Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-05 Exh A Ikaika Ohana (Amend REZ 09-103) WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT November 5, 2020 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of IKAIKA OHANA (FORMERLY GIAMPAOLO "PAUL" BOSCHETTI) (AMEND REZ 2009-000103) was called to order at 9:07 a.m. via live stream meeting with Chairman Thomas Raffipiy presiding. VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE(COMMISSIONERS): Gilbert Aguinaldo, Dean Au, Joseph Clarkson, Thomas Raffipiy, John Replogle. VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE(STAFF): Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), John Mukai (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director); Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay, (Planner), Maija Jackson (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Rachelle Ley (Department Secretary), and Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador (Temporary Assigned Commission Secretary). And 4 members from the public live streaming the meeting . APPLICANT: IKAIKA OHANA (FORMERLY GIAMPAOLO "PAUL" BOSCHETTI) (AMEND REZ 2009-000103) Application for a five (5)-year time extension to complete construction and deletion of additional parking requirements in Condition E(Time to Complete Construction), a one (1) year time extension to Condition G (Time to Dedicate Road Widening Strip), deletion of Condition J (Requirement to Install Streetlights and Traffic Control Devices), deletion of Condition P (Fair Share Requirements), and deletion of Condition R(Impact Fees) of Ordinance No. 10 32, which reclassified 5.05 acres of land from a Single-Family Residential –7,500 square feet(RS-7.5) and Multiple-Family Residential – 1,000 square feet(RM-1) to a Multiple-Family Residential – 1,500 square feet(RM-1.5) zoned district. The subject properties are located south of Kukuau Street, on the west side (mauka) of Kapi`olani Street above the County Police Department Headquarters building, Kukuau 1st, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-4-025:048, 053, and 080. Secretary's Note: "—"means that there were technical and/or internet difficulties which made the conversation inaudible. RAFFIPIY: Agenda Item Number 2. Application for a five (5)year extension, five (5) year time extension to complete construction and deletion of additional parking requirements in Condition E(Time to Complete Construction), a one (1)year time extension to Condition G (Time to Dedicate Road Widening Strip), deletion of Condition J(Requirement to Install Streetlights and Traffic Control Devices), deletion of Condition P (Fair Share Requirements), and deletion of Condition R(Impact Fees) of Ordinance No. 10 32, which reclassified 5.05 acres of land from a Single-Family Residential –7,500 square feet(RS-7.5) and Multiple-Family Residential – 1,000 square feet(RM-1) to a Multiple-Family Residential – 1,500 square feet(RM EXHIBIT A 1 1.5) zoned district. The subject properties are located south of Kukuau Street, on the west side or (mauka) of Kapi`olani Street above the County Police Department Headquarters building, Kukuau 1st, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-4-025:048, 053, and 080. At this time, the staff will make the presentation. Christian? KAY: Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. Good morning to you and to the members of the Windward Planning Commission. Give me a moment I'll share my screen here and we'll get started. Okay, can everybody see that screen? RAFFIPIY: Yes. KAY: Okay. So, again as the Chair stated this is an application for amendments to Change of Zone Ordinance 10 32. The subject properties are located in the South Hilo District of Hawaii Island, here outlined in red. For reference we got Kapi`olani Street running generally North/South through the slide, Kukuau Street running generally East/West through the slide. For further reference across from the subject properties is the Police Department Headquarters building and kitty-corner is Saint Joseph's School property. Just by way of history and context I want to go through the existing entitlements in the Applicant's proposed project. As was stated, Ordinance No. 10 32 was approved on May 10, 2010 to change the zoning of the subject properties from RS-7.5 and RM-1 to RM-1.5 pardon me RM-1.5 forgive the typo with the 2.5 here for 5.05 acres. Then Applicant and current landowner, Giampaolo "Paul" Boschetti, originally proposed to construct a 100-unit market rate, multiple-family residential pardon me rental housing project and related improvements. Despite Mr. Boschetti's efforts to complete the project he abandoned it due to uncertainty in financial markets and fluctuations in demand for market-rate, multiple-family rental units in Hilo. Instead, Mr. Boschetti has entered into a purchase agreement with the intent to sell the property to A0705 Hilo, L.P. which is a single purpose limited partnership and an affiliate of Ikaika Ohana, who is the Applicant. Ikaika Ohana is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization with a mission of developing and operating affordable housing. The Applicant again this is Ikaika Ohana is proposing to develop a 64-unit, 100% affordable rental housing development, sixty-three (63) of which will have income restrictions between thirty (30) and sixty (60)percent of the area median income and there will be one (1) unrestricted Manager's unit. Finally, construction of the proposed affordable housing is anticipated to begin in the first quarter of 2021 and is estimated to cost approximately forty (40) million dollars and take two (2)years to complete. The Applicants are requesting, requested several amendments to the current ordinance first being a five (5)year time extension to complete construction which is Condition E; a one (1) year time extension to dedicate a future road widening strip which is Condition G; delete the requirement to install streetlights and traffic control devices Condition J; delete fair share requirements Condition P; and to delete impact fee requirements which is Condition R. It should be noted and it's on the agenda as such that the Applicant originally requested the deletion of the additional parking requirement articulated in Condition E however, they subsequently submitted a request to withdraw that amendment after the agenda was published. EXHIBIT A 2 So, I just wanted to state that for the record. The County zoning for the subject and some of the surrounding properties again is Multiple-Family Residential 1.5. The subject property is outlined here in black. Again, for reference we got Kapi`olani Street running North/South through the slide and Kukuau Street running East/West. Other surrounding zoning in the area is Single- Family, Double-Family, and Multiple Family Residential. The State Land Use designation for the subject property and the surrounding area is Urban as indicated by the pink color. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide map designates the property and much of the surrounding area mauka of the property as Medium Density Urban. Across Kapi`olani Street as indicated in red is High Density Urban. The Medium Density Urban designation supports the Multiple-Family Residential zoning designation. Here is an aerial photo, aerial photos of the subject property. The upper left again property is outlined in black here showing the property and surrounding area. Again, across Kapi`olani Street we've got the Police Headquarters Complex and Saint Joseph's School. On the corner here is Hawaii Vision Specialist Ophthalmologist office and the lower right-hand corner lets zoom in a little bit here it gives you an idea of the condition of the property. It is currently unimproved and overgrown with vegetation. Again, for reference Kapi`olani Street here and Kukuau Street here which is where the property will be entered. Here is an image of the Applicant's proposed site plan. Again, for reference Kapi`olani Street is here on the right-hand side entry way and Kukuau Street is towards the top of the screen with an entry way. Again, this is a preliminary site plan the Applicant submitted not necessarily what the final site plan is going to look like, but this just gives an idea of what they are thinking at this point. Here are some site photos. I didn't get a chance to get out and take photos but the last time I was in the area it generally still looks like this. Again,the upper left is a view of the Kapi`olani Street frontage looking into the subject property and then the bottom right is a view of the Kukuau Street frontage looking into the subject property. Then, here are some views of the street in the area Kapi`olani Street looking south. The subject property being on the right-hand side and again you'll see the Police Department Headquarters on the left-hand side and the upper right is the same street just looking the other direction. Then looking at the bottom left is Kukuau Street looking west and the bottom right is Kukuau Street looking east with the subject property on the left-hand side. The Planning Director is making the following recommendations for the requested amendments. First, he is recommending