Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2019/07/23 2018-2020Committee on Planning 13th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawai i July 23, 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, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (came in later) Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent & Excused: Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PT TRT .TC C)N AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Shane Nelson: Brenda Ford: Dwight J. Vicente: Bill 87 (Comm. 352), in support. Bill 87 (Comm. 352), in opposition. Bill 83 (Comm. 315); Bill 84, Draft 2 (Comm. 315.2); and Bill 87 (Comm. 352), comment. Cory Harden: Bill 83 (Comm. 315); Bill 84, Draft 2 (Comm. 315.2); and Bill 87 (Comm. 352), comment. PC -13 July 23, 2019 Franz Weber: Bill 87 (Comm. 352), comment. Charles Young: Bill 87 (Comm. 352), in support. Jeno Enocencio: Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84, Draft 2 (Comm. 315.2), in opposition. Larry Ford: Bill 87 (Comm. 352), in opposition. Michael Matsukawa: Bill 87 (Comm. 352), in opposition. Janice Palma-Glennie: Bill 87 (Comm. 352), in support. Nancy Pisicchio: Bill 83 (Comm. 315), comment. Ken Melrose: Bill 87 (Comm. 352), in support. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other testifiers? Seeing none, I will close public testimony at this time and move on to order of today. Mr. Clerk, would you do Bill 84, Draft 2, please? COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. (There were none.) ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Change Order of As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, Business: the following items were taken out of order: Page 2 PC -13 July 23, 2019 Bill 84: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, (Draft 2) CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — TWENTY ACRES (A -20a) AND OPEN (0) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET (RS -10) AND FAMILY AGRICULTURAL — ONE ACRE (FA -la) AT PU`U`EO, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-6-008:026 AND 2-6-008:027 (Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust) (Area: 39.68 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to the State Land Use Boundaries Maps and change of zone, which would allow the applicant to consolidate and resubdivide the proposed project site into 51 total lots. Reference: Comm. 315.2 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Postponed: June 18, 2019 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Mr. Richards, to recommend passage of Bill 84, Draft 2, on first reading.) (Note: Comm. 315.7, from Council Member Ashley Kierkiewicz dated July 22, 2019, transmitting letter from Dr. Alan S. Downer, Administrator with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation Division, was circulated.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. You know, before I open it up to discussion with my colleagues, I would like note that as Planning Committee Chair, to engage SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division), the day after our Planning Committee meeting on July 19th, I sent communication to the Archaeology Branch Chief of SHPD, Dr. Susan Lebo; the SHPD Administrator, Dr. Alan Downer; and Hawaii Island Archaeologist, Sean Naleimaile, asking for official communication around their status of various review and the resolution of the alleged damaged headstones. I want to thank Dr. Downer for calling me back, and letting me know that a proposed settlement has been reached between SHPD and the Ed Olson Trust. This matter will be taken up by the DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) at their Friday, July 26 meeting, and this only addresses the alleged violation of damaged headstones. I also appreciate Dr. Downer's time to fulfill my request for a written communication, which my colleagues have received this morning, in which he acknowledges his receipt of the plans and presents the status of their review. SHPD also began review of the AIS, that is the Archaeological Impact Survey, as it relates to the grading and grubbing, because SHPD believes the violations will Page 3 PC -13 July 23, 2019 be resolved this Friday. He also noted that should a rezone be approved, there are specific conditions to protect the `Amauulu Camp's cemetery. That will likely be recommended. He shares that it is highly likely that a supplemental AIS will be necessary as part of the planning for housing subdivision development should this rezone request be approved. Mr. Fuke, I'm going to go ahead and forward you a copy of this letter so that you and your client have it for your records. I want to thank Planning Department for working very had to ensure that the conditions set forth in this draft ordinance provide the appropriate checkpoints along the way to ensure that this project is vetted by all various departments and agencies before it can move forward. I also want to thank and introduce Dr. Susan Lebo, who is gracious enough to be here before the Planning Committee and answer any questions. I do want to call you forward, Ms. Lebo. I'm sure my colleagues may have some questions. And I also want to note that we have Planner Jeff Darrow and Christian Kay participating in Hilo. And then. I also believe that Deputy Corporation Counsel Ron Kim is available. And here in Kona, we have Bethany Morrison and Director Michael Yee. (Note: At this time, SHPD Archaeology Branch Chief Susan Lebo, PhD, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: So at this time, any questions for Dr. Lebo? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Where we last left off, Ms. Lebo, we were kind of circling things that had happened and where SHPD was. Why don't you go ahead and bring us up to speed on that. For the record, I know Ms. Kierkiewicz kind of covered it, but I think it's really good to have someone from the department articulate that right into our record. MS. LEBO: Okay. So thank you for inviting me. Again, my name is Dr. Susan Lebo. I am the SHPD Archaeology Branch Chief. Our branch is reviewing the Archaeological Inventory Survey and the permit applications that we have received from the County regarding the project. The Archaeological Inventory Survey field work was initiated several years ago, and a draft report was submitted to our office. We are currently reviewing that draft, and as Dr. Downer indicated in his letter, we will anticipate that supplemental Archaeological Inventory Survey work will be needed due to the change in the proposed project, and also to address the particular identified historic property that's present, the cemetery, okay. So as part of the Archaeological Inventory Survey process, that involves actually conducting an Archaeological Inventory Survey which usually entails doing Page 4 PC -13 July 23, 2019 100 percent pedestrian survey of the project area, and then usually also involves some sort of subsurface testing. The nature and extent of that testing is defined by several factors. One is the size of project area. We want to ensure that we have representative coverage of the subsurface deposits on that property, so we know whether or not there are buried historic properties present; if so, where, and what is the potential for the project to impact them. We also want to ensure that we have adequate coverage of where the actual footprint of the construction project will occur. And then, we also want to make sure that we have representative coverage of those locations that we have historical, archival, oral history, or other information to suggest that there is potential historic present, such as a Land Claim Award. So once the field work is done and any laboratory work that's associated with that, generally an Archaeological Inventory Survey report is generated. If there's a particular historic property on the project area that is significant under the Hawaii Administrative Rules, under Criterion E, which means that this historic property is significant to a particular group, such as Native Hawaiian community, the Chinese community, and so forth, then there is a consultation process that needs to occur for that historic property. A historic property consultation usually involves reaching out to the appropriate representatives, consulting regarding that property, and then making decisions about future mitigations such as preservation or data recovery. And that consultation process is also included in the Archaeological Inventory Survey report, subject to our review. Once the report is reviewed and accepted, then any mitigation plans that are specified in that report would then need to be generated for our review and acceptance, such as an Archaeological Monitoring Plan or an Archaeological Preservation Plan. So at the moment, we are reviewing the permit applications and the Archaeological Inventory Survey report. Once that's done, our letter will be generated and sent to the County as well as to the project proponent and the party that generated the report. And that's where we are now. