Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-04 Windward Exh A (Items 2&3 Lehua Village Partners PL-REZ-2022-000028 & PL-PUD-2022-000001 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 4, 2022 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of LEHUA VILLAGE PARTNERS, LLC (PL-REZ-2022-000028 & PL-PUD-2022-000001) was called to order at 9:15 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Council Chambers, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Vice Chair Michelle Galimba presiding. COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE: Michelle Galimba, Lauren Balog, John C. Cross, Louis Daniele III, and Wayne De Luz. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Gilbert Aguinaldo and Dennis Lin. ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Kekai Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Jeffrey Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), Christian Kay (Planner), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Zoom Host), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), and Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador (Windward Planning Commission Secretary). And 11 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: LEHUA VILLAGE PARTNERS, LLC (PL-REZ-2022-000028) Application for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential-10,000 Square Feet(RS-10) to a Single-Family Residential-15,000 Square Feet(RS-15) zoning district for 14.322 acres of land. The subject properties straddle the east and west sides of Lehua Street, north(makai) of the Hawaii Belt Road and south(mauka) of the Honoka`a Park Complex, portion of Papa`anui & Haina, Hamakua, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 4-5-024:010 & (3) 4-5-010:136. APPLICANT: LEHUA VILLAGE PARTNERS, LLC (PL-PUD-2022-000001) Application for a Planned Unit Development(PUD) for a 40-lot, single-family residential subdivision on 14.322 acres of land. The PUD would allow various exceptions from Chapter 23 (Subdivision) and Chapter 25 (Zoning) of the Hawaii County Code. The subject properties straddle the east and west sides of Lehua Street, north (makai) of the Hawaii Belt Road and south (mauka) of the Honoka`a Park Complex, portion of Papa`anui & Haina, Hamakua, Hawaii, TMKs: (3) 4-5-024:010 & (3) 4-5-010:136. Secretary's Note: "—" indicates that there were technical and/or internet difficulties, which made the conversation inaudible. GALIMBA: The commission will take up the next two agenda Items 2 and 3 together for the purposes of presentation and fact finding. So, Items 2 and 3, 42 application is the applicant is Lehua Village Partners, LLC, PL-REZ-2022-000028, application for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet to a Single-Family Residential-15,000 square feet 1 EXHIBIT A zoning district for 14.322 acres of land. The subject properties straddle the east and west sides of Lehua Street, north of the Hawaii Belt Road and south of the Honoka`a Park Complex,portion of Papa`anui and Haina, Hamakua, Hawaii, TMK's (3) 4-5-024:010 and (3) 4-5-010;136, I mean colon 136. And Item 43 is applicant Lehua Village Partners, LLC, PL-PUD-2022-000001, application for a Planned Unit Development(PUD) for a 40-lot, single-family residential subdivision on 14.322 acres of land. The PUD would allow various exception from Chapter 23 and Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code. The subject properties straddle the east and west sides of Lehua Street, north of the Hawaii Belt Road and south of the Honoka`a Park Complex, portion of Papa`anui and Haina, Hamakua, Hawaii, TMK's (3) 4-5-024 parcel 010 and (3) 4-5- 01 parcel 136. The commission will take public testimony after the staff and applicant presentation. Staff presentation will be by Christian Kay. KAY: Thank you Madam Chair. Good morning members of the Windward Planning Commission. If you give me a moment, I'm just going to share my screen here and we'll get going. Okay, so, if I can direct the commission's attention to the screens, you'll be able to see the presentation there. And again, as the Chair stated these two agenda items will present as one since they're complementary actions and applications. These are for a Change of Zone as well as a Planned Unit Development application. So, for reference the subject property is situated within the Hamakua District of Hawaii island more specifically in the Honoka`a town area. We've got Hawaii Belt Road running generally east-west through the slide and the subject properties here are outlined in black. This road running north-south is Pakalana Street at the intersection where Tex Drive-In is and again, we've got the Honoka`a Elementary School makai of the subject properties, the Park Complex as well as a hospital for your locational reference. So, before we get into the particulars of the applications. I wanted to kind of give you a quick and dirty primer on what a Planned Unit Development(PUD) is since this is the very first PUD that's being heard by any Planning Commission. So, according to our Zoning Code the purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to encourage comprehensive site planning that is com, com, pardon me. That is compatible with surrounding community and that adapts the design of the development to the land, by allowing diversification in the relationships of various uses, buildings, structures, open spaces, and yards, building heights, and lot sizes in planned building groups, while still ensuring that the intent of this chapter of the Zoning Code is observed. A PUD application includes a list of requested exceptions from the Zoning and Subdivision Codes that will allow for a subdivision design that is a departure from a typical subdivision layout that's allowed by our Code. So, PUD permits are not new to the County they have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department administratively since 1996. However, in 2015 the Zoning Code was amended by the County Council to shift the decision-making authority from the Planning Director to the Planning Commission. This is the first PUD that will be heard by a Planning Commission since the Code changed in 2015 so it's taken 7 years to get here. So, this will be a fun experiment. 2 EXHIBIT A So, the proposed development is a Master Planned PUD called Lehua Villages. It's a 40-lot subdivision consisting of two development components Lehua Village 1 and Lehua Village 2. Lehua Village 1 would be situated on parcel 136, that's 7.137 acres of land with lot sizes ranging from 10,000 square feet to 23.400 square feet. These 20 lots are proposed to be sold at affordable rates consistent with affordable housing guidelines for Hawaii County and pursuant to an executed affordable housing agreement between the applicant and the Office of Housing and Community Development. Lehua Village 2 would be situated on parcel 10, 7.185 acres of land with lot sizes ranging from 10,000 square feet to 33,000 square feet. These 20 lots will be offered for sale at market rates. So, the applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet to Single-Family Residential-15,000 square feet for the entire 14.322 acres of land. This is what essentially amounts to a down zoning. So, at the current RS-10 zoning the possible density mathematically would be about 60 lots, if the RS-15 zoning is approved that would reduce the number of lots down to 40. Additionally. the applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development permit to allow for the following exemptions to the Zoning Code and Subdivision Codes in order to facilitate the development of the 40-lot single family residential subdivision across those two separate properties. They are as follows. We'll start with the exceptions from the Zoning Code. The first is minimum street frontage. This is a request to waive requirements that certain proposed lots will have roadway frontages of less than 50 percent of the required minimum building site average width of 38 feet based on requested RS-15 zoning. Additionally, only one lot that's Village 2, Lot 5 will not have any roadway frontage nor access pole and will be accessed via a roadway easement due to steep typography that would make it too difficult to extend the road lot for the sake of a single parcel. The second request is an exception from the minimum building site area, minimum