Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-15 Leeward Exh B (Item !&2 Kaupulehu Land LLC) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 15, 2023 Public testimony regarding the application of KA`UPULEHU LAND LLC (PL-SLU-2022- 000008 and PL-REZ-2022-000039)was heard at 10:15 a.m. in the West Hawaii Civic Center, Council Chambers, Building A, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Barbara DeFranco, Zaheva Knowles, Michael Dela Cruz, Clement"CJ" Kanuha III, and Michael Vitousek ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Mahina Paishon-Duarte ALSO PRESENT: Sinclair Salas-Ferguson, Esq. (Counsel to the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel to the Planning Department), Zendo Kern (Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Christian Kay (Planner), Alex Roy (Planner), Janice Hata(Zoom host), Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) and Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador (Commission Secretary). And approximately ten public members in the audience. APPLICANT: KAUPULEHU LAND LLC (PL-SLU-2022-000008) Application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Rural for 2.653 acres of land. The subject property is located at 64-983 Mamalahoa Highway, approximately one mile east of its intersection with Kawaihae Road, Pu`ukapu Homesteads, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 6-4-024:027 (por.). APPLICANT: KAUPULEHU LAND LLC (PL-REZ-2022-000039) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a) zoning district to a Neighborhood Commercial-10,000 square feet(CN-10) zoning district for 2.325 acres of land and from an Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a) zoning district to a Residential Agri cultural-0.5 acre (RA-0.5) zoning district for 3.024 acres of land. The subject property is located at 64-983 Mamalahoa Highway, approximately one mile east of its intersection with Kawaihae Road, Pu`ukapu Homesteads, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 6-4-024:027. Secretary's Note: Due to a problem with audio quality, the parts that cannot be transcribed are indicated as [indecipherable]. DEFRANCO: We're going to take the 2 agenda items we have together, okay. So, we have the applicant Ka`upulehu Land LLC, PL-SLU-2022-000008. Application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Rural for 2.653 acres of land. The subject property is located at 64-983 Mamalahoa Highway, approximately one mile east of its intersection with Kawaihae Road, Pu`ukapu Homesteads, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 6-4-024:027 and 1 EXHIBIT B the second item applicant Ka`upulehu Land LLC, PL-REZ-2022-000039. Application for a Change of Zone from Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a) zoning district to a Neighborhood Commercial- 10,000 square feet(CN-10) zoning district for 2.325 acres of land and from an Agricultural-5 acre (A-5a) zoning district to a Residential Agricultural-half acre (RA-0.5) zoning district for 3.024 acres of land. The subject property is located at 64-983 Mamalahoa Highway, approximately one mile east of its intersection with Kawaihae Road, Pu`ukapu Homesteads, South Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 6-4-024:027. So now we're going to have a staff presentation from Christian Kay. Thank you. KAY: Yes, thank you Chair DeFranco and good morning to the members of the Leeward Planning Commission. As the Chair stated these are going to be two applications. We'll present them as one and then act on them individually. Okay, the subject 5.349 acre parcel is located in the South Kohala district of Hawaii island. More specifically in the Waimea area. It is outlined here in red and for reference we've got the Highway running generally east west through the slide. Sorry, left to right through the slide. The applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to Rural district for 2.653 acres of land and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-5 acre zoning district to a Neighborhood Commercial-10,000 square feet a district for 2.325 acres of land and to a Residential and Agricultural zoning district for 3.024 acres of land. If the requested land use entitlement changes are approved, the applicant proposes to subdivide the property into a total of eight(8) lots as follows. Three (3) minimum 10,000 square foot commercial lots fronting Mamalahoa Highway with 3 proposed 1 and 2-story mixed retail and commercial/office buildings having a gross leasable floor area of approximately 18,600 square feet and five (5) minimum one half(1/2) acre residential agricultural lots on the south or mauka portion of the property. The applicant would like to begin construction within six (6) months after issuance of all permit approvals with full build out of the proposed project is anticipated to be in 2027. Here is the County zoning map of the subject property and surrounding area. Again for reference we've got Mamalahoa Highway running generally left through right through the slide. Subject property here outlined in red. Subject property and some of the surrounding area is Agricultural-5 acre as indicated by the green color. But as you can see there are other residential and commercial designations in close proximity to the subject property including several parcels zoned Neighborhood Commercial-7,500 square feet and some Village Commercial across the highway and then some residential indicated in the yellow and mustard colors. The State Land Use designation for the subject properties is split. The makai portion is Urban as indicated in the pink color and this is generally the area where the proposed commercial zoning is going to be. The mauka portion of the property is presently State Land Use Agricultural as indicated in green and this is generally the area that is being proposed to be converted to the State Land Use Rural