Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-19 HCHA Approved MinutesMeeting ofthe HAWAI`ICOUNTY HOUSING AGENCY Hilo, Hawai`i February 19, 2013 Agency Members Present Absent and Excused Greggor Ilagan Dennis “Fresh” Onishi Dru Mamo Kanuha Zendo Kern J. Yoshimoto Val Poindexter Margaret Wille Brenda Ford Karen Eoff Staff Members Present Members ofthe Public Stephen Arnett Jim Pappas Anne Bailey Warren Lee Susan Akiyama Alan Rudo AmySelf Nadine Pomroy Mr. Ilagan: Hieverybody, pleasetake your seats and setyour phones tosilent, mahalo. Aloha and welcome totheHawai`i County Housing Agency. Itis February 19, 2013, the time is 9:30a.m. and weare the West Hawai`iCivic Center. Before I start Iwant tointroduce themembers ofthe Hawai`iCounty Housing Agency. To my farright is member Dennis “Fresh” Onishi, member Margaret Wille, member Valerie Poindexter, member Brenda Ford andtomyfarleft ismember J. Yoshimoto, member Zendo Kern, member Dru Kanuha and member Karen Eoff. And I am member Greggor Ilagan, thechair forthe Hawai`iCounty Housing Agency. Iwill now call this meeting to order. At this time we will take statements from the public andbe advised that you have three minutes per agenda item. Wewill start, Iwill account forstatements in Waimea. Good morning Waimea. Dowe have any testifiers? Donnie: Good morning Mr. Chair. No, wedo not have any testifiers in Waimea. Mr. Ilagan: Moving to, thank you Waimea, moving toPahoa. Good morning Pahoa, do wehave any testifiers? 2140hcmd HCHA February 19, 2013 Mike: Good morning Mr. Chair. No, wedonot have any testifiers for your agency this morning. Mr. Ilagan: Mahalo Pahoa. Moving toKa`u. Good morning Ka`u, do wehave any testifiers? DebraLee: Good morning Mr. Chair. Wedo not have any testifiers. Mr. Ilagan: Moving to, thank you Ka`u, moving toHilo. Good morning Hilo. Do wehave any testifiers? Jeanette: Good morning Mr. Chair. No, we don’thave any testifiers butIwould like to mention thatwehave Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self, Susan Akiyama andAlan Rudo from the Housing Agency. Mr. Ilagan: Mahalo Hilo. Hilo, if it’sokay with you, could you call Warren Lee. Make sure that he’spresent inHilo. Thank you. Jeanette: I’lldo that; I’lldo that Mr. Chair. Mr. Ilagan: And inKona, dowe have anytestifiers? Wehave no testifiers at this time. Mr. Onishi: Mr. Chair? Could you also letthem know ifthey could bring insomeone from Parks and Rec? Mr. Ilagan: Hilo? Ifit’sokay with you, could wehave someone from Parks and Recs? Jeanette: Okay, I’llmake the calls. Mr. Ilagan: Thank youHilo. At this time, asthere are no testifiers andwewill endthe statements from the public. Moving on totheapproval ofthe minutes. May Ihave amotion toapprove February 5, 2013 minutes? Moved bymember Kern, second bymember Kanuha. Anydiscussion? We’lltake aone minute recess. Recess Mr. Ilagan: Iwill nowcall this meeting backto order. At this time Iwill take discussions and call member Ford. Ms. Ford: Thank you. Wehave what is titled asummary of minutes for usto vote on. There’sabsolutely nothing inhere 239Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 about the controversy andthe discussion ontheKidd Development Corporation. Itjust says that wepostponed the approval. Without having any ofthediscussion items inhere, it looks like there was nothing going on, when wehad avery big andvery controversial discussion. SoIthink these minutes are inadequate because the controversy onthis particular subject is notidentified in the minutes, therefore Icannot support them. Ithink they should be redone and the, the for the public’s benefit, they need tounderstand that there issome issues here. Thank you. Mr. Ilagan: Anyone else? Mr. Yoshimoto: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ilagan: Member Yoshimoto. Mr. Yoshimoto: Whydon’tweask Mr. Arnett what their normal protocol orprocedure isinproviding minutes. If we could ask Mr. Arnett tothe table? Mr. Arnett, ifyoucould identify yourself. Steve Arnett: Stephen Arnett, Housing Director. Ijust asked myPrivate Secretary and this isthetypical protocol that we normally goby. Ican understand the reticence ofCouncil Member Ford and Council Member Poindexter regarding the discussion of, itwas clearly adiscussion that was controversial. That discussion isnot included but when Iasked mysecretary what wetypically do, this iswhat wetypically do. Soif the controversial discussion needs tobeincluded, wewill indeed redo these minutes. Iguess she’spointed out tomethat atthe bottom itsays complete transcript ofthe minutes is available attheOffice ofHousing andCommunity Development. Soatranscript isavailable to answer your question. But if you want itinthe minutes, wewill redo these minutes for you. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. Yeah. Cause myrecollection, being here forthe last three terms, these are theway the minutes have always looked. Steve Arnett: Yes sir. Yes sir. That’strue. Mr. Yoshimoto: Yeah so Idon’tthink this is anything out of theordinary, just soCouncil Members understand that. Butof course iftheCouncil wants tohave more detailed minutes, you know, that’suptothe Council toIguess torequest that. I guess. Isthat what we’resaying? 339Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Steve Arnett: Ibelieve that’sthecase and we’llbehappy to provide. