Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2020/01/07 2018-2020Committee on Planning 22nd Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i January 7, 2020 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 9:31 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL Present: Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent & Excused: Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, 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: Robert Golden: Res. 432-20 (Comm. 658), comment. Dwight J. Vicente: Comm. 688; and Res. 432-20 (Comm. 658), comment. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Seeing no other testifiers, at this time I will be closing public testimony and moving on to business of the day. Mr. Clerk, if you could read in Communication 688? COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 688: NOMINATION OF NICOLE LUI TO THE HAWAII COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Managing Director Roy Takemoto, dated December 20, 2019, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. PC -22 January 7, 2020 Vote on Comm. 688: Ms. David moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Ms. Nicole Lui to the Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by Ms. Villegas and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Eoff — 2. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Rose Bautista came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Chair Kierkiewicz informed Ms. Lui that she does not need to appear before full Council for final confirmation. Recess: At 9:53 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9:55 a.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, we are back from recess. Mr. Clerk, if you could please read in Communication 689? Comm. 689: NOMINATION OF MARK VAN PERNIS TO THE LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION From Managing Director Roy Takemoto, dated December 20, 2019, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 2, 2020 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to recommend confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Mark Van Pernis to the Leeward Planning Commission. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Bautista, if you could introduce the nominee? I believe he is joining us from Kona. (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Rose Bautista came forward to address the members of the Committee and provided a brief narrative of the nominee.) Page 2 PC -22 January 7, 2020 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha, Mr. Van Pernis. MR. VAN PERNIS: Aloha. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Would you like to address the committee? MR. VAN PERNIS: Thank you for the opportunity to serve. I believe I have the qualifications, experience, time, and willingness to serve. And this is a national extension of my service on the Kailua Village Design Commission. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any questions or comments from my colleagues? Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Aloha Mark, so nice to see you. This is Maile. And first I'd like to say, I support Mr. Van Pernis' appointment to this commission, because I've known Mr. Van Pernis for, gosh, about four decades. And we've worked together. I think when he first came to Kona in the `70's, this little law firm in Kona hired him. I don't know if you remember that. Mr. Sterry was one of the associates in that law firm. So, I've had a working relationship with Mr. Van Pernis for years. And I respect his hindsight of things that have occurred because he's has some historical knowledge about Kona and about procedures and processes that I think is going to be very useful on this commission, and valuable. So in the absence of my colleague, Karen Eoff, the district you're representing, I would whole-heartedly express her support as well and welcome your nomination, Mark. So thank you so much for continuing to serve the community in this role and for your prior services. So thank you very much, and mahalo. MR. VAN PERNIS: Thank you and aloha. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. David. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for that, Auntie Maile. You know, this one's tough, and maybe this question is actually for Rose. You know, we've had other nominees come forward. And you know, I guess I just have to ask how far did you vet this particular nominee? Because I have information regarding some of the work done a while ago. And so I just want to understand why the Administration picked this particular nominee and how much vetting this this nominee was given. Page 3 PC -22 January 7, 2020 MS. BAUTISTA: Like all nominees, we vetted as best as we can. I actually even have the assistance of my colleague on the other side, on the west side. Nancy Pisicchio, who has known Mr. Van Pernis for numerous years, and she was the one who actually interviewed him; talked to him about the position. But we've talked to numerous people in terms of how he would serve on the commission, and there were different responses. But all in all, basically in comparison even with the other nominees, Mr. Van Pernis possessed the knowledge, the passion, and the commitment to best serve the commission. MS. LEE LOY: Ms. Bautista, I'll just go ahead and put it out just because I've done my own research. And there is or was an Office of Disciplinary Counsel action against this nominee. And I understand second chances, but I want to understand from the Administration how they vetted this or if they even had this knowledge. MR. VAN PERNIS: May I comment on this, please? MS. LEE LOY: Chair, I'm asking the Administration, who put this nominee forward. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Van Pernis, excuse me, decorum. Thank you. I'm going to ask Ms. Bautista to first respond to Council Member Lee Loy, and then I'll give you an opportunity to clarify. Ms. Bautista. MS. BAUTISTA: As I said, this nominee was vetted mostly by my colleague, Nancy Pisicchio. MS. LEE LOY: Chair, I have a lot of reservations about this nominee, and I would like to hear from my other colleagues first on how to proceed. I'm going to yield at this time. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Comments? I have a couple questions for you, Rose. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes, I'd just like to know what we're talking about? So, I can understand it. MS. BAUTISTA: I was not aware of that. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We're on the nomination of Mr. Mark Van Pernis to the Leeward Planning Commission. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I understand that, I'm just wondering what the issues are that we're discussing. Page 4 PC -22 January 7, 2020 MS. LEE LOY: Chair, if I might? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Please do. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Because I feel like you have information that we don't have. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, in the past, we've had nominees come forward and there's been information that hasn't been made available to us as far as being able—and that's why I'm asking Rose how far they vet particular nominees. And like Ms. David, you know, I've worked for a number of attorneys. And so I really do appreciate what Ms. David is saying, but I also know of an Office of Disciplinary Counsel complaint that was done a while ago. But it also speaks, to me, about this nominee's ability to be fair—well not so much fair, but objective in a thoughtful way. And that's why I'm just asking for the Administration to clarify for this body, how they vet an applicant. And like I said, I'm all for second chances. I just want to understand from the Administration why this particular applicant, but I'm also hearing from Ms. Bautista, they were unaware of this matter. And so I'm beginning to question how much they actually vet a particular nominee. So, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel complaint was filed a while ago, but I'm back to asking the Administration why this particular applicant and how far they vetted this applicant. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Do you have any questions for Ms. Bautista or the process? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I do. Sorry, we're here for the nomination. I understand the concerns with how we vet, but concerns on how they vet versus concerns for this nomination, do they need to be a separate conversation or do we have a discussion about how we vet while we're talking about a nomination? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We're just asking for this particular nominee. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so if we're just talking about this nomination, I'd like maybe instead of a while ago, give us a good number so that we can understand what you're talking about. And I'm just trying to divide what we're talking about into two pieces, because I think we're talking about two different things here. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: So Ms. Bautista, you weren't aware of the disciplinary action? Page 5 PC -22 January 7, 2020 MS. BAUTISTA: No we were not. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, I just want to step in here. Were there other candidates that could have been slotted in to fill the Leeward Planning Commission? MS. BAUTISTA: There were other candidates that we interviewed. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, and then was the Planning Department engaged in the process to provide feedback as to their preference of candidates? MS. BAUTISTA: Yes, they were. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And how much is their feedback, I mean how much weight does that carry in making your ultimate decision? MS. BAUTISTA: For all the nominees that we do, we take whatever recommendations or comments the department has to heart. But we also talk to various people. We do not just depend on the department. And the positive outweighs whatever negative there might have been out there. So, yeah, they were involved in the vetting, nomination. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Ms. David, do you have any comments you'd like to offer. MS. DAVID: Yes, I'm still in a quandary about the issue of the disciplinary decision, being that we have no idea of what the complaint covered; how does it tie into what we're deciding here today? And what I see is, if this is where we're going, that the vetting was not adequate, is this the process that we have to entertain for every single person that comes before us? I don't think we've done it in the past. I think this happens to come out at a time where, maybe there's some discrepancy about the nominee. And hearing about something that I have no information about, a disciplinary counsel actionI'm curious what their decision was, if anything. But I don't want to go there because I think that's outside of what we're trying to address here. If this is where we're going to go, then maybe we should find out first, how do we proceed? I mean this is new information. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: It's not in our packet. It's not in our confidentials. MS. DAVID: It's not in our packet. And I really am very hesitant to make a decision based on, there was an action, I don't even know what the final outcome was. That's not going to be allowing me to make an informed decision. As far as Page 6 PC -22 January 7, 2020 the nomination, I'm doing it based on my knowledge of this man; what I've experienced and that did not include my knowledge of a disciplinary action. To me that's separate and aside from this. If the Council wants to go down that route and just because there's been an action, and not knowing any factual result of that or any details about it. I think what I'm seeing here is what's been provided to us by the Administration, and that is how I have to make my decision today. And so, that's all I can say. You know, this other stuff, I don't have any more information than what you're providing, Ms. Lee Loy. So, I'm really hesitant to make any decision based on any new information about a disciplinary counsel action. So, I stand in support of Mr. Van Pernis' nomination. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: I guess I would ask for some counsel from the Clerk. Is it possible to table this in order to do some more research? I also understand that Mr. Van Pernis would be representing District 8, and Ms. Eoff is unable to be with us today. So I have some other questions about that as well, so I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to pause at this point? Postpone would be the terminology for another form of action, so, I'm wondering if that's relevant to a nomination? MR. BROWN: I think if you guys wanted to sort of pause and take this up at another time, maybe a postponement would be something to consider? That may give the Council as a body more time to look at more things. MR. VAN PERNIS: May I comment please? This seems to be inaccurate information. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Van Pernis, not at this time. We are discussing a procedural matter. I'll let you know, thank you. MR. BROWN: If I could follow up on that, actually in this case, there wouldn't be enough time to postpone the communication. The confirmation needs to be completed by February 2 of this year, 2020. So, either way that the body votes today, the communication will move forward to Council where it will be read again. If there weren't a majority vote for a positive or a favorable recommendation of the nominee this time, it would move forward to Council showing that there was not a favorable recommendation. But it would continue to move forward, and you guys would have one more chance to vote on the communication at that time. Page 7 PC -22 January 7, 2020 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Or in between then, the Administration could withdraw the nomination. There are those different pathways, I'm saying. Okay, thank you. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, Mr. Van Pernis, I'd like to hear from you. MR. VAN PERNIS: Thank you. The disciplinary complaint Ms. Lee Loy is referring to, I don't know the source of her information, but it was approximately 15 years ago. I'm not sure of the date, but about 15 years ago. It involved my complaining to a foreclosure commissioner about taking personal property and disseminating it. I complained to the foreclosure commissioner. The foreclosure commissioner filed a disciplinary complaint saying that I should not have argued with her. The matter when up on appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court and they agreed with my position. So the disciplinary complaint was resolved, accordingly. I would invite Ms. Lee Loy or whoever's complaining to present what facts, if any, they have. Thank you. MS. POINDEXTER: And thank you for that explanation, because I'll be voting for your nomination. And I think your explanation was, you know, justifiable on why we can move forward. And I don't know if Ms. Pisicchio, you know, she may have been aware of that. Like you said, you did not do the vetting yourself, but she did on the Kona side. So I's trusting that, you know, that did get clarified especially with his explanation here. So thank you for that, and I'm supporting you. Aloha. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Villegas, you had your light on? Okay. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Couple of things just to respond. If you just look it up, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, it's all there. But I actually want to speak to Ms. David's point about the process. The Administration gives us information in which we have to base our decisions on. And it didn't take much for me to Google this individual's name and find this information, which then makes—which is why I'm asking the question of the Administration, how much vetting is done? Now, to the process, we're relying on this information to make the decision. And if there's another way other than what we have in front of us at committee, we don't know a nominee until it's presented to us. And so, I think we have a lot to chew on based on the information I've heard from the Clerk. Maybe this will give the Administration time to pause and reconsider or come back with why they picked this particular applicant. I heard Ms. Bautista say there were other individuals. I also understand that the Planning Department was consulted. Page 8 PC -22 January 7, 2020 But what we have before us is a nominee. So with that, I'm not going to be supporting this nominee at this time in hopes the Administration can come back during our Council Meeting and show us a bright line of a vetting process so that this type of stuff doesn't have to come out like this in this manner. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, any other comments? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Van Pernis, I can appreciate your position and I think what we're actually more discussing here is a procedural issue. And I have some thoughts as far as maybe there's a way of avoiding this by changing our form a little bit for application. Being a professional, I can understand that things can happen. You can be sanctioned for that, but if things are taken care of, we can go forward. And I think it would appear that things have been taken care of. But as a Council, we have the responsibility for vetting things coming forward. And so I'm going to need to dig a little bit deeper. I think one of the biggest things that we as a Council recognize is the personal relationships that a Council Member of that district has with the potential nominee, whatever the case may be. We don't have Karen here right now. From my perspective, I think there is a procedural error, and Sue, I think you highlighted this, but I think there is a way forward with this. But since we have this partial information, I got to do a little bit more digging right now. So I think there's something that, I don't know, for this process. I think, especially if we're going to have professionals coming before us. And we're going to because these commissions are asking of that. If there's been a regulatory side, as far as a sanction, rather than just convicting of a law, we may request that there's been a sanction by the associations or whatever just so we know that's complete and transparent coming forward. Because that doesn't necessarily disqualify anybody. But I think it's better that we have the information upfront rather than in chambers. So at this point, I think there is a way forward. I think procedurally we should address something, and I'm not exactly sure how to do that, if this is the form of the Administration or the County, so I'd like to explore that. I'd like to look into this. I think there is a way forward. I think I'm going to support it when we get to the other end, but right now I'm on the fence. Thanks, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions or comments? MR. VAN PERNIS: This is Mark Van Pernis, may I comment, respond to the Councilman's statement? Page 9 PC -22 January 7, 2020 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Van Pernis. MR. VAN PERNIS: I want to emphasize this matter has nothing to do with my opinion with matters that would appear before this commission. And the matter was 15 years ago or more and was resolved. And I think Ms. Lee Loy when she went on Google, saw a comment from one individual who I have successfully overcome in previous litigation of many years ago. So I think that this is a matter that's resolved; over with, over 15 years ago. And the Council can make a decision on that basis. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for those comments. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, since we were talking about the vetting process, I would hope, or maybe a recommendation to the Mayor's Office, and maybe you do it already, that we do work with the department heads that it will impact. Because the departments have to be able to work with a team, right? And so, I would hope that they also have a voice in the vetting. You know, because a lot of times, you can discover a lot of things after the fact, and it may not be a good fit for the team. Now, I'm kind of like starting to struggle with this because, again, like what Council Member Richards had stated also that Council Member Eoff is not here, who's district he's in. Whether, and like what our Clerk stated, we need to move it forward one way or the other. Or the other option is the Mayor's Office is willing to, you know, withdraw this and come back to us. So I would like to make a motion to table to the end of our meeting. You know, we go to the next one, and I would ask if maybe Rose, you could consult with the Mayor, if he would be willing to withdraw and come back. Whether it will be with Mr. Van Pernis again, so be it. But I think this will giveI think it will be a better process because we wouldn't want to go voting all "no" and go negative to Council. This doesn't look good on record for Mr. Van Pernis. Motion to Table: Ms. Poindexter moved to table Comm. 689 to the end of the agenda. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. MS. BAUTISTA: I just want to make a comment before, you know, the next action. As far as the vetting process in the past, I just want to share this with you. We thoroughly vet our applicants, okay. We do that. Assuming this was discovered, and I Googled him. For some reason that didn't surface. Okay, we Google everybody. That didn't surface. Assuming something comes up, issues like this that is of concern, we will look into it. That is discussed. Many of our applicants, things come up. There's a lot of interesting things come up from FBI Page 10 PC -22 January 7, 2020 (Federal Bureau of Investigation) checks to background checks. A lot from Google, and like I said, we take all of those into consideration. This is hypothetical, assuming something came up, we would look at what the issue was, whether it's applicable; whether is it relevant to this, what have you. There were even criminal charges in some of the applicants. And you look at how long was the conviction, so we look at the length of time the person was convicted. If a person was convicted, and we've had over 30 years ago; over 40 years ago. Is it relevant now? We've actually nominated one that had a criminal conviction about 40 years ago. But when you weigh things out and you look at where they've been; how they've contributed to the community, does that affect their nomination now? Okay, so you want to look at the totally of all the circumstances. We certainly will look into this. And assuming that comes up, Mr. Van Pernis has already explained to us what the discipline was all about. So that's something we're going to take into consideration. Whether we'll withdraw this or not, I don't know. We will look into it. But in terms of the process, we try as best as we can to make sure that everyone is thoroughly vet. And no system is perfect, as you all know, but you can only try the best. And so far I think we've done the best that we can. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Bautista. Alright, any final comments from my colleagues? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I'll go ahead and share that report from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. And Mr. Van Pernis, I didn't want to get him involved, but he's right, the matter has been resolved. But I think it speaks to how he may or may not be a good fit. What bothers me is that we weren't given the opportunity to understand this information and it had to come out like this, which is just not a good look. So I'm willing to share that information with you folks. I just really am beginning to question the information that comes from the Administration and how much of it is really good information for us to make sound decisions. That's all I'm speaking to. I think what we have before us is a motion to table this matter to the end of the agenda. You guys can come back, review the information that I forward to you folks and make that business decision, and then make the body decide. With that, Chair I'm going to yield, but I believe we have a motion on the floor to table the matter. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'd like to hear, before I entertain that motion formally, I'd like to hear from Mr. Richards and then I have a couple of comments. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I think Val discovered a way forward to kind of sort through this thing. So Val, I do appreciate what you're saying. And Page 11 PC -22 January 7, 2020 given that we have information that, in good conscience as representing our districts, we have to explore before we can go forward. So I do like that. The concept, again getting the information. Rose, I think this is your form coming out of the Mayor's Office. So if we were to add a line in there about professional organization or something along those lines, that may actually solve a lot of this stuff, which would address Ms. Lee Loy's question and I think would help us out. But I am going to support the tabling till we get to the end of the deal to figure this out. And like I said, I think from my quick Google, I think things have been resolved, but I need to investigate a little bit further before I can make a determination. Thank you Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: So I'm very sorry this is happening so publicly, Mr. Van Pernis. You know, I do a Google search of all the candidates, the nominees that come before the Council because I like to be informed. And I did see the disciplinary action; looked into it. There have been patterns, but they have been very long ago. I didn't want to bring it up, others did and here we are. I think what bothered me the most was an editorial that was published in West Hawaii Today in March of last year that was pretty scathing. I didn't appreciate the tone and the way in which you were attacking members of this Council. A decision that we made regarding a subdivision. And it spoke to me about your ability to be a fair, impartial, open-minded arbiter. Because the Planning Commission makes very, very important decisions that have land use implications for how our island develops and moves forward. So personal matters aside, I was very concerned about your ability to serve based on that editorial and other comments that I've heard from members of the Planning Department and the community. So that is where my reservations lie in your nomination before us. MR. VAN PERNIS: May I respond, please? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: You know, I'm sorry we're way overtime. We still have a number of things on this agenda to get through. There is a motion by Ms. Poindexter, seconded by Ms. Lee Loy to table this nomination to the end of Planning Committee. All in favor please say "aye." Page 12 PC -22 January 7, 2020 Motion to Table The motion to table Comm. 689 to the end of the (Approved) agenda was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Eoff — 2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: This nomination is tabled to the end of Planning. We have a matter before us regarding Resolution, order of the day. Ms. Bautista, I guess we'll see you in about 20 minutes or so with the decision from the Administration as to what to do with this nomination. MS. BAUTISTA: Okay, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Okay, at this time I would like to relinquish my Chair position to my Vice Chair because the matter before us is something I am introducing. So let the record reflect I am relinquishing the Chair. Relinquish Chair: At this time, the Chair relinquished the chair to Vice Chair Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Clerk, let the record reflect I have assumed the Chair. With that, please Mr. Clerk, Resolution 432-20. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions. Res. 432-20: URGES THE COUNTY OF HAWAII TO ESTABLISH FUNDING IN FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT AND ANALYSIS OF CHAPTER 23, SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 25, ZONING, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED) Seeks an appropriation of $125,000 for the purpose of funding a consultant for the Planning Department to complete the audit. Reference: Comm. 658 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Clerk. Ms. Kierkiewicz. Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to forward Res. 432-20 to the Council with a positive recommendation. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. Page 13 PC -22 January 7, 2020 CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Kierkiewicz, this is your matter, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Last year, I and a number of members of this body were fortunate to attend the Hawaii Conference of Planning Officials on Maui, and there were a number of excellent workshops. One of them I attended was very interesting, and the genesis for this resolution. It was the how, the why, the what's of a code audit. Maui County presented their very particular experience in doing a zoning code audit analysis and eventual refresh in partnership with their consultant. And I found their approach to be very thoughtful, very inclusive, and I liked the way it was done in phases. The comprehensive audit allowed Maui to reflect on structure and performance which lead to very purpose -driven rewrites. As Chair of Planning I stay in close touch with the department to see how I can be helpful. Thank you for that, for indulging me, and for all of your input in crafting this resolution. I know that they've been looking at tackling zoning and subdivision codes through an audit for some time. I believe they keep a folder of all the things that they would like to update when the time comes. And so I wanted to provide them support through a resolution and ping the Administration while they are busy crafting our budget to carve out some funds to make this very important investment. As you know, we've seen during this committee when bills comes before us for deliberation; rezoning requests, proposed housing developments. We've seen how outdated zoning and subdivision are in particular, and so there have been amendments over a time that I feel we're generally meant to help make things easier. But in reality it's created a lot of conflict, and inconsistencies, and misinterpretation of the law. And so I felt it's about time with the General Plan being updated to take a look at these codes in particular very honestly in partnership with our community, which is the eventual end user. And start to craft some rules that are a bit simpler and clearer. If I could call up Planning Director Michael Yee, Deputy April Surprenant. Note, a couple of things I noticed for subdivision in particular, as we look to implement complete streets, this is where a code audit would be very helpful. And in terms of zoning, the last overhaul was 1996. I think I was ten. Oh, my goodness. But there just seems a lot of opportunity and it's very timely for us to be doing an audit with the eventual update of the General Plan. So, I'd just like to turn it over to you to see how something like this this type of exercise would be helpful to your department. Page 14 PC -22 January 7, 2020 (Note: At this time, Planning Department Director Michael Yee and Acting Deputy Director April Surprenant came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YEE: So, thank you, Councilwoman. Michael Yee, Planning Director. I'll let April introduce herself with me. MS. SURPRENANT: April Surprenant, Acting Deputy Director, Planning Department. MR. YEE: Quick story, just this morning, I was grappling with the question around the restriction for a guest home being used as a vacation rental. And so within our Code in Residential Zones, if you intend to build a new guest home, you cannot use it as a vacation rental. Okay, so the person who was asking the question was not happy with that, you know, response. But he was like saying, "So everybody who is renting out a guest home is illegal, and should be fined?" I'm like, "No." And so this raises the question around, if you build an ohana, you build it for your elderly parents who eventually pass on, and then what do you do with it? You may rent it out as a vacation rental, right? It makes obvious sense and that happens throughout the island. Yet it's difficult to reflect all these things in code that is like 25 years old. They didn't think of all these options and thinking about how we were trying to place restrictions with certain kinds of codes, right? So things do get outdated and need updating. In the past, many planning directors have chosen to use memos and other kinds of guidance to try to navigate the code. We get to the point now, where Norren Kato my administrative permits person often calls it code yoga. You know, we've got to try to transform, you know, trying to apply things in very weird ways to make it fit legally. And it's become daunting to try to do that, and being a director, I've been unwilling to want to keep producing memos to try to figure out the gray. We're way past that point. I think most of you, I've had a conversation about the difficulty with our Code and how outdated it is. As Ms. Kierkiewicz said, I've been in front of you many times with issues around where the Code isn't working. And so it was on our wish list since I've been here to think about when we would do a Code update. l actually didn't think it would occur in this first term possibly, but you know, through magic of finances and other things, and