 10,000 square -foot lot subdivision then the answer to that question is yes, there would be curb, gutter, and sidewalk. And the logic behind that is, that's been almost like the convention of wisdom for almost all residential subdivisions. If you do a 15,000 square -foot or larger lot size subdivision, there is no curb, gutter, sidewalk in position. So again, it goes back again, the notion of equity. You have an existing code, that existing code is the Subdivision Code. Can you not apply it to over here? That's all we're saying. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This is a big chunk of property in Hilo. It's been vacant for a long time. I understand we have some, we have good people in the room who mean well. The end result of this should be a community that is very approachable, and kind of withstands time. So I would urge that you create this subdivision, you take the time to build out. It's 172 acres of land left in Hilo that's still pretty much forest and kind of holds that green spot. It's that last little piece, so when you fulfill that as a residential neighborhood, fulfill it nicely. Page 45 PC -7 April 9, 2019 Make it something that we're all going to be proud of when it's done. Rights of way to the middle, you want make sure that people are safe when they're around then good, that's good. I'm not going to fight you on that. Make sure that when this is done, that you've got a nice thing, and it's pretty. I think that's the gist of what I'm asking. Not at the, you know, is it financially feasible standpoint, because I think in the end you're making 700 small residential lots. I have a feeling you'll do okay, on that. There's a lot of need for housing, so just take your time and make it pretty. and that's what I'm asking you to do. And then so actually, I mean we had somebody come and testify. You did say there was some kind of environmental survey that was done? MR. FUKE: I was referring to archaeological inventory survey. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. FUKE: It was already approved, it was a preservation plan that was approved. And the buffers were already established. These were established prior to any land disturbance activity that's currently occurring on the property. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then for a project this size is there an environmental assessment that needs to be done before it happens? MR. FUKE: There had to be like an environmental, not an EIS kind of document, but there had to be document that address typically all of the things that would go into an environmental impact statement. With a traffic study done, there was like as I mentioned earlier, archaeological, there was a drainage study done, there was an infrastructure studies done, you know, on sewer and water system. And they were all made part and parcel of the application. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, my brain is going, environmental was done or was not done? MR. FUKE: Well not in the sense like of a Chapter 343 Environmental Impact Statement, but the components of an environmental document were included in the application. So if you have like EIS for example, you would need to have information relating to the floral, the fauna, or the archaeological, the drainage those kinds of things. Well, all of that information was contained in the application. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Chair Chung. Page 46 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MR. CHUNG: I was actually going to ask Sidney one more question, but you know, let me address some of those thoughts or concerns that was brought up by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfleder. I mean, I think in an ideal world, what you say, you know, makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. I think everyone, I'm hoping all developers want to make a good development. At the same time all business are driven by profit. I don't care what. Nobody goes in there with the thought they're going to lose money, right. And I think Matt, you might be operating on an antiquated kind of, no offense now, okay, but antiquated idea of who builds roads. You know, in the past the Traffic Division I recall, they always used to say, and this was like about 20 years ago. County doesn't build roads, developers build roads, that's wrong. I believe if something is essential or vital to the wellbeing of our community, we build it. County builds it. But we always wait for developers to build stuff, we shouldn't do that. That's a wrong way of looking at things. And that was what the County subscribed to many, many years ago. So now again, this is only my perspective. If I believe that the Ponahawai Street extension is very important to the circulation pattern for our area, then we should build it. But these guys are building it instead. So that takes a lot off of their topline, it becomes very difficult. And I knew it was going to be problematic from the very beginning, yeah. So that's why I'm saying maybe we should share the cost and do stuff, and really, we'd like to look at possibly putting in sidewalks. But where in Hilo, except for the old area do we have sidewalks? Only Sunrise Ridge, on the new developments. Not saying that we shouldn't aspire to getting these things, but doesn't that tell you something? Why aren't these things being built in Hilo? I told you, this is probably the biggest development we are going to have in a long time. Maybe these requirements might work at West Hawaii or where you're going to have guys with a high amount of return. But Hilo, try go require sidewalks, curb, gutter, sidewalks, in a development in Puna. Hard to get a return on that. When I bought my property, Sunrise Estates, no sidewalks. I bought it, knowing full well you don't have sidewalks. Sure, I'd like sidewalks, that would be terrific. But if I wanted sidewalks, I go down to Sunrise Ridge. That's the only place they got them, really. Or go to downtown, I don't want to go there, right. So, you know, you got to look at things real realistically on this. I mean I'm just saying, that. I kind of, you know, want to stress that point. We all want to do something good for the community, but sometimes you just got to give a little on that. That's my point. Thanks. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. You know, I live in Puna, but I knew full well when I bought my home, that the roads weren't going to be maintained by the County, that it was going to be handled by an association. I wasn't going Page 47 PC -7 April 9, 2019 to have curb, gutters, and sidewalks, but I was going to get an acre and I was going to get a brand new home and finally realize the dream of owning my own home and raising my kids there. And I just have to commend you, Dr. Matsuura and your family, it's not every day we see a project come before us, and so many members of the public, many faces I recognize in full support of bringing these dreams of affordable housing possibilities to other families. So thank you for the vision that you've created and the potential to me are affordable housing needs. You know, like seven hours ago we got a presentation from the Housing Agency Administrator, that talked about 9,000 homes by 2025 is the goal for Big Island. That's what's needed for Big Island. So the fact that this project could potentially bring 700 homes to the market, that's huge. That is helping us meet our goals, because I could not hear any projects being articulated from the Housing Agency in terms of how we were going to be reaching those goals in such a short amount of time. That's six years from now. You know, I do want to support Chair Chung in his amendments to the bill. I mean a lot of these things curb, gutter, sidewalk, they would be really nice to have. But I don't want to lose sight of the complete street concept. And so in discussions with Mr. Fuke, we talked about are there plant barriers or other things that we could consider to encourage health and safety, and also walkability of the streets. So I know you're going to working in partnership Chair Chung's office, and my staff to put forward some potential amendments. And I like the idea of public-private partnerships of infusing some of that GET money into communities where it makes sense to help take the burden off of developers, to just have a lot of the infrastructure that essentially is really cost prohibitive. A lot of times to get these sort of projects off of the ground. So with that said, I was going to call for the question. But do we have, okay, I didn't see your light. No, Council Woman David. Okay, I'm going to turn the chair over to Council Woman David, and then we as a Council can talk about how we want to move this forward. Because I think were majority in agreement of how we want to advance Bill 49. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. And I thought I had my light on, but it must of gone off Anyway, mahalo for that. And the discussion today has been very mindful and eye opening. I think the complete streets idea, I think everybody supports that and the complete streets goal for this County. How we get there, is what we're really having a problem with. I really commend—as long as I've been living in Kona or on this island, all my life, I have never seen a development project brought forward by people that have been here for several generations. I really, really am proud that I've seen developers on the west side that are all Page 48 PC -7 April 9, 2019 from out of state. I mean never before have I seen a family with this bold of a project that I have to commend you folks, because I wouldn't do it. But all kidding aside. What I do see is the fair share, is something that was created before all of our times. And it was very controversial, because of the issues that you folks bring up. You know, developers are building roads for us. And there's no real balance for that, and we're stuck with what we have to be bound by, by the law. And so I'm really happy that you folks are thinking about the Subdivision Code, because we don't want to prevent this kind of development that really I think addresses a lot of the stuff we're talking about, a whole complex of medical facilities, and retail, and homes. So I will actually support what Mr. Chung is proposing, because this is his district. I would be behaving the same way if it was in my district, in a rural district. Because I think his points are well taken, and I commend him for trying to work on a fair and equitable situation, where we can even address some of Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder's. Because those are pretty much valid concerns too. And so this is a hard one, and it's not because of anything that's happening right now. It is because of things that have gone on for a while. And I hope with the family and with the department and this Council I think, I hope we can come to a fair and equitable solution for everybody. But I really thank you folks for diving into this, because if we can help in any way let us know. We have more work to do, but thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member David. Just turning my head to see if there are any other lights. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I saw your light on earlier. Did you have additional comments? Yes, no? Any other comments from my colleagues? If not let's put together the marching orders for this bill. So I'm hearing that Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke will be working with Chair Chung's office and my office to come up with amendments to this bill, specifically to Conditions P, Q, and R. And I just want to thank the Planning Department for being so flexible. You were flexible on accommodating a lot of the other amendments, and we're asking you to bend a little further. But thank you, because I think you realize in the grand scheme of things, it's important to create these really holistic complete communities where we have affordable housing, where we have beautiful open spaces, and also accessibility to medical and commercial campus centers. So Sid, we're in agreement on the conditions that need to be amended? MR. FUKE: Correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: P, Q, and R? Page 49 PC -7 April 9, 2019 MR. FUKE: Yes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: So I would like to move Bill 49 forward to the Council with a positive recommendation, and provide Council Members with an amended draft based on our conversation and amendments to P, Q, and R at the Kona meeting. Are we all in agreement? I'm sorry, I'm going to call for a vote. It's been a long day. I'm going to call for a vote on moving Bill 49 forward to the Council with a positive recommendation and the version of the bill that we will be seeing at Council will reflect amendments to Conditions P, Q, and R based on our very extensive conversations today. Yes, we will adopt the amendment. But we're moving this bill forward to the Council. And I believe we've done something similar in the past, Bill 1, for the Kaupulehu development. We've moved that forward to the full Council with a positive recommendation, with the understanding that an amendment will come forward to our body at the next Council meeting. So all in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Bill 49: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 49 on first (Approved) first reading was 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. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. MR. FUKE: Okay, thank you. Page 50 PC -7 I_T8 CION! OF MENT: Apri19, 2019 There being no further business, at 3:57 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Richards 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. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: We are adjourned at 3:57 p.m. Thank you. Appro e n Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair Planning Committee AK/rk qIV/9- (Date) Page 51