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you so much. As part of this application process, there are conditions of approval. There's Condition P and Condition Q, and it talks about prior to issuance of any land altering permits, and it goes on to talk about the Archaeological Inventory Survey; and then Condition Q, it talks about, "in the unlikely event that subsurface historic resources," including, you know, skeletal remains, platforms. Does these two conditions help what the Historic Preservation Division is trying to achieve with the processing of an Archaeological Inventory Survey, allowing for the preservation part, while still holding the applicant—or helping the applicant kind of comply with what would need to happen, and what gets developed out of the archaeologic inventory survey? Page 5 PC -13 July 23, 2019 MS. LEBO: So when SHPD generates its letter regarding the permits that have been submitted and the Archaeological Inventory Survey, our letter to all parties will indicate where we are in the process and what SHPD recommends occur prior to permit issuance. So in this case, once we accept the Archaeological Inventory Survey, we would indicate that there are still steps that need to occur, and we already know that one of those steps most likely will be the generating of an Archaeological Preservation Plan for the cemetery. So at each step of the process, each letter that we write, we will indicate where we are in the process and what still needs to be done prior to our recommendation that the permit be issued. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for being here. MS. LEBO: Sure. MS. LEE LOY: Chair, I yield at this time. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. POINDEXTER: Chair, I have a question. This is Val. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Hi. Ms. Poindexter, go ahead. The floor is yours. MS. POINDEXTER: Thank you very much. Question is—you know, the process was laid out. You're needing to do the permits, accept an Archaeological Inventory Survey, then more steps, probably an archaeological preservation plan, you know, besides the consultation with the groups that you may have to reach out to. It seems like it's going to take months. I mean, in your opinion, what is the timeline like? MS. LEBO: Okay, so our current timeline is that we anticipate completing our review of the current draft of the Archaeological Inventory Survey in the next few weeks, at which time we will be generating a letter that will go to the County and the other parties. And then once we've done that, it will be incumbent on the project proponent and the archaeological consultant that they've hired to follow through on completing the requirements for the Archaeological Inventory Survey, resubmitting that and then moving on to the next step. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. So how long before completion of what you need to do, of all the things you need to do? MS. LEBO: I can't readily answer that because it will be dependent on the Archaeological Inventory Survey work that the consultant has to complete and how long it will take them to complete that, send a new draft to State Historic Preservation, and then we will again initiate our review. Page 6 PC -13 July 23, 2019 MS. POINDEXTER: Right. And besides that, you're going to have to do some consultations with some of the people in that area, as well. A group that you say may be tied to that graveyard. You know, you had mentioned that earlier. MS. LEBO: Yes. I can't give you an idea of how long that consultation will take. It will depend on the number of parties that are identified or who identified themselves as wishing to consult, and how long it takes the archaeological consultant to conduct that consultation. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, so I see this as even possibly going on into maybe even next year. I mean, we're already in the end of July. We are just hitting August. MS. LEBO: Yes, that's possible. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah. Okay, so at this very moment, right now, I know that I was going toI'm asking for a postponement. I'll let it continue—and I'll ask the Chair to continue, but I would want to postpone this matter again. So I'll yield at this time. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. And I'd also want to note that the representative for the applicant, Mr. Sidney Fuke, is here and available to answer questions. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Aloha, Ms. Lebo, and thank you for being here today. MS. LEBO: Aloha. MS. DAVID: My questions basically center around the procedure or the process that you were just describing, so thank you for that. Right now, the draft—you have two more weeks to finish your draft. Is that what you said, about? MS. LEBO: I'm hoping to complete a review in the next two weeks, yes. MS. DAVID: Okay. Now, once you complete that, does that draft have to go before the board for review? MS. LEBO: Does it go MS. DAVID: What's the next process? MS. LEBO: So once we complete that review, we will notify the County, the applicant, the archaeological consultant that generated the report MS. DAVID: Okay. Page 7 PC -13 July 23, 2019 MS. LEBO: And it will specify in our letter what revisions we are looking for. MS. DAVID: Okay, like you explained here? MS. LEBO: Yes. MS. DAVID: Okay, my next question then. In the hearing on Friday, did your department have any input into the recommendations for settlement? I understand that you folks were sort of involved, and correct me if I'm wrong, but did you have any input in the proposed settlement that's going to be discussed on Friday before the board? MS. LEBO: Dr. Downer is the State Historic Preservation Division Administrator, and yes, he had input. He had discussions with Mr. Olson. MS. DAVID: And so on Friday, they will be discussing just the proposed settlement, whatever that settlement is? MS. LEBO: I believe so. MS. DAVID: Do you have any idea what the proposed settlement agreement is? MS. LEBO: I wasn't involved in that, but I do believe that they have reached a monetary settlement. MS. DAVID: To settle the violation? MS. LEBO: Yes. MS. DAVID: The proposed violation? MS. LEBO: Yes. MS. DAVID: Okay. So the details of that, we won't know until the board meets on Friday. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member David, I just want to share that the proposed settlement is of $35,000, and I can circulate among the Council the very lengthy document that Dr. Downer submitted to BLNR (Board of Land and Natural Resources) and the justification in reaching that proposed settlement. MS. DAVID: Oh, great. Thank you. And that's what they will be discussing on Friday? MS. LEBO: That will be discussed on Friday, yes. Page 8 PC -13 July 23, 2019 MS. DAVID: Thank you. Okay, very good. Well, based on that, I think I have the information that I need. I really think that I would actually like to see what the board decides on Friday, before I make a decision. So, thank you very much. MS. LEBO: You're welcome. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and then Ms. Eoff. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Hi, thank you for being here. MS. LEBO: You're welcome. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, I was thinking as everyone was talking. But you work for? MS. LEBO: I work for the State Historic Preservation Division as the Archaeology Branch Chief. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then Sean (Naleimaile) works underneath of you? MS. LEBO: That's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So I called Sean about two months ago, I never got a call back from him; this in regards to trying to cut Highway 132. That was frustrating. But I appreciate what you do, and I'm glad that you're here and you're answering some of our questions. In this case, I think it's very pertinent that you're here. So was there ever a permit? I think Ashley brought this up. Was there actually a permit issued to go ahead with the work on the site? MS. LEBO: I'm not aware of any permit that's been issued for the work to proceed, whether that be grading or any other construction related work. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And that is the decision, the monetary decision that's coming up on Friday, is regarding what happened? MS. LEBO: The decision that's coming up on Friday has to do with the damage to some of the headstones within the historic cemetery. That work was not related to the Archaeological Inventory Survey but was related to ongoing work on the property in terms of, I believe, it's an agricultural land. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, I do remember. There was testimony earlier from one of our constituents that there was an urge to go ahead and let this project proceed. I find it frustrating, to say the least, that from what you're saying that it shouldn't ever been on the table. And the fact that we had the discussion to Page 9 PC -13 July 23, 2019 move this ahead, given the fact that you've never really released a go ahead on the project is MS. LEBO: Well, I don't believe any project related work has occurred. I'm not aware of any discussion about any unpermitted work. The work that we're focused on is the Archaeological Inventory Survey. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ashley, correct me if I'm wrong, what was the permit issue we were talking about last time? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: The permit issue were violations related to not having the appropriate grubbing and grading permit. SHPD's involvement is because they are going for an after -the -fact grading and grubbing permit. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. MS. LEBO: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. So thank you for being here. MS. LEBO: You're welcome. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And thank you for answering all these questions. It's a sensitive topic. I think it was a week two weeks ago, when all the headstones at a graveyard on Oahu were knocked by some lovely person. And I'm not sure what is going on in the world, but I think we have to do better. So, thank you for being here. MS. LEBO: You're welcome. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for providing us opportunities to further discuss this matter. Thank you for being here. We have to make tough decisions. But we can't be doing things out of order; so I'm going to concur with Ms. Poindexter, if she does make the motion that we need to postpone action today until we have our processes complete in the property order, so that we're sure that we're making the decisions. It is disturbing that people go ahead and start grubbing without permits, especially here in Hawaii. I don't know; I just feel uncomfortable today to act on this bill. Thank you. Page 10 PC -13 July 23, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Mr. Fuke, did you want to say anything? (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke and Planner Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: You know, I also wanted to invite Planner Jeff Darrow who is in Hilo to provide comments as it relates to, especially Condition P because I think we need to assuage some of the concerns of the Council that really nothing can move forward with this project until all SHPD reviews, and prescribe to mitigation plans have been reviewed and approved, basically. (Note: At this time, Planner Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Fuke, you have the floor. MR. FUKE: Good afternoon. Basically, you know, getting to the violation and the discussion before the Land Board, as the Chair had indicated, there is a proposed settlement that was developed by the SHPD, Dr. Downer, and that was submitted to the Land Board, you know, with his recommendation. Basically, I'm just kind of reading it, the proposed settlement was that, and I'll just read it directly, "To resolve the alleged violation, the Trust will pay $35,000 to be deposited in the Historic Preservation Special Fund," and "2. The Trust does not admit to any fault in this matter." So that's what's going to be considered before Land Board, and I think this came about because of extensive discussions between SHPD and Mr. Olson's attorney, and understanding the circumstances which led rise to the destruction of a portion of the cemetery. At any rate, this will be taken up by the Land Board this Friday. I would like to request that the Committee postpone this decision until after the Land Board acts on it, which would be this Friday, and consider it at the next Planning Committee meeting. Perhaps at that time, depending on whatever happens at the Land Board, I think this body would be able to make a little bit more informed decision on what to do with the application. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Darrow, I see you there at the Hilo Chambers. Did you want to provide any comments? MR. DARROW: Good afternoon, Chair Kierkiewicz, members of the Planning Committee. Jeff Darrow, with the Planning Department. You had asked regarding our Condition P and whether or not we feel comfortable going forward with this condition in place given the current circumstances. We sent out comments to different agencies when we received these applications, and based on the comments we received back, we moved forward placing those comments from the agencies as conditions in our permits. Page 11 PC -13 July 23, 2019 You know, in our last discussion at our last Planning Committee, regarding everything that's happened regarding the damage to the cemetery and the lack of response from SHPD in review of the AIS. We were in a position where the delay was coming up to two years on this application, and so we felt like we needed to move forward based on the applicant requesting to move forward. The delay there's a certain time -limit that has to be in place; that if we don't receive a comment, we move forward, and that was well beyond that time. It sounds like at this time there's going to be a comment, possibly received within two weeks, for the AIS. That's the draft AIS. It's currently submitted to SHPD. The applicant as well as Committee Member Poindexter and Eoff had requested a continuance, possibly until after the Land Board meets. It might be a good idea to continue until the next Planning Committee meeting, with the understanding that we may also—we will understand what happened at the Land Board, but we will also understand possibly the results of the AIS, and have a clearer picture as to what the overall direction is for SHPD to resolve these issues. But again, our Condition P in place does—we feel confident that these processes will have to be done regardless whether this is continued or not, and no land alterations permits can be issued until all these approvals are done as well as mitigation has been done through the preservation plans or the mitigation plans that will be required. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. I appreciate that. Mr. Richards and then Ms. Lee Loy. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Thanks to everybody for weighing in. won't go through the individual thank yous. I did want to start by saying, Ed Olson and Ed Olson Trust is a great organization that has contributed to our County as a whole. I wanted to be clear that the dirt -work, grubbing, however you want to characterize it, it's my understanding it was not Ed Olson Trust but actually a lessee. And so, this is not something they were trying to go ahead and circumvent process. I think that's important to remember. I also appreciate what Mr. Darrow just said, that there's a timeline that we have to do better on in going forward. Dragging this out for years, and years, and years will kill this County. We are in desperate need of housing, And we're fortunate that we have a good organization willing to do what is right to come forward. I don't disagree that any desecration of a cemetery, we have to look at very seriously. But there are also unintended consequences that happen sometimes. Sounds like we're very close to an agreement going forward, which is great because we need to go forward and having this tied up with continuation after Page 12 PC -13 July 23, 2019 continuation bothers me. If we don't keep moving things forward, we're going to have problems in this County. We already have them now. So I am open to continuing it because I think were imminent, as far as that going, Mr. Fuke. I appreciate the fact that since it's imminent, I can be supportive of that. I did go, and I did look at the property. This is set; we're ready to go and do some good things for east side, for Hilo side. So with that, I look forward to getting this thing resolved so we can push forward. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I wanted to ask Susan, the draft EIS (Environment Impact Statement), how long did SHPD have that? MS. LEBO: Okay, we've been talking about an Archaeological Inventory Survey. So in terms of the EIS, I can't answer, yeah, if there was one. In terms of the Archaeological Inventory Survey, I believe the draft came in, probably in 2016. But you need to remember there's a process. The thing is that our review starts when it's tied to a Hawaii Revised Statutes 6(e) project. So the AIS that was submitted, was submitted for a previous project. It was submitted for the grubbing and grading. It was not submitted for this current proposed subdivision. So in terms of the current proposed subdivision, we don't have any AIS that's been submitted for that specific project. So we have—you know, that clock hasn't actually started on our end with respect to reviewing an Archaeological Inventory Survey for that subdivision because we don't have one. The draft Archaeological Inventory Survey that we have was for this previous grubbing or grading. So, they're two different things. Even if we had reviewed and accepted the AIS, the Archaeological Inventory Survey for that grubbing and grading, that is a document that was prepared and approved for that project. When this new project comes in, then the AIS process starts again in terms of SHPD reviewing the new project and saying, "Is the previous Archaeological Inventory Survey generated for a previous project applicable and sufficient for the current one, or does more Archaeological Inventory Survey work need to be done?" Yes, we are definitely behind on the first one. But we have not received and AIS for the new subdivision project. MS. LEE LOY: Right. And thank you for correcting me; yes, the AIS. But what you just underscored is an old project that submitted an AIS back in 2016. And here we are, 2019, right? MS. LEBO: Yep. MS. LEE LOY: And the department is only providing comment to something that was submitted in 2016. Page 13 PC -13 July 23, 2019 MS. LEBO: Okay. But also remember, the process is SHPD's job is to review things: One, when we have the 60 -trigger; two, we have a complete submittal. So if we have an AIS that was submitted in 2016 that does not meet the minimum, are we going to review that versus we're going to review something that does meet the minimum for some other project? Yes. There's no doubt that we are behind on our review, yes. MS. LEE LOY: You know, this body has seen a lot of stuff that gets held up. One, because of staffing. I know a lot of people at SHPD. But all of that actually, is what I needed to highlight, the question that I have for Planning Department. Because I also heard that the applicant is willing to defer. But I'm back to Condition W, which is the performance piece, in which the applicant has to comply with all of these conditions of approval and has a timing element. And I've said this before, we put in these timing elements, and it's challenging for the applicants to meet them when other agencies such as yourself, or even others, can't really meet the timing element that's within the change of zone ordinance conditions. So, I'm willing to put a pin in this, especially because the applicant is asking for it. But I'm going to ask the Planning Department again, that when we put in the conditions related to performance, I know there's, you know, the opportunity for a time extension, but I don't know if we need to consider agency reviews that are outside the control of the applicant. I don't like to see the clock keep ticking for an applicant when they've done everything they could to satisfy a condition of approval, but they're waiting for a review from another agency. And I'm just wondering if there's a way to pause the clock while these other agencies review these other technical documents. Just food for thought. Again, because the applicant is asking, it sounds like we're going to put a pin in this for a little while more, and get feedback from the board. And then I also heard, Mr. Darrow, where Condition P really kind of holds the applicant accountable to any future grading or grubbing permit; and the satisfaction of a future AIS, which would go through SHPD, have a whole review process, which sounds like will actually take years. Mr. Fuke? MR. FUKE: Yes, thank you very much for those comments. I don't want to get into like "he said, she said," and all this stuff. But from my notes, and Mr. Cross is participating in the Hilo office and he can kind of probably better update some of this, but it's my understanding that—you know, I think in response to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder's comments about the grading violation and all his stuff. So, I understand that there was some grading activity without a permit. Normally, when you apply for a grading permit, you need to have clearance or the approval also from SHPD. Because there was this activity done, they couldn't get SHPD to sign off. So as a result, that triggered the need to have an Archaeological Inventory Survey, and that was back in 2016. Page 14 PC -13 July 23, 2019 So one was prepared, and that Archaeological Inventory Survey was incorporated into an application that was submitted for zone change before Planning Department. During the course of review with the Planning staff, it was decided that the plan could be improved to better reflect the General Plan Land Use Allocation Guide Map. As a result, the AIS was updated somewhat and incorporated into the 2017 submittal, the Archaeological Inventory Survey. Concurrent with that, a Burial Treatment Plan was prepared, also in 2017. That, however, was never sent SHPD because it was the archaeologist's understanding that SHPD's rules require that the Burial Treatment or the Preservation Plan cannot be reviewed by SHPD unless and until an approved AIS is done. But nevertheless, it is there, and it was included as part of the application that's before you right now. So, to the best of my knowledge that's kind of like the timeline. MS. LEBO: Just as point of clarification, a Burial Treatment Plan is not appropriate for this location. MR. FUKE: Yes. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Thank you again. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Any other comments? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MS. POINDEXTER: Chair? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Poindexter, I will call on you after Matt is finished with his questioning. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm new here, and I'm learning. But right now, I have to say, Sid, I look up to you as the next Planning Director. And for a lot of the staff that were involved in this, I am a little disappointed in all the parties involved. I'm using "disappointed" because I can't use other words. But I'm a little disappointed in everyone that was involved in this project and for bringing this to us, and for glazing over a lot of the details that should have stopped this project long before it got to us. All respect to Ed Olson and the Trust. I know important they are in this community. But with those people involved, I do expect more. A lot of it is expected of us, and I expect the same from everyone who comes in, you know, every detail that's offered to us. Because if I cannot trust what comes in, then it makes it very hard to make decisions going forward. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, you know, Jeff, you talked about a process, you know, doing the agency's review, getting comments back. I think what I'm Page 15 PC -13 July 23, 2019 bothered most by, and I think—you know, I talked about possibly putting something in, where part of the reviews would be that you guys would have to have comments from a CDP (Community Development Plan). Unfortunately, the area where this project is being proposed doesn't have a CDP. You know, where is it where we say we want the agencies to review it and comment? But yet, we don't ask the community to review and comment, and they're the ones being impacted by this. You know, it's not just with this AIS and things that are there's so much more that the community is concerned about. This is just one aspect of the situation. If I get this right, what Ms. Lee Loy said, that AIS that they're reviewing now was from an older project. So now we're looking at needing toI guess the applicant needs to submit a new AIS, or they'll see if the old one would suffice. I doubt it because it's a different project, a different type of development. So I would hope that you would need another AIS. That's going to take a lot more time. This thing is just a mess. I mean, it's just—it's crazy. It's a crazy mess. You know, so I'm asking for the postponement, and supporting this postponement. Not because the applicant is agreeing to it, it's because the community is asking for it. So, that's where I'm standing, is for the community. They're asking for this postponement. Because we don't want to just push development. You look at what happened in Puna back then, when we kind of pushed development there, and we'll talk about infrastructure and other things later. And look what happened. We're dealing with that—because of that, we're dealing with all of this unnecessary—not unnecessary, it's necessary infrastructure that we need. But it's done unnecessarily. It's backwards, you know, withI don't want to go through that again because there's so many things that could go wrong. Look at the situation right now on what we're in. So anyway, I don't know if we're ready to just—can I make a motion to postpone? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I will call on you for that motion in just a second. wanted to say a few comments for the record. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. No one So there's shared disappointment all around. The process is messy. But what I'm glad is that we have a lot of people here in this room and in Hilo that are willing to roll up their sleeves and engage. You know, Dr. Lebo, Dr. Downer, you didn't have to get back to me. I was very persistent with my voicemails and my emails, but really, you could've just written this off. But you saw how important it was to show up and respond and to resolve, because if we want the overall process and system to work, we all have to do our part. Page 16 PC -13 July 23, 2019 You know, I was looking at the directory for SHPD, and my Legislative Aid, she highlighted all of the vacancies within your division. It was startling to see how under capacity and understaffed your division is, and I'm not trying to use that as an excuse. Because the first bill that our body reviewed as Planning Committee was for the Ka`upulehu development time extension, and the applicant noted that they waited seven years to finally get a determination from your division. I think I am forever the optimist. I'm the person that doesn't just see a glass half full. It's all full. It's full of water and air, right? I see a huge opportunity for SHPD to work in partnership with the County on some kind of Memorandum of Agreement. Where, we can even pull in Heritage Management students, and just do things a little bit differently; to build up the workforce that we need in order to make a system that works for everyone. So, I know I shared that with you. I did also share that with Dr. Downer. I'm ready when you are to have that conversation, and involve the Planning Department, because it's so critical. Many of the decisions that we are making, oftentimes the missing link is "What did SHPD say? Oh, we're waiting." So, thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for making it a priority. I do want to support what I'm hearing from my colleagues, which is to postpone. I'm going to suggest Wednesday, August 21st, I believe. I'm sorry, Tuesday, August 20th is our next committee meeting here in Kona, It's a month from now, and I wanted to do that because DLNR meets this Friday. Dr. Lebo, I wanted to give you the two to three weeks that you were requesting to finalize your recommendation for that AIS, and it gives our body enough time to properly agendize any type of material, communication, that you would like other agencies or this body to review so that we can make a very well-rounded and informed decision. Ms. Poindexter, if I could get a motion to postpone until the August 20th meeting? MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, so moved. I was going to do it to the August 5th, but August 20th better. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I just noted reasons as to why we needed a little bit more time. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, motion to postpone to the August 20th meeting. Thank you. Page 17 PC -13 July 23, 2019 Vote on Motion to Ms. Poindexter moved to postpone Bill 84, Draft 2, to Postpone: August 20, 2019. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by (Approved) the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung — 1. Excused: None. MR. FUKE: Thank you very much. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, all, so much for your time. I'm going to take a five-minute recess. We will reconvene at 2:43 p.m. Recess: At 2:39 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:55 p.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha. We are reconvening the Committee on Planning. The time is 2:55 p.m. Decorum, please. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, if we could please read in Bill 83. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Rn�ine�� Bill 83: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAP FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT PU`U`EO, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-6-008: PORTION OF 026 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Ms. David, to recommend passage of Bill 83 on first reading.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Clerk, considering that we postponed its companion measure, Bill 84, Draft 2, to the August 20'h meeting, Ms. Poindexter, can I have a motion to postpone Bill 83, also, to August 20'h Planning Committee meeting? Page 18 PC -13 Vote on Motion to Postpone: (Approved) July 23, 2019 Ms. Poindexter moved to postpone Bill 83 to August 20, 2019. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and David — 2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Moving on to Bill 87, please. Bill 87: AMENDS THE KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 08-131 The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for the proposed amendments to the Kona Community Development Plan. The amendments are intended to address language affecting the ability to develop projects and to clarify the authority of the plan as an ordinance of the County. Reference: Comm. 352 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 87 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Michael Yee and Kamuela Plunkett came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I believe we have Director Yee and members of the Planning here to provide the Planning Committee with a short presentation. MR. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. Thank you. MR. PLUNKET: Kamuela Plunkett, Planner with the Planning Department. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, gentlemen. Are we set with our presentation? MR. PLUNKET: Yeah, we're set. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, whenever you're ready. MR. PLUNKETT: Okay, thank you to the Council Members, part of the Planning Committee. We are going to do a short presentation on the process of going through creating the amendment package that is before you folks today Page 19 PC -13 July 23, 2019 (Note: At this time, Mr. Plunket provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the background and process for amending the Kona Community Development Plan. For viewing of the subject presentation, please see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office. Hard copies of the presentation are made a part of the record, see Comm. 352.2.) MR. YEE: So I wanted to add, based on some of the testimony that I've heard earlier. Part of what Kamuela just went through was to show kind of the process that we had, involvement of a lot of different folks, community and other departments. Often, we can get a very skewed idea over what's being represented. When we have dozen people show up to a hearing and say, "This is what I believe." You know, the question is, do we think—from the Planning Department, are we putting forth a product that will fill the gap in the interim, for the next few years, that is best for the community, as a whole for Kona? And I think that's what we've tried to do, put in front of you. Yes, I wasn't around when it was originally developed, and so I can't take away their truth that at that time, you know, there were certain thoughts about how a CDP should be written and what should be integrated into it. But times also change. And we've built into this system where new thoughts, new ideas, flexibility, and discussion with people involved to reach the product that we have. We haven't done it in a silo. So I feel very confident, we're pushing something forward that will serve the community as a whole. I also want to add, and this is no secret, I was up at Waimea Community Association talking about this about a couple of months ago, where after the General Plan roll out next year, we will launch the Planning Department will launch into CDP updates. So remember, this is just kind of a stopgap for now. So we'll just get us by and fix some of the problems we've had up to now. And I think that does, without diving too deep into the whole rewrite of the CDP, which is not what we had the resources to do right now. But we certainly intend to do that, starting in a couple of years. Lastly, often it is kind of put forth to you as everything's a tradeoff. Either we get this, or we don't. It's a shall or not. And I don't think it has to be that way, right? Very much of what we're trying to do in Planning is for the integration of many different ideas and perspectives, and people I think sometimes lose sight of that. That they're feeling like they're losing something if we change a word here, and that's not the case. I know there's a lack of trust in government that we will always make the best decision, but know that I know within my department we're trying to make the best decisions with the information we have at hand. So I just wanted to close with that. Thank you. Page 20 PC -13 July 23, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much, Director, for your comments; and, Kamuela, for that great presentation. I wanted to open it up to discussion and questions for my colleagues. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair; and thanks, Kamuela. Well done, and that articulates the process that you went you through, and I think that's really important. Director, you pointed out this is the process that we went through to make it better. I also appreciate the fact, Mr. Plunkett, that the comments—we had a comment period here. We went to the Planning Commission. We had comment period here. There's time for input along the way. I think this was a part of a conversation earlier, that we've had the discussion—you might call it, this is more of a living document than something hard in stone because things do change, and as things change, we have to adapt. So I fully appreciate the work s that's gone into it. I can only imagine the conversations and the testing as they may have gone on with some of the conversations. So with that, I fully appreciate what you've put into this. And I will be supporting this. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Richards. And I want to defer to my Kona Council Members on a lot of these questions. Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. So when the CDPs first came out in 2008, both Ms. David and I worked for Councilman Pilago, who was actually Chair of the Planning Committee. And Ms. Pisicchio and Roy Takemoto came to us and made this suggestion that, you know, this was an initiative of the administration to introduce this concept of regional planning, and the Kona CDP was being promoted. It's true, the community at that time went through hours and hours, and meetings after meetings, charrettes, lots of people were involved. As was stated, it was an award winning plan was developed. So we were pretty proud about that, having worked hard, not only the community but some of the Council Members, as well. So I completely understand the passion of the—some of the testifiers who feel concerned at this point and time, that somehow—of course when you don't delve deep into exactly what happened, but you just hear that, you know, we've changed "shall" to "should," or we've "may" instead of "must." I mean, yeah, I can understand why people are nervous. I hope that through our discussion today and in the future on this that we can assure the community that that's not what's happening here. That the plan is not being gutted. That the intentions are still there. And I think we need to consider what Ms. Pisicchio said earlier, which I don't completely understand, but I think in revising or relooking at how the CDPs will mesh with the General Plan and how they will be upheld as law, where it's imperative, and how each region will have their individual personalities reflected Page 21 PC -13 July 23, 2019 in their plans as we go forward. I hope we can continue to convince or console the public that is still happening and that's the direction that we're going. I've had extensive—well, during my last term, or even the term before even, no last term, I guess, when the Action Committee took up the proposed—Mayor's proposed revisions with the "shalls" to the "should", or whatever, I sat in on as many of those meetings as I could. It actually got—it was painstaking because it went through line -by-line of a pretty huge document, and a lot of discussion was held, there was input. So I don't believe in any way that this is being fast -tracked. I know a lot of though went into it. I believe some "shoulds" were changed to "shall" even. It was a give and take with language; but knowing what the court said, now we do have to enact or uphold the CDP as an ordinance and a law. It was pretty important that we clear up where the conflicts were. So I generally support what's gone on, but I alsoI'm not sure how my other colleagues will feel and what kind of time we want to spend here today. But some of the suggestions that were brought up by some of the testifiers might be worth delving into. I mean, not the real general concepts but the more specific look at sections. Unless you'd like—and maybe you would be able to address. You've seen some of the testimony that people have sent in. I'd like to make sure that people are reassured that we're not—in doing this, we wouldn't be taking away some of the protective mechanisms that were in there. For instance, what protected the forest in the Misler case. Maybe you could address that. I think it would help. MR. PLUNKETT: Yeah, I don't mind addressing any questions, if you have anything specific. MS. EOFF: Well, specifically, I had read earlier, in one of the first testimonies that came in, from Cory Harden, who generally looks deep into things and has concerns that are worth considering, from my opinion. She felt that the Misler case pointed a flaw in—well, in my mind, it pointed out a flaw in permitting, where we didn't take a look at what was in the CDP requirement. It was in the CDP, for protection of the watershed and the native forest. Has anything happened in this revision process that would change that protection? MR. PLUNKETT: No. I think what's important to know about the Misler case was that—from the County standpoint, it triggered the fact that we are definitely liable for performing; and if that performing is not in line with the Code or Administrative Rules, how do we perform what we don't have a process for? So I just want to say that that's an important part of what we had to fix. In terms of what the Misler case was triggered on—you know, I've reviewed a brief that was prepared about the Misler case. There's basically three sections three policies that was referenced by the Misler case; that was land use policy 3.3, 3.4, and environmental policy 1.5, I believe. Page 22 PC -13 July 23, 2019 Now, when you look at the amendment package, we actually didn't change that language because that's not what we're trying to fix. We're not trying to get rid of cultural and natural resource protection. We're trying to fix the areas—in fact we increased verbiage to protect cultural and natural resources, given that in the Kona urban area, these road corridors are the language behind them, saying that they must be built out was without accounting for possible interference with cultural resources or sensitive environmental resources. Basically, when those roads were being built out, if they ran into something, again the County would have been in a rock in a hard -place based on performance on what the CDP was saying. So anyway, we put in language that a lot more flexibility to protect cultural and natural resources. At the same time, the thing that triggered the Misler case was not touched. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. MR. PLUNKETT: Those policies remain intact. MS. EOFF: Thank you. I think that's important to understand. There was something else. Oh, you mentioned about the transportation networks and concurrency requirements. One of the things that I think stimulated the involvement of so many people in the original formation Kona CDP was that we were starting to see a lot of traffic issues. We're starting to see where development occurred without really mitigating traffic. I think that was one of the main concerns our community, was that we wouldn't end up gridlocked. We wouldn't end up like, you know, Honolulu or something that we weren't—would change our lifestyle. I think a lot of people that worked on the CDP were pretty much passionate about making sure that roads would be built concurrently with the developments or would be required. So is there anything that has weakened that? Or is that going to be still addressed, even with some of the changes? MR. PLUNKETT: As the CDP stands now with the proposed road corridors, they're still in that alignment. And the only language that we put in is that—so it keeps that intention if subdividers come in for an area of land in that area; that if they're going to do something there, some type of action, that they have to build that alignment, so that helps with the predictability. That was the intention of the Kona CDP. The only thing we put in there, though, is if there's a burial, if there's a heiau, if there's endangered loulu palm, that it can be moved. And that wasn't in the original CDP, it was like these roads have to be built the way we laid them up. So, the predictability is there. But when it comes to cultural, natural resources, which the community is very concerned about, we actually put in language that meets their value. Page 23 PC -13 July 23, 2019 MS. EOFF: There's also other checks and balances for road concurrency. I know we have Traffic Impact Analysis, and we have the opportunity for testimony and public input before both the Planning Commission and the Council before rezoning takes place, and we have the opportunity to make requirements on certain projects, whether it's a County's burden or the developer's burden, or combined, to create roads. I'm optimist about people will err on the side of caution when approving development that will create traffic. That we do make sure that we have mitigated that. Do you think in your opinion we should look—well, let me say it differently. We're going to start a more comprehensive of the CDPs. Do you think that's the point and time where we should delve further to even the "shalls" and "shoulds," or do you feel this document or this proposal now takes care of that for the time being. We're maybe more in a period of going with this and then looking at more revisions at a future time? MR. YEE: Clearly, there were a lot of other topics people were interested in and wanting to review, and we really kept to the scope. So yes, when we start the review, there will certainly be more robust areas to talk about. And clearly, that would be a time that if people want to bring up what should be a "shall" and "should," again that's the point of time to bring it up again. So we're not going to sit there and say, "No, we can't address these issues then." That's what the comprehensive review will be. MS. EOFF: So like I stated earlier, I hear the community and I hear their general concern, but I also very much respect the actions of the Action Committee. Thank you for being here today, some have left, but all of the members of the Action Committee that did show up, I know it was a hard work in progress that took a long time. And just to make one correction. At the point and time where the Action Committee did approve of the package, I believe there was one kanalua, but basically there was a unanimous yes. There's reservations, as there is with every bill, and even things we pass now. I look at everything as living, breathing documents because I'm never sure that everything's completely perfect. I do feel comfortable, but I wouldn't mind if other people, or if maybe there would be further discussion, if we should take a slower look at this or hold it here while we do have a chance to review it further. I'd like to defer to some of my other colleagues for that discussion. In general, I think enough people that have spoken today have reassured us that we haven't done anything to dilute the plan, and that it isn't static. It's a living, breathing document going forward, as well. So thank you guys for all your work and your presentation. And I'll yield. Page 24 PC -13 July 23, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Ms. David, before I get you, I'm just going to call on Ms. Poindexter. She texted me to let me know that she has a couple of questions. Val, you have the floor. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, thank you. I guess for Director Yee. You know, there is a conflict in the General Plan and the CDP. The General Plan always prevails, correct? MR. YEE: Correct. MS. POINDEXTER: So that way, if there was a "shall" in there and it kind of didn't fit into what the General Plan is saying, that would prevail over that "shall?" MR. YEE: I would hope that the courts would see it that way, but we certainly ran into a problem with it before. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. Because, you know, I know that the General Plan, right now we're in the process of amending it, correct? MR. YEE: Correct. MS. POINDEXTER: So I'm just trying to see what the rush is on getting this amendments to the CDP done right now, while we're still working on the General Plan, and seeing what kind of amendments would, you know, happen there. I don't know, your thoughts on possibly postponing this for a little while. You know, wouldn't make a difference, you know, right now. Is something coming up that would make it difficult to go against the CDP when the General Plan prevails anyway? You know what I'm trying to say? MR. YEE: Yes. But I think after a year long process of trying to be proactive around this issue and the inconsistencies that could arise, we've kind of done the work at this point. Again, I feel like what's being put forward is an improvement. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. MR. YEE: So I would hate to kind of stop at this point. MS. POINDEXTER: You know, I would support whatever the Kona Council Members would like to see happen. You know, what Council Member Eoff had stated, that the Action Committee already vetted this and is okay with these amendments. That's correct, right? MR. YEE: Correct. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. Yes, I'll support it. I just wanted to see how you felt about the possibility of postponing any amendments since we're working on Page 25 PC -13 July 23, 2019 the General Plan. Just to giveI don't know. I don't know if you call it respect to those who felt that they've worked so hard and many, many years on it, and it was like a slap in their face or whatever they felt. I mean, I couldn't really see the expressions on some of the testifiers, but I could hear and probably imagine their facial expressions. But anyway, I'll go ahead and support it. You know, Council Member Eoff had made a good statement about it. So, thank you. I'll yield at this time. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. MS. EOFF: Madam Chair, just one thing. If I could just ask? It's not so much the conflict or compatibility with the General Plan that's been an issue right now. It's more about the Code, right? MR. YEE: Correct. MS. EOFF: Okay, so I just wanted to throw that out. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Very good. Thank you. Ms. David and then Mr. Richards. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. First of all, thank you, Kamuela and Director, for being here today; and also, Shane, for sticking it out with us and your explanation of all the work that you folks have done which is really appreciated by the entire community, and also because you bring the Native Hawaiian perspective into the discussion which I appreciate also. Kamuela, you noted that there were policies, Land Use policies 3.3, 3.4, and the environmental policy that were not changed? Okay. And so these policies still contain "shall"? I was just wondering. MR. PLUNKETT: So let me clarify when I said, "Not changed." So there are edits to 3.3, but the changes are in regard to process at the Administrative Rule level. MS. DAVID: I see. MR. PLUNKETT: But if you look at what it was trying to accomplish, we didn't touch that. So again, when we go back to the scope of work, we really held true, and that we needed to clean things up that were inconsistent with the process, and at the same time try not to change—or change as little as possible to keep the original intent. Page 26 PC -13 July 23, 2019 MS. DAVID: Intent, thank you. I don't envy you folks at all in your job. So I think Ms. Eoff asked that question, as far as the conflict applies only to the Code at this point and time. But I'm mindful of what some of testifiers were saying. I do note, and you don't have to answer me now, but I just want to put this out there for food for thought, while we're trying to coordinate everything and make everything not conflict with each other, that our County Charter does provide that the County shall preserve and protect, in Section 13-30. I don't know how to meld that all together, but that's why I said I really appreciate you folks taking the time to do this because it's not a simple thing to do. It's got many, many things to deal with. Yeah, I really don't have a question. I'm just mindful of what was said today, and appreciate your explanation, and Director's explanation, of your intention on how you're trying to make this work. That's all I need to say for now. If it's the will of this Council to postpone this, then I'll agree to that at this point and time. So that's it. I yield. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. David. Any other comments or questions? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Kamuela, for all your hard work. You know, I want to walk back to that comment that Shane made, who spent so much time on the Action Committee and the Steering Committee. He had talked about some of the hard corners that they used in evaluating some of the edits and revisions, which I saw as a way to strengthen the document. But the most poignant comment he made was that this document, or any of our Land Use documents, must be relevant to what we live in the present time. So I understand that some of the comments that we heard, about those who, you know, were really strong about not changing the "shall." At that time, during those conversations, it was that wording that got people into the rumble. Got people into the conversations about creating an actionable plan. So now we are ten years from there, and we do live in different times. We've seen more roads get built. We've seen more energy efficient things come forward. We talk about transient orient destinations, schooling, education. Things have evolved over the last ten years. So I see this as a plan, one, as Mr. Yee talked about, closing the gap between what we had and where we are now and then reaching for edits in our General Plan, which is why I'm going to be supporting this document. I hear some comments about postponing it, but we'll have another swing at it at our Council meeting. But the quicker, and maybe not so much the quicker, but the quicker we adopt this plan, we actually have a plan working in present time, and that's what we need. We need a Land Use policy working in present time. So with that, I'm really not interested in a postponement. Like I said, we will Page 27 PC -13 Vote on Bill 87 (Approved) July 23, 2019 have another swing at it at the Council level. I really have to honor the work of our Planning Department, the time that was put into it, but more importantly, the Action Committee. I'm back to what I said earlier in another committee, which is ne`epapa, joint action. We need to do things in a multi -prong actionable way. So I hope, maybe sharing that with my other colleagues, I really respect what the Kona Council Members have to say. I'm going to take a step further. I'm going to respect the grassroots community of the CDP Action Committee that spent the time vetting this and putting it forward in a unanimous voice. So with that, I'm going to be supporting it and moving it to Council. I yield. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee. Anyone else? I want to thank you for your presentation, and your hard work, and for everyone here that was testifying today. It's very clear that this process was lengthy. It wasn't rushed. It wasn't just done on a whim. It was very involved. There was a lot of collective action and discussion that took place. Most importantly, the community was involved every step of the way. I trust all of the work that has been put in to create these amendments. There were testimony around, "Oh, I'm not sure. I think this is going to be compromising our cultural, natural resources." I took the time to read all the amendments, and I found that it actually strengthened those resources. So I want to thank you for doing that and for giving us a document that we can actually implement, that is aligned with our Code and State statutes, and really isn't a hindrance; and most importantly, where the County isn't liable. I'm not hearing that folks want to postpone. I heard from Ms. Eoff that she is comfortable with the discussion and all of the planning that has taken place to put forward this product. So we have a motion on the floor to move this forward to the Council with a positive recommendation. I'm calling for the vote, all in favor please say "aye." The motion to recommend passage of Bill 87 on first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung — 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you all. MR. YEE: Thank you. One quick comment. I want to thank Kamuela who is our new, well, not so new, here into our Planner IV position here in Kona. Page 28 PC -13 July 23, 2019 Homegrown guy from Waimea. A graduate from UH -Hilo. Sitting in the backrow, we have Heather Bartlett, our Planner I, who will go off to graduate school in planning in Portland, and will hopefully make her return back to us; and Beth Morrison, who is Kamuela's supervisor, who really helps to provide this process. This is really the next generation of planners. And I make this connection to— there's a lot of issues with SHPD. I hope somewhere in time there's a question about how do they change their leadership perspective? But how do we recruit? How do we bring in folks to do the hard work that's so hard to do sometimes? And so I think they're a great example of the next generation that's coming into Planning. We work very hard at doing it. Thank you. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director Yee, and thank you to your Planning team for being here. We're very excited to have them serving our community. Do I have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:39 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung – 1. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: The Planning Committee is adjourned at 3:39 p.m. Ms. Asti ey L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Planning Committee AK/na �l (Date) Page 29