district and then we'll also include the proposed RA-.5 zoning. Here is the General Plan's Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map showing the subject property again having the split designation. The makai portion of the property is largely within the Medium Density Urban designation with the mauka portion of the property being in the Low-Density Urban designation. The Medium Density Urban designation would support the proposed commercial 2 EXHIBIT B zoning and the Low-Density Urban designation on the mauka portion would support the higher density being proposed in the RA zoning. Here is the South Kohala Community Development Plan Map for the Waimea Town. Again, subject property is located partly roughly in this area and blown up here we see the subject property outlined in red. Again, the makai portion of the property is generally within an area designated for Urban uses with the mauka portion of the property in what the CDP be called these small farms and ranches a preservation program area. Here is an aerial photograph of the subject property and surrounding areas. Again you can see the subject property here outlined in blue with the exception of 2 structures dwellings that were built in the 1920's on the property. The rest of the property is unimproved and vacant. We've got Ishihara Farm Road coming to the right of the property here that currently provides access to those dwellings and again the Highway running left through right through the slide. Again, you can see the surrounding land uses are residential, commercial, and agricultural. Here is the applicant's proposed site plan. For these purposes the Highway is running on the left- hand side of the slide. Ishihara Farm Road here at the top and the 3 proposed agricultural, pardon me, the commercial lots closest to the Highway currently showing 2 proposed accesses to the commercial area. The 5 residential agricultural lots mauka will be accessed from Ishihara Farm Road some directly and some through access easements servicing all of the properties. Two of the 5 lots will contain the existing dwellings. Here are some photographs of the site. The upper left is a view of Mamalahoa Highway looking east and the lower right is a view of Mamalahoa Highway looking west. Again, you can see the current striping, the highway striping in the area. And here are views of the end of the property from Ishihara Farm Road looking mauka or north with the property on the right-hand side. Some photographs of the existing structures and a view across the property showing currently unimproved. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on both the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and the rezone and requests. With that I'm happy to take questions as appropriate. DEFRANCO: Thank you. I had a couple of questions for you. The questions from some of the — KAY: Sorry, one more thing. I was asked to point out that there's been several pieces of testimony that have come in since the Background and Recommendation were provided to the Commission and overall, we've got 43 pieces of testimony in support of the project and 20 pieces of testimony in opposition. DEFRANCO: Thank you for that— KAY: I'm happy to answer questions. 3 EXHIBIT B DEFRANCO: Thank you. Yeah, one of the questions from some of the people had to do with flooding and traffic. Can you speak to that? KAY: Sure, so, come back here. Alex, can you bring me back to the site plan. So, a few things with regards to traffic. The applicant's did commission a Traffic Impact Analysis Report(TIAR)that was submitted to the State Department of Transportation (DOT)who in 2021 took ownership and management responsibility for this section of the Highway from the County. There's been significant discussions back and forth between the applicant's representatives and the State Department of Transportation on proposed mitigation around accessing the property and thus far they haven't been able to hammer out whether or not the two accesses are appropriate to DOT's satisfaction. So, what the Director is recommending is conditions basically saying access will meet the requirements of the State Department of Transportation. Also, I believe there's a condition that speaks to an updated TIAR as well be necessary prior to occupancy and any mitigation that is proposed, or any mitigation required by the State Department of Health be required prior to occupancy. In terms of flooding, there are different flood zone designations on the property. There are the stream on the southern portion of the property that there will be drainage study required as part of the development and any on-site drainage created by the property will need to be captured on site meeting with the requirements of our Flood Code of the Department of Public Works. DEFRANCO: Thank you. KAY: Yeah. DEFRANCO: Are the anymore questions from Commissioners? Mike Vitousek, please. VITOUSEK: Yes. This is Mike Vitousek. Is it typical for project to move forward without the TIAR that's agreed to by the relevant agency that owns the road? KAY: Um' I have seen it both ways in the past and even currently we have required or requested that those things be dealt with prior to going forward with a hearing. But also in some situations where ultimately when it comes down to kind whatever DOT says goes and we have conditions kind of addressing that in our proposed conditions and we've been comfortable kind of moving it forward and leaving that to be done after the fact prior to occupancy. DEFRANCO: Mike, you know when I think you recused yourself, but we had it with the Cowell's came forward to do theirs at Napo`opo`o. That was a condition set at that time that it be the State that made those decisions and that was written into it. Even though the project was approved. VITOUSEK: Okay, if I could continue. DEFRANCO: Yes. 4 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: This is a county zoning change right and not a for the front portion of it is zoned Urban and so it would be a county zoning. KAY: Uh-huh. VITOUSEK: Does it make sense to fully understand the effects of the traffic before issuing the Change of Zone? KAY: So, again, I think the way that we've seen this, and I can certainly let the Director speak to it as well. But ultimately the applicant is, and DOT are going to have to come to some kind of an agreement on appropriate mitigation based on current and whatever comes out of a new traffic study. If DOT is comfortable with it, then we're kind of leaving it to them since it's their kuleana to tell the applicant what needs to be done in terms of access. So, DOT may come back and say, yeah, two accesses are fine, or we want one access, or we want to take them off of Ishihara Farm Road. That's ultimately going to be their call. So, we're comfortable kind of moving that forward and with the understanding that DOT in any case is going to have final call on what traffic improvements need to be made. And again, I'll defer to the Director if he wants to add on to that. KERN: Sure, Zendo Kern, Planning Director. I concur with what Christian Kay had said and adding to that, Condition E requires the TIAR prior to Plan Approval being submitted to the Planning Department which would give the most up to date time traffic count to have mitigation measures done on. So, I would think it'd be more appropriate to have it done sooner to the Plan Approval than it would be even now. KAY: Yeah. I will also point out Commissioner Vitousek that there has been some delay in bringing this back to the Commission. Largely because of the issues with DOT and we waited for a significant amount of time to let them have an opportunity to kind of work those things out. There still seems to be a[recording in progress]between the applicant and DOT on what the applicant's traffic engineers think is appropriate and what DOT finds acceptable and again we are comfortable moving it forward with the zoning because ultimately DOT is going to have to make the final call. VITOUSEK: So, the last communication from DOT stating that the applicant shall withdraw the application for a Change of Zone and Boundary Amendment until the consolidation and subdivision process is been completed before moving forward as the proposed development contradicts the current restrictions on the property. KAY: Right, so I believe after that came in there's been significant back and forth between the applicant and DOT. So, there hasn't been anything additional in writing that's come in from them. We were hoping that given the additional time we requested or yeah requested for them to kind of nail that down that they could come back with something, some type of an agreement. But that hasn't happened yet. VITOUSEK: No agreement yet? 5 EXHIBIT B KAY: Correct. VITOUSEK: Okay. KAY: And I'll again, I'll maybe let the applicant speak to some of those additional conversations. DEFRANCO: Thank you, Mr. Vitousek, Commissioner Vitousek. Anybody else? Yes, Commissioner Knowles. KNOWLES: Thank you Chair. I just have a question and some of the testifiers brought this up as well. The goals and priorities set forth in the South Kohala CDP. One of which is responsible growth and looking at sort of what's required, what the recommendations that the CDP specifically sets out prior to sort of rezoning some of these Ag lands is that we wait until. That they should retain their current zoning until such time as sort of an overall comprehensive plan can be put in place. Infrastructure is appropriate et cetera, et cetera, et cetera and I think that's what the CDP contemplates fairly clearly. So, how does this kind of piece meal, small development project fit into the Planning Department's overarching concept or view of what the Waimea Urban Town Center should look like based on the guidance set forth in the CDP. KAY: Yeah, so, on Page 4 of the recommendation we kind of speak to that. So, there's kind of a proviso after the statement that it needs to kind of stay there so that exceptions can be made for affordable housing, agricultural cluster subdivisions and small scale rezonings of four(4) lots or less that may assist families and allowing their children to obtain individual properties. I think that coming back and doing the RA zoning was kind of a compromise that seemed more in line with the CDP than the original State Land Use Urban and Single-Family Residential zoning that was proposed back in 2021. So, the Director felt more comfortable that this particular proposal was more in line with the intent of the CDP. And again, I can refer to the Director on any further discussion on that. KNOWLES: Director Kern would you address this. I mean primarily what I hear this sort of reference that this is accessible to local families and small farmers. I just don't, I'd like to understand how you're thinking about this project in the overall context of planning for Waimea. KERN: Sure. I concur with what our Planner Christian Kay said as well. If you look at the surrounding areas within Waimea this is very consistent to the number of, go back to the other one. The aerial view. There you go. It's consistent with the surrounding property areas. It' very consistent with the General Plan as Christian mentioned. We believe that it's consistent with CDP as well. There's also language that when there's a conflict with the General Plan and the CDP the General Plan will trump the CDP in those cases. And so, looking at the makeup of the area with commercial street frontage, office types uses, and the density that would be allowed we would feel that it is consistent with that area. KNOWLES: Well, as a Waimea resident. I just need to say this is not dense at all. I mean in terms of urban development. What you have is Earl's, a gas station, a dance studio, 6 EXHIBIT B and a coffee shop, basically in this area. I'm just trying to get a sense of, you know, I'm thinking about view planes, I'm thinking about so the folks on the backside where the agricultural rezoning is being requested. They'll have views of the mountain but folks on the road will not. I'm just trying to think about the character of, what's the overall plan for this east side in your view based on the — KERN: Well, couple things there.