average width. This is a request to waive the minimum building site area requirements to allow a minimum building site area of 10,000 square feet within the proposed RS-15 zoning district and so, although the RS-15 would normally have it be a 15,000 square foot minimum this exception will allow them to go smaller. Additionally, the request is to allow the minimum building site area average width to be 60 feet instead of 75 feet required within the proposed RS-15 zoning district. Continued exceptions are reduction from building site below minimum area. This is a request to reduce building sites to no less than 10,000 square feet in lieu of the 15,000 square feet minimum lot size required by the proposed RS-15 zoning district. So, this may look very similar to the last exception requested and there are situations within our Zoning Code and Subdivision Codes where different sections of code are essentially repeating each other. But in order to build the PUD how they would like to do it they need to accept or request exceptions from each of those sections of code. So that's why that looks a little bit repetitive. The next one is a request to allow the minimum building site average width of 60 feet instead of the 75 feet required by the proposed RS-15 zoning district. Minimum yards. This is a request to allow a minimum front yard setback of 15 feet instead of the 20 feet required by the proposed 3 EXHIBIT A RS-15 zoning district. The stated reason for this is because of the topography of the area to try and to minimize the amount of grading that needs to be done. They're asking for a little bit more flexibility on where they can place structures on the lot. So, this will give them an extra 5 feet for that structure location. Other regulations in the Zoning Code are a request to allow for a minimum front yard setback of 15 feet for all lots irrespective of minimum building site average width of 60 feet that is consistent with an RS-7.5 zoning district. And moving on to the exceptions requested from the Subdivision Code, that's our Chapter 23. Access to lot from the street. Request to allow for one lot that's Village 2, Lot 5 to not have any direct roadway frontage nor access pole. Instead, it's proposed to be accessed via a roadway easement due to steep topography that would make it too difficult to extend the road lot for the sake of a single parcel. The next exception requested is access to lot from the street. Additionally, the applicant proposes that the Village 2, Lot 18 pole will also accommodate accesses for the adjoining Lots 19 and 20 via a common access easement to minimize driveway cuts onto the proposed subdivision road. Minimum right-of-way and pavement widths. The applicant requests the allowance of the following roadway widths and turnaround radii. This is a minor street, a 40- foot-wide right-of-way in lieu of 50 feet. Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets are 40-foot-wide right-of-way in lieu of 50 feet and turn around alternative designs that are acceptable to the Fire Department such as a hammerhead or similar turnarounds that have depths of at least 60 feet with corner radius of at least 30 feet. The next is for cul-de-sacs is a request to allow the following. A cul-de-sac roadway with a maximum length of no more than 1,000 feet serving more no more than 20 lots rather than the Code required 600 feet in length and serving no more than 18 lots. Next is, turn around alternative designs that are acceptable to the Fire Department such as hammerhead turnarounds that have a turnaround depth of at least 60 feet with corner radius of at least 28 feet. And this is an alternative to the normal cul-de-sac which would be about 90 feet wide and in a semi-circular manner that you're used to seeing. And the last is alternative turning radii to navigate mailbox kiosk parking areas combined with the turnaround area. Continuing on, grades and curves is a request to allow the following roadway grades and curves. Vertical and horizontal curves of less than 300 feet provided that such curves conform to AASHTO minimum standards. Proposed subdivision roads will have minimum radius as little as 80 feet, but as a dead-end road with no through traffic the design speed of 15 miles an hour, this should not be an issue according to the applicant. There's a request for allowance for a minor subdivision road having a maximum grade of 20%to accommodate anticipated short sections along the subdivision road that may exceed the typical maximum 12% grade. And again, this is given the topography of the subject parcels. Other exceptions from the subdivision code are streetlights. A request to allow the use of custom streetlights in lieu of those meeting the standard specifications on file at the Department 4 EXHIBIT A of Public Works (DPW). At the same street names and traffic signs and it's again a request to allow the use of custom street names and traffic signs in lieu of the type of signs permitted by the standard specifications on file at DPW. So, the last is right-of-way improvements. This is a request to allow design flexibility in the treatment of right-of-way areas in lieu of what is typically required by standard specifications on file at DPW. So, the proposed road subdivision profile would consist of a 40-foot-wide right-of- way in lieu of a 50-foot-wide right-of-way, 20-foot-wide travel ways, 10-foot-wide grass and landscape shoulders lined with trees and no bike lane. So, the images I have here, the one at the top is the current specification for a minor and cul-de-sac street. And again, this is the specifications in the Roadway Design Manual at DPW. They have similar 10-foot-wide travel lane requirements so, 20-foot total with 5-foot bike lanes on either side and a 10-foot shoulder Swale within a 50-foot right-of-way. What the request is now is to reduce that to a 40-foot right- of-way the same 20 feet of drive lanes however with a grassed shoulder with street trees. So, the applicant's stated reason for the requests is the PUD permit is to promote the development of a Single-Family Residential development that is more neighborhood friendly and consistent with the rural character prevalent throughout the Honoka`a town area. Another primary purpose for the requested PUD permit is to facilitate the design of this proposed residential community across two separate properties that are bisected by a meandering public road (Lehua Street)with unique topographical conditions that is not conducive to the typical platting of lots that you would normally find on sites with more moderate grades and not constrained by an existing road. Finally, both the down zoning from RS-10 to RS-15 and the PUD would allow the applicant to defray infrastructure costs associated with typical subdivision design in order to ensure that 50% of the proposed lots would be offered and sold at affordable rates to prospective buyers. If the entitlement requests are approved, the applicant plans to submit a subdivision application by the end of this year with anticipated completion of the subdivision for both villages within five (5) years or by the end of 2027. The estimated cost for the project in total is 3 to 4 million dollars. Here's the County zoning map of the subject parcels and surrounding area. Again, for reference we've got the highway running generally east-west through the slide. The subject properties are here outlined in red. The current zoning again is RS-15, which is shown in yellow,pardon me, RS-10 which is shown in yellow here similar to much of the surrounding area. There's Village Commercial 7.5 which is shown here in pink and that's the Tex's Plaza. Other zoning in the area includes some Agricultural zoning (Ag-5 acres) and again these are the County, the school facilities as well as the County Park facility and other different zonings. There's an RS-15 zoning here on the northwest side of the slide. The State Land Use Designation for the subject property and much of the surrounding area is Urban as indicated in pink and the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates much of the area as an Urban designation either Medium Density Urban as is indicated here in orange or Low Density Urban as is indicated in yellow. And the Hamakua Community Development Plan Land Use Guide Map or our future land use map matches these 5 EXHIBIT A