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. So yeah, Icould goeither wayonthis, just wanted tomake sure theCouncil Members understand that this isnot anything different. It’sjust the normal procedure that the Housing Agency isdoing. Thank you. Mr. Ilagan: Councilmember Poindexter? Ms. Poindexter: And with much respect toour Chair. Even ifit wasdone that way all thetime, that doesn’tmean it was done right all the time. Ithink, for me aswell, forasummary of minutes, I’mnotsaying that thesummary needs to bemore detailed, but what Isee, is the summary needs to include any hot topics or controversial issues that needs tobe, not basically detailed out, butoutlined inthere that that happened. Sothat inthesummary ofminutes, westill, it’sa summarized version ofwhat happened. Sowestill need that in there. SoIagree with Council Member Ford onthis, that itnot necessarily itneeds tobeadetailed minutes, butthere needs tobeasummarized version ofactually what happened. Soit’s basically asummarized version ofactually what happened andwe hadsome controversial issues so, Iwould like tosee that that happens toeveryone because onour committees, oneach ofour committees, wesummarize our minutes, but wealso summarize all the details, especially oncontroversial issues. Wesummarize those also, so. That iscommon practice for us, I’dlike to see it beacommon practice for youaswell. Steve Arnett: Ihave noproblem with that. Ms. Poindexter: Thank you. Thank you very much. Steve Arnett: You’rewelcome. Mr. Ilagan: Now, before we move ontoother council members, I do want toclarify that wehave Council committees, andatthis time weare aHawai`iCounty Housing Agency. And, beaware that weare Council Members butatthis agency wearejust members. I’dprefer tobe, because this istheHawai`iCounty Housing Agency, Iwould prefer everybody being called, Special Agent Poindexter, but figure that wastaken toofar, soI’mgoing to address everyone asmember. And member Kern? 439Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Kern: Thank you Mr. Chair. Ican goeither wayonthis one too. Ithink, I’mnot sure what the protocol would be for a motion to postpone, toallow theminutes to come back and forward. Ordoweneed toactually retract? Might aswell have more information onit, it’snot abig deal youguys. Imove to postpone till the next Housing Agency meeting. Ms. Ford: Second Mr. Ilagan: Moved bymember Kern, second by member Ford. Any discussion? AndI’mgoing tostart with member Wille, on postponement. Mr. Ilagan: Oh, ok, ok. Inaudible) Ms. Ford: Thank you. Iwant to make sure that youunderstand I agree with Ms. Poindexter. I’mnot looking foratranscript of minutes tobe stuck in here. Down here in afont at least… Mr. Kern: Point oforder Ms. Ford, we’resupposed tobetalking about postponement now. Ms. Ford: Iam talking tothepostponement of what Iexpect to see done and come back tous. Mr. Kern: Okay. Ms. Ford: Thenote that says the complete transcript isdown in afont five. It’sprobably notgoing tobe very legible. It certainly didn’tcatch myeye. SoI’dlike tosee that tobe larger. But, when you have, when wehave somebody who’svoting no, I, especially onacontroversial issue, Ithink it’sonly fair tothe public who’slooking atthesummary, that they can understand alittle bit why somebody voted no. It’snotjust because shewants tobe an, youknow, adversarial type person. There was areason. Andsothat’swhythe controversy needs to be spelled out and then maybe an asterisk that says, down here, see the full transcript, you can seewhat happened. Ido… Mr. Kern: Point oforder, this isnot discussion onwhether we should postpone or not. Ms. Ford: Excuse me, ifIcould please finish Mr. Kern. Please let mefinish. 539Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Kern: This iscontent… We’resupposed to be following our rules here. (inaudible) Mr. Ilagan: Hold on, member Kern andmember Ford. Member Ford please continue but on postponement. Ms. Ford: Thank you. Sothe reason Iam supporting the postponement and Iwant tosee these come back with those things init, sothat, that way, wedon’thave togothrough this again. SoIwill support the postponement. Thank you. Mr. Ilagan: Any discussion? Since there’snone, all infavor say aye. Members: Aye Mr. Ilagan: All opposed say no. Theayes have it. Minutes will be postponed tothe next meeting. Moving on, tooldbusiness. Deputy Clerk, could you please read old business? Thank you. Jeanette: Thank you. Approval of aresolution authorizing exemptions ofcertain code requirements pursuant toSection 201(H)-38and Section 46-15 of the Hawai`iRevised Statutes for thehousing units tobe constructed byKidds Development Corporation and Kumulani Gardens inSouth Hilo. Mr. Ilagan: May Ihave a, may Ihave anapprove. May Ihave a motion toapprove resolution, this resolution? Inaudible) Ms. Poindexter: Second Mr. Ilagan: Moved bymember Kern, second by member Poindexter. Andbefore westart, I’mgoing to have our Administrator Arnett andalso the Kidd Developer Corporation representative tostep upand say your part. Thank you. Andplease state your name and title. Steve Arnett: Steve Arnett, Housing Administrator. Ireally don’thave much more toother than what wediscussed. Myinput from the last Housing Agency meeting regarding this resolution, obviously itisfor anaffordable housing project inHilo. The more affordable housing wecan get for themembers of, the citizens oftheCounty ofHawai`i, thebetter offweall are. Andthis particular project isgoing tobring on atleast 45 or 46 affordable housing units. So, inessence, this resolution is 639Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 nothing more than asking for some exemptions from the Code. And theexemptions that are included inthis resolution are pretty much standard, we, where wetypically do