to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for time extensions to Condition E and Condition G. He is also recommending that we forward a favorable recommendation with modifications to the County Council for Condition P which is the fair share requirements and Condition R which are the impact fees. He is recommending that we forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council for Condition P which is a requirement to install streetlights and traffic control devices and finally, the Director is proposing to amend Condition E related to the additional parking requirement language. EXHIBIT A 3 I'll just go over a little bit about the favorable with modifications, the unfavorable, and the Director's proposed amendment for the parking here. First, is the favorable recommendation with modifications to Condition P and Condition R. Ultimately the Director is not supporting the requested deletion of these conditions. But in order to support the proposed affordable housing project which we do, the Director is recommending relief from fair share and impact fee requirements should the project be developed as represented by the Applicant and that's this affordable housing project with rents between 30 and 60 percent of the area median income. Just to be clear, although, the Applicant is proposing this at this point the RM zoning would allow any development that would be permitted in the zoning district. So, should for whatever reason the projects fall through we wanted to retain our standard conditions just to cover that eventuality as well. Pardon me. The unfavorable recommendation for Condition J and this is the requirement to install streetlights and traffic control devices. The Applicant was initially concerned that having this requirement be in place could add significant price increase on their project. There was some misunderstanding I think that streetlights meant like signalized traffic signals, where in this case it's just streetlights for lumination and had other concerns about the cost of traffic control devices. So, they asked for the ability to delete that condition. We did hear back from DPW on this and ultimately what DPW said is at this point those determinations are made once they get a set of construction plans to review against County Code to ensure public safety. So, even though we put this as a standard condition in most of our rezoning ordinances even if we were to delete this condition other sections of County Code would require that review and possible installation or possible requirement to install these traffic control devices in the like. Traffic control devices could be from striping to stop signs or those types of things. So, ultimately based on all of this, the Director is not supporting the deletion of that conditions. Finally, this got a little bit involved the Director is proposing an amendment to Condition E related to additional parking requirement. As we stated before the Applicant originally requested deletion of that language which ultimately said that the Applicant would be required to develop additional parking spaces up to a maximum of 60% of the required spaces for the total residential units to be built with the proposed development. That condition language was added by the County Council at the time of the original ordinance in response to the Police Department and neighbor concerns over the possible shortage of on-site parking for the then proposed 100-unit project. The Police Department also commented on the current request, this amendment request with the same concerns that the eighty (80)parking spaces that will be required. Our Zoning Code requires one and a quarter(1.25)parking spaces for each dwelling unit in the RM zoning designation. The Police then and now are concerned that it will be insufficient, and it may negatively impact their operations. Their concern is because there is not sufficient on-street parking available in the area. If there was a shortage of parking on the project site, then residents or guests may come and park in the Police Department Headquarters parking lots across the street. The Applicant in their initial application an initial site plan proposed a hundred and seventeen (117) spaces which would have worked out to approximately forty-five (45)percent of the required parking spaces. At 45% additional spaces of the required but they subsequently updated this site plan to remove reference to that specific number and in response to the Police Department's comments EXHIBIT A 4 indicating the Police Department's concerns they indicated they thought the Zoning Code required one and a quarter spaces would be sufficient for the project. So, based on that and to try address the Police Department's concerns and to provide clarity on what that number of additional spaces should be because the way that the condition is written is very ambiguous and open to a lot of interpretation. The Director is recommending that we amend Condition E to require 1.8 parking spaces per dwelling unit which would be 116 spaces at full build out if they build the 64-units. So, basically the Director at this point is locking in that number. The Director under our Zoning Code has the authority to determine or require more parking than what the Code requires. If he or she sees that there's going to be a community benefit or benefit public safety and at this point the Director is making that determination and articulating proposing to amend the condition to articulate that in the Condition E. Again, this is one of those situations where if for whatever reason the affordable housing development does not get developed then it would just fall back to the original condition. So, again just to recap the Director's recommendation is to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the Applicant's proposed amendments to Condition E & G, favorable recommendation with modifications to Conditions P & R and an unfavorable recommendation for the proposed amendment to Condition J of rezone Ordinance 10 32. I want to point out that after we sent our background and recommendation report we got two (2) pieces of correspondence. First would be an email from Ann Toma with concerns about traffic and then we also received a correspondence from Carlsmith Ball which is a water commitment time extension request to the Department of Water Supply addressing some of Water Supply's comments and requirements. With that I am happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have and unless some of the conditions require the presentation I'll go ahead and stop sharing that right now. RAFFIPIY: Thank you Christian. Any questions from the Commission? Go ahead Commissioner Au. AU: Thank you Chair Raffipiy. Christian can you bring up that screen with the proposed development? KAY: Sure, one moment please. AU: So, my question is I might have missed it but the egress and the in and the out of both entrances of the property. Can you point that out again to me? KAY: Sure, will one moment please. So, here is the proposed site plan. The Kapi`olani Street entrance would be here and I believe there is a condition of approval on Kapi`olani Street which limits it to right in, right out. Let me find that condition of approval here. That's been maintain through this amendment request and then the Kukuau Street ingress/egress is going to be toward the top of this screen here. EXHIBIT A 5 AU: Okay, so I guess you answered my question. Which entrances are right in and right out and which ones are not? So, you already answered my question. KAY: Sure, okay. AU: So, Kukuau is not, there are no restrictions but Kapi`olani Street it's a right in and right out. Is that correct? KAY: That's my understanding that's correct. That condition is new Condition F of our amended ordinance requiring the right in and right out on Kapi`olani . AU: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that because that wasn't part of your presentation. Thank you. KAY: Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Okay, any other questions from the Commission? KAY: Joe, is raising his hand. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead Joe. CLARKSON: Christian, is the limited partner, A0705 is that also a non-profit or only Ikaika Ohana a non-profit? KAY: I'll probably allow them to address that during their presentation. My understanding and the information we have is it's just Ikaika that is the non-profit but, they'll be able to address that and I think a little bit better. CLARKSON: Okay, I'll wait. RAFFIPIY: Any other questions from the Commission? KAY: Dean has his hand up. RAFFIPIY: Commissioner Au go ahead. AU: So, I have a question about the prior developer. Is the prior developer going to be here on the call or is it just the proposed Applicant? KAY: So, we've actually got a representative from Carlsmith Ball, Kathy Garson and Carlsmith Ball is representing Mr. Boschetti the current owner and former Applicant. We've got on the call Mr. James Rock who is representing Ikaika Ohana. So, you'll be able to ask questions to both the seller and the buyer if that answers your question. AU: In response, Mr. Au gave a thumbs up. EXHIBIT A 6 KAY: Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Any other questions, comments Commission? Alright, if there is none, I'll like to invite the Applicants. I should have Mr. James Rock, Mr. Doug Bigley and Ms. Kathy Garson. GARSON: Hi, good morning Chair and members of the Windward Planning Commission. Katherine Garson, I'm from Carlsmith Ball — RAFFIPIY: Ma'am excuse me, let me swear you in please. If I can have, do I have everybody here? Mr. Rock? Mr. Bigley? Mr. Rock and Mr. Bigley, are you on? GARSON: I don't believe Mr. Bigley will be on. James perhaps you can clarify. ROCK: Mr. Bigley may not be joining this particular call but, I will be able to represent Ikaika Ohana. RAFFIPIY: Okay, Mr. Rock and Ms. Garson, can you please raise your right hand please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Windward Planning Commission? GARSON: Yes. ROCK: Yes. RAFFIPIY: When you speak, please state your name and the area of your residence. Did you receive the Planning Director's background report and recommendation? GARSON: Yes. ROCK: This is James, yes, I did. RAFFIPIY: Alright and you have any questions, in regard to the Planning Director's recommendation or will you cover that in your presentation? You have any questions, comments about his recommendation? ROCK: I do plan on addressing the Planning Director's notes in the presentation. RAFFIPIY: Sounds good. Alright, so at this time I don't know who is going to speak first to make the presentation. So, will stick to the three (3) minutes rule please. Ms. Garson, you are on mute. Ms. Garson you're muted. GARSON: Alright, are we good? Alright, I was just going to introduce myself, Mr. Rock will be making the presentation for their Applicant. Again, I'm Katherine Garson from Carlsmith Ball, also present in the room with me is my paralegal Kat Luga, so nobody is hiding behind the screens. I am here representing the landowner, Paul Boschetti. We just wanted to be here to EXHIBIT A 7 support the Applicant and their position, they are a proven affordable housing developer in the State of Hawaii. So, Mr. Rock will be making the presentation on behalf of the Applicant. RAFFIPIY: Thank you ma'am, Mr. Rock go ahead. ROCK: Can I confirm, I may ask is it 3 minutes for an introduction or for the entire discussion? RAFFIPIY: Mr. Rock, I take it back, go ahead and make your presentation. ROCK: Alright, thank you very much. My names is James Rock, I am here on behalf of Ikaika Ohana. We are the developers proposing the project Kaiaulu O Kapi`olani. Few things I do want to thank everybody for having us here today and I do want to thank the Planning Department. It's been a pleasure working with them thus far on the project. I understand we have a few disagreements currently in the recommendations but overall, it's been great to work with them. A way of quick background, Ikaika Ohana is a mission driven affordable housing developer. We currently have about a hundred and eight, a hundred and eighty (180) affordable housing units within the County. Last week we secured all of the financing for sixty (60) single family homes in Kona that are going to start construction this week. We have another project in Waikoloa that's an additional 60-units that we hope to start construction in the first quarter of next year. As far as the proposed project, in general there is a couple of things we would like to highlight. The first is that for affordable housing we can use affordable housing as a tool to help address issues within the County. Some of these issues will be directly discussed in this presentation but overall, our view of the world is that affordable housing can be a net contributor. We can make our residents better, we can make our neighborhoods better, and we do encourage just the feedback and participation with the various groups to make the project the best project possible. For our project, the way that we've looked at our site we try to take holistic approach. We do want to balance multiple concerns both the number of units that we are able to provide but also parking requirements, open space, landscaping, the livability of the site and the tenant experience. There are a lot of factors that we consider and so, when we start working on our development it is a balancing act. It is input from multiple parties, it's review processes from multiple agencies, State, Federal, County, and so bring in all of these things together into a successful development. It does take time, it takes consideration, and it's a pretty deliberate process. So, ultimately what we kind of a goal for this is that for affordable housing development what we would like to do is maintain flexibility where possible. So, that as we go through the process of formalizing our designs and coming up with sort of the final plans. We do want to have room so that we can make practical adjustments so that the project can still move forward. The County still can get the 64-units of affordable housing that it desperately need, and that we don't necessarily have to over burden the Planning Commission or any of the other groups and coming back for repeat approvals. So that if something is described with the hard and fast rule today it EXHIBIT A 8 might not be able to address just changes that we have to face and different factors to consider as we develop the site. So, in general the concept kind of flexibility, making practical decisions, and including reasonable discussion on where we `d like to go. With that if you don't mind, I think there was a question directed about the status of A0705 Hilo as a non-profit. May I address that question? RAFFIPIY: Go ahead please. ROCK: Thank you. A0705 Hilo, L.P. it is a single purpose limited partnership. Basically, it is an entity formed for the sole purpose of building these 64 affordable housing units. The entity itself is not a non-profit and that's by design basically, the low-income housing tax credits that are a substantial source of the financing for the project. They are driven by incomes and expenses and the participation through just a tax return is how we are able to bring a lot of the equity dollars into the project. So, if this was just a non-profit you wouldn't have much of the value for a tax write off. But, from in the investor world with the profit this program been around since the 80's. It's a highly successful program and the use of a for profit limited partnership such as ours is a common feature across the board for affordable housing. If there is any additional questions, I'd be happy to answer those. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Any questions from the Commission? AU: Chair Raffipiy, I have a question. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead Mr. Au. AU: Mr. Rock, I appreciate, thank you for coming and making a presentation. I appreciate affordable housing developers coming in and addressing our Hawaii County affordable housing issues. Your kind of focused on affordable housing and I just want to hear from you as far as what is Ikaika Ohana vision as far as hiring local contractors and local people. Because, once that word affordability is employing our local work force and we see a lot of developers come in, we see a lot of Mainland contractors come in. But I just want to hear your vision and see and to share about that idea of local contractors and the local workforce. ROCK: Sure, good question. Part of our goal and I have to think if we have an image that we use pretty frequently in our presentations. It's basically our thought process behind how we can participate within a community. Starting at the level of the individual home. That's just where the household lives, that's where tenants reside and it's the household that's kind of the center. As you grow a bit larger you get clusters of houses that becomes your neighbors, all the neighbors interact from there your neighbors interact they grow get more into a community. So, you have this growing web where once you start at the center you have all these other interactions and the interplay between them that are just a component of housing. So, in general housing by itself it's a starting point in our view but it branches out everywhere. Where, if you can solve problems for housing, you are also going to solve similar problems for education cause now you are getting a stable place to live. You are getting a healthy, and safe EXHIBIT A 9 environment for just growth and being able to nurture and learn. You start with housing, but you can also assist with health. Again, you have a safe place to live, your able to sleep at night, your able to afford your rent and reduce that stress. So,just as a very broad brush that's kind of the overall concept is that we use the housing as the vehicle to try to do just so much more in the community. So, directly answering the question regarding the contractors and the local community. Absolutely, we definitely want to participate in the local community and help the local labor force, the local economy grow and so for projects like these once we are able to secure the designs we have a decent plan we will go out to the local community to see what resources and what labor we can have to utilize to help us build our project. So, for some of the resources that we use we also have mandates that we have to meet so, I think Women on Businesses is a portion of it. There's I believe a training component and so we do include those not only by mandate but also by mission and so we do want to help our community grow. AU: Thank you Mr. Rock, Chair Raffipiy, I have another question for the current landowner. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead Mr. Au. AU: Can I ask that question? RAFFIPIY: Yes, you may. AU: Okay, Ms. Garison is that your last name, Garson? GARSON: Garson. AU: Okay, thank you Ms. Garson. So, my question to the developer, to the current landowner is I just want to disclose that I was on the Commission back in 2010 when this rezone was in front of the Commission and went to the County Council. I was very excited to see developments coming up and seeing housing built and this was ten (10)years ago. I'm a little bit disappointed that he wasn't able to move forward with this project because now is the time we need that inventory. So, I guess my question is really just why really, he didn't do anything I know you stated that for financial reasons but, is that the only reason why? GARSON: I honestly do not have anything beyond that, development is sort of a function of what the market would bear and at this point affordable housing seems to be what this community needs the most. AU: Okay, thank you, thank you very much. RAFFIPIY: Mr. Au. Any other questions from the Commission.? Alright, if there is no questions— AU: Chair, Chair Raffipiy I have one more question. EXHIBIT A 10 RAFFIPIY: Go ahead Sir. AU: So, Mr. Rock you mentioned that you had some issues with the Director's proposed amendments. Did you share that with us? ROCK: I'm happy to do so now if that's appropriate. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. ROCK: Sure, so if I can do the quick recapture or the run through of the conditions under discussion. So, for Conditions G, P, and R I think we are all in agreement on the recommended changes. The two (2) conditions that I believe were under discussion one relates to the traffic control devices and the other relates to parking. So, is there an issue that the Commission would like to address first between traffic control or parking? Okay, for the traffic control devices there is a couple of different components. We do understand the need for safety, the need for meeting the standards design by the County as to traffic levels and levels of service. So, currently with our project designs and with the traffic studies that have been prepared the proposed development it should not decrease levels of service below the County's standards and there are also the existing conditions as were mentioned before by Christian. The right turn in and out on Kapi`olani Street to additional help mitigate the traffic concerns related to the development. The right turn in and out we think that's kind of appropriate and reasonable response but as mentioned in the presentation as well. The concern that we have is that if there is a requirement to signalize an intersection perhaps Kapi`olani and Kukuau or maybe one of the other intersections in the neighborhood. The way that the affordable housing financing is structured is that it's very difficult and it's a very slow-moving train to try to obtain additional resources. So from our studies and from the County Codes nothing that we are seeing would impose a requirement to install traffic control devices and we do plan on going through the Department of Public Works and having the traffic department review the project to confirm that we've met those standards. The concern that we had though is that if for some reason the requirement is established thru a zoning ordinance that we install a traffic control device we'll end up having almost two (2) different similar requirements. So, you have the County Code requirement that we go through the Department of Public Works and you have a duplicate of that requirement also in the ordinance. As we go through the development if we find that traffic control devices are not needed thru the County Code and the Department of Public Works there's still the risk that I might have to come back again to the Planning Commission and now install a device because of the wording in the resolution. So, from our standpoint the County doesn't necessarily lose anything or degrade standard for traffic controls by removing some of the language requested in Condition J. It does offer more flexibility for affordable housing, it allows Public Works to continue its review during the permitting process and we do believe that the proposed development will maintain satisfactory levels of traffic in the area. So, regarding traffic are there any questions? Okay. EXHIBIT A 11 AGUINALDO: I have one. ROCK: Yes, please. Pardon. AGUINALDO: I have one. Hold on. I have a question, so pertaining to what Christian showed on the site plan right for the development. I see 2 coming down on Kukuau side if I not mistaken, 2 gated, 2 gates and my question is that gate of entry what is that purpose for? ROCK: So, the proposed gated entry it is for the residents only basically for the site so that access will be by vehicle remote for residents to be able to enter the site. AGUINALDO: Cause I saw the trash so I was anticipating that that is only for picking up the trash for those gates so, I mean as far as to what you're trying to say of removal of the able lot. From my experience and my expertise, that's why traffic devices are there because of what you just said. You know, accessibility for the residents to go in and out so there is more than one area of going in and out. I could see if it was for emergency only for let's say fire or something. Then that is only used for those certain times but, accessibility to your property you guys look at it you cannot remove Condition J because of that reason. You have multiple avenues of going in and out it's kind of like what I see but as far as the devices it's a broad range so, that's was the only concern that I had was I saw that gated entry and I saw trash bins there I figured it was just for pick up for trash. But, not for residents to go in and out where you got Kapi`olani to go right turn in and right turn out. ROCK: I see and is it possible for Christian to put the site plan back up for everybody to see? KAY: Sure, please give me a moment. ROCK: Thank you. AGUINALDO: I just think that the recommendation from our Planning Director and the County indicates for traffic devices because of that reason as well. Because you'll impact of people going in and out from Kapi`olani, Kukuau, and there's a stop sign coming down on Kukuau going onto Kapi`olani so in that area there might be a possibility of an impact in that area. It is kind of like what I see and also for basically as well it's your neighbor is the Police station. For accessibility also for fire I could see if it was for emergency access, Mr. Rock then different story right. ROCK: For my own understanding, so the concern is with the location of the vehicle gate marked on the site plan? AGUINALDO: No, it was like the concern to me was of removing certain things in the language of traffic devices and concerns impacted cost for traffic signal that might impact you on your development but, you got to truly understand as a developer you have multiple avenues of access in and out and you just said that it's for residents to go in, go out on accessibility of Kapi`olani. I mean Olaloa is, I'm pretty sure you are familiar with the developer in Honolulu, a senior housing in Olaloa, there's one way in and one way out on the senior housing. It's wide, it's accessible, EXHIBIT A 12 it's a gated community, but I can see it's your gate in the back. In the back is for access only for possibly for trash and for emergency access only. It might benefit and help where on your standpoint because I was looking at as the main entry of the accessibility right turn in right turn out that is your main entry. As far as coming on Kukuau you got to understand too the road is narrow, you are better off going on Kapi`olani. Your coming down Kukuau, it is kind of like you coming down and you got to turn and there is you know it is just my train of thought. How are you going to go out from there? Which is your in and which is your out off of Kukuau? ROCK: Right on Kukuau. AGUINALDO: Yeah. ROCK: So, on Ku — AGUINALDO: By your gate, yeah? Because I don't see arrows, if you presented something to me and I know traffic well I would like to know what is your in and out as well as on that because you guys didn't say anything only right turn in and right turn out from Kapi`olani and not on Kukuau. So, of course the recommendation that is made of traffic devices is because its broad, it's vague I don't see, I'm sorry, I got to look blow it up a little bit and excuse me there is no arrows of which is in and which is out off of Kukuau where the vehicle gate is. So, again it's vague to me, vehicle gate is to me like hey is it for the rubbish pick up people or is it for emergency access only. ROCK: Understood and thank you for that. Christian, if possible, can you zoom in on the