designations. So, this is also consistent with the CDP that seeks to focus development within these urban growth areas of which this is one. Here is the applicant's site plan. Again, we've got Lehua Street running bisecting both parcels. The village to the right is Village 1 and again you'll see there's one access off of Lehua Street that ends in this alternative hammerhead cul-de-sac turn around. Something I learned recently is for any new subdivision we are requiring all of the mailboxes to be in one area. So, there's no more home delivery so, this end of the subdivision or the cul-de-sac would also act as that centralized mailbox area. For each of these proposed villages there is a proposed pedestrian corridor, minimum 10-feet-wide with a minimum 4-foot-wide pavement that would connect the ends of these cul-de-sacs to Lehua Street to allow the residents of the villages some pedestrian access to Lehua Street. And those would be held and maintained by the homeowner's association. So, this is Lehua Village 2. Again, similar to the first is a single access. You'll see some of the requested exceptions when you look at some of the turning radii which are an exception of what we would normally allow under the Subdivision Code. Here's some of the lots here that are going to be accessed via an access easement instead of direct frontage to the private subdivision roadway and the like. Here are some aerial photographs of the subject parcels. The upper left here is just showing them in relationship to the other development in the area. Some of these subdivisions here on the right hand side were developed back in the mid-50's and early 1960's and so the applicant is proposing to some design elements that will be similar to what those subdivisions are. Those roadways for instance are a 30-foot-wide roadway with grass shoulders. So, it's kind of similar and one of the criteria is does the PUD kind of fit with the surrounding character of the area. The larger photo here is again just showing the two parcels coming off of Pakalana/Lehua Street. There was some question about a or some testimony we received about a single-lane bridge. Just wanted to give you an idea of generally where it's located, this area about 150 feet to the east of the subject parcel and so this is a drainage way that comes down through Honoka`a to the ocean. And so, that is a narrow single lane narrowing down from two lanes. Moving on here are some site photographs. So, I just wanted to give you kind of a little bit of a key of what we're looking at. The first photo is looking makai from the highway, no, not from the highway from Lehua Villa,pardon me, from Lehua Street and Village 2 as generally located in this area looking makai. The second shot is again looking from Lehua Street makai into the west and this will be the general location of the subdivision roadway access off of Lehua. And then the third view that we see here is looking mauka from close to the intersection, no, not the intersection but where Lehua Street turns off and goes further down into Honoka`a town and so looking up you'll see generally the location of Village 2 on the right-hand side and generally the location of Village 1 on the left-hand side. So, the Planning Director is recommending two things, that we forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the Change of Zone request and that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Unit Development request. In the past, when we've done it administratively, we've looked at each individual exception requests and, in many cases, 6 EXHIBIT A administratively approved some and administratively denied others. In this case, since we're somewhat new to this in our division we consulted with our Administrative Permits Division who have historically processed these. Made sure that the requested exceptions were met muster with them and there weren't any red flags or heartburn. So, the Planning Director is comfortable recommending approval of the entire slate of exceptions to help facilitate the development of the subdivision and with that I'm happy to take any questions at the appropriate time. GALIMBA: So, commissioners unless you have a burning question, clarification question we're going to hear from the applicant and the public and then you can ask questions of the staff or the applicant or the testifiers. So, let's have the, can I please have the applicant and/or their agents come forward to the table. [Agents came forward to the table]. Okay, I'm going to swear you in. Please raise your right hand, so I can swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Windward Planning Commission? AGENTS: I swear/affirm, I do. GALIMBA: Please state your name and the town you live in. FUKE: Sure, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke, I'm a Planning Consultant and I live in Hilo. With us also is, are the owners, Roger Meeker and also Jack Larson. Mr. Arai? ARAI: Good morning, Chair Galimba and Commissioners, my name is Daryn Arai, also assisting the applicant and I live in Hilo as well. GALIMBA: Thank you. Have you received the background and recommendation reports from the Planning Department? FUKE: Yes, we have, and we have had a chance to review it both with the applicants, both applicants as well as among ourselves and on the report itself and also the presentation I think the staff did a very yeoman's job. Very comprehensive and I think we were very impressed. Likewise, we are happy with the favorable recommendations on both. We do have one small question relating to the recommendation on the zone change but we'll discuss it a little bit as we go through the presentation portion. GALIMBA: Okay, so, please go ahead with your presentation. FUKE: Sure, in terms of the property location so on and so forth like you saw the staff's discussion. So, we won't go into that I think what we'd like to cover essentially are items that were kind of like not fully covered by the staff's report. And this relates to like why are they doing what they're doing. Specifically, because they're proposing a down zoning on a project and I'll just kind of give a little bit background. Both Jack and Roger, they're longtime residents of the island. They have the ability to based on the RS-10 zoning to immediately develop the property into 10,000 square foot lots which would probably yield like about maybe 50 or 60 lots and not having to deal with any of the other affordable housing obligation or fair share contributions so on and so forth. But the reason why they're doing this is like they kind of 7 EXHIBIT A wanted to provide more affordable housing within the Honoka`a area, rather than just creating a pure market type of project. But to be able to do that, they wanted to do that in an area which is right in infield, close to the school, close to the hospitals, and close to Tex Drive-In. They have definitely it's consistent with the General Plan, consistent with the CDP and they have the appropriate infrastructure. I mean there's some question relating according to public testimony about the standard of the Lehua Street but it's an existing Government Road. But the one stumbling block for developments in the Honoka`a area really relates to the availability of water. Portable water and in this case over here Mr. Larson and Mr. Meeker they were fortunate enough to have like a win- win situation with the Water Department. They donated lands for a water tank site and so in exchange for that water tank site they were able to, the Water Department was able to release x- amount of water units to this property. None of the other properties in that area have the ability to come in for a zone change because they don't have the water. So, what they wanted to do is now based on that kind of background now create like a subdivision just a 40-lot subdivision, 50% of which would be for affordable housing. The reason why they're going for a PUD, as you can see the property there's a lot of topographic issues and so the PUD allows for kind of a deviation from some of the standards. And in so doing would enable them to deliver the lots at a much lower price than if they were to do a standard subdivision, no PUD, high on-site construction requirements. So that's the reason why and if you want to talk more about the PUD aspects, Mr. Arai can kind of discuss it in detail. The