allow, inany kind of affordable housing requests. So, Iwould encourage youto approve andpass this resolution. JimPappas: Thank youSteve. Myname isJim Pappas andI’mthe Treasurer ofKidds Development Corporation. AndIunderstand there was some discussion and anumber ofquestions and Ifirst, apologize that Iwas not aware that Iwas invited toyour last meeting. ButIwas invited tothis meeting andso I’mactually here toanswer any ofyour questions. I’ve got acouple of exhibits that Imade copies ofknowing acouple of your questions from before. AndifImight distribute these toyou, Ithink they might help in mydiscussion with you. May I distribute these? Mr. Ilagan: Yes. Mr. Pappas, we’regoing tohave staff do it for you. Could you please? JimPappas: The issues that were brought to myattention had to do with, traffic was one, andI’mgiving youasynopsis ofthe traffic report that we hadprepared for this project by Witcher Engineering. And Ireally didn’tgiveyou the whole report but Igave you theconclusions ofthe report that basically indicate there is very little impact from this project onKumulani Street. And soKumulani Gardens, over the next 20years, does nothave asignificant impact. I’malsoproviding you amap that you can look atthe design ofthesubdivision as well as the intersection ofthe streets that will bewithin the project andhow they interface with the surrounding area. And with that I’mcertainly here toanswer any ofyour other questions. Mr. Yoshimoto: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Ilagan: Member Yoshimoto. Mr. Yoshimoto: Thank you. IfImay start the discussion with Mr. Pappas. Mr. Pappas, asyouare aware, there areseveral issues being, that were discussed last time. Ijust want to touch upononeof them. Actually, you know what might be easier isifwegothrough the exemption list andmaybe youcan explain the rationale behind therequests forthe exemptions. Would that be okay? JimPappas: Certainly. 739Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. So the first, I’mlooking atExhibit Aon theexemption list and atfirst ittalks about suspending all phasing requirements on the development of theproject. This will allow thehousing units tobebuilt inonephase instead of two. Ifyou could briefly explain therationale behind that request. JimPappas: Yes. Theoriginal developer for this project was Rudy Hirota. And when he was proposing theproject, hewanted tobreak itintoincrements which would’ve been much easier to finance. Inourcase, because we’rebuilding affordable, we felt wewould get significant savings by putting in all ofthe infrastructure atone time. And we found financing todothat. Sothat will justmake itmore cost effective forusto not break the project into phases basically. Mr. Yoshimoto: Right. And that sound reasonable. Ithink everyone would rather see it being done one time. So okay. That makes sense tome. The next one talks about the elimination ofcurbs, gutters and sidewalks. This was, Ithink this was discussed inthepast aswell. Ifyoucan explain the rationale behind that exemption request. JimPappas: Well, again given the cost ofthe infrastructure, atthe moment there isabout afour tosixthousand dollar estimate ofthedifference between curbs and gutters in and going with swales basically. Many ofthe surrounding areas also have been built with subdivisions without curbs and gutters and again because it’saffordable, that four tosixthousand dollars perlot savings touswill help mitigate the total cost forour project. Ithink most ofyouwill recognize that building affordable housing, this project would not befinancially feasible ifitwasn’tforthe fact that we’regoing togetsome subsidy, basically, from Hilo Hillside Project because their affordable housing for that project is being provided here. And otherwise, the 43 outofthe 83lots inthis subdivision, frankly areall being built ataloss. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. So it’samatter ofeconomics then I guess is the short answer to that. JimPappas: Yes. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. And I’mtrying to think cause, you know, this is mydistrict and Ican’tremember any subdivision that hassidewalks inthe area. Doyou recall? Idon’trecall any subdivision having any? 839Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 JimPappas: Idon’trecall anyinthe immediate area. Mr. Yoshimoto: Inthe immediate area. Imean, forsure inthe immediate area cause, yeah. JimPappas: Yeah. Thenewest project, Ithink that theCounty hasapproved isatthe endofHokulani Street, which isclose to this project. And that onewill nothave any curbs and gutters in iteither. Mr. Yoshimoto: Yeah. So, inaddition tothat, Iguess itfits within the characteristics of the neighboring communities as well. Cause again, I, Imean someone can correct meifI’mwrong butIdon’tremember any nearby subdivision having sidewalks. Yeah, okay. Okay and the last exemption is, request is exempting the subdivision inspection feeofpoint twofive percent andsoon. If youcan explain that request. JimPappas: Well, it’sagain, one more item that’sacost item andso ifwecanavoid paying some fees. And again, the, this particular exemption is asked for only forthe forty three affordable housing units even though it might behard tofigure that out inthiscase. Butthe idea was wewould pay the fair share and everything else forthe forty lots that would be market priced units. But wewould only askfor exemptions essentially for the affordable side. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. Andthe rationale again iswe want to make it affordable. JimPappas: I’dlike tomitigate theamount oflosses that they have. Yes. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. Okay. And there wassomemention of traffic concerns, although when Iattended the community meeting, itseemed asthough, this ismyrecollection, that the traffic concerns were, forthe most partaddressed cause the thought process was that the traffic wouldn’tbecoming from the lower, existing subdivision, but would rather usethe new road that would bebuilt with this subdivision. Is that your recollection? JimPappas: Yes andwedid have ameeting with the community. Andatthat meeting, there were anumber ofissues about traffic that were discussed and brought up. Andif, it’soneofthe reasons Itried toshow youperhaps, onthis mapormaybe can 939Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 explain. Mokihana Street, where itties into the existing subdivision, essentially the residents were saying their concern wasthat people from Kumulani Gardens would begoing makai and using the oldroads there in their subdivision andthat wasof concern tothem. Infact, they indicated, could wetalk tothe County about blocking our road off sothey would not have access. Essentially, Ithink itwasindicated theCounty very much wanted thiscircular pattern forawhole bunch ofsafety, fire reasons, etc… The traffic report that Iprovided you, the consultant pretty much said thetraffic is going to gotheother way. It’sreally the lower people, offof Mokihana Street and thetwo dead endstreets there. Those people probably will all come through anduse this. And it isbetter access. Ithas greater views upand down the street asopposed tothe lower road that comes out onto Kumulani. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. Andyeah, forCouncil Members information, youknow, Iwalked the neighborhood and especially onMokihana Street where you look onyour map and you seeon the bottom. And Jim, this road isfairly narrow, Imean, doyou have arecollection astohowwide itiscause itisfairly narrow. JimPappas: The lower road there which is, I’mtrying to remember what the name ofthat street isthat comes out there. Olena Street, where itcomes, winds around, that is anarrower street than theMokihana Street that will beup toCounty standards, that runs through our subdivision. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. So basically, Imean, ifitwasme and I wasliving here, Iwould probably take the new proposed route, cause Ithink that would bewider and it’dbeless curvy. Whereas the existing road for the existing subdivision, Imean, it’skind ofyou’regoing down ahill and insome places you really wouldn’twant to have two cars oryou’dhave tokind of drive slow andpull over tothe shoulder alittle bit. Imean that’smyrecollection from driving the area. JimPappas: Ithink your recollection iscorrect andofcourse also on that lower street, ithas some deep areas where their drainage alongside the street that there’snoshoulder atall so, yeah it’skind ofhard, you’dbealittle careful topass through there. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. Cause Iremember residents asking you if you could do anything about existing, widening the existing road 1039Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 inthe neighboring subdivision. Wasthat one ofthe questions? It wasright Ithought? JimPappas: Ithink somebody brought that up. Mr. Yoshimoto: Yeah, yeah. But ofcourse, you can’tdo anything about the existing orprevious subdivision but, okay. Those are the concerns that Ican recall. Anything else, Mr. Pappas, asfaras the meeting with thecommunity, issues that the Council Members, members ofthe agency should be aware of? JimPappas: The only other issue that Iremember briefly being discussed was arequest bysome oftheresidents ifwe would sell some ofthemarket unit lots, ifwewould sell them aslot only rather than building homes onthem. Andwesaid yeah we would consider that. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. That’sright. That wasbrought upto as well. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ilagan: Anyone else? Member Ford. Ms. Ford: Thank you. Mr. Lee, would youcome forward please? Warren Lee: Good morning, Warren Lee, Director ofPublic Works. Ms. Ford: Thank you. Ijust want tomake acomment onthe map. Until this point intime, this new subdivision goesin, we’ve got agiant cul-de-sac. That stub out was put there sothat we would require the next subdivision toconnect, sowe would no longer have acul-de-sac. This isapublic safety issue. Okay. Mr. Lee, during our discussion this past week, Iasked you about this point, where isit? Point two five percent exemption from the, itlooks like, inspection fees. The phrase that they say, exempt subdivision inspection fee ofpoint two five percent of subdivision improvement costs. Onthebuilding permit, I’d asked you tocheck, isthere aspecific line item thatsays we’regoing todo aninspection, andit’sgoing tocost point two five percent ofthe building permit fee. Warren Lee: Well, first ofall Ms. Ford, Ibelieve that the feedback Igotfrom the engineering group isthat the point two five percent should actually bezero point two percent of subdivision improvement costs. And then building permit fees andother County fees, whether itbeforelectrical feeor plumbing fee arealso inplay, yeah. Soifthis exemption goes 1139Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 forward, then, as with other affordable housing projects where exemptions have been asked for, that would apply. Ms. Ford: Soyou’re saying that ifthis isallowed tohappen, it’sgoing