gated entry near Kapi`olani. Is that possible? KAY: Let me see if that is a possibility. Just one moment. ROCK: While Christian is trying to zoom in. I completely understand the concept of the vehicle flow, we do not have arrows and we do not indicate so I do apologize for the lack of clarity there. AGUINALDO: Yeah, no worries. ROCK: As a general concept, the site is developed or proposes to be developed as two (2)way traffic so, it will have vehicle flow you know in both directions. So, it is not a one (1)way proposed street within the site and so the vehicles here if you notice on Kapi`olani kind of towards the top of the page that is the right entry and the space between Kapi`olani Street and the gate that's anticipated for just cars loading as the gate opens. So, all of these spaces are being designed in accordance with the County Code for traffic mitigation to make sure that we do have safe entries and exits for the vehicles. And then Christian, if possible, can you go to the Kukuau entry. KAY: Sure. EXHIBIT A 13 ROCK: Alright and as you can see here again, I do apologize for the arrows that would have been a very helpful piece of information. This is a 2 lane in both directions drive aisle it will also be designed with sufficient space for the loading prior to the vehicle gate and the entries and exits from here will also comply with the County Code. So, the vehicle gates it is intended to be as the residents and visitors enter the gate can slide open and slide closed and this in general will also assist with some of the parking considerations for the site as well. So, it's a bit of a dove tail and also one of the douncing factors to consider for the site. So, overall for the traffic control devices I do understand the Commissioner's comments and the need for traffic controls as appropriate and the review by Department of Public Works we do plan on continuing the discussions with the County to make sure that the result of the project is appropriate. So, as far as the conditions imposed to the resolution it does sort of fall back to the general position that as much flexibility as possible, we would like to have some room to make adjustments. One of the things that specifically address those parking and traffic on our site plan is that in the previous version of our site plan the loading aisle was a bit narrower from the street to the gate. So, we extended that a bit at a cost of a parking stall but, that is just one example of some of the changes that occur over time as we refine our site plan. But, on balance we think that it's a net positive for the community because it improves traffic safety and as we get into parking we feel that it does not diminish the availability of parking for our residents. AGUINALDO: That load thing that you indicated Mr. Rock is that off of Kapi`olani or are we talking about Kukuau? ROCK: Both entry ways will have AGUINALDO: Okay. Thank you. ROCK: Thank you very much and indeed this a great example of the type of conversation that we like to have to get the ideas from around the table and to talk about what our vision might be having the input from the community and seeing if we can come to reasonable results and satisfy the County. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. AGUINALDO: Chair I have one more. I have one more, my last, Tom I have one more for Mr. Rock. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. AGUINALDO: You know as far based on the residents and what you are looking at for affordable housing and what you guys are trying to do I'm sure you guys are going to be catering and there's a threshold as far as income. I'm sure it is going to also have some seniors as well. So, with that being said there I know there's no crosswalk "—"possibly on our Condition J traffic devices its required by Public Works is a crosswalk for pedestrian to cross Kapi`olani. EXHIBIT A 14 Instead of going all the way down to the shucks I call it the four-way stop or above on Kapi`olani is a device for crosswalk devices the flasher. So, that might be to maybe for you is what do you mean by traffic devices, there is a lot from streetlights to crosswalks, pedestrian flashing lights and yes part of it too is traffic signal. It all depends on what kind of impact you are going to do to our County roads. :—"but I think the questions that I've asked you, you have answered it very well. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? CLARKSON: Yes, I have a question for the Director. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead Mr. Clarkson. CLARKSON: I'm curious about this Condition J. If Public Works is going to have the final say every configuration of built out is going to be subject to Public Works review and their requirements. I'd like to have Director Yee explain why this condition needs to be in here at all. I thought that, I don't see it as a big deal for my point of view but apparently this developer sees it as an unnecessary hurdle to have to go through Public Works and then come back to the Planning Commission to have Condition J modified. So, why can't we just delete Condition J? YEE: I'll give Christian a chance to respond first. KAY: Sure, thanks for the question Joe. So, ultimately the Condition is part of the ordinance as is right now. It is a standard condition and if you look at all of our rezone ordinances, we have a set of standard conditions that we add into our rezoning ordinances. This is one of those that is in there. I would like to point to the language though and the intent of the condition. Is streetlights and traffic control devices as may be required by the Traffic Division, Department of Public Works (DPW) shall be installed by the Applicant. There is no in my mind, there is no concern about having to come back to the Planning Commission or the Council to try and amend this. This is just an informational condition saying that these types of facilities may need to be installed if DPW Traffic Division requires them. So, it is really just advising the Applicant on next steps ultimately, So, basically as we stated in our recommendation even if we deleted this condition at the end of the day functionally everything happens the same way. So, we just wanted to default to our standard set of conditions. I'm not sure there's a huge amount of heartburn one way or the other I haven't heard anything in our conversations with the Applicants. We tried to express the same thing to them before so, unless there is something that really like this is something for funding reasons or whatever that's going to kill the project I don't see a huge reason to take it out. But that is just my opinion. YEE: Michael Yee, Planning Director. I want to add Joe that so there is kind of standard language in our conditions that basically say a project has to follow Federal, State and County laws right and we could always just write that and be one sentence and we will be done. We always write conditions that kind of reiterate certain areas it could be historic preservation it EXHIBIT A 15 could be roads and we reiterate things because its important. So, it's kind of repetitive so, I don't want to document that uses every letter of the alphabet and then some. But we also don't want to just rely on one sentence that tells projects you got to follow all the laws that are out there. So, it becomes a balancing act that is the short answer to it. CLARKSON: Thank you. Can I go back to Mr. Rock then please and could you clarify one more time why this advisory "advisory condition"poses a problem since you going to have to go through DPW eventually anyway and that is still all up in the air what they going to require. What so problematic about this condition for your financing? ROCK: The condition in itself to seek approval from Public Works we basically agree with Planning Department. It is appropriate to go through Traffic and if the intent is to highlight the sensitivity to traffic and traffic control devices again, we are also sensitive to that matter as well. So, I think we are in alignment there. The issue is primarily just is if we have multiple sorts of like a restrictive covenant so in this case the zoning ordinance itself then you have County Code. It's just that if there happens to be a change then if the language is kept in the rezoning ordinance as is it almost leads the reader to allude that a traffic control device is expected. Whereas, or it tells the public that I am anticipating a traffic control device and as we discussed on this call that is a wide range of activities. The sidewalk, it could be a streetlight, a stop sign and so, if the Code and the County's current standards already covered the requirement what we are trying to do is just to add clarity to the process. So, that the traffic controls again, we do plan on going through the review, but we do not want to set unrealistic or unnecessary expectations that something will be imposed on the project. So, that being said kind of as a general comment we do agree that traffic controls and getting approvals are necessary and this is a condition that we definitely got to the Planning Commission discretion. But we do plan on satisfying traffic control device requirements. RAFFIPIY: You okay with that Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: Okay, thank you, thank you. RAFFIPIY: I do have a question, a follow up question to the staff. Let's say if we decide to eliminate this condition and the project falls through doesn't happen. What is going to happen with that condition, or will it be deleted forever and will not be part of the and will not go back to having that condition reinstated? KAY: So, yes that is correct. If the Commission recommends the deletion and the County Council agrees and deletes the condition the ordinance that comes out of the Council wouldn't have that again functionally any subsequent development would have to go through Traffic Division for a determination of traffic control devices and streetlights in any case. So, I think that's kind of technically yes it wouldn't be there on the document but functionally it still have to go through and follow that section of Code upon review of construction plans. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. EXHIBIT A 16 KAY: Yeah. RAFFIPIY: Okay, I think Mr. Rock addressed the traffic and I think you still have the parking to address or there was a concern that one of the concern that was brought up by I think was by Commissioner Au. ROCK: Yes, would like me to address parking? RAFFIPIY: Please. ROCK: Sure. So, to start I think that over all the vision of our development and the ideals for Planning are pretty aligned having appropriate parking I think is a common goal that we share. So, from that standpoint we on pretty good grounds. Now, it just comes down to some of the details and again the concept of flexibility and imposing requirements through the ordinance. So, where we are today is, we've been engaged with Planning we sent some draft to the site plans and what we plan on doing just with the resident units and the parking stalls. As I mentioned the plans can and do change over time as we incorporate the different comments from the community and addressing different needs. So, having flexibility in the system is very beneficial because again it gives us all the opportunity to look at the entire playing field when we are going through the processes such as Plan Approval and to say, does this result makes sense. And so, the existing ordinance language it provides for a minimum and a maximum. So, the minimum is the 1.25 parking stalls per unit or eighty (80) stalls and then the Code reads up to sixty (60)percent additional units which I believe adds up to about a hundred and twenty-eight(128) stalls. So, for example the window of acceptable results is somewhere between 80 stalls and a 128. From our standpoint we did have back and forth with the Planning Department. Initially we requested to remove the maximum not to adjust the minimum and then we just backed off of that and said you know that window results I do think that's kind of a practical execution for us. Where we sit today I think our parking stalls count is about a hundred and sixteen (116) stalls and so the window of results that's our preferred method cause again it allows everyone to take a look at what we are doing and as far as the actual number of stalls produced we do want to provide adequate parking for the residents. Having someone that can't find a parking spot, they have to park down the street or just in this area because of the lack of street-parking and other concerns. That would just represent a challenge and that is not what we want to do to our own residents. So, we take a look at what the typical usage is for affordable housing properties like ours and so, for our project to add a little bit of clarity on the income restriction. Basically, our project has a ceiling for different levels of income so, we are not going to go above of 60% of AMI. We can go down I think effectively to zero because of the Section 8 vouchers that are allocated to the project. So, we have a wide range economic results anticipated for our tenants and its open to the general public so we may have some senior residents, we may have some families, it going to be a whole bag. And so,just looking at our properties that are currently in our portfolio and looking at other affordable housing projects in the County of Hawaii. The parking ratio that we EXHIBIT A 17 actually see today like in our properties and around the County it's about one to one. Some of that might be economically driven, some of it might be socially driven, where they prefer just taking mass transit or riding a bike. Whatever the conditions may be the adverse is one to one. So, as a County's threshold having 1.25 as a site requirement that just seems to make sense. You are not going to go too low where you are going to harm your residents for not providing sufficient parking but also you are not going to high where I'm over parking my site at the very real cost of open-space and community center and the opportunities for kids to play on the site. And so, for our balancing effectively at 116 stalls I think the ratio is right around 1.8 which is the recommended minimum. That becomes problematic because what happens if I have to go to a hundred and fifteen (115). So, we mentioned traffic controls devices what was the spacing again needs to be increased coming off the street. I might lose another couple of parking stalls and in that case if I have the zoning ordinance requiring 1.8 then my entire project is now in jeopardy. So, I lose the ability to go to a hundred and fourteen (114) stalls or a hundred and thirteen (113) stalls. For our standpoint, we do want to provide sufficient parking for the residents, for guests, and reality, we think that that number to provide parking for residents plus additional units is probably somewhere between 1.25 and 1.5. But. again, establishing a fora at 1.8 it really ties our hands and makes it much more difficult where if we had these continuing conversations with the rest of the County department that should something change I'm very restrictive on what I can do and respond. All of our financing is tied to the production of 64 units. I don't have the opportunity of going to sixty-three (63) and somehow reducing that side of it and it also just seems contrary to the County's goals of providing affordable housing. So, in general the parking we have take a look at it we do prefer the range of results approach and we do have a degree of confidence that as we go through Plan Approval we will be able to continue our discussions with the Planning Department. And show that the existing uses for affordable housing and the anticipated uses for parking on site it should be able to address our immediate concerns with adequate parking onsite and satisfy the County that we met their requirements. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Any other questions from the Commission? AU: Chair Raffipiy, I have a question. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead Sir. AU: So, Mr. Rock just want to clarify your original proposal for Condition E was for 1.25 stalls is that correct? ROCK: Right, I believe the original proposal is to set the minimum and that's the County Code 1.25 stalls per unit and our intent is to do more than that. AU: So, your intent is not really so, for the record what we are doing for this condition is where the Director is recommending 1.8 stalls, you the Applicant originally is proposing what the Code EXHIBIT A 18 says which is 1.25 stalls but your intentions is to come in somewhere in between. I just want to clarify what we are dealing with in this condition. Because the Director wants something, Applicant wants something, but your intentions is one thing. Maybe if you can give us a proposed request other than the Commissioner then maybe we can deal with that rather than just, you follow me? ROCK: I think I do, and we have discussed this internally with our development team. One proposal might be to try to split the difference and perhaps set a minimum standard of 1.5 stalls per unit. If I may do the math, I had that in my mind and now I forgot. Let's say it's around a hundred (100) anybody has a calculator. I apologize I should have had that in front of me. Anyway, at a 1.5 ratio it is somewhat of a compromise position where we can increase the minimum, but we can maintain the window of results that are acceptable for the affordable housing development. Again, our preference is to keep the window so that the County Code establishes the floor, and the ceiling can be anything. Apparently, having as much parking as possible is also a good thing. So, where is the ceiling in that. But as a compromise position I think it would be reasonable from our standpoint if we did a 1.5 parking ratio requirement because I think with our current site plan what we anticipate for the review process it should offer enough flexibility that we can make modest changes if it's necessary and satisfy all the County's conditions. At 1.5 on the stalls I think we are in very good shape for the needs of our residents. AU: So, 1.5 stalls would be off of 64-units would be ninety-six (96). I don't know if the Manager's unit would count but, 64-units would be 96 stalls. So, if that is what the Applicant is requesting