— KNOWLES: — maps. KERN: — Along the roadway there, you have it State Land Use Urban already, State Land Use is zoned Urban, or is Urban. Which in the case that an urban use should be done along that roadway. So, it's extremely consistent with that. The 5 lots on the backside of it to residential ag would allow for smaller residential ag lots to be created. We all believe that there's a need for lots for families and how do we get to that place if we're not able to create those lots. We can say that we want these things but then when the rubber meets the road what do we actually do. In this case the rubber is meeting the road and there are 5 lots that could be created that are residential ag in Waimea that would provide an opportunity for folks. So, that's why we would support it. KNOWLES: So, in terms of the sort of idea of the traffic concerns and other things that have been raised. Is this in your view what the CDP contemplates as sort of the eastern hub of commercial activity in Waimea. Is this where that plan will be centered in the Planning Departments mind's eye? I'm just trying to get a sense or is this sprawl, sprawl, sprawl. KERN: No, this is getting definitely to the eastern side of it. Can you show, the, um', yeah, so it's right there at the almost towards that eastern hub. Looks like there's a few more lots. So, yeah, it's not going to be more sprawl, sprawl, sprawl. This would be towards that eastern end of things. So, for example. If somebody came in with maybe 5 lots down towards Honoka`a side, don't quote me on the 5 lots, but a number of lots down though we're outside of that we'd be having a different conversation. DEFRANCO: Commissioner Vitousek. VITOUSEK: Sure, so, um', the language that I'm hearing is that this conforms more closely to the community development plan,but it doesn't conform exactly with the community development plan. KAY: Yeah, that's correct. So, on Page 5 of the recommendation it says "the applicant's proposed development does not strictly adhere to the exceptions for changing the current zoning in that it is not an agricultural cluster subdivision, and although the applicant will be required to meet the County Housing Code for providing affordable housing, the subdivision will include primarily market-rate lots. Additionally, the proposed 5-lot subdivision slightly exceeds the 4 lots or less minimum mentioned in the" CDP. And so goes on to say that 2021 there was urban and single-family residential, but the Director feels like this is kind of more in line with what the CDP says in that 202 1 application. 7 EXHIBIT B VITOUSEK: Mahalo and then to Vice Chair Knowles point. Looking at this area on the ground there are look at the zoning map and can see that there are commercial buildings in the area. But all of those are in historic buildings with the exception of the gas station across the street which really stands out tremendously in that area. But going to the east you've got the Fish and the Hog building, which is a historic building. The one to the west is another historic home site used as a commercial. So, the character of the area isn't changed by the use of those historic buildings. This would be a pretty — DEFRANCO: Right. VITOUSEK: — significant— DEFRANCO: Is this a question? VITOUSEK: Sure. The question is, is this the most appropriate zoning. I understand this is within the State Land Use Boundary, but, because we have dual land use regulations. Has the County considered any other zonings that would be more appropriate for this portion of town? KAY: Sure, um' so, I mean ultimately if we're talking about the makai portion as the Director stated is already Urban and so the zoning code would obviously control and if the zoning is approved then anything in the CN zoning would be allowed. The mauka portion that is going from being proposed to go from Ag to Rural is fully within the County's purview as well as it's under 15 acres. So, that's why it's brought in front of you folks as well. So, yeah, I think that we are responding to this application right and I believe the Director's recommendation makes it clear that we feel that it's appropriate the proposed RA zoning. DEFRANCO: Thank you. Okay, so we're going to get a presentation then from the applicant. Thank you Christian, okay. So, we'll the applicant and the representative please come forward. TWO FEMALES AND A MALE CAME TO THE TESTIFIER TABLE FEMALE: Good morning, Chair DeFranco. DEFRANCO: Good morning. Hold on just a second, let's have everybody get seated and then I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand and swear to affirm the truth today. FEMALE: I do. DEFRANCO: Mr. Metzler? METZLER: I do. DEFRANCO: I do. Okay remember to speak directly into the mic, you have to get it sort of close to you do this. 8 EXHIBIT B FEMALE: I think I can project well enough, thank you. DEFRANCO: Okay. FEMALE: Hi. DEFRANCO: I need you to just, hi, state your name and where you're from. GARSON: I'm Katherine Garson, and Onaona Thoene from Carlsmith Ball. We represent Ka`upulehu Land. DEFRANCO: Thank you. GARSON: To my left is John Metzler, Member of Ka`upulehu Land, his wife Joni is behind him. We also have with us our Traffic Consultant Randall Okaneku and Project Engineer Yen Wen Fang. DEFRANCO: Thank you, thank you for being here. Have you received the Background and Recommendation reports from the Planning? GARSON: Yes, we have. DEFRANCO: And do you