toimpact electrical, plumbing, building and the inspection. This covers it all. Warren Lee: Yes. Iwould take that aswritten. And other County fees, sothat’spretty broad. Ms. Ford: Okay. It ispretty broad and Ihave no idea what other County fees isreferring toasIsaid inthe last meeting. However, ifthisagency didallow this exemption, would yougo out and send your people out toinspect these houses anyway? Warren Lee: Yes, wewould. We would expect that thebuilding plans, and theinfrastructure plans would besubmitted tothe Public Works and itwould go on the review. And then when the plans are approved, the permit would beissued, without afee. Ms. Ford: Okay. So youwould do aninspection, sothat would take care ofthepublic safety issue. However, your department would be losing agreat deal ofmoney todoallthese inspections. Cause they’redone by different inspectors, correct? Warren Lee: That iscorrect. Wehave aroad, basically inspection. Wehave astructural inspection, referred toas building, plumbing and electrical. Ms. Ford: Okay. Doyou have any idea, on these 43 homes, how much this is going tocost your department? Cause Iknow we’re very short onmoney. Last time Ichecked, youdidn’thave money floating around that Icould possibly get myhands ontouse for something. Sohow much isthis going tocost your department? Warren Lee: Ithink that itdepends. Idon’thave arough number. But ifyou take oneplumbing inspector, one building inspector, wetalking about, you know, three tofour people. And Iwould say maybe, roughly, thirty tofifty thousand. Depending on thespeed andthe phasing ofconstruction, certainly one phase helps. Ms. Ford: So, thirty tofifty thousand fortheentire project of these forty three homes right? Warren Lee: That ismy estimate. 1239Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Ms. Ford: Okay. Do youhave thirty tofifty thousand sitting in your budget that we canjust expend todothis? Warren Lee: Well, Ihave thirty tofifty thousand this year. I’mnot sure about next year. Itdepends onthegood graces of the Council and the Mayor. Ms. Ford: Butyou have, youhave this excess amount ofmoney in here to, todothe inspections without getting paid for it. Warren Lee: We would make it work. Basically, also letme say, is that thefees that are collected go into the general fund. Ms. Ford: Okay. Warren Lee: There isn’tabuilding fund, sowedraw from the general fund. That’show the building inspectors get financed. Ms. Ford: Alright, thank you. Iactually object tothis because Idon’tthink theCounty canafford this. We’vebeen talking for weeks about howmuch money wedon’thave and howwe would lose money. But this is ataxpayer issue because the taxpayers have to pick this up. So, inorder to dothis, the taxpayers have to payfor this amount. Secondly, the first two amendments to suspend all phasing requirements, this is, although it’sinthe actual ordinance, it’s, this isathrowaway. Whocares ifthey build the increments simultaneously? Nobody fromthe County is going to runout and say “Stop the project. They’rebuilding both increments atthe same time.” Itisn’tgoing tohappen. Ifwe went tothree increments, then we’dhave something todiscuss. SoIdon’tthink this isworth anything. Ithink it’sa throwaway. Butthe last one, the, eliminating therequirement toconstruct curbs, gutters and sidewalks, whether ornot wewant todothat. And frankly, Idon’thave aproblem with doing this, the problem is, this isanamendment totheoriginal ordinance coming through asanexemption. It’snot. Itactually amends the ordinance. Imean, the ordinance won’tchange, but that’swhat they’re trying to dowith this, isto amend the ordinance. And Ms. Self andIhad averydifficult discussion last week. And sotherefore, Iwould like toamend this exemption resolution with the contents ofproposed draft two, which you allhave infront ofyouthat Ihanded out this morning forthe 1339Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 sake ofdiscussion. Ifweallow this type ofthing tohappen, instead ofmaking the ordinance goback through thePlanning Commission and come back uptous, fortheappropriate changes. Itismyposition that what weare allowing isadeveloper to change the conditions ofanordinance without the Council, without aPlanning Commission, without even the Planning Department being part ofthis. Ithink this isinappropriate. Idon’t, Iunderstand Ms. Self is working out of HRS 201(H)38, butthe problem is, there was something left out. This, itcan happen, provided that number three, athree, the legislative body ofthe County, which means when it gets upto the Council, inwhich the housing project isto besituated shall have approved the project, which wedid, it was done thirty oneyears ago, with orwithout modifications, which means we can make the modifications. So, these are the modifications. There’sillusions tothe fair share, which isbythe way not encoded anywhere inour chapters, it’sonly inthe, there’s impact fees inthe HRS butnofair share. SoIthink that if we putthis inhere, if wepass this inthis manner instead of doing this byamendment, Ithink we’re going tobesetting a terrible precedent. Every developer could come here and sayI want tobeexempted from fair share. Iwant tobe exempted from curbs, sidewalks and gutters. Iwant tobeexempted from everything the Planning Commission andthe Council putinto the ordinance. Iamvery much in favor ofaffordable housing but this process totally eliminates home rule ofanysort. SoI’m asking the Council topass this amendment that I’mproposing, which basically puts all of thethings that should be inthe ordinance into this resolution. Itputsin the twelve foot swales that wetalked about last time. Mr. Ilagan: Mahalo Member Ford. If you want tomove that amendment, may Ihave amotion? Ms. Ford: SoImove toamend this exemption with the contents ofproposed draft two that I’vehanded out for thepurposes of discussion. Mr. Ilagan: Dowe have asecond? Mr. Onishi: Second. Mr. Ilagan: Moved byMember Ford, second byMember Onishi, any discussion on the amendment? Ms. Ford: Yes. It’smyamendment. 