my next questions is to Christian. How would we move forward if he is verbally saying he is requesting if the "—" 1.5 how would we move forward? Or is that an official— YEE: Christian, let me chime in Christian. KAY: Sure. YEE: So, on this discussion around parking we were left with something from the original ordinance that said there would be zero to 60% more than "—"the minimum requirement. I wished they would not have opened it up to so much vagueness around that could be 1% or there could be 60%. Right, somewhere in there or even zero right. So,part of it was did they mean thirty (30)percent, did they mean forty-five (45)percent we landed on the number of 1.8 which was something they had shown us that we thought was reasonable and so that's what I put in, Clearly what I wanted was to move away from the vagueness of zero to 60% and to put some kind of harder number in there. Whether or not its 1.5, whether its 1.8 the Commission concern and decide. You heard James's arguments for it. I'm a little concern if we, I know his intentions as that we look at it, I know they are going off their experience in Hawaii and what that number needs to be. I know they want to be able to serve their residents. So, it's this balancing act of us trying to have a crystal ball over where we think the parking needs to really be right. Whether its 1.5 or 1.8 I can't tell you. EXHIBIT A 19 My experience tells me 1.8 may not be like overshooting by it by any means either. But I could be wrong. So, I leave you with that Dean and yes I think it's a fair question could the Commission write a lower number than 1.8 yeah absolutely and I think 1.5 certainly puts us in a better place. If James has the intention that if they believe they need more I believe in them they would do more if necessary. But I also want the Commissioners to do what is practical for our needs too. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much Mr. Yee. Any other questions, any other comments? AGUINALDO: Tom, I have a question for Mr. Rock. So, the scenario we are talking about I just hearing parking, parking, parking. Now Mr. Rock, have you looked into our County's Mass Transit as far as if there is because you got to look at right. Impact, an impact walking is now an impact. Parking, vehicles is an impact. Now, have you looked into our Mass Transit, County Mass Transit System if there is bus stops nearby, and do your research on that. That may help you know possibly I'm just thinking outside of the box that may help in what you are trying to achieve. You know if you had a bus, if there is you know buses, small buses, Hele-On buses coming within the town. You know it's something to think about. So, I know parking is the discussion right now is if do we have enough parking but, is there another do you have a Plan B? Is that something did you and your team look into as developers looking into that option as well. ROCK: If I may? AGUINALDO: Yeah. ROCK: Thank you. Regarding the specific question for mass transit. Itis part of our review process, it's actually part of some of the financing applications that we have to submit as well. So, we do an analysis of mass transit and other amenities available to the community. So, beyond just bus stops also just groceries, medical services and so forth. I don't happen to have the map in front of me I know it is part of our project package when we do look at it. But through our development there is certain things that we can control and there's other items that we would definitely be willing to work with the County to try to advance. So, on our side of things that we can try to do to facilitate alternatives to vehicle travel bike racks . That is a pretty easy one we have sufficient open-space and locations where we can add bike racks to help encourage alternative modes in transportation. So, in deed when we see those things and it actually checks the boxes on a couple of things it's a healthy lifestyle, its exercise, reduce pollution, so it's just one of those things that is a very easy add or something that we are very happy to consider. Bus stops again, mass transit we are definitely in support of that concept. As noted, there are some challenges logistically around the site. The widths of the street, if a bus stop was located at our project entrance you also do have challenges of are vehicles able to get around a bus stop or are there potential modifications that the County would want to do within the County's right-of-way to assist in developing that. EXHIBIT A 20 Some of the concerns or some of the considerations if additional financial cost that is imposed on the project it does just make bringing affordable housing to the island a bit more challenging. Cause every dollar is difficult to get we are highly in a competitive world. So, we are definitely happy to have the conversation and participate about additional tools that we can bring to the development not just for our residents but the surrounding community to help address concerns just like these. AGUINALDO: Yeah, because your surrounding neighbors are saying like oh going be, sorry trying to say in a well manner that this development might impact the roads. So, another method like I indicated would be some surrounding neighbor like eh' there's you know potential mass transit bus stop eh' we can just walk to the bus, catch the bus,just go to the grocery shop and come back or whatever. Then it lessens the number count of cars going on the road in that area. But, again it's just a thought that I just wanted to ask if you guys looked into that as another alternative of consideration and what not but, thank you. ROCK: Definitely, thank you for that comment it is a conversation we can continue to have with the County to see if there are opportunities to provide that. AGUINALDO: Right, right because they do have handicap, the smaller new buses that can entertain disability as well. Again, it's a win win,you got to look at, you know Mr. Rock you cannot win them all. Right, even the County. So,we got to find a common ground of balance of agreement. Thank you, I yield at this time. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much, any other questions from the Commission? Any comments? Mr. Au go ahead. AU: Joe, can go ahead, Joe raised his hand I don't have a question I'm just prepared to make a motion. RAFFIPIY: Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: Yeah, I just have a question about the gate loading areas. My concern is, is there any flexibility "—" DPW require the developer to make traffic control devices on public property but, would they be able to require the removal of the gates if there is a consistent problem with loading, backing out into the street. Because for whatever reason large numbers of people come and go at the same time with their vehicles. I just, I don't know who I would that would be a question for whether staff or the Applicant. But I see that as a potential problem and I just wanted to know what the likely resolution would be. KAY: I'm not sure that I know this for certainty, but I suspect the Code, or I suspect that once there are construction plans under review by Public Works they would take those things into account. Based on what is in the Code for distances from the right-of-way to a gated situation. But I can't quote it chapter and verse as to what it looks like, but I imagine it would take that into account. CLARKSON: Thank you. EXHIBIT A 21 RAFFIPIY: Any other questions or comments? KAY: I think Mr. Rock had his hand up, Mr. Chair. RAFFIPIY: Oh, Mr. Rock go ahead. ROCK: Thank you. Indeed,just to reflect on what Christian said we will definitely follow the County Code and work with the County to find appropriate loading areas coming off of the street. Making sure safety is a big priority for us. It is not something that we take lightly or intend to short cut. So, we will find a result that works with the County and then going forward we see the site live and breathe once its full of residents. We can definitely take a look and see if any just alternative options are available to us to make sure that we do maintain safety. So, if there is a period of time. I'm hesitate, to offer examples because I don't want to put it in the resolution. But we do have ways to mitigate that issue so that we don't have stacking onto the street. AU: Chair Raffipiy, I have a question. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. Go ahead Mr. Au. AU: So, last question I do have for you Mr. Rock is considering with what we have in front of us right now and the fact that the current developer has intentions of selling it to your organization. How soon or are you have intentions to build? Right away, because we deal with a lot of these developers that come in and do these developments and ten (10)years later it's not done yet. You know, we need affordable housing I just want you to answer that question before I make a motion. ROCK: As soon as possible. It's definitely a multi-layer response all in a positive direction. As the County, the Planning Department might be able to express I don't give up easily I make a lot of phone calls and I see Christian laughing. It's not funny I have to do it. I am indeed a champion for our projects, and I will continue to press to make sure it happens. So, you have as an individual I will keep pushing forward as an organization this is our mission this is what we do. We see the need in the community, and we are going to make it happen. Beyond that the resources that are committed to the project they come in with their own timelines. If we are not successful and if we are not moving forward then we are indeed under the intense financial pressure to make sure that we deploy the funds that the State has allocated to us and same thing with the project based vouchers those also comes with timelines that we need to hit. So, looking at the development in front of us and the path to completion we do plan on starting construction next year. And so, we can see the steps that needs to be followed, we think we really have a good plan in front of us that can respond to the needs of the community, and by this time next year we hoped to be underway and the County can see progress and a couple years following that our sincere intent is that the County comes back and just says, why, I really want more of this. So, we're here, we're committed, we are going to make this happen. EXHIBIT A 22 BIGLEY: James, is it possible that I can say one, one other thing? This is Doug Bigley. I also work with Ikaika Ohana. RAFFIPIY: Mr. Bigley. Did I swear you in? BIGLEY: I don't think you did nobody swears me in my wife does when I get up in the morning but other than that nothing, no. RAFFIPIY: Great, BIGLEY: Yes. RAFFIPIY: I'll swear you in then. BIGLEY: Alright, perfect. What do I do? RAFFIPIY: Please raise your right hand. BIGLEY: You got it. RAFFIPIY: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Windward Planning Commission? BIGLEY: I do. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much, please proceed. BIGLEY: I just wanted to dove tail what James was saying and indicate that when we do an affordable housing project there are a number of hurdles, we have to clear to be successful. We have to get obtain financing from the Federal and State agencies and on this particular project and James you can correct me if I'm stating anything incorrectly. But, the success or failure of this project almost entirely rely, it is almost entirely up to the County of Hawaii now. It is not a State issue, it is really not a Federal issue anymore because we actually cleared all those hurdles. So, we've obtained all the financing at the State level and what we've just been talking about today that we've made some applications for local financing. But ninety-five (95)percent of the funding for this project is going to come from non-County sources. Either way we look at it the most non-County sources have already been, all the competitive sources have already been committed to this project. So, the point I think James is making here I think the thrust of what he is saying is we understand everything everybody said and what we are trying to build into the program is flexibility so that we don't have to come back and see you not because we don't like you but more like we want to cut down on the number of agencies and things that we have to do to actually be successful and get the project done. But to be very clear the few hurdles that we have left are clearly in the County's control if you will. EXHIBIT A 23 So, we won't be coming back to you saying you know the State you know did not do it. It would be more or less something here that we couldn't accomplish would be the problem usually it's a funding source that did not come through at the State level or the County level. We didn't come to you without those things in place. So, that what makes this project quite actually unique. Is that we didn't, it's almost like in a way we are not starting with you and ending with you. In some respects, right because we've done all the hard work up front. So, Dean I think you asked the question this project we'd love to start it in June of next year. The likelihood it will start later than that because we have one last funding source we are requesting with the County. But if that comes through it would probably be, I think that funding source is like November maybe October, November. So, it's going next year if all things line up on the County level. Does that answer your question? AU: Yes, it does Mr. Bigley. Thank you. BIGLEY: Thank you. We are excited about it. AU: Mr. Chair, I'm ready to make a motion if you want. RAFFIPIY: Mr. Au go ahead if there are no other questions from the Commission? Mr. Au go ahead. AU: Thank you Mr. Chair. So, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application to amend Change of Zone Ordinance No. 10 32, of the Applicant's proposed amendment to Condition G, Applicant's proposed deletion for Condition J; Planning Director's modifications to Conditions P and R, and our Commission's amended to Condition E to require minimum parking of 1.5 stalls per unit. RAFFIPIY: Aw, Mr. Christian? KAY: I don't know if it's appropriate to wait for a second or not, but I just want to clarify the motion. So, you said that the Applicant's request of the deletion of J? Your supporting that? So, going against what the Director's recommendation is. AU: Yes. KAY: Okay. And then everything else other than the change to the Director's recommendation in Condition E from 1.8 to 1.5? Your supporting the Director's recommendation? AU: From my understanding the Director's recommendation was 1.8 but I'm making the recommendation, I'm making a motion for 1.5 stalls. KAY: Correct, so going from 1.8 to 1.5 stalls "—" I just wanted to clarify, thank you. AU: Yes, yes, yes. EXHIBIT A 24 RAFFIPIY: So, the clarification is you agree with everything except for that Condition J to modify it from 1.8 to 1.5, right? AU: That was Condition E. RAFFIPIY: Condition E, I'm sorry. Condition E,yes. AU: Yes, and the original Applicant's proposal to delete Condition J. RAFFIPIY: Okay, any second? CLARKSON: Second. RAFFIPIY: Who made the second? CLARKSON: Commissioner Clarkson. RAFFIPIY: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we. Well, the motion that's stated by Mr. Au, I don't want to go back and read the whole thing. Any discussion on that motion? AU: Yes, since I made the motion can I start off with discussion? RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. AU: I just want to say that I appreciate any developer that's going to come forward and address affordable housing units. We all know the story everybody knows the story for the need of affordable units. We need to move whatever project we can to create more inventory for the Hawaii island people. It is important for me as a Commissioner being here and representing the people of the Big Island. It is important to hire local contractors that hire local people because they're going to be local people that will be living in these homes. So, to me that is very important the Applicant had stated that and that's an important factor. Affordability is one thing. But it is the people that are going to be living in it they have to be able to afford these units to live in and that's where the jobs come from. So, that's the only comment I have. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, any other discussions? Alright. REPLOGLE: I have one. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. REPLOGLE: I have a statement. I disagree with the 1.5 parking I prefer the Director's recommendation for 1.8. Not having enough parking turns into a real problem and creates induced stress I believe and 1.8 isn't that much more than 1.5. Anyway, that's my comment on it. Thank you. RAFFIPIY: Great, any other discussions? EXHIBIT A 25 CLARKSON: Yes, I just liked to clarify my view of the parking issue as I seconded the motion. I didn't hear anything from the Director or from Planning Staff that contradicted Mr. Rock's assertation that the actual Code minimum of 1.25 was typically ample for this kind of development. And that when the Director was talking about a possible change from 1.8 to 1.5 his concern was more for certainty rather than the actual number. So, I would support the 1.5. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. Any other comments? If no comments, staff take the roll call vote. AGUINALDO: Commissioner Raffipiy, I have one. RAFFIPIY: Go ahead. AGUINALDO: Just clarification. Is removing Condition J correct? And leaving it up to Public Works to make their necessary recommendation for anything to do with traffic devices. Am I understanding that correctly Commissioners? KAY: That's correct. AGUINALDO: Okay, I yield. RAFFIPIY: Alright, any other, any other comments, questions? Okay staff take the roll call voter please. KAY: Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. KAY: And Chair Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: Thank you Mr. Chair motion carries 5-0. EXHIBIT A 26 RAFFIPIY: Alright, thank you very much Mr. Rock you will be notified of the Commission's decision in writing. GARSON: Thank you. ROCK: Thank you everybody. KAY: Aloha. BIGLEY: Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador, Temporary Assignment Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT A 27