agree with the recommendations including the proposed conditions? GARSON: Yes, we do. DEFRANCO: Okay and do you have any other comments then. GARSON: If you'll indulge me, I do have a short presentation. DEFRANCO: Thank you. GARSON: I believe that some of you were here in 2021 when the applicant brought a prior application before the Leeward Planning Commission. Our prior application had requested that the back portion of the lot be State Land Use designated Urban and that back portion of the lot be rezoned to RS-10. At that time, there were a lot of comments about that application, and we do have some of the comments up just to kind of remind where we were. Chair DeFranco you asked that applicant to go back and look at the project, reconsider the design. Commissioner Paishon-Duarte said we'll need to do a little bit better at preserving Waimea sense of space and at that time the Planning Director and Planning Department had a couple of suggestions. These were made at the meeting in the last time. asked us, suggested maybe we look at Rural, Residential Ag. At that time it was Chair Vitousek, you know like rural sounds good. So, what the applicant did was go back, take another look at the project, consult with the Planning Department again and so what you have before you is an application that is the result of that 9 EXHIBIT B thought process. Taking in community input, taking the input of the Planning Department, and coming back with this proposal. So, in this application as the Planning Department presented. The front portion is already Urban and so for that there's no change on the State Land Use side. For the zoning, we are requesting to change to Neighborhood Commercial-10,000. The back portion is for an SLU Rural. So, this is a change from our prior request for Urban and instead of RS-10 in the back which would have made that back portion more dense. But we're requesting Residential-Ag for .5 and this is the same slide you saw. The front of the parcel is already Urban, it's that back portion that is labeled with the "A"that we would be asking, that we are asking you to designate Rural. And if you look a little bit to the left of that slide you can see that there is a Rural designation up on the right, a few lots down. So, that Rural designation already exists in Waimea Town, and it really serves to kind of transition between the Urban and the Ag. In the Rural district the minimum lot size it can't be less than a half an acre and again, the last time when we came and we're requesting RS-10. There was sort of this a feeling that there wasn't enough control on the density that if you had rezoned it RS-10 even though the applicant was saying he was going to do so many lots. The RS-10 zoning would allow more and so, with the Rural designation he cannot go smaller than a half an acre. So, it's not going to get more dense than that. This again, we wanted to show you what the existing zoning is. So there is Neighborhood Commercial (CN-10) towards Waimea, on the other side there's RS-10 across the street, Family Ag. It really does give you sort of the commercial uses on Mamalahoa, off Mamalahoa Highway and then the residential uses kind of in the back of that and it's a variety and you can see again on the top left side. So, that area that's Rural in that corner is also Residential Ag -.5. So, that's what we're kind of looking at, some consistency in town. This is just a description of the proposed zonings. If you look at the residential and agricultural half acre it talks about small farms and it is intended to be within the State Land Use Rural or Urban districts. So, this is showing you the existing surrounding commercial uses. Like you said the Fish and the Hog is towards Honoka`a, and Earl's and the Minit Stop is across. Towards Waimea Town you have the HPM Building, you have Napa Auto Parts so those are also not historical buildings but built with that Waimea sense of community which is what the applicant intends. Existing on this property are 2 single-family residences already and the Metzler's fixed them up. So, we wanted to show this is sort of the character of what the homes that we are anticipating are going to be on that back portion. So, there's this one and one more and that and to Commissioner Knowles question about the CDP. So, the way I look at the consistency with the CDP. Because there's 2 existing residences already, you're really looking at 3 additional residents. So, — DEFRANCO: Please direct your comments to me. GARSON: Oh, I'm so sorry. In response to the question about the CDP. So you're really looking at 3 additional residences. So, that to me isn't keeping in line with the four 10 EXHIBIT B additional even though they called them lots. These 2 lots already would have homes on them. So, you're really looking at 3 additional residences. So, to me it keeps within the spirit of what the CDP is asking for. The other thing about the 5 lots is Chapter 11 which is the affordable housing has the affordable housing requirements. If you have 4 lots, there is no affordable housing requirement. Five it kicks in the 20 percent. So, one of the other thoughts were, okay well, if he went down to 4 lots, fine, but then actually there is no affordable housing requirement. By having the 5 there's a 20 percent affordable housing requirement. So, you know we didn't want to come back and then be accused of trying to skirt having that affordable housing option. So, again, this is consistent with the General Plan. It's consistent with the already State Land Use Urban designation and we think that you should give us a favorable recommendation today and we're all here to answer questions. DEFRANCO: We appreciate you coming back with the new plan, and I appreciate seeing the character of the houses that you have presently there because they are in keeping with the historic look of Waimea and sort of that. I