Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2019/08/20 2018-2020Committee on Planning 15th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii August 20, 2019 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 2:35 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Absent & Excused: 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 by the Chair: Dwight J. Vicente: Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84, Draft 2 (Comm, 315.2), comment. Donald Medeiros: Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84, Draft 2 (Comm, 315.2), in opposition. Kirk Awong: Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84, Draft 2 (Comm, 315.2), in opposition. Jeno Enocencio: Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84, Draft 2 (Comm, 315.2), in opposition. Donna Herbst: Bill 84, Draft 2 (Comm, 315.2), in support. PC -15 August 20, 2019 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. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, please read in Bill 84, Draft 2. 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 PUU`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 and July 23, 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. 315.11, from Council Member Ashley Kierkiewicz dated August 14, 2019, transmitting a copy of the Affirmation of Settlement Agreement between the Edwin c. Olson Trust and the Board of Land and Natural Resources, was circulated.) (Note: Comm. 315.12, from Council Member Ashley Kierkiewicz dated August 20, 2019, transmitting letter from Dr. Alan S. Downer, State Historic Preservation Division Administrator, dated August 15, 2015, was circulated.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And I just want to call the attention of my colleagues to the folders that they have near their seats today. We Page 2 PC -15 August 20, 2019 received a copy of the Affirmation of Settlement Agreement between the applicant (the Ed Olson Trust) and the Board of Land and Natural Resources. They increased the fine amount to the damaged headstones to $55,000. There was discussion among parties, and so the matter has been resolved with Ed Olson Trust paying a total of $54,960 to SHPD's (State Historic Preservation Division) Special Fund to support its enforcement of the laws protecting historic sites. As you know, I also badgered SHPD, and got Dr. Lebo to be here at our last Council meeting. She stated that she would be doing a review AIS (Archaeological Inventory Survey), and within a few weeks, be able to provide us with a copy of their determination. She alluded to what it would be on the record, but I'd like to have things in writing. Even though this letter is dated August 15, I received it yesterday at 5:30. I am very grateful to Dr. Lebo, to Dr. Downer, to everybody at State Historic Preservation for their immediate attention to this matter. I'm not sure if you had a chance to read through it, but basically in this this letter SHPD has outlined all of the items they have received from the applicant, and it stems all the way back from 2016 and 2017. There's an after -the -fact grubbing permit, a change of zone application, an Archaeological Inventory Survey, a Burial Treatment Plan, and their State Land Use application. The bottomline is that the AIS that was currently submitted does not reflect the project before us, which is a proposed subdivision, so an update is required by SHPD. They also request that the applicant prior to any further work or submittal of the AIS consult with SHPD so that they can provide additional background research and thoughts on fieldwork and consultation prior to any updated submittal of the AIS. SHPD has also detailed a review of the AIS with their comments and concerns. I did not receive a copy of that, but I'm awareI believe the applicant has. It says in the letter that they're going to be receiving a copy of that. We are also, as the County, going to be notified once the revised AIS has been submitted and mitigation commitments have been agreed to, therefore, at that point a permit issue will be issued to the applicants. SHPD has also notified all parties via this letter that the Burial Treatment Plan has been rejected. It was actually not the right vehicle, and that they are prescribing a Preservation Plan. At this point, I feel I and this body have done all that it can to get the State to do their parts, and don't see the need to continue to hold this bill in Committee. We have members from the Planning Department here: Deputy Director Duane Kanuha, Jeff Darrow, Christian Kay; as well as the representative for the applicant, Sid Fuke. Feel free to come forward and address this body. I think we might need to restate a lot of the hard work that has already been done in ensuring that flooding and drainage studies will happen to ensure that flooding is mitigated Page 3 PC -15 August 20, 2019 within those project boundaries. And, Sid, I don't know if you want to elaborate on any of these recent communications from BLNR (Board of Land and Natural Resources) and SHPD. Don't be shy guys. Come forward. We don't bite, I promise. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke and Deputy Planning Deputy Director Duane Kanuha came forward to address members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman of this Committee. You are correct; I think your assertation is accurate, on point, in terms of the settlement with the State DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources), and also the comments that we received and the Council received yesterday afternoon from Dr. Lebo. She had basically sent two letters; they're almost like identical. At least the first two pages of that letter were identical. The second letter was a little bit more detailed, which was directed more to the archaeologist, you know, providing her specific comments. The comments that she had made on the draft Archaeological Inventory Survey appeared to be more like editorial in nature rather than like substantive issues. Plus, we believe that the way that the staff had originally prepared its recommendation, you know, to address the absence of an approved Archaeological Inventory Survey, and as per their recommended in the proposed amendments by Council Member Poindexter, I think, will provide sufficient safeguards. Because it's kind of clear that there's no land disturbance activity occurring until: a) you have an approved Archaeological Inventory Survey; and secondly, until any other things that are recommended or approved, or required rather, in the approved Archaeological Inventory Survey, such as a Preservation Plan, are in place before any land disturbance activity can occur. So I think that by—from the landowner's perspective—the applicant's perspective, having this thing move on, there's a lot of moving parts that need to be done prior to their being able to not only file but also have any land disturbance activity. So we would appreciate the Council moving this out of the Committee and taking action on it. You mention specifically about the drainage. I think that when we had that meeting with the community there were concerns raised, and with the assistance of Council Member Poindexter, we prepared a proposed amendment that would say not only that the consulting engineer would have to develop the appropriate drainage plans, but it would have to be reviewed and vetted with the community. Tthen that way there's some considerable community participation before the plan is finally approved by the County. Page 4 PC -15 August 20, 2019 We believe that—you know, from that standpoint, there are these safeguards, and we trust that you would make an appropriate decision. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the Council. We concur that the conditions that are found in Draft 2 of this bill, particularly Condition P, provides in our opinion sufficient coverage, that if the Council chooses to go forward with this application at this time, we feel comfortable that Condition P will continue to be in effect and give us enough leeway to ensure that the AIS and all of the necessary plans that SHPD eventually is going to and hopefully approve—adequately address the existing Condition P. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for stating that for the record. So what I'm hearing, bottomline, no land alteration activities can basically take place until the AIS and Preservation Treatment Plan has been submitted; but not just that, approved by SHPD. MR. FUKE: That is correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MR. FUKE: I would think that Planning Department is a very responsible you know, they have a very responsible role. The developer would probably need to have those documents in place before they can reasonably create a subdivision that accommodates not only other conditions such as roadway access to the north and south, but also any mitigations that are required in these approved Preservation Plan. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Any questions from my colleagues, or statements? Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, you know, I'm still being asked by the community, and the majority of the community, to have this postponed because the AIS is not complete. They need to talk about a Preservation Plan. At the last meeting, too, they were concerned that the area of that is—what they're talking about now is actually much larger, and there are other burial sites there. They're not comfortable with this going through and have asked again to meet with Mr. Fuke and our Planning Department. So my office should be calling all of you to sit down with them again. I met with them last week, and they asked that, that happen. They're still not budging and saying that there needs to be a better way of finding the other gravesites that they could feel comfortable with. Because some of them, and the old-timers that were at the meeting, said that they remember other gravesites there, as well. And it was in a larger area, I mean, larger than what they have sectioned off. Page 5 PC -15 August 20, 2019 So I was going to ask for a postponement on this so that you could—we could sit down with them again and then explain to them why you guys feel that going forward without the final AIS would be appropriate—and Preservation Plan, and with some things that are still needing to be investigated. I guess that is a better word. Mr. Fuke, I don't know how you feel about that. MR. FUKE: I think that—like, you know, the whole objective is to make sure that anything that's on the ground that requires preservation are preserved in accordance with approved State requirements. And what we're suggesting earlier is that the conditions that were initially developed by the Planning Department, and subsequently amended, you know, pursuant to—you know, subsequent to our meeting with the community, I think provides that adequate safeguard. You know, the normal protocol, regardless of a project like this, is you need to have initially an Archaeological Inventory Survey, and that survey is then going to say whether you need to have a Burial Treatment Plan or a Preservation Plan. In this case here, even further, a Data Recovery Plan. All of those things must be in place, must be implemented, pursuant to the proposed condition before any physical activity can occur on the ground. As I mentioned earlier, the Planning Department would be remissed in its responsibility to grant tentative subdivision approval until all of this required protocols have been addressed. Because it's kind of hard to plat where a proposed lot would be without having all of that information in place. So bottom-line is if the Council if this Committee is willing, you know, we would respectfully request that—you know, because you're saying that there's a need for another community meeting, that if the Council—you know, the Committee at this point and time would be receptive to moving it out of the Committee, and between now and first reading, or even maybe subject to the call of the Chair, there will be a meeting with the community and we can kind of take it from there. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. The other thing that they were bothered with, and so was I, and I made that known the last time, is that when they came in with the plan, they came in with the one -acre lots. And it was our Planning Department that said, "No, go make more." As I hear it, they can go even up to 89 or even more lots in that area. So I'm bothered by that, as well, because I don't think when people come in with they want—I don't think the Planning Department uses that as a process where they review that and make a suggestion to the person coming in, "Hey, instead of doing this, why don't you do more?" I feel bothered by that. The community is really bothered by that too because it's a huge impact. We heard about the traffic. I don't know if we had the traffic studies done there already; if it's proper zoning. I don't know if there was a flood study done in that area, and how old is that is. Would you know, Mr. Kanuha? Or, Sid? MR. FUKE: First of all, in terms of the density question, you know, in deference to the Planning Department, yes, the original plan called for the creation of all one -plus acre size lots. The projected density I don't remember exactly, but it Page 6 PC -15 August 20, 2019 was like 30 or 35. Maybe less than 35, you know, one acre -plus size lots over this 39 -acre property. They looked at the General Plan. They said like on the General Plan on the makai area, the Land Use Plan calls for like a high-density, not high- density but like a low-density area, which essentially would allow lots to go down to 10,000 or 7,500 square feet. So, there is wisdom behind that because it's proximate to the Hilo area. In addition to that, when you have like smaller lots, you have a potential of now being able to market them at a little bit more affordable rate as opposed to, you know, the bottom-line figure; as opposed to selling of these lots at one -plus acres in size. So there is some value, I think, behind that. If the community or members of this body are concerned about like the possibility of having more lot than what's being proposed right now, what's being proposed is the total of 49, then the applicant would have no objection to having a condition that would cap you at that many lots. You know, there may be some questions as far as legality. But notwithstanding that question, the applicant would be willing to represent that this would be the projected density. MS. POINDEXTER: So if I heard you correctly, then we could go to the community and say, "Should I put an amendment in that we would cap the proposal to 49 lots only?" MR. FUKE: We would be recep—the developer would be willing to accept that because this is what was represented to the community. I know that there may be some issues whether it's legal to impose such a condition. But I think from my point of view, and non -legal point of view, I think that's perfectly acceptable because this is what we're representing, not necessarily the government is imposing that cap. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. MR. KANUHA: Councilperson Poindexter, again, our main duty as the Planning Department is to abide by the General Plan as a policy document, you know, for our County. And where we see applications that have come in that would work, either way, like this petition here, our preference still would be to stick as close as possible to what a General Plan provides. And there's, you know, six to one-half dozen of the other. If this proposal were to go forward the way it was, the difference, in our opinion, is that on a higher -density, there would be sewer requirements. There would be higher requirements for drainage, curbs, gutters, sidewalks. Those kind of infrastructure improvements, which actually make for a better project, a safer project for the community in general. In this case, that's why we believe the Land Use pattern, and the situation notwithstanding, that a higher density in this area is the more appropriate call. MS. POINDEXTER: So when we talk about the General Plan because that's being revised—we're having the talk stories all over and people commenting. I Page 7 PC -15 August 20, 2019 think at the last meeting I was approached. What am I going to do to represent them when it comes to a CDP (Community Development Plan)? Because they feel like they're being cheated out of a voice because they have no say in a bigger plan. Unfortunately, the CDPs are divided by judicial districts, not by our Council districts. That's one of the just like a finger of mine that is out there not being represented in the Hamakua CDP. Their voices are like not being heard, so that's another area of concern. So when we talk about the General Plan, I'm giving them information on how to make comment to it. But they still feel they had nobody. Like all of us have now, you know, community, you know the Action Committees, which will bring together community, talk story and develop that CDP that works hand-in-hand with our General Plan. So that's one of the other concerns, too; that things are quickly developing, and they don't have this voice. So, that's an area of concern. I'm just sharing with you, and hopefully—I know it has to be one—I think it's brought by a Council Member to start a Community Development Plan. Is that correct? MR. KANUHA: Yes. You know, the only thing I'd say about that is a Community Development Plan cannot be inconsistent with the General Plan. MS. POINDEXTER: Right, that's why we're looking at the General Plan to try to bring it as close as possible to our CDPs as well through input, correct? That can be done. MR. KANUHA: Not necessarily. Not necessarily. MS. POINDEXTER: But that's what the talking, and the recommendations, and building of this General Plan is from public input as well, correct, which includes our CDP. MR. KANUHA: It includes the CDP. But unless there's a policy change within the County Charter itself, the CDPs cannot be inconsistent with the General Plan. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. And in areas that it's inconsistent—because it still can be inconsistent. But if it does inconsistencies, then the General Plan will prevail, correct? MR. KANUHA: Correct. MS. POINDEXTER: So their voices still can be hear in that way, and they can make it a point. But even if it doesn't match the General Plan, a policy change can be made so that it can match the—the General Plan can be changed. But anyway, my point in all of this is that they felt they have no voice when it comes to development in their area. I'm hearing them, and I—you know, with no Page 8 PC -15 August 20, 2019 disrespect to the Olsons, I'm supporting aI'm going to ask for a postponement. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other comments or questions? MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, I have one. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Sid, Duane, thank you very much for being here and talking about this. With all due respect to you, Val, I'm going to say, "This is developing quickly." This is not developing quickly. This has been going on for quite some time. I appreciate, Duane, what you talked about, Condition P. That kind of brings it home as far as the safeguards for our County. We as a body have a duty to make sure that the safeguards are in place as we go forward. I find it intriguing that a recommendation, and I won't say recommendation, suggestion, that perhaps we can have a higher density development in the area. Sid, I appreciate what you said. That's not what you guys thought. But I think what we're talking about is the ability for housing. We have a huge demand for housing in this County. Something like 25,000 units in the next five or eight years, or something like that. And so I don't seeI see that as a "seeking a potential solution" for coming forward. We're talking about within close proximity to the urban center of Hilo. Because of that proximity, you're going to have a higher value in that land. So if we divided it up a little bit more dense, then relatively speaking, we're going to have lower cost per unit; I got it. And it makes all the sense in the world. Whether or not that's appropriate, I'm not sure. But I like the thought process because at least if we don't ask the question, we are avoiding the potential conversation. It is appropriate. The communications we've received from the State, from DLNR, from SHPD, I'm very comfortable with. These agreements have been struck. The safeguards in our own legislation that allows this to happen but not any soil disturbance to go forward until the AIS and the inventory are all pau and finished. We as a body need to keep things moving forward. And I've supported the postponement, as we have more information. We have now received a tremendous amount of information, which all points in the same direction. That it's appropriate to move this forward. And I appreciate, Sid, you saying we'll have to have community meetings going forward. Page 9 PC -15 But holding it again, I think, that, I won't be supporting. moving this to full Council. August 20, 2019 we are not doing our job as an elected -body. So with I won't support a postponement. I will be supporting Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Chair Chung, in Hilo. Chair, I was told you had some comments. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I was going to say something. Well, how about this? I just want to know what Ms. Poindexter foresees as being accomplished with the postponement. MS. POINDEXTER: May I answer, Chair? Yeah, I think—the community needs to feel really comfortable about moving this forward. The latest development with his agreement and understanding what's going to happen with the AIS. And now, it's not a Burial Treatment Plan, but it's—what is it called? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Preservation Plan. MR. FUKE: Preservation Plan. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, Preservation Plan. I think that needs to be explained. I don't feel comfortable moving it forward until the community feels comfortable moving it forward; and moreso, because like I said, they feel so—not represented when it comes to development in their area. So I want to make sure to take that extra time for them. I want to give—our Planning Department was not available to meet with them at the meeting. I remember that Mr. Cross and Mr. Fuke was able to come, but the Planning Department didn't feel a need to come. I really feel the Planning Department needs to come because that's who they need to hear from to feel comfortable going forward, and to ensure them. Because no matter what I say, I'm not the Planning Department. I'll be gone nextDecember, I'm not here already. Not this coming December, next December, so you have one more year to put up with me. So, they're worried. They're worried about who's going to hold their voices. I really feel that having that meeting because, what's the rush? Unless they're going to be selling off the property once it's rezoned which I think they may; which is okay, too, but we need to make sure that the community is very comfortable with this going forward. So that's where I stand, Chair Chung. MR. CHUNG: I mean, with all due respect, I'm not real clear on that message. But at the same time, I'd like to give deference to the representative from that district if she wants more time to explore things. You know, if it's just a matter of yay or nay at this point, let's just move forward. And that's what I'm struggling with. I haven't really heard anything clear from Ms. Poindexter, who represents that district; and as I said, I want to give deference in terms of the postponement. It's Page 10 PC -15 August 20, 2019 not saying that I have to side with her on the ultimate decision. You know, if it's going to be driven strictly by what she's hearing from the community, we may as well just vote it up or down already at this point. But if there's a method by which she and community can work together with both the developer, the Planning Department as well as Public Works, then of course I'm all ears. So if maybe she could just expand a little bit what the prospects are; if not, let's just move forward already. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. Chair, may I? So the AIS, the Archaeological Inventory Survey, is not complete yet, right? MR. FUKE: A draft was submitted. And I think if you look at the historical narrative provided by Dr. Lebo, it kind of like showed that the timeline goes back to 2017. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. MR. FUKE: And it's been kind of delinquent. MS. POINDEXTER: But if I'm not mistaken, when she was here the last time, there was something else that needed to be done because it becomes a different proj ect. MR. FUKE: It's the same property. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. MR. FUKE: And so, like what she was alluding to was that—the fact that the AIS was initially generated to address the grading violation, and that same AIS which discussed the same property was used to assess the archaeological cultural impact of the proposed activity. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. But then the other piece, there was supposed to be another—she was talking about another AIS. MR. FUKE: I don't want to mispresent what she said. But my understanding, Ms. Poindexter, is that an AIS was prepared. The normal protocol is that once that AIS is prepared and then accepted by SHPD, then they will outline things—further activities that need to happen, whether it's a Data Recovery Plan, a Preservation Plan, or Burial Treatment Plan. In this case over here, since no PP (Preservation Plan) was received from SHPD for quite a while, in anticipation of trying to address the cemetery issue, the archaeologist prepared a Burial Treatment Plan. Now, it's just a nomenclator. It's a question of whether you call that document a Burial Treatment Plan or a Preservation Plan, and Dr. Lebo is saying that is more appropriately a Preservation Plan. Page 11 PC -15 August 20, 2019 One other comment I'd like to make is that I don't feel like the community is being disenfranchised because you're there, Council Member Poindexter. You're representing them. Following up with what Mr. Kanuha was saying, about the General Plan and the CDP, you know, it is true. The General Plan is so called your "guiding" document, and your CDP is supposed to flow from that. So if you're going through preparing a CDP for this particular area knowing full well that the General Plan is in the process of being amended, it just doesn't make sense. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, that's not what I meant. I was expressing that they want to have a CDP, not for this specific project or their only area, but they're just questioning. You know, this could have helped them move along in the way they needed to, if they would have had a CDP and the opportunity to have been meeting with the Community Development Action Committee, and getting a little bit, maybe even a better understanding of things. Right now, they just got thrown into it, right? And we're trying to get a better understanding of everything. MR. FUKE: You know, like—that's my comment already. You know, because this application has been languishing for like, I would imagine, like over two years already. So given that, one might say, "Okay, just let it languish a little bit longer." But I think from the applicant's standpointI understand your concern. You know, we don't want to have the community feel further disenfranchised from the process, and that's the reason why I suggested that—from a substantive standpoint, all of the issues have been asked and addressed at this level here. And we think that they have been addressed; you know, appropriate safeguards in accordance with the proposed conditions. Then give us a chance to have that meeting which you're suggesting is needed with the community so as to mullify some of their concerns or maybe improve upon it, and that meeting can occur before first reading is acted upon. MS. POINDEXTER: And I've got to say that some of the stallings or things that have dragged it on is also—it's both sides. It's not just the State. But when I read through all the timeline stuff, there are things that the Olson's attorney could have done to have expedite some stuff too, from what I was reading. So they've got to take some of that responsibility. Not all of it. I know SHPD was really slow on things. But I'm still not going to change my mind. I'm still going to ask for a motion to postpone. I don't know if my other colleagues need to speak before I make that motion. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'd like to hear from everyone. MR. CHUNG: But do I still have the floor? Page 12 PC -15 August 20, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: You do, Chair Chung. MS. POINDEXTER: Sorry about that, Chair. MR. CHUNG: No, no, no. You know, having given it some thought, and no disrespect to both the representative from the district whom I respect, as well as the community members, I view the AIS issue as a red herring, and I really mean no disrespect to anyone. We can still it doesn't preclude the parties from trying to get together from now until the next vote and probably another vote. It could get postponed at that point, too. I think, really, the public and the community deserves to know which way this thing is moving to begin with. I think it would be a disservice to them not to at least show our hand right now. So I'm going to be voting against the postponement. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair Chung. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Interesting conversation about this. I am not going to discuss whether this project is in line with the CDP or the General Plan. What my concern or issue is, is regarding the process that we've just went through. The Affirmation of Settlement basically is the statement that addressed the land of alteration without a permit, so that's one part of this exercise in my mind, and that's been resolved to the point where an amount was agreed for these illegal activities. Now, the next—my question was, and I had to call to find out, what is the next process in terms of—now we know there was a violation, what next? So I am told that the representative and the archaeological firm that did the AIS is going to be contacted by the State to go over and discuss the draft AIS, okay. Once they do that, I understand that they will come to either an agreement on what is needed to finalize the Archaeological Inventory Survey until that's done, Condition P which says that is the paragraph that we're looking at or being asked to look at, that would allow this to move forward even without the AIS being finalized—or the issues regarding what was found by the AIS, and what the State is going to end up requiring them to do. Now, I understand there's a lot of notations. Mr. Fuke, like you mentioned, that may be just commentaries, no? But for me, Condition P basicallyI assume it says, or I think it says that the applicant shall secure approval of an AIS. So while we're talking about "this part's done, that part's done," the AIS is still in its draft form and it hasn't been accepted or approved. So what I understood the next process is, because I'm very anal that way, I need to know if what comes up next is that they will be sitting down with the developer and with archaeological consultants to go over these things and come to a finalized AIS basic agreement. And in that letter from Dr. Lebo, you know, it says, they will—they "shall notify the County and the developer when SHPD has accepted the AIS has made an HRS 6E project effect determination, has agreed with the mitigation Page 13 PC -15 August 20, 2019 commitments, and the mitigation plans have been accepted, and the permit issuance may continue." That's my concern. Because I'm seeing this, but there's something still hanging out there. That if I move forward on this, I can't in good conscience because the process requires that these things be done. I was told that they will be contacting the developer and the consultant. For me, it just seems that the parts—one part of this has been resolved, and that is, yes there was a violation and yes you have to pay $59,000. But in conjunction with that, there's some other steps that need to be done, and that's what I'm having difficulty in moving forward today. Right now, I know—and I appreciate the position that, "Hey, let's move it forward because we have time." But right at this point and time, SHPD's already made—or has made the commitment that now all this other stuff, that was the original hang up in proceeding with this, now that that's put off on the table, it's resolved, now they can move on with this stuff. I would be actively contacting SHPD to see if they contacted you folks and your archaeological consultant to make this happen, and make it happen as quickly as possible. Because otherwise, we'll be coming up with different reasons why we should not move forward. I'm just saying that procedurally I cannot move forward with this because of these outstanding issues. So I would definitely support a postponement. I will actively contact and keep in contact with SHPD, so maybe we can get this thing moved along so we can see a final AIS and we can stop going back and forth about this. Given that, I think I'm going to yield. That's my position. So, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. David. Before I turn it over to turn it over to you, Duane, I just wanted to clarify. When Council Member Poindexter made some amendments to a few of the conditions, which conditions were those? Because those were driven by community sentiment, and I believe that we had those on the floor. Was it back in July or as early as June? MR. FUKE: I can respond to that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Oh, okay, Mr. Fuke. MR. FUKE: I believe that—you know, like Council Woman Poindexter had called for that community meeting, and so I attended as well as Mr. Cross representing Olson Trust, and I think Jeff Clark, also of the Olson Trust, attending the meeting. During the course of that meeting, there were concerns raised about the Archaeological Inventory Survey flooding. As a result of that, Ms. Poindexter and I kind of collaborated, and then developed what she had proposed, is an amendment to those conditions, and they relate to Conditions J, P, and Q. J relates specifically to the drainage issue, calling for like community vetting or input on the drainage plan; and Conditions P and Q relates specifically to the archaeological issue, saying that nothing happens until all of these archaeological protocols have been addressed and accepted by SHPD. Page 14 PC -15 August 20, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, so the safeguards that the community wanted to have already been made via an amendment by Council Member Poindexter. MR. FUKE: That's kind of my understanding. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. MR. KANUHA: I'll confirm that those were the conditions that were revised. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: I just wanted to note that whatever we do, progress really can't happen on this parcel anyways without the completion and acceptance of the AIS, not just because of Condition P, but just generally. I don't even understand how the developer could propose the project without hearing the, you know, finalizing the outcome of the review. MR. FUKE: Can I respond? You know, like there are number of other conditions that still need to be addressed. When you go through the preparation of your preliminary subdivision plan, you would have to address—like one of the conditions call for the creation of like a north -south kind of road, whereas an original proposal called for a private street, so those have to be adjusted. The condition also calls for having the project entirely hooked up or integrated with the County sewer system. I know that that's going require like a separate sewer study being done. And the question of like density, translates to your sewer requirements. So for the developer, to expend all of those funds, funds which will take a lot of activity which will take time, at this point in time, you know, it's hard for him or any developer to expend funds not knowing whether it's going to get an approval or not on the project. So to the extent that there is even like some tacit consent on the part of the Council, then it's sort of like gives the developer some measure of comfort, "Okay, now I can start budgeting, maybe my $800,000 or $100,000 sewer study so I can figure out what exactly I need to do. I can hire my engineers to kind of like start working on preliminary drainage plan." But all of these would have to be—cannot occur until there's a reasonable or comfort level that the developer has, and at this point in time, he does not have that comfort level, no developer would have that comfort level. MS. EOFF: But it's not just because of us not moving it out of Committee, it's also because there's no final, thorough, archaeological survey completed, which could uncover unexpected situations with the land that maybe he hasn't even really found about yet. MR. FUKE: You know, yeah. I agree and respect—like the need for like an approved Archaeological Inventory Survey and so forthI'm a little Page 15 PC -15 August 20, 2019 bit likeI just kind of need to share this with you because there have been times, where like if you look at this property—and notwithstanding the cemetery issue, knowing that the land has been used historically for some sort of agricultural activity aside from the cemetery area, and then you look at areas like in South Kona, you know, Ms. David's district, and it's you know, you don't want to touch that area. I have this letter from SHPD, this letter from SHPD on a pending SMA (Special Management Area) application, and this is what they say, they say that SHPD requests that the permits stipulate that SHPD must receive for review and approval of written and photographic documentation, that the interim protection measures have been implemented prior to initiation of any ground disturbing activities within the project area. This is for an SMA permit, and they're saying, "You can proceed with the SMA permit." So we're saying that if they can if SHPD can make that kind of statement in an area that's very, very historically and culturally sensitive like in South Kona and not make kind of statement here in the Wainaku area, where we know that the property for all intents and purposes, less the cemetery, has been used for sugar cane production, why can't SHPD come out and make this kind of same statement? MS. EOFF: You don't know? That's just a dilemma. MR. FUKE: That's why we're prevailing upon this body to say that please recognize the constraints that the developers has had to undergo. And I understand the need to kind of like not to have the community feel any disenfranchise, so yes we would have that meeting and try to explain as much as we can and make the first reading subject the Chair's call. MS. EOFF: I'm not questioning, or evenI don't know the answers to the questions you're raising either. But timing -wise, I'm just thinking what harm would postponing it here—or I don't know how long it would be postponed. Ms. Poindexter didn't say to what date. But it's just that it seems like things can't really move anyways. It's sort of a stuck project until the Archaeological Inventory Survey is completed anyways. MR. FUKE: If I were toI'm not an archaeologist, Ms. Eof£ But if I were to guess, just looking at the comments what SHPD had written, you know, about 75 or 80 comments, just like about 90 percent are all editorial mixture. Make sure you point your arrow here and there, you know, those kind of stuff. It's not really like, "Did you look at this, did you do data recovery?" It doesn't seem to be like that. My guess is that for the archaeologist to turn around and submit an amended or revised Archaeological Inventory Survey should probably take less than a month. The question is once it gets to SHPD, how long will it take for them to kind of turn it around? That we don't know. Page 16 PC -15 August 20, 2019 MS. EOFF: But that's still prevents the lead forward motion on a project. I mean, we can change the zoning or approve the ag to urban, but it still won't help expedite the project until all of that is completed by State Historical Preservation. MR. FUKE: I know we're all struggling with this and kind of want to—how about something like this then? You know, would the Council as a whole, or like this Committee—well, I would hope like the Council, if the Council if this Committee moves it up to the full Council, where the Council would not take action on first reading until we submit the revised Archaeological Inventory Survey, not only to SHPD but also to the Council? You can then make a determination then? Which would probably be 30-45 days. MS. EOFF: You know, I'm not going to have an opinion on that right now, but I understood what Mr. MR. FUKE: I'm just kind of offering that as like a compromise. MS. EOFF: Yeah, that's great throw out different scenarios. And I appreciated Chair Chung's statement that weI, too, want to defer to the Council Member from that district. She's hearing from her constituents; I'm only hearing a couple of statements here, you know, at the meeting. But I have a feeling that—not just tension, but concerns and things that need to be discussed further. I don't know what's the difference, about leaving it here or moving it to Council, and postponing it then or waiting to hear from SHPD. It just seems like things are sort of like on a postponement mode anyways. So, I would support her if she makes a motion to postpone. I don't know if that will go through, so if it doesn't, then we move it to Council. You know, that's something else to consider, what you've just said. Also, I am comfortable that this Condition P is in here, so that should also appease the community. And I think, actually J is a good one, too. I'm glad to get this work up front because no matter what happens here, we have safeguards in place. But I would support you if you make that motion. I don't know if it will pass. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Mr. Kanuha, did you want to respond to any of that? MR. KANUHA: You know, actually our position is, the wording in Condition P is going to be wording whether the AIS is submitted tomorrow, six months from now, a year from now, which means that they won't be able to move forward with any kind of land alterations activities and the subsequent development activities until the whole AIS Burial Treatment Plan is done, approved. That's one thing. But the other comment I wanted to make, was I was sitting up here listening to this, you know, it had a deja vu to it, yeah. But our background, if you go back and look at it again, this property was converted to the Urban District in 1994. Page 17 PC -15 August 20, 2019 Right? The proposal then was an 800 -lot residential subdivision, community center, schools. Lot sizes would have been between 7,500 and 20,000 square feet, and it was rezoned to RS -7.5, CM -10,000. This was back in 1994. This was when C. Brewer had it. Then C. Brewer sold it in 1999 to a different buyer. He went and undid everything. He put it back into the agricultural district. He took back all of the urban zoning. You know, this relates to Mr. Olson coming back to it, and it also relates to why the department—you know, again looking at the LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide) map and looking what had transpired, you know, back in 1984, made this recommendation that more density would be a lot more consistent with what the plans show. The LUPAG in the General Plan targeted this area, as you can see, all the way back from the early 1990s for this kind of residential capacity. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Chair Chung, before I get to you, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Interesting conversation. And, Val, I hear what you're saying about community. I really do. Maile, I appreciate the fact of going through the process; and I am of the same mind, it's supporting the process. I think where you and I disagree is what level of the process we are at. It's interesting information, Mr. Kanuha, about previous what it was targeted for. Moving this out of Committee, and this is coming back to you, Ms. Eoff, "What is the harm?" The harm is that we actually have someone that's willing go forward with their project. But investing resources, they won't don't that unless there is some signalment that there's a good chance that this is going to go forward, and that comes from us. And then I come back to my original statement, we are so needy of housing and housing coming forward. That even if we move this out of Committee with a positive recommendation today, it's going to be years before this thing actually comes forward. And because we move it out of Committee, doesn't mean I'm going to vote for it unless all our process is fulfilled, Ms. David. Because I agree with you, the wastewater management is a concern, the floodwater management is a concern, and we've already dealt with that several times in this Council before us. I am comfortable with the safeguards going forward to move it out of Committee, but I am concerned that if we don't keep moving things forward, provided all the paperwork is done, we as a County will be slowing ourselves down and we are going to lose some good things that could come towards the County. So I am not supportive of a postponement, but also by the same token, that doesn't mean I'm going to rubberstamp it once we get it to Council because that's not what I Page 18 PC -15 August 20, 2019 believe. The paperwork has to be done. I just want to be sure that we as a body are not guilty of continuing to slow everything down to the point that it ceases the function. With that, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Chair Chung, you have the floor. MR. CHUNG: Oh, yes. You know, I heard what Mr. Richards said, also what Ms. David and Ms. Eoff had to say, as well. I had earlier indicated that I'm—did we ever make a motion to postpone, by the way? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: No, we're not there yet. MR. CHUNG: Okay. Well, anyway when it does come up you know, I stand by my earlier statements that—you know, what's been asked for with regard to the AIS, and Burial Council, and all of these things, these things are built in to the rezoning ordinance. There's a big difference between the rezoning and the actual development because a lot of things have to happen after the rezoning takes place to make the rezoning come to fruition. But having said that, you know, I just think, you know, from what I heard, and what I heard from Mr. Fuke, that why don't we move this thing along, and they'll have some more information for us about a month from now. If that's the case, why don't we just postpone it. I'll vote for a postponement. You know, I really do want to defer to the representative from that district. I believe, technically though, it's not the right thing to do. But if there's any chance that it's going to bring the parties together, then I'm all for that. So I will vote for a postponement. MR. FUKE: Madam Chair, can I just clarify what my request was? You know, the agreement to the postponement was like with the understanding that when the revised Archaeological Inventory Survey is done, which is submitted to SHPD, at that same time it's transmitted to the Council, and at that time now you have all of the, I would believe, the necessary vehicle to make an informed decision. So I would request that if there's going to be a postponement, that postponement occur not until SHPD acts on it, and whenever that's going to happen. But whenever you receive the updated AIS from the applicant's consultant, as a Council, not Planning Committee. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other comments? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sid, what is the actual size of the lot that Ed Olson owns now, that's owned by the trust, that this is a part of? MR. FUKE: It's roughly about 39 acres. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Does he own any more than that? Page 19 PC -15 August 20, 2019 MR. FUKE: Yeah, the property is in the back, I mean, on the mauka side which are used for agricultural activities now. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So this original plan by the Brewers and the Greers, kind of touching on what Mr. Kanuha said, MR. FUKE: Included lands that were mauka. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, what is the total of land that he has? MR. FUKE: You know, when the Greers had it, and then was reclassified in to that urban district? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Is it 200 -plus acres? Is it 50 acres, 30 acres? MR. FUKE: Two hundred eighty-eight acres. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So he has a collective of 288 acres off ofI forget the name of that street. MR. FUKE: Yeah, I really don't know all of his assets, except that I know about this property and then the one immediately mauka he's currently farming. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But he owns a good portion of land all the way up? MR. FUKE: I would imagine so, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And he's just going to take this 40 acres, change it into residential lots. That's the end? MR. FUKE: Well, changing—well, as far as the balance of his portfolio, I really don't know what his plans are. But relative to this, he saw a need for housing activity, and in an area that's suitable, location, you know, to the community as opposed to the further mauka area, which is like you have a lot of agricultural activities. I can't speak for what his plans are on lands that are above of this area. I know that this is what his intentions are. He understands fully that there is a 20 percent affordable housing requirement. He owns property adjacent to that in the Amau`ulu area which he would like to then convert into apartments to address the affordable housing requirements. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You start to step into a bigger community think there needs to be a bigger discussion about what's coming, how that will affect that community as a whole. I'm just touching on what I think Mike Yee refers to as "parcelization." Page 20 PC -15 August 20, 2019 And then looking at some of the County environmental reports, they didn't take into account that there could be a bigger community coming, and to me that is important to take a look at, too, just from reading some background information that happened in 2017. But I do appreciate you coming up today and telling us what you told us. And I will be supporting a postponement, as well. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Matt. Ms. Poindexter. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Poindexter moved to postpone Bill 84, Draft 2, to September 3, 2019. Seconded by Ms. David. MR. FUKE: Can I just question that? Much as I love to come to Kona and eat my hot dog, I mean, I'm just thinking about like a time -efficiency; if the decision is to postpone primarily to enable the developer to meet again with the community or if the decision is to postpone until a revised AIS is prepared, and if it's the latter, then I can assure you that it's not going to happen by September 3ra CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Agreed, because I know that Dr. Lebo is actually going to be on -island September 3rd and 4fh meeting with folks, novice, and other archaeological firms. MS. POINDEXTER: Madam Chair, may I just explain the reason for my postponement? First, so that we could meet with the community and get them more informed. And I didsorry, Chair Chung, but I did tell them that I would ask you if you could also be there as well since it's right off of your district where it ends; but yet, if we talk about a CDP, that would be in your area. And so I did tell them that I would ask you if you could come to that meeting. We don't have a firm date yet. But I think with your knowledge and I think with your relationships with some of them, I think they could feel really comfortable with some of your explanations moving forward. That is why I'm asking for the postponement. That answers your question? MR. FUKE: That is fine, yeah. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other comments regarding the postponement? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Val, thanks for that articulation. Like I said, I don't want to be one of these counties that gets stuck in our own procedural nightmare, where we recycle, recycle, and we actually don't make decisions. But what you just articulated, it's more about meeting with the community rather than waiting for the other paperwork, and I can respect that, and maybe I can show up and create more paperwork so there's three of us at that meeting. But I'd be curious when that's actually going to happen. Because of that, and it's about the people, I think I can support the postponement. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other comments? Ms. Lee Loy. Page 21 PC -15 August 20, 2019 MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. And I can support the postponement because we have some actionable kind of items, right? It's to go meet with the community. Which is why I can support the postponement, also. Because actually what I'm seeing, even from our own Council Member from the district, there's confusion even with her. And if she can't articulate clearly to the community, then the community is not receiving good enough information, which is why they keep showing up, saying, " Hey, traffic is an issue, flooding is an issue." You know, they're not understanding the process either. So I'm going support the postponement. As that information gets pushed out to bring clarity, I can absolutely support that because it actually speaks to what Ms. David is talking about, about the process. But what I also want to put out is thank you, Mr. Kanuha, because they can go to way more density, but let's keep in mind water is going to be the cap. If they cannot get water to build 800 lots, it ain't going to happen. You know, if they cannot build the infrastructure, the roads, the sidewalks, take care of the waste, you know, ultimately the capacity for that property is minimized. So aside from the conditions of approval, there's going to be some natural capacity issues that limit the development in the area. So having said that, if I don't see anyI would love to call for the question. We're running a little late. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, I just want to make sure that everybody has had a chance a speak, and we're going to set some expectations around this postponement. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, and I just want to say one more thing. So I'm hoping the Planning Department this time will come, because like I said, I can try to articulate to them, but if they don't have the department saying what they need to sayI can say it in the same way, but it's different when it comes from the Planning Department, correct? You know, it's okay to have the developer there or their representative, however, they still don't trust. So thank you for that. MR. KANUHA: We'll be there. We'll be there. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'm going to support a postponement on the condition that we take a vote on these bills on September 3rd. So I think the expectation that I have at the community meeting is that the community fully understands what are in these bills. That we've gone through the process, that Council Member Poindexter has created amendments to safeguard any land alteration or any movement on the project. I think that it's very important that we recognize what our role is as the Planning Committee and the County Council. With that, let's take a vote. There's a motion to postpone on September 3rd. All in favor, please say "aye." Page 22 PC -15 Vote on Motion to Postpone: (Approved) August 20, 2019 The motion to postpone Bill 84, Draft 2, to September 3, 2019, was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Villegas — 1. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, Bill 83. 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 Postponed: June 18 and July 23, 2019 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Ms. David, to recommend passage of Bill 83 on first reading.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Can I have a motion to postpone Bill 83 to the September 3rd Planning Committee meeting? Vote on Motion Ms. Lee Loy moved motion to postpone Bill 83 to to Postpone: September 3, 2019. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by (Approved) following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Villegas — 2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion to adjourn? Page 23 PC -15 August 20, 2019 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 4:01 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Villegas — 2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Committee is adjourned at 4:01 p.m. Thank you. Approve . Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Chair Planning Committee AK/na Q/1 q11 0) ate) Page 24