property was governed by a 1978 zoning ordinance, and I think Mr. Cross well remembers that Hamakua Sugar being back in those days owned the property and they were going through some hard time. The sugar industry was beginning to fold and Mr. Morgan at that time wanted to find and do whatever he could to really keep the sugar industry at least to Hamakua section alive much longer. So, he came up with a scheme to provide properties for employees within that area and also make lands further available to other people who owned sugar cane properties, but they were privately owned, and you know scattered all over. So, he wanted to do the land exchange and so he was able to successfully get some land exchanged maybe in the Kal6p5, Pa`auilo Mauka area so that it made their harvesting activity a little bit easier. So that was the genesis behind the original zoning and so over time a number of the properties were developed. This is one of the few that they were not developed. Jack and Roger acquired the properties and with that objective in mind in developing on it. So, the question becomes like why go in for down zoning from RS-10 to RS-15? One is as I mentioned earlier because of the topographic issue you can still achieve a desired density by allowing some measure of design flexibility. The other thing is they wanted to make sure that if you keep the RS-10 zoning and you have like 40 lots it's still capable of going up to 60 lots. So, they didn't want to have the subdivision or future landowner come in and say like I want to subdivide my property. Basically, he wanted to have a project and limit the project to whatever is being represented and so down zoning the property from RS-10 to RS-15 you foreclose the opportunity for further lots to be further subdivided. 8 EXHIBIT A The other thing too is like as I mentioned earlier you had the property that was subject to zoning conditions back in 1978 which might be totally irrelevant right now. So, you wanted to have this project have become like a standalone type of project with its own condition becomes easier for the Planning Department to monitor conditions. Rather than trying to go in for an amendment to the 1978 ordinance and that's the reason why in discussions with the staff this is the approach that was taken rather than just amending the parent ordinance. The one area that we had some question related to the affordable housing. Relative to the affordable housing when Mr. Morgan originally got the land rezoned. There was affordable housing requirement and so this property was part of the 1978 ordinance and the affordable housing obligation for the entire project was fulfilled through the dedication of 15 acres of land to the State housing agencies. So, this property's affordable housing obligation has been fulfilled. So, the staff's Condition M kind of relates to like an as represented by the applicant that they will do this 50% affordable housing. Because their obligation has already been fulfilled so technically it doesn't apply. But this is what they're representing. They want to have it codified in the ordinance so that's kind of stated and that's fine with the applicant. The question however relates to whether there should be a fair share exemption of all of these affordable housing units and the staff's position is that maybe it should not be exempt. That they should pay their fair share for these affordable units. There have been situations where other developers have agreed to that. In this particular situation the applicants believe that it's kind of critical for them to not be assessed this additional $15 or $16,000 per unit because it could diminish their ability to deliver what they wanted to do. It is a broader public policy issue and something I think that the applicant, the Planning Director, and the County Council eventually going to have to wrestle with. So, rather than delaying this matter just because of this particular issue, we would strongly encourage the Commission if you so deemed appropriate to forward it to the Planning, excuse me to forward it to the County Council such that it can be further deliberated over there, and we can go from there. Because they kind of really want to get started on the project sooner than later and having said that I don't have anything more. GALIMBA: Thank you Mr. Fuke. Would the applicant like to present as well or will you— MEEKER: (From the audience) From here or— GALIMBA: — or you could come up, yeah, come up. MEEKER: (From the audience) Okay. MEEKER: Good morning, thanks for considering our applications. Hadn't really prepared anything for this as I thought Sid and Daryn we're gonna be kind of running this presentation. Like Sid did mention I been on the Big Island for, I've been in Hawaii ever since I got out of school. Moved to the Big Island over 30 years ago and was very involved in Honoka`a kind of early on then. My partner Jack has been here, and he's been involved since the 1980's also. He's an active real estate, real estate broker. Very familiar with the Honoka`a market and what the needs are. I mean housing is a as we all know is crisis number one in Hawaii and it's been particularly acute in Honoka`a because there's been a, the Department of Water Supply had a 9 EXHIBIT A water moratorium in place since the gosh since the mid-90's, early mid-90's. Which is effectively if you can't get water, you can't do anything right? The previous owner had over 100 water commitments issued to it. Unfortunately, he let those expire and so it took us almost 10 years, but we were finally able to get the Department to agree to revive those water commitments which allowed us to do this. We donated a site to the Water Department for a water reservoir and we've also already extended the water line down the street for several hundred feet. So, we've got well probably over half a million dollars in water infrastructure that we've already deeded to the County and whatnot. But anyway, what we really see is a real need of housing especially, some product that people can afford to buy. We did a few lots across the street which were on that map there you'll see and those were sold, and people bought lots and built their own homes. A lot of folks from here that did, and we even have a fellow lava refugee that bought one of our places and I think he's testifying today. So, there's just a critical need so I guess I'm kind of being redundant here and stating the obvious and so, we'd really like to do what we can. My wife, she's born and raised in Hilo. She's Hawaiian. She had the ability to become a homeowner for the first time through an affordable housing project in Waimea and her sister did the same thing. So, this is an issue that really hits home, and we really think we can do this and so we really liked it. And now if you have any questions I can respond. GALIMBA: Thank you. Commissioners have any questions at this point? We'll take the public testimony and then we may come back and ask questions from all of you. Thank you. So, I'm going take the Zoom testifiers first. And I will go first with Sarah Anderson. Can you please raise your right hand so that I can swear you in. Thank you. Okay, can we I guess get them all in on the screen. ANDREWS: Yes. I'll bring all of the testifiers in. Can you please turn on your video's public testifiers. GALIMBA: We have one more I believe. ANDREWS: Mr. James Loewen would you. Thank you. GALIMBA: Thank you. Okay, can you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Windward Planning Commission? ZOOM TESTIFIERS: Yes, I do, I do, I do. GALIMBA: Thank you, when you give your testimony, please state your name and the town you live in, and we'll start with Sarah Anderson. S. ANDERSON: Hello, my name is Sarah Anderson. I live in Honoka`a. My husband David and I have lived here in Honoka`a since 1984 and we're both very active in community work and live out in Kalopa. I just want to say that I think we desperately need housing in Honoka`a and this has been a long time zoned, and I completely support the project. Thank you 10 EXHIBIT A GALIMBA: Thank you. Then we'll move on to Mr. Miller. S. ANDERSON: Um' my husband David wants to testify as well. GALIMBA: Sure, go ahead. D. ANDERSON: Thank you. Thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to support this project. I've been a member as my wife said