think that some of the concerns then is possibly what the character that the development would look like in the front. I think one of the testifiers stated something about the height of that and maybe making it single-story. I just want to address all this so that we can talk a bit about it. So, in the design. Can you speak to us. You don't really have any idea of the design of the front, is that right or? GARSON: One second. It was in the application. DEFRANCO: Okay. GARSON: So, it should be in your background report and if you're looking at an electronic version, I'm sorry, so, I'll just have hold it up for you. It's Exhibit 5. DEFRANCO: Okay. I'm scrolling back to it. Yeah, yeah. KERN: It's on Page 72 in your PDF's of the Background Report. At least it's showing 72 on my PDF reader. [Unintelligible crosstalk] GARSON: So, if you take a look at that Exhibit, it's that same sort of it has a historical Waimea Town look to them. DEFRANCO: Right, okay. So, you know because one of the other testifiers they wanted to say something about it being a Kmart parking lot, no, KTA parking lot and it gives you the imagery of this huge shopping center being put there. But that isn't what this is. It is more in line with maybe medical buildings or something else. Is that what— GARSON: Correct. I think the types of tenants the applicant was looking for are doctors, architects, dentists that sort— 11 EXHIBIT B DEFRANCO: Right. GARSON: — we're talking about, right, yeah. DEFRANCO: Okay. GARSON: Lawyer. DEFRANCO: Commissioner Vitousek. VITOUSEK: Yes, thank you. Does the applicant intend to construct the buildings or sell the commercial lots? METZLER: We haven't made a determination on that yet. Things are moving pretty slowly so we're trying to not make any missteps along the way and do everything as it should be done. DEFRANCO: Are there any other questions? VITOUSEK: I guess same question for the houses in the back. Would you be selling lots or building homes? METZLER: No decision has been made yet, but my instinct is that I'd like to make those 3 remaining Ag lots as affordable as possible to local families. I think the best way to do that is to sell a vacant lot and allow them to build their own home. We've been involved with a lot of self-helped housing and employee type housing for our own group and most of them have built their own homes and really loved it. VITOUSEK: Awesome. I remember last time we had a question about CC&R's on the lots. Is that something that you guys are still considering? CC&R's that would restrict the building of a home to a certain level that would increase the cost for construction. GARSON: Yeah, I don't think that there's a decision on that. On the commercial there will probably have to be CC&R's because it's going to be shared parking. So, the commercial side there will be. VITOUSEK: And on the residential, in the back end. GARSON: No decision, right. METZLER: Well, again we haven't made a decision there. I think as you can see, we restored those 2 homes to their original condition. It wasn't cheap all the way down to the hardware and mill work. So, we've demonstrated that we're interested in maintaining the Waimea culture and heritage and visual. So I think it's safe to say that whether or not there are CC&R's there may be a minor CC&R component but either way the homes that are constructed they will blend in with Hawaii. We'll be sure to make that happen. 12 EXHIBIT B DEFRANCO: Thank you. Commissioner Mike. DELA CRUZ: Oh, Commissioner Vitousek asked to ask a question. But I do have one,just additional to the current structure that is already in the property. Are those currently occupied right now? Or I know you did some renovations on that. Is that currently occupied? METZLER: We have a family member living in one home and we rent the other. DEFRANCO: Any of the other Commissioners have questions? [Unintelligible crosstalk] Sorry. KNOWLES: Thank you Chair. Can you speak a little bit to the ongoing conversations with the Department of Transportation and your concern and your sort of thinking around on how best to address traffic concerns on the road. There are maybe 80 different driveways I think between Kamamalu and Mud Lane and I'd like to hear a little bit from you about what your plans are and where the conversations lie right now at the DOT. GARSON: Yes, so, we met with them in April and the conversation surrounded, so, the conversation surrounded the two access to the commercial versus one. Just backing up a little bit when this project was first, first, first conceptualized the applicant had gone to the South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee and there were actually three (3) accesses. One for each of the lots that are proposed for the commercial and so at that time it was the South Kohala Traffic Committee who said, go take a look at it and reduce the accesses. So, then it became two and so the South Kohala Traffic Committee was satisfied, and I think in the Background Report there's is a letter saying thank you for doing what we asked and taking a look at it again. Then Mamalahoa Highway was recently transferred back to DOT. So we're having this same conversation again about accesses and so it's just at this point it's the applicant justifying two versus one to the commercial portion. And our traffic consultant updated the TIAR so there's an addendum to it to try to give a little bit more background and justification for the two accesses. So, that's where we are. There hasn't been a decision on their part one way or the other and the other thing is I think there's a little bit of a misconception on their part because first they are saying subdivide it first and then come ask us about it. So, we had to recognize oh no, you know this is like, we need to do this before we get to that point. So, that's where discussion is. They haven't committed to allowing the