other opportunities, I think it makes sense to start getting into it. And I'm going to leave April, who's been managing the department much longer than I have been in it, to talk about the advantages; what this first portion would Page 15 PC -22 January 7, 2020 get to, because it's only one step in what would be a very long process still. For you to understand what you may be trying to sign up for with us. Thank you. MS. SURPRENANT: Hi, thank you for having us. So this first step that this resolution points to is the audit portion, which is really just a cursory look at the overall code, both the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Code; looking at all of the memos that we are referencing; our fix -it folder that we have and looking to see what it would take. And given the goals of the County and where we want to move with the Code; what it would take to actually do the revisions and the comprehensive review. So it's that first step that has to be done anyway, whether we ask for a million dollars today or $125,000 or $150,000 today, this piece has to happen. And so we're looking at ways to do it incrementally. This overall process to overhaul this particular Code, or these two Codes will probably take us in the realm of four-ish years. So this is not a fast process, it's going to take us a while to get through it. And so, we're going to look for ways to fund it that way as well so that it's, you know, if we can help it, not to have a big upfront cost in the beginning. But this piece is the first step that helps us understand the extent to which we're going to have to go through and the extent of, you know, an outline of the extent of the changes. It will help us scope the next contract which will actually go through the amending process. And it will help us understand what kind of budget we will need to put in place in order to do that. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I'm really excited about it because with subdivision we can then take a look at road standards, which is very interesting for us living in Puna. There isn't a one -size fit all solution and that brings us to zoning. We are wanting more walkable communities, more mixes rather than saying, let's have our commercial centers here and our homes 10-20 miles away. So, I'm really excited to offer this up and to be supportive of you folks, and I ask my colleagues to support this resolution, where we urge the Administration to really make it a priority in the upcoming budget. Thank you, Chair, I yield. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Anyone else? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thanks, Chair. So, if I'm understanding this, this is the plan to figure out what the plan is going to be. MR. YEE: Yes, we're planners. MR. RICHARDS: Just wanted to get that clear. Okay, all kidding aside, Michael, I appreciate that. And I appreciate Ashley bringing this forward because Page 16 PC -22 January 7, 2020 our Code, our planning, it's not working. And this is what's stifling this County, because we can't get things done because we're still stuck tripping over the fixes that we tried to put in place to fix something that now is obstructing us. So I think, this is a good direction, and to the point it's been stated about the subdivisions. We have a need of what, 20,000 homes in the next five years, something like that. Affordable housing is screaming for attention and we're not getting it done. So I think this is not the step but a step to start resolving some of this. And gee, what a surprise government is going to take a long time to get it done. I'd like to encourage us that we push this as fast as we can. But anyway so I do like the direction. I think it's a modest ask to start making the change and turning things. So I'm going to be supporting this. Thank you, I yield. MR. YEE: So real quickly, a WSU (Washington State University) Cougar deserves an answer from a UDub (University of Washington) Huskie. So a real answer would be, if you gave us a million dollars to just do this entire overhaul within that contract; within that scope would have been this first piece of scoping out. And that's what we carved out, because it wasn't realistic for us to come and ask the Administration for a million dollars up front in one year. And so, we knowingly took the first piece of this get go, and we certainly consulted with Maui in their work and looked at their contracts and stuff. So sorry if I gave you a smart ass answer. MR. RICHARDS: No, I appreciate that. And that clarifies that. Go Coug's. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder you have the floor. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Good morning, so how does this relate to our General Plan Review that we're doing, or that we did? MS. SURPRENANT: So there will be policies that are called out once the General Plan is adopted. There will be policies that call out that address various land use applications and the way that those might be formulated in the Zoning Code. It may call for particular amendments to the Zoning Code to address X, Y, and Z. Additional dwelling units is a very good example. Some of our other Counties already have—it's called an ADU (Additional Dwelling Unit) Code. We do not have that. We have other ways that we do it with the ohanas and guest houses. So that's one example that could be addressed that should be addressed in this next version of the Zoning Code which would come out of the General Plan. Page 17 PC -22 January 7, 2020 MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: So, they're interrelated or they're not, or they need to be separate. I don't understand why we're doing a separate audit of Planning and Subdivision. Zoning and Subdivision Coding when we're doing a General Plan Review already. MS. SURPRENANT: So they're at very different levels. The General Plan is much more broad -brushed. It doesn't have the details, setbacks and densities, and things of that nature that are required to have in the Zoning Code. As well as very specific uses that are allowed in each category of zoning. And so the General Plan is a much more broad big picture. It covers a lot more than just zoning and a lot more than just land use. And so the Zoning Code is much more detailed, much more specific, and so they really need to be two separate documents and two different processes. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I think from the beginning I've been in your office asking you about all my large subdivisions; when they were created, how come we can't work in there? Why are they private versus public; roads, infrastructure. How many times I've been in your office bothering you both, asking you questions about that. And so I'm interested to see how this goes. I'm excited. It's been frustrating because all the needs of my district, basically simply stated, "We can't help you because it's a private subdivision." So I'm very interested to see what comes out of this. I'm on the fence with supporting it. But I'm also excited to see what comes out of it. So, I yield for now, thank you. MR. YEE: Real quickly, Councilman. I would encourage you to be in support of it. For instance, 25 years ago we weren't very good at understanding our needs around green energy, solar energy, and all the impacts; and building codes and stuff that should be effective right now. So that's one reason that I know that it's important to you to look at it. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Ms. David your light is on. MS. DAVID: Director, I'm just wondering, during the General Plan Review process that we're going through right now, so timing -wise should this happen after the General Plan is completed before we do the audit or does it—what's the plan? MR. YEE: So this next allocation is for the next budget cycle. So by the time we're even kind of enacting that first, you know, this contract to even look at it; start preplanning, you know, the General Plan will be at the very least in final draft phase at that point. So we'll know the things that are going to affect the Code from that point. So I think it still fits in quite nicely in the timeline. Page 18 PC -22 January 7, 2020 MS. DAVID: In the timeline, yeah. Okay. MS. SURPRENANT: And this first phase is really just the analysis of the Code, and so that's not going to conflict with what comes out of the General Plan. MS. DAVID: But still it's a procedural thing and I think it works. MS. SURPRENANT: We wouldn't want to do the Code before—we wouldn't want to get too far into it before completing the General Plan, but the timing is actually pretty good for it to slightly overlap. MS. DAVID: It's working? Okay, that was my only question, mahalo. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. David. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, your light is still on. Oh, Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, I'm supporting this because I'd like to see too, in the audit and take into consideration how our Planning, Zoning Codes—how does it affect the health disparities? You know, the things that we're developing. What are we doing? Emissions or different things and different communities that may impact the health and safety of each community. So, yeah, we're far behind, and especially with, you know, climate change and everything happening. This is the time to really dig in. So I can see this going forward instead of waiting because again, we are behind. So, thank you for bringing this forward. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Process question. So we're passing a resolution, if we pass this today, for the request for $125,000, but that doesn't necessarily set aside $125,000. So what is the resolution doing then? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: If I might, Chair Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Yes. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So similar to your resolution, when you first came on board urging the Administration for more police officers for Puna, this is a very strong statement by this body in support of planning, and a very important investment in things that need to happen. I've already talked to the Mayor's Chief of Staff. I've talked to Finance Director Sako, and now I'm just trying to align up unanimous support from the Council to make this happen so that we see it in the budget. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: So come next budget cycle we can hopefully set aside $125,000 for Planning so they can do the study. Page 19 PC -22 Vote on Res. 432-20 (Approved) January 7, 2020 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: To do the audit, correct? MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: So prepping for that. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: We sure are. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Any other Council Member? With that Ms. Kierkiewicz, I'm pretty excited about this because I attended the General Plan speak -outs and I remember putting this on the board, right, a way to overhaul Chapter 25, Chapter 23; line up the vernacular done with the General Plan which would have the crosswalk of policy between what the General Plan is driving and match it up with the various Code amendments, which we know, Director Yee, there are a number of Director memos that are just Band-Aid fixes to the Code. So with that I do want to offer—when I had this conversation separate and apart last term, individuals from OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs) was also interested in participating. Also, planners from the Department of Hawaiian Homelands were also interested because of those types of jurisdictional issues. So through this first phase, if we do get there, I know that those particular stakeholders would be interested in helping craft, draft or even vetting some of the information so that those particular organizations and stakeholders can be contributors with moving this forward. I do know of one conversation I had with an individual from OHA who told me, "Sue just repeal and replace 25." And I took that to the department and it was more than nervous laughter, there were a few choice four-letter words that came out. So with that, we have a motion on the floor to approve Resolution 432-20 and have a favorable recommendation to the Council. All those in favor please say "aye." The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 432-20 was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kierkiewicz, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Acting Chair Lee Loy – 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Eoff – 2. Excused: None. Page 20 PC -22 January 7, 2020 ACTING CHR. LEE LOY: With that, Mr. Clerk, I'm going to be turning the meeting back over to our Chair. I believe we have one matter still on the table. So with that, let the record reflect I'm relinquishing the chair to the Chair of the Committee, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Relinquish Chair: At this time, Acting Chair Lee Loy relinquished the chair to Chair Kierkiewicz. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Let the record show that I have assumed Chair of Planning Committee. Mr. Clerk, we have tabled the nomination of Mr. Van Pernis to the end of Planning Committee. I want to call forward Ms. Bautista to see if there has been any direction from the Administration as to how they would like to proceed with this particular nomination. Motion to Remove Ms. Lee Loy moved to remove Comm. 689 from the table. from Table: Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Eoff — 2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Bautista. MS. BAUTISTA: Thank you. First of all, I'd like to ask Mr. Van Pernis as to how long did he previously serve on the Kailua Village Design Commission? MR. VAN PERNIS: I served more than two years, and I served past the time of my original appointment until there was a replacement made. I think you'll see I was favorably recommended by another Commission Member, Bryant Ching. And I think you'll see my service on that Commission was reasonable, rational, and unemotional. I'd like to point out in response to Ms. Kierkiewicz's comments, that I've never attacked personally any member of the Council, and there's a big difference between being an advocate and being a commissioner. My service on the Kailua Village Design Commission shows I can easily be an objective commissioner. I would be an objective commissioner for this appointment as well. I'm retired now. I'm not an advocate, and I think that I can be a reasonable, rational commissioner for reasonable development in the County. Page 21 PC -22 January 7, 2020 I'd also like to point out—well I think in response to the question that the matter was long ago resolved and has no bearing on matters that come before this commission. MS. BAUTISTA: Thank you. I just wanted to echo the fact that Mr. Van Pernis previously served on the Kailua Village Design Commission for more than two years, up to when he left I believe, just this last term and there was no problem. He served very well. High praised, as a matter of fact; very affective in the commission. And with that the Administration feels that we're going to move forward with this nomination. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah. You know, with much thought and listening to the Council's discussion and how we move forward, and again without Council Member Eoff present, I was hoping that the Mayor's Office would withdraw and submit again. Whether it be Mr. Van Pernis again, just so that it wouldn't go on the record. But I cannot, you know, at first I was wanted to support, but after listening to everything and not having Council Member Eoff here as well too, I'm going to have to vote "no." That's why I was hoping for the withdrawal so that could come back because it'll have an opportunity at Council for us to hear everything and hear Council Member Eoff's position on that because that weighs heavy for me the respect of my colleagues and their understanding of people who should be on commissions representing the people that we represent. Yeah so, that has a lot of weight for me, so I'm going to, at this time, I'm not going to be voting for this. But we'll have an opportunity again to come to Council so that I can listen to Council Member Eoff and more discussion as we go forward. So, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Yes, thank you Chair. And I appreciate Ms. Poindexter's comments about having Ms. Eoff here. This is her district. This is the nomination for her district. And I'm just maybe wondering if the Clerk—if we tabled this as opposed to taking a vote today; if we table this matter to after Council tomorrow? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I think, procedurally it would have to be a recess. Is that correct? MS. DAVID: I mean yeah, or table a recess. Whatever procedural—Ms. Eoff is going to be here tomorrow. And that's my question. And because we have a deadline here that you mentioned. And the fact that I really believe that Ms. Eoff, Page 22 PC -22 January 7, 2020 if she had the opportunity, if we could recess this and take it after Council tomorrow? That was my question. MR. BROWN: Taking a recess is an option. I think the challenging part with that is, tomorrow's agenda, we're not sure what time we may get through the Council business. And to recess, we'd like to kind of specify, if we can, a time when we would take this back up, this motion, this action. MS. DAVID: Is it possible? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: In fact, if we could just go on to recess to discuss the procedural matter? Thank you. We're in recess. Hi everyone, we are running a bit behind for Finance Committee. This should be resolved in about five minutes. Thank you for your patience, appreciate it. Recess: At 10:58 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:03 a.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, I am calling the Planning Committee meeting out of recess. I think even though these personal matters were brought to light, I'm still going to stand by my original statement, which was the editorials I saw in West Hawaii Today. One from 2017 really caused my concern and really is why I had many reservations about moving this forward personally, with a positive recommendation. And Mr. Van Pernis writes, "The County needs to get out of bed with developers who have no intention of keeping their promises after they extract their corporate benefits and profits." And it really bothers me that he has this lens of how the County operates with folks that do projects here. So folks can marinate on that if they'd like, but I'd like to move forward and make a recommendation to the Council where Council Member Eoff will be joining us at the Kona Council meeting where we can continue a robust discussion and decide then and there if we will be confirming this appointment to the commission. Mr. Clerk if you could take a roll call vote, please? Page 23 PC-22 January 7,2020 Vote on Comm. 689: The motion to forward the confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Mark Van Pernis to the Leeward Planning Commission with a positive recommendation to Council was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members David and Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—2. Noes: Committee Members Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—5. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Eoff—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, this moves forward to the Council with an unfavorable recommendation. Ms. Bautista, I would encourage the applicant to be in Kona at our next set of Council Meetings, which I believe falls on Wednesday, January 22nd. Mr. Van Pernis, you can appear there at 9:00 a.m., Kona Chambers. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. (There were none.) CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much. Do I have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 11:05 a.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Eoff—2. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Committee is adjourned. Approv- •ill , p V i Lft).0/0 Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 24