in the community since the early 1980's. Very active in a number of organizations Hamakua District Development Council years ago, PTA President, Honoka`a Traffic Safety Committee to mention a few. We also have two children born here and two grandchildren born here. So, this project hits home for us as an opportunity for our children to own their own homes. Hopefully if we last long enough to the point where they actually need them and continue to live in our house. We 100% support this project. I've followed the property for many years as a member of the organizations that I mentioned earlier, and I cannot imagine a better fit for our community. As I said to my wife this morning if not now, when, and if not here, where? So, thank you very much for your time and your support and we wish the Meeker crew the very best on this. Aloha GALIMBA: Aloha, thank you. So, moving on to Mr. Miller. Please state your name and the town you live in. MILLER: Good morning, Council. My name is Dan Miller and I own a home in the Honoka`a Plantation Cottages subdivision. This is a small 9-lot subdivision just mauka of the proposed Village 1 subdivision. This subdivision was also developed by Mr. Meeker and his associates. First let me offer that I'm very much in favor of an additional housing and particularly the need for more affordable housing here on the island. I think in theory that the proposed subdivision is generally a good idea however, I believe a great deal of infrastructure needs to be improved prior to the approval of the Lehua Village subdivision. Here's a few things I believe need to be addressed. One, the one-way bridge. The one-way bridge located just east of the proposed subdivision is in dire need of improvement or replacement. The additional traffic from the proposed subdivision will only further deteriorate the vehicular and pedestrian hazards that currently exist. Currently there's virtually no line of sight for vehicles trying to yield the right-of-way to the west bound traffic. Pedestrians are particularly at risk since there's no sidewalks and they must share the roadway with vehicular traffic. And as I just stated there's no sidewalks. There're currently no sidewalks on Lehua Street. With all the additional pedestrian traffic that this new subdivision will create, sidewalks will be necessary for their safety. Another issue is surface drainage. I'm very concerned about the western third of the proposed Village 1 subdivision. All of the surface water from the Honoka`a Plantation Cottages subdivision plus a portion of the proposed Village 2 subdivision currently flow into the western third of the proposed Village 1 subdivision. Current surface water drainage infrastructure needs 11 EXHIBIT A to be improved and additional drainage corridors need to be implemented into the Village 1 subdivision in the western perimeter. ANDREWS: Mr. Miller you have one minute left to testify. Thank you. MILLER: Okay and finally offset intersection. The proposed entrance to the Village 1 subdivision off of Lehua Street will create a dangerous offset intersection with the existing entrance to the Honoka`a Plantation Cottages entrance of Lehua mauka. These two intersections will be approximate, or roads would be approximately 50 feet apart and create a dangerous vehicular hazard. In conclusion I would like to for the Commission to defer decision on the making with this project so professional engineers can be advised and needed infrastructure improvements can be made. I also believe additional community outreach is necessary to get the community involved and informed about this project and have an opportunity to provide feedback. I don't believe there's been any attempt by Lehua Villages Partners, LLC to publicly present their project to the local residents. Mahalo for your time and consideration. GALIMBA: Thank you and finally Mr. Loewen. Could you please state your name and where you live. Oh, you're on mute. ANDREWS: Mr. Loewen can you unmute? LOEWEN: Okay, am I unmuted? GALIMBA: There you go. LOEWEN: Okay, my name is James Loewen, I live in the Plantation Cottages across the street from the proposed subdivision. My two main concerns one Dan Miller already talked about which was the roads and the access and egress. And the other two for me really is we moved here for the great ocean view and so height restrictions are I think very necessary. So, we can maintain that ocean view that we paid for, and we enjoy. And with that being said, underground utilities should be looked at very seriously because otherwise we're just going to be looking at more poles and more wires and less view. I totally support the homes especially affordable, but we need to look at everything. I mean so even this subdivision here even it was built, and it has its own problems. We have a hammerhead turnaround with no guardrail that drops 20 feet into Lehua Street. So, they're just, I don't want things to be done in a hurry. I want it to be thought about all the way through and how we can mitigate them and keep everybody happy including me. Thank you. GALIMBA: Thank you very much. We have one testifier here in-person, Mr. Richard Bidleman. If you could please come forward to the table. IN-PERSON TESTIFIER: (While walking to the table) "—"Bidleman! GALIMBA: Bidleman, sorry about that. 12 EXHIBIT A IN-PERSON TESTIFIER: (While walking to the table) It's a curse I lived with all my life. GALIMBA: Chuckle. Could you please raise your right hand so I can swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Windward Planning Commission. BIDLEMAN: Yes, I do. GALIMBA: Please state your name and the town you live in and go ahead. BIDLEMAN: Yeah, Richard Bidleman and I live across the street from this subdivision. As Roger pointed out I'm a lava refugee and we built a new home on Lehua Mauka Place. There's a number of us who walk down Lehua Street to go to the park or to go downtown and it's been pointed out there are no sidewalks. And what's happening and it and it's going to happen more is we're going to see increased traffic on Lehua. I mean, I think it's reasonable to forecast that with the development of these two subdivisions which we are very much in favorable of. You're going to see about 80 more vehicles because a lot of Honoka`a we have extended families. It's not just a couple of people living in a house. In fact, one only needs to drive around Honoka`a to see the number of vehicles that are often parked in front of a single-family resident. So,just imagine 80 more vehicles on Lehua Street. Plus, the fact that most of the school buses go up and down that street in the morning and by the way what I can tell you is it's part of my exercise is I walk every other day down Lehua Street to the park and back up. And I encounter other people walking in the same direction and one of the things that I don't like about that is when I'm going downhill the traffic is at my back. Because I can't walk on the other side of the street it's right up against the cliff. So, we really do need— ANDREWS: One minute left to testify. BIDLEMAN: —sidewalks, yes. Also, we've advocated that instead of those two subdivisions being a cul-de-sac, they ought to be through streets. Because if there's an emergency, you're gonna have a bunch of people trying to get out, in and out in one place. And the width of the highway, the streets that they're forecasting I think is way too narrow because where are guests or people going to park or even family members in an extended family. So, I think you need to consider that once again. We're certainly very favorable for the subdivision but I think there needs to be some infrastructure— ANDREWS: Please summarize your thoughts, thank you. BIDLEMAN: — development on Lehua and I think that needs to happen before the subdivision is put together. Thank you for your time. ANDREWS: Mr. Bidleman, you do have an extra three minutes actually because it's two items. Sorry about that. — BIDLEMAN: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. 