1439Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Ilagan: Itsure is. Member Ford. Ms. Ford: Thank you. I’llkeep this short. Basically, what I putin here iseverything that should have gone into the ordinance that Itried toget into last week, orlast meeting. ButIspelled itout. Ispelled outwhat the fair share should be. Ispelled, despite thefact Ithink fair share isillegal. Ispelled out that all the homes besides theforty three supposedly affordable homes will bepaying fair share. Because certainly Hilo deserves tohave some fair share inthis kind of athing. Iputin everything here, asyoucan see, and I’m asking you topass this amendment tothis resolution and let’s move forward. Thank you. Mr. Ilagan: Member Kern. Mr. Kern: Thank you Chair. Ithink this takes arelatively simple issue ofafew exemptions that generally works this way andmakes itmuch more complex. Which, again, gives people the wrong impression when they want tocome intodoaproject here that will actually increase ourtax base. While this, the exemption oftheinspection fees will have anegative financial impact onusright atthis, maybe particular moment, the benefit toactually having that taxable base and the taxes that wewill receive onthat over the years tocome, will faroutweigh any minor break that we give these folks tosecondly, build affordable homes. This is, this iscrazy. This iswhat we should bedoing, working with peoples, working with developers andagencies tofind the middle ground, to find balance. And again, this takes three simple exemptions that, according to Mr. Arnett, are pretty common. Andit’snot even that heavy compared tosome other projects that we’vehadcome inandmakes it complicated. Again, the more wedothis, we won’thave any affordable housing and wewon’thave any tax base, wewon’thave anyjobs and ourkids canleave. Iwill not support that. I will never support that. So, therefore Ibelieve we need to vote this amendment down andI’lltalk onthe original motion when that time comes. Thank you. Mr. Ilagan: Member Wille? Ms. Wille: Yes, thank you Chair. Iwant tofocus onthe exemption concerning the sidewalks. Mr. Ilagan: Member Wille, we’reonthe amendment currently. Ms. Wille: Yeah. Yeah. That’swhat weare, on the amendment. 1539Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Ilagan: Okay. Ms. Wille: Okay. There arethree, asIseeit, and I’mjust trying totake this all in, quickly, basically, three different points that Member Ford brought up. One is the phasing. I don’thave aproblem with the phasing, how they’redoing it. And letme just say that ontheCounty fees, that there isa balancing. Itend toagree with Member Kern onthat. Ithink that this is, again, balancing. Weare supporting this, Idon’t have aproblem and we’lljust have toget more money for Warren Lee. But, Idohave aproblem, abig problem on the eliminating the sidewalks inthe subdivision. Pedestrian safety is, wehave the highest number of pedestrian deaths andaccidents, at least in mydistrict. This has been in our CDP’s, the, probably the highest priority. There’salso State legislation tomake pedestrian traffic incirculation, evenahigher priority than accommodating automobiles. Atthesame time, I’mnot necessarily saying ithasto besix foot wide sidewalks and, I don’thave aproblem trying toreduce the hardscape. But Ido have aproblem eliminating it. Iwill oppose this. Ithink it’svery important. Ialso feel that there’ssome precedent. Iwas working with adeveloper representative concerning Waikoloa inorder, not necessarily toput insidewalks, butto provide adequate pathways that are traversable onapracticable level. So, Iwould entertain some kindof exemption, but not where it’seliminating. It’sjust, tome, this, Ialso feel, I’vejust been in Honolulu saying wewon’ttolerate avoiding home rule. Wewon’ttolerate exempting ifwedon’t, have a problem with arequirement; weought tochange therequirement if it’snotgood enough. So, again, just tosummarize, Iagree with the, I’mokay with theexemption phasing. I’mokay with the exemption on fees. I’mnot okay withthe complete exemption ofall pedestrian access ways. Thank you. Mr. Ilagan: Member Onishi? Mr. Onishi: Thank youMr. Chair. Home rule wasbrought up twice sofar indiscussion. Ithink that’s, this is the body that does the home rule. SoIdon’tseewhy you folks are saying it’sbeing exempt, the home rule. Cause weare theones making decisions for the homerule, forthis County. So, I 1639Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 don’tsee what you guys arearguing about home rule. But, I just needed tosay that. Thank you. Mr. Ilagan: Member Kern? Mr. Kern: Thank youChair. Ithink there’smaybe a misperception ofwhat theswales areineliminating the curbs, gutters, sidewalks. Have you ever beenin, Ms. Wille, can I. Chair can Iask Ms. Wille aquestion? Mr. Ilagan: Yesyou may. Mr. Kern: Have you ever been into Sunrise Estates? InHilo, off ofKaumana, Imean Komohana. Ms. Wille: No. Mr. Kern: No. Ms. Wille: But wedohave that in, around, inWaimea. Even around the Parker Ranch Center and Luala`isubdivision. Mr. Kern: Okay. Mr. Lee, would youplease