two or one to the commercial. KNOWLES: Thank you. DEFRANCO: Yes. KERN: Madame Chair, I just wanted to really brief on the commercial design component side of things. So when an application comes in for commercial in the Waimea area, we send it to the Waimea Community Group. I just want to say Waimea Community Center, but Waimea Community Association and they review the design, and they give a recommendation back to the Director whether they agree with the design or want to see an adjustment and the concept is to keep it in the character of Waimea and so, that's a practice that we do. I just wanted 13 EXHIBIT B to mention that when that had come up before. We don't do it for residential, but we do it for commercial projects and so this would go through that same process. KNOWLES: Just for clarity, however, I just wanted to ask you to clarify that is a civilian group without any background necessarily in planning or development. KERN: That's absolutely correct and it's not for them to plan out the projects, it's for them to give comments on the aesthetics, the architecture, the color, and those features. KNOWLES: Thank you. DEFRANCO: Thank you and does the applicant want to respond to any of the testifiers concerns that we haven't already spoken about? GARSON: No, I think we've covered it, and we appreciate the public comments and I think coming back to you with a revised plan just demonstrates that we did take all of the comments seriously and tried to incorporate a lot of those comments into this application. DEFRANCO: Thank you. Okay. Alright having no more comments, we need a motion for action on Item 1, State Land Use Boundary Amendment PL-SLU-2022-000008. Looking for a motion. Can I make a motion? Am I allowed to make a motion? [Indecipherable crosstalk] Okay. Yes, Vice Chair, can you make the motion. KNOWLES: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for Change of Zone — DEFRANCO: We need a second. KNOWLES: — sorry, I need to do them both. We're doing the first one. DEFRANCO: One at a time. KNOWLES: One at a time. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment, Docket No. PL-SLU-2022-000008 based on the Planning Director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. DEFRANCO: I need a second, please. DELA CRUZ: Second. DEFRANCO: Seconded by Commissioner Dela Cruz. Okay. So, now we have a discussion, please. Vice Chair Knowles. 14 EXHIBIT B KNOWLES: I represent South Kohala as a Commissioner here and I understand the need for this sort of development, and I also understand the ambivalence or anxiety attendant with these kinds of changes to the community. I think that the applicant is a long-standing resident of the Big Island and businessman and has a lot of experience in this area. But I also, I do think it's incumbent on me to really highlight the anxiety stems from a sense of really not understanding what the overarching plan is for this area and how this fit into that plan. My hope is that Planning Director Kern as you're going forward making recommendations in favor of projects like this that you're contextualizing it in a way that promotes a sense of trust in the community and a sense of security in the ideas behind it and what the overarching plan is. Because what we don't need in Waimea is another commercial business not connected to commercial business one block down by sidewalks for example and by bike paths and alternate transportation routes and those kinds of things. What the community is suffering from is a lack of cohesion in the planning of the community and that is my hesitation in supporting this project. DEFRANCO: Thank you. Were you here in 2021 when they presented, okay. Thank you. Do we have any more discussions. VITOUSEK: Chair. DEFRANCO: Oh wait a minute. VITOUSEK: Oh, is there something else? DEFRANCO: No, okay. Yes. VITOUSEK: Okay. DEFRANCO: Commissioner Vitousek. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. As all the Commissioners know this is something that's going to be decided by the County Council, both of these items. So we're here to provide a recommendation on what we think, if this is an appropriate zoning or not for this area. No disrespect to the applicants. They're definitely valued members of the community, all that and that's not in question. To me, I just don't think that this is an appropriate zoning for this area at this time. I think it's doing too much in an area where we're transitioning into the country, not like the rural designation. But I think there's too many outstanding issues with traffic and for me if we're adding a commercial development of this size into an area that's on the fringe of the town, I think we need to have the traffic issues addressed in advance. So, for me I would give an unfavorable recommendation for those reasons. DEFRANCO: Thank you. I think I feel sort of the opposite of that. I like the way that they came back, and they made the, they changed the size of the lots in the back and made it affordable and all of us need more homes to live in for the families to live in. And I think they've looked at the land and listening to them after they did this massive cleanup because it used to be a dump there. Cleaning up the whole piece of land, bringing it back into life and then presenting something realizing that it wasn't the best interest of the community. Went back and redesigned it 15 EXHIBIT B so that it was more in keeping the General Plan and the CDP and even their conceptual plans are very nicely done. I mean the homes that exists on it now look like little homes, they are not mega mansions that they're coming in here with and that was a fear before. You can see that's not the intention here. That the intention is to make affordable housing for the community so that people can live there and have their homes there. When I look at the medical community in Waimea wanting more places to have, to