13 EXHIBIT A ANDREWS: If you'd like to take some more time — BIDLEMAN: I can't hear you. GALIMBA: You have, you have because there's two items you can testify for an additional three minutes. BIDLEMAN: Okay, thank you. By the way the subdivision proposes cluster mailboxes in both of the subdivisions, and we had a heck of a time getting a cluster box for our little subdivision. And we had to put it on Lehua because the postal system does not like postal trucks making left turns on the streets with for obvious reason. So, the subdivision proposes mailbox clusters in both subdivisions but certainly in one of them somebody would have to make a left, a postal worker would have to make a left turn to get into that subdivision. So, I think that's another consideration. Also, what's happening I sometimes walk to the library so sometimes I go down Pakalana. So, at the top of Lehua Street there's no crosswalk. I mean, I take my chances and watch the traffic coming in both directions in order to cross that street and I can tell you the uphill side of Pakalana. People coming up Pakalana they drive so fast that they're within sight before you know it. By the way, children are going to be going to school and they'll walk up Lehua Street to go down to the public schools and so that's once again why we need infrastructure on Lehua Street. I think it's pretty obvious that we need that infrastructure. Also, I first learned of this development through the Hamakua Action Committee and Roger made a presentation there. And he indicated to me that they were going to have a community meeting to talk about the subdivision and so far, that has not happened. I know one of the other testifiers Tawn Keeney has offered the theater in Honoka`a for a presentation. So, once again before you decide to approve this subdivision, I think there needs to be more community input. ANDREWS: Please summarize your thoughts, that is six minutes. BIDLEMAN: I'm summarizing, thank you. Thank you for your time. GALIMBA: Thank you Mr. Beedleman. BIDLEMAN: Bidleman. GALIMBA: Bidleman, funny. Okay I believe there are no other testimonies, testifiers. Are there any other testifiers? Hearing none, can I have a motion to close public testimony on this item? DE LUZ: Motion made. GALIMBA: Thank you. Could I have a second? DANIELE: I'll second that. 14 EXHIBIT A GALIMBA: Thank you. It has been moved by Commissioner De Luz and seconded by Commissioner Daniele to close public testimony. Please say aye if you agree with that. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. GALIMBA: Any opposed? Thank you. All right, now we will move onto Commissioners do you have any questions for staff or the applicants? DANIELE: Do we have a picture of that one-lane bridge? KAY: Yeah if you give me just a moment,please. Yeah, I've got it here I just need to share that screen. Okay it'll just take a second, I've got the little Google maps here with street view and we can find it from there. There it is right there. Oops, sorry. So, this is looking makai. You see where the two lanes turn into one and again this is over that drainage way. Sorry, there. So, although this is a question and a piece of testimony that we received this is about 150 feet mauka of the proposed subdivision. Kind of a pre-existing problem and when we received comments from Department of Public Works and didn't receive any request for improvements to that or any frontage along Lehua Street given that the zoning is actually a down zone. They're reducing density rather than increasing it. We also have Robyn Matsumoto of the Engineering Division here if there are specific questions about the roadway or anything else she'll be available to answer those for you. DANIELE: Thank you. GALIMBA: Do we have any other questions for staff or the applicant of a fact-finding nature or to, okay go ahead. DARROW: Thank you madam Chair. Maybe Sid if you can come on up, we can talk a little bit about Condition N. Better to talk about it here early on. So, my understanding is the issue is that in our Condition N which is our Fair Share condition. Normally when someone increases density you find that there's this added cost per lot to be able to help with regional impacts. Whether it be roads and traffic,police, fire, wastewater, and all these kinds of different areas. In this particular case it's a down zoning but the original zoning was lower than the down zoning. So, the fair share still applies. But in an effort for about the last two years I would say in an effort to really try to promote more affordable housing options with developments that are coming in through a change of zones. We've tried to figure out little options and changes that we can make that might promote that. One of those is to allow an exemption from the fair share requirement if the developer goes beyond the 20%required affordable housing requirement that they're doing. So, in this particular case as Sid has mentioned this applicant or the previous owner has already actually fulfilled their affordable housing requirement. I'm not sure if you have the site plan or the TMK map. A large piece of property I believe it was about 15 acres was set aside strictly for an affordable housing project. I believe the owner is HHFDC. FUKE: That's correct— 15 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Okay. FUKE: —right next to the hospital. DARROW: Yeah, and so they've actually already fulfilled their affordable housing requirements but here they are proposing to even give more as part of this. So, in this particular case it's actually a little different than other cases. Where they still would be having to do their affordable housing requirement or whatever and then on top of that propose additional lots. We normally would not exempt fair share regardless. But again, in an effort to try to promote this we've allowed this exemption from fair share for affordable lots. Now that's not just the typical rezone that comes in and they're required to do 20% but if they come in with more than that we will apply the exemption. The concern that we had originally when we implemented this was, we were thinking it was a double dipping because the affordable requirements at 20% you've fulfilled your requirements. If you go beyond that you receive these affordable housing credits to be able to be utilized for other projects or to sell to other developments to allow them to comply with their affordable housing requirements. And it's not like there's a specific number they differ in cost, but they could go I believe you had mentioned 15,000 to 50,000 which can be significant if you have 20 credits or however many credits. In this case fair share is also significant you're looking at 50% of that cost which right now a 100% of the fair share cost applying is over 600,000. So, 50% of that is over 300,000. So that's another significant cost to this developer who's trying to help with this problem that we're having with housing. So, given the circumstances again in this particular case with the 15-acre lot that's already been donated with the applicant's willingness to go beyond the affordable requirement. I would be amenable to the Commission considering a change to this condition and bringing it up where we would take out a portion. The portion at the end of Condition N that says with the exception of the those lots that received the excess credits. Again, right now this is a unique case when the Director returns, we're going to have a broader discussion on this matter as far as how we apply it. But I mean overall just thinking about it regardless about this exemption every developer that goes beyond the excess I mean the required amount will receive these credits. It's not like they, they can or cannot. They receive them. So, by us giving this option of saying well you have an option to take this or this. It's kind of really doesn't make a difference it really needs to apply to both for them to really get an added benefit. So, again in this case if you would like to consider a change to that condition, we will be amenable to it. FUKE: Madam Chair, well thank you very much Mr. Darrow. It's my understanding then the staff is amenable to deleting the last portion which states "excluding any lots sold for excess housing credits". Well, we're very appreciative of that and just to add to some to your discussion and provide some background to the commissioners. The existing Housing Code allows any access credits to be sold or transferred to those that need to address that affordable housing requirement. It's kind of controversial now because of what like what had happened like what you read in the newspaper. But usually,you can transfer or sell it