come forward? Please identify yourself one more time. Please identify yourself one more time. Warren Lee: Warren Lee, Director ofPublic Works. Mr. Kern: Thank you. Thewaythat Iunderstand, ifweexempt this project from curbs, gutters, sidewalks, they will have to pave out the swales which will beabout what, ten totwelve feet wide? Isthat accurate? On the shoulders. Warren Lee: The size oftheswale will depend onwhat the hydraulic studies that thedeveloper comes upwith and youknow, how then want tomake it. Wehave standards that they can work from, but each project initself, you know, has its own personality orcharacteristics. Butit could beten totwelve. It could beless. Mr. Kern: What would bethe minimum width onthe shoulder? Warren Lee: I’msorry. Can you repeat the question? Mr. Kern: What would betheminimum width they could go? On the shoulder, onthe shoulder width. 1739Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Warren Lee: Shoulder width? Mr. Kern: Yeah. Could they gofour feet wide ifthat worked? Warren Lee: Usually shoulders are, anywhere from atminimum three feet. Wecertainly, we’dlike to have itwider. This is a, would beadesignated pedestrian, bike way. Not necessarily to normal standards but certainly wide enough sopublic health and safety would not be compromised. Mr. Kern: Andwhat you will beincharge ofoverseeing that part, tomake sure that theshoulders are wide enough? Public health and safety isnot compromised? Warren Lee: We generally are, yes. Andthe plan review, during the plan review process, and during the construction, ofcourse. Mr. Kern: Yeah.Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Mr. Pappas, doyou have a, would you beokay with putting aminimum width onthe shoulder? JimPappas: Yeah. Iknow we’ve had this discussion. Gordon Inaba isour engineer andhe’sthe onewhoworks withPublic Works and Iknowthat we’lldowhatever is necessary according tohealth and safety there. And that’salways beendiscussed and part of, what Ithink, everybody would want. We’re not trying toavoid any standards inanything that we’ve asked. Everything will bebuilt tothe County standards as they shall decide, ofcourse. Mr. Kern: You have the civil drawings done, complete yet? Warren Lee: No. We’vehad towait, basically, because this is akey element for us, asyou know, the cost thatI’vementioned. So, we’vestopped our plans until wehave afinal determination of isthis feasible for ustogo forward. Mr. Kern: Okay. Doyou, Mr. Lee, feel that weshould have maybe put inthere aminimum shoulder width inthis exemption? Because right now it’sexempting itscurbs, gutters, sidewalks. Myconcern isweexempt curb, gutters, sidewalks, I’mseeing it as apicture inmy mind with anice, wide shoulder youcan walk, dothe, you know, the baby stroller orwhatever. But, ifit comes out tobethree feet wide, I’mnot going tofeel really good about that. 1839Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Warren Lee: If youwant toput something definitive intothe bill… Mr. Kern: Into the exemption. Warren Lee: Into the exemption, which tosayitfollows the County standards, Ithink that’dprobably bemore applicable. Mr. Kern: That the shell bebuilt toCounty standards, isthat right, basically? Warren Lee: That iscorrect. Mr. Kern: Okay, very good. I’mgoing to, after we deal with this motion, I’ll make amove tomake amotion onthat one. So wedohave that requirement inthere. Again, Isupport this, this makes sense. We’regoing tohave atremendous amount of value both inthecommunity aswell astaxbase through a project like this. It’simportant that we’renot, you know, penny smart anddollar foolish. Wetend toflip flop back and forth on that insituations andIthink we really have to look atwhat the best impact for our community would be. And inthis case, Ithink being penny smart and dollar foolish will have a really negative impact onus moving forward inHawai`iCounty as awhole. The less money we have, less parks, less roads, less infrastructure, less public safety. Again, it’sallabout finding that balance and doing the right thing and doing it right. Ithink wecan dothat here with keeping the exemptions the way that they arewith maybe adding in theverbiage to County standards, which willmake it, make sure that shoulder width that we need, ayield. Mr. Ilagan: Member Wille? Ms. Wille: Yes. Thank you. Warren, inWaimea wedohave those swales such asalong theBank ofHawai`ibuilding and into the, in front ofthe Post Office, onone side andmost, alot of people find that really dangerous. Anyway, there is noreal separation from the cars tothe pedestrian traffic. Isupport what Member Kern said, andIjust wonder ifwewere tosay something, swales toCounty standards or asotherwise required byPublic Works toensure pedestrian safety. Imean, Ijust want togive alittle more flexibility. One thing that happens insome areas isflooding inthose swales, and theneverybody jumps into the road. And I’vejust seen alot ofproblems with itinWaimea. So, Idon’tmind trying to strike abalance, moving itforward, but again, Iwant tostress, pedestrian 1939Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 safety isreally important tomeandI’dlike togive you maybe alittle bit more discretion. SoI’mgoing to, whatever time it’sappropriate, perhaps make Member Kern’samendment alittle bit stronger andprovide you alittle more flexibility, unless yousay, Margaret, you know, it’snotgoing todoany good, or you’re, you feel there’splenty ofpedestrian safety the way it’sset upandadding anymore would really notadd anything. I don’tknow. Imean that’smyfeeling. I’dlike