service the people that live there. That we need this small kind of development happening there so that we have places for business and for residents. So, for me I'm quite comfortable with the project and I know that it's dependent on the DOT of approval. So, they're going to have to work that out with them, so I'm not worried about the traffic that that's a State thing and it won't get passed through the County unless they come into compliance with the State's regulations and codes. So, I'm comfortable with it. Do we have some more discussion here? No, okay. So, if there's no more discussion than we're going to do a roll call vote,please. KAY: Thank you Madame Chair. This on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, pardon me, the motion is a favorable recommendation. Vice Chair Knowles? KNOWLES: No. KAY: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Yes. KAY: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: I'll abstain,please. KAY: I'm sorry, did you say abstain? KANUHA: Yeah. [Unintelligible crosstalk] KAY: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: No. KAY: And Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Yes. KAY: Okay, motion fails with 2 aye votes, 2 no votes and an abstention. DEFRANCO: Okay, so we're going to look at the next one is a motion for action on Item 2 Change of Zone PL-REZ-2022-000039. 16 EXHIBIT B KNOWLES: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on application for Change of Zone, Docket No. PL-REZ-2022-000039, based on the Planning Director's recommendation, which shall be adopted. DEFRANCO: We need a second. VITOUSEK: Second. DEFRANCO: So, we have a discussion. VITOUSEK: I feel the same as the previous. DEFRANCO: Are there any other discussions? No other discussion, we call for a vote. KAY: Thank you Madame Chair. Again, this a favorable recommendation on the rezone, Vice Chair Knowles? KNOWLES: No. KAY: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: No. KAY: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Yes. KAY: Okay, and Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye, yes. KAY: All right, and pardon me, Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Yes. KAY: Okay, motion fails. DEFRANCO: No, C.J. said yes. Oh. Okay. You'll be notified of the Commissioner's decision in writing. JACKSON: Excuse me Madame Chair. DEFRANCO: Yes. JACKSON: There was actually no decision because both motions failed. 17 EXHIBIT B DEFRANCO: Oh, okay. JACKSON: So, the County Code says that the Planning Commission needs to make a decision meaning a valid vote one way or another within 90 days after receipt of the application from the Director. So, at this point, an option would be to defer the hearing to see if votes change at the next hearing and then if they do not and there is still not a valid motion that goes up. Then failure to act by the Commission is an automatic unfavorable recommendation that would be transferred — DEFRANCO: So, then we — JACKSON: —to the Council. DEFRANCO: —need to make a motion to defer, is that right? KANUHA: Give me a little bit of my [indecipherable] JACKSON: That would be my reading of it. I would ask that— DEFRANCO: Okay. JACKSON: —you check with your Corp Counsel. DEFRANCO: If we make a motion now to defer, so that there's one more person on the Commission and maybe there's another person added. [indecipherable] So,we need a motion to defer,please. KANUHA: [indecipherable] through some of this. I want to— DEFRANCO: CJ is making a motion to defer,but he can't speak [indecipherable crosstalk] KANUHA: I'm so under the weather. I've heard everything today, but I want to [indecipherable] into a little bit more. So, I want to defer to the previous, please. [indecipherable crosstalk] DEFRANCO: CJ is making the motion to defer. KANUHA: I make the motion to defer, I'm sorry, I've been under the weather. So. DEFRANCO: We need a second. VITOUSEK: Second. 18 EXHIBIT B DEFRANCO: Any discussion? [indecipherable crosstalk] Do you object to this motion, to defer? Are you okay with that? GARSON: No, yeah, we're fine. Thank you. DEFRANCO: Okay. All right, so any discussion then on? This is a discussion. KNOWLES: I had a question for the Planning Department. Would it be possible for us to hear from a representative of the Department of Transportation or is it appropriate? KERN: Yeah, we can certainly make that request for the next Planning Commission meeting, not a problem at all. KNOWLES: That would be very helpful. Thank you. KERN: Easy. DEFRANCO: Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion to defer? Seeing none, can we have a roll call please. KAY: Yes, thank you Madame Chair. On the motion to defer, Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Knowles? KNOWLES: Aye. KAY: And Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Motion to defer carries five nothing. DEFRANCO: Thank you, so we need one more motion to defer, was that Item 2, no, that was 1 so now we need a motion to defer Item 2. [indecipherable crosstalk] Okay, so now we need a motion to defer for Item 1. 19 EXHIBIT B KNOWLES: I move that we defer Item 1 to the next meeting of the Leeward Planning Commission. DEFRANCO: We need a second. DELA CRUZ: Second. DEFRANCO: Is there any discussion? No discussion. Are you okay with that? GARSON: Yes, thank you DEFRANCO: Okay. All right, so no discussion. So, we need a vote on this please. KAY: Yes, thank you Madame Chair. Motion to defer for Item 1. Commissioner Knowles? KNOWLES: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. KAY: And Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. KAY: Thank you, motion carries five nothing. DEFRANCO: Thank you. GARSON: Thank you. DEFRANCO: For your presentation. GARSON: You're welcome. 20 EXHIBIT B This agenda item ended at 11:14 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador Secretary to Boards and Commissions 21 EXHIBIT B