to a person that has 16 EXHIBIT A that condition as part of a zone change. You can transfer it based on existing situation to properties within 15 miles of this area. The specific problem as it relates to over here is that and as I mentioned earlier, and Mr. Meeker also noted that there are very few properties within 15 miles you're going to find that's going to need affordable housing credits. Because very few if anything is going to come in for zone change before the Commission and the Council. So, effectively it's not like a property in Kona or in other areas where the development potential is there then you have people willing to buy. So, what Mr. Darrow indicated like in our previous discussion about. Yes, it can range from like about$15,000, $20,000 to $50,000 possibly even more and especially if you're dealing with properties in the Waikoloa or North Kona those kinds of areas they're willing to pay more. But as it relates to here like whether you'll have a demand is very, very questionable and in the meantime, you still have to come up with a fair share obligation of roughly $320,000 that's money out of their pocket. When you're going to recoup that is if you're going to be able to recoup that it's very, very debatable. And so that's why like they're going to have to kind of like re-crunch their numbers again to see whether they can make that 50% offer. Because to some extent like having now to obligate themselves for $320,000 more fair share money becomes like really questionable. So, it's a long way of saying we appreciate the staff's reconsideration of that deletion and would appreciate so appreciate the Planning Commission's recommendation on this deletion. If the Chair is willing, we can kind of like briefly to discuss some of the questions relating to the public comments on the view plane as well as the drainage and the roadway question. GALIMBA: Thank you. Commissioners are you okay with that? Yeah, okay, go ahead. FUKE: Yeah, I think that not to dismiss the concerns raised by the public relating to the condition of Lehua Street. I mean it's an older road but as you can see it's pretty paved with the exception of some areas and especially like the bridge. But it's not uncommon to find that one- lane bridge all over and especially in the rural areas. Even if you go here like in Hilo, if you travel on Wilder Road between Pi`ihonua and Kaumana Drive. You have like a number of like those one-lane bridges as well its function. You go down on Kilauea Avenue at the 4-mile bridge you have that and then I would, but I do not have the statistics, but I would swear that the volume of traffic on that 4-mile bridge is significantly more than what you'll find on Lehua Street. You have courtesies, like you come, I go, that kind of stuff. So, it's an existing situation and with or without this project it seems like you have an existing situation. So, I would kind of like strongly to recommend that residents who live in that area and who raised that question can probably direct the question to either Public Works or to their area Councilmember and I noticed that she is here. To probably maybe whether funds could be allocated to provide some mitigations relative to signage, yield signs and all that stuff. I think these are small things that can be done using fuel tax funds to help a particular area. To obligate this developer to make all of these improvements I think is grossly unfair and it's a project that they probably would not want to do and instead maybe just develop something based on existing 17 EXHIBIT A zoning. Which is maybe 60 lots and not having to deal with any affordable housing, fair share requirements and all that stuff. On the issue of drainage. If you look specifically at Condition E, I'm sorry like on the sight distance question. Condition E specifically mentions that the Department of Public Works they have to review and approve all of the driveway areas just to make sure that you have appropriate sight distance to the two entrances for the project. So, what you saw there is kind of like in concept like where the location is going to be. When they do submit their subdivision application pursuant to that they're going to have to demonstrate to Public Works that the entrance has meet the appropriate site distance requirement. On the issue of drainage. You look specifically at Conditions I and J. They have to conform to like all the earthwork and grading activity. You have to meet the grading requirements. You have to submit your NPDES for any dry wells and things like that. So, they are appropriate regulatory safeguards to address drainage. You only have a portion of that area that may be subject to some drainage issues. But for the most part the property is within the Zone X area. So, there was a question relating to view plane and I will defer that to Mr. Meeker. MEEKER: Hi. We've spent a lot of time vetting this with obviously with our consultants and with our architect and our engineers. So, the line-of-sight issue was fully vetted with the engineer, and they say that we should be just fine. I won't go into the detail. I don't have the details of that as to what distance you need for the speed for the applicable speed and that sort of thing. But, I mean, what we're being advised it's a non-issue but as Sid says that you've got a planning that will be vetted fully by Public Works when we do the actual subdivision application. If that makes sense. Okay, oh, I can go into that also. Okay, yeah, a few other things were raised. I just if it's okay I'll comment. Ocean views and underground utilities were raised. When these lots directly across the street were sold, they were expressly and specifically it was disclosed that this project would be and would be developed right across the street. So, I've got the disclosure statements here if you if you want to see those and for every lot owner that got that was informed of that. They were also informed that the electrical line, the HELCO line would be extended down the street and would service this area. Everything in that area is overhead electrical. Underground would simply make any projects like this completely economically unfeasible. So, like I say we did that. We have also we will did not mention this before, but we want to impose, we want to adopt some modest CC&R's. So that the community is, I have a couple of things here I could highlight on that if you're interested. To protect view planes and other issues the individual lot owners are responsible for maintaining the 10-foot grass roadway shoulder in front of their lot. So, the HOA only maintains the physical roadway itself and the signage and the mailbox units and pathways and whatnot. We have the intention is to do largely a single- story approach to most of the home designs. The topography of some lots is steeper and so that we'd probably want to allow maybe you drive in on the lower level and have your main living area above that if the topography kind of dictates that. 18 EXHIBIT A We want homes that are appropriate to the existing Honoka`a architectural aesthetic. We don't want to see geodesic domes or tee pees and yurrs and this sort of thing. So, the CC&R's will address that so we can make sure it fits the existing rural nature there. Kind of a plantation style. We'd like to encourage use of front porches to kind of enhance neighborhood engagement with your neighbors and that sort of thing. No mega houses. So, we'll have a square footage limit to the size of the homes that can be built. We want to do designated driveway locations. So, to minimize the cuts in the roadways. So, if you have a lot here and a lot here and a lot here. So, this lot and this lot their driveways will be here. Kind of close to each other and you skip down two more lots, and you have then you have the twin driveways there. Instead of having a driveway cut every 90 or 100 feet or what going down the road because it just makes for a nicer neighborhood. Okay I'm probably telling you more than, anyway those are and some other things that kind of seem logical and appropriate to make these nice little neighborhoods. GALIMBA: I would disagree actually the details are good to know that you're thinking through a lot of these issues. MEEKER: Yeah, and we did reach out. We had a meeting with the Honoka`a Business Association. We met with the CDP Action Committee and went through all of this and have reached out to Councilman Kimball and so we tried to engage and of course people know about this, there's public hearing on this. Anyway, I could go on and I won't. Oh yeah, sorry here we go, there you go. GALIMBA: Thank you. Commissioners do you have any questions for the applicant? MEEKER: It's all yours. FUKE: Madam Chair,just one — GALIMBA: Okay. FUKE: —one other items like what we're just kind of leading up to. Is that they've given a lot of thoughts in terms of the surrounding property owners, the view plane considerations and all that stuff. So, what they would like to propose is one added condition which would specifically address all of the things that he mentioned and more. Because there were like a number of comments raised regarding from surrounding property owners while making sure their view planes are in and so they're very sensitive of that. So, we would like to propose an additional condition which is Condition 9. So, Mr. Meeker did make his representation, so I was just kind of noting that. So, the added change to Condition 9 would be further as represented by the applicant. Appropriate design restrictions to address view plane comments of adjoining properties shall be incorporated in the restrictive covenants of deeds of all lots covered by this PUD. KEKAL And just for clarification for the record, Condition M is in the rezone and Condition 9 is in the PUD. 19 EXHIBIT A GALIMBA: If there's no other questions, we will need a motion made and seconded before we can discuss. KEKAL On the rezone first. GALIMBA: Okay. Okay, so we need to make separate. KEKAL Yes, separate. One on the rezone first and then— GALIMBA: Okay. And we would be potentially deleting and then adding. "—"the rezone would be the Condition N right, yes. DARROW: Sorry Christian, are you able to bring up the rezone conditions up — KAY: Sure. DARROW:— on the. Thank you. Specifically, the end of Condition N as in Nancy. KAY: Yes. Okay that's up. Let me make this a little bit bigger. Okay so that's the very last line at the bottom of Page 3. GALIMBA: Would you like to explain it? DARROW: Sure. So, again the consideration for the Commission would be whether or not to delete the last portion of Condition N. "N" as in Nancy. The line that Christian is highlighting which states "excluding any lots sold for excess housing credits". So, with that deletion it will allow the applicant to receive the excess housing credits for the additional proposed affordable housing as well as the exemption or the exemption from paying fair share for those particular lots identified under Condition M. GALIMBA: Sorry. Okay, so I just wanted to try, and this is getting pretty complicated for some fairly new commissioners and so the question that is in front of us is whether to. Well, we need a motion and I know probably our commissioners are a little leery of making a motion because this is pretty complicated. So, we could one potential is to on the Condition N that's up on the screen we would be putting a period after the "M" and deleting the language in blue (excluding any lots sold for excess housing credits) or we could leave it as it is. And this could go forward to the County Council, and we could kick it on to them. DARROW: If I can just really quickly. GALIMBA: Go ahead, please go ahead. DARROW: Thank you madam Chair. So, the concern is for the applicants to understand what's going on is that should we consult with Office of Housing prior to any relief on this condition? We can do that, but my thinking on this matter is that it's really a Planning issue having to do strictly with fair share. The affordable housing agreement regardless of what we do as far as fair 20 EXHIBIT A share is either going to allow excess credits as part of their agreement or not. And so regardless of that it doesn't address fair share issues. If we had a condition like this as it is now, we would inform housing, please we need a letter from the applicant making a decision prior to whatever trigger is whether they're going to accept the credits or whether they're going to accept the fair share. In this case we're just saying it's not a matter of which one they accept or not. It's both are being given but again out of caution we can do that if the commission so feels we can move this forward if that's the desire of the commission and then address this matter at Committee. Thank you. CROSS: Can I make comments. It seems that the fair share commitments have already been satisfied in previous subdivisions in this area, correct? KEKAL Affordable housing. CROSS: The affordable housing, I guess. Yeah. DARROW: Correct the affordable housing. CROSS: The affordable housing. And then, yet they're going beyond and having 50% of their project as affordable houses. GALIMBA: I'm sort of walking the line here on questions for information or a sort of opinion. So, if we wanted another opinion but discussion of the issues. If we want to discuss the item we need a motion— CROSS: Okay. GALIMBA: — and then to discuss. CROSS: All right. GALIMBA: Yeah. So, or not or no motion if no one wants to make a motion. CROSS: I can make a motion. GALIMBA: That would be awesome. CROSS: Okay, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a Change of Zone, Docket No. REZ-2022-028 based on the Planning Director's recommendation provided that the last sentence of Condition N be amended to place a period after Condition M and excluding the words "excluding any lot sold for excess housing credits". GALIMBA: Thank you. Do we have a second? DANIELE: I'll second that. 21 EXHIBIT A GALIMBA: Thank you. It has been moved by Commissioner Cross and seconded by Commissioner Daniel. Any discussion? Daniele sorry. I'm just killing it here today. DE LUZ: Just clarification on the motion because we, he added the last line, right? CROSS: Deleted. KEKAL Deleting that. DE LUZ: I'm sorry deleted the last line. KEKAL Yep. DE LUZ: Thank you. DANIELE: Yeah, I mean, I would agree with Commissioner Cross that they've gone above and beyond their obligation in terms of supplying affordable housing to an underserved community. So, I think that is the appropriate thing to do. GALIMBA: Any other discussion? If not, I will call for the question. All those in favor please— KEKAL Roll call. GALIMBA: — oh roll call, thanks. KAY: Okay, thank you madam Chair. So, again this is a motion to send a favorable recommendation of the County Council with the stated amendment to Condition M [N], Commissioner Cross? CROSS: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Daniele? DANIELE: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Balog? BALOG: Aye. KAY: Commissioner De Luz? DE LUZ: Aye. KAY: And Chair Galimba? 22 EXHIBIT A GALIMBA: Aye. KAY: Thank you madam Chair motion carries with five aye votes, two excused. GALIMBA: All right now we will move on to Item 3 the second item related to Lehua Villages. I need a motion made in relation to this item. DE LUZ: I move that the application for Planned Unit Development Docket No. 2022-001, be approved based on the Planning Director's recommendation which shall be adopted. BALOG: Second. GALIMBA: It has been moved by Commissioner De Luz and seconded by Commissioner Balog. Any discussion? Do we want questions, yeah. Does anyone want to make an amendment to there or do you want to amend the motion to include— DE LUZ: I'd like to amend the motion to include Condition No. 9. GALIMBA: Thank you. Are you in agreement Commissioner ? BALOG: Nodded yes. GALIMBA: Okay. So, we have amended, that can just be part of this the one motion. Any discussion? Hearing none, I will call for the question. KAY: Thank you madam Chair. Again, this is a motion to approve with the applicant's proposed amendments to Condition No. 9. Commissioner De Luz? DE LUZ: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Balog? BALOG: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Cross? CROSS: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Daniele? DANIELE: Aye. KAY: And Chair Galimba? GALIMBA: Aye. 23 EXHIBIT A KAY: Thank you madam Chair. The motion caries with five aye votes and two excused. GALIMBA: Thank you very much Commissioners. Applicant you will be notified of the decision in writing, thank you. The item ended at 10:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 24 EXHIBIT A