to give youa little, empower you alittle bit more onthis andjust tofocus onthe pedestrian safety issue. So, Member Kern Iwas supporting you. Imight trytoalittle more language to strengthen it. Mr. Ilagan: Member Wille. Any more discussion on the amendment? We’re going togoto Member Yoshimoto. Mr. Yoshimoto: Thank youMr. Chairman. IfIcould call Corporation Counsel Amy Self tothe table inHilo? AmySelf: Good morning. Deputy Corporation Counsel AmySelf. Mr. Yoshimoto: Good morning Ms. Self. Have you had an opportunity toreview the current proposal wehave before us? AmySelf: Ihave briefly looked through itwhile the meeting wasgoing on. Ihaven’t, well the first question Iwould have isitlooks likeit’samending anordinance byresolution. And Idon’tunderstand why youwouldn’t, ifyou’regoing toamend theordinance, it should be abill toamend theordinance rather than aresolution amending the ordinance. Cause they’resimply asking for, this is, you know, this is pursuant to201(H)-38 where they simply request exemptions from any law, whether, any County law, rule, whatever for anaffordable housing project. And it, you know, the State lawrequires it tobeby resolution andto beapproved orapproved with modifications ordenied by theCounty Council. So, Idon’t, fromwhat I’velooked atthus far, Idon’tthink this isaproper waytodothis. We, you know, it’sjust a, westart out with just aresolution asking forthe exemptions and that’swhat’srequired under two ohone h dash thirty eight. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay so the present, well prior tothis amendment being made, theprocess wasfine theway wewere doing it. Is that correct then Ms. Self? AmySelf: Yes. 2039Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Yoshimoto: And sowhatyou’resaying here isthatthis submission, well, isn’tconsistent then with howyou’resupposed toamend anordinance with abill rather than aresolution. So, Iunderstand what you’resaying. Okay. Any other comments you wanted toprovide foruswhile we’reonthis amendment? AmySelf: No. That’s, that’sall Ihave. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. Thank you Ms. Self. Thank youMr. Chairman. Mr. Ilagan: Any other discussion onthe amendment? Member Eoff. Ms. Eoff: Thank you. It, it seems tomethat possibly this is not the proper process toamend the ordinance. Ms. Fordhas incorporated theexemptions from Exhibit Ainto, into her amendment. However, Ithink if wewereto elaborate upon the swales, aswe’vetalked about, byproviding stronger language about how that requirement would be met toexempt this development from the curbs, gutters andsidewalks. Iwould prefer toseeusdoitinthis manner. And theresolution that theHousing Agency brought forward hasalready been amended to make afew corrections that were necessary. Sowehavean amended version of the resolution andweneed toamend the exemptions, andthen Ithink that might be, because otherwise this proposal byMs. Ford, whether it’scorrect or not, I’mnot totally sure, but inany rate itwould have togoback tothe Planning Commission, which isgoing todelay this project for affordable housing, which Iknow weneed. Thank you. Mr. Ilagan: Member Ford, would youlike to withdraw your amendment? Ms. Ford: No, I’dlike totalk toit. Mr. Ilagan: Member Ford. Ms. Ford: Thank you. First ofall, I’dlike to add something to what Ms. Wille said regarding theswales. There’snobike lanes in here. We are completely lacking multi-modal transportation. Even ifthe pedestrians can walk onhere, this isn’ta, they need tobeseparated from apotential bike lane. Andthat’snot onhere. Second, this Council apparently, the new people may not understand, that when you build housing atahundred forty 2139Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 percent ofmedian income, that ismarket based housing. People whomake sixty and seventy thousand dollars ayear forthe family income, can afford to buy housing. It’sthe people who make ahundred percent andless who can’tfind itaffordable housing. And this particular issue will come upover and over again because most ofthedevelopers will try tobuild asmuch ofthe housing at ahundred and forty percent asthey possibly can. And if youlook atthe amendment, you will see that 22 of the 43homes are going tobefor people earning less than a hundred and forty percent ofmedian income. That means, semantically thatthey canbuild itatahundred andforty percent, that’snot affordable housing. Mr. Arnett can explain toyou that that’snot affordable housing. Maybe bylaw, itis inthe affordable housing range, butit isnot affordable. And that’sthe problem wehave here. Wekeep building market value based housing, and our affordable housing iswaytoo expensive forpeople tobuy. And youcan see that all over onaffordable housing. Thenext, the last issue is, Ms. Self, Ihave aquestion for you. Onthis exemption resolution, my understanding iswhen you have aresolution thelaw portion ofittakes place from thebe it resolved bythe Council, this saysby the Council, ofthe County ofHawai`i, it doesn’tsay the agency, itsays the Council, because this will go uptotheCouncil. Everything below that becomes quote, Ihate tosay the law, but that’sall Ican think of, unquote is, andeverything above itisjust an explanation ofwhat’sgoing on. Isthat correct? AmySelf: Well, the whereas’ is what indicates what’sgoing on andbe itresolved iswhat you’reactually accomplishing through the resolution. Ms. Ford: Thank you. Thank you. Sothewhereas statements are informational butunless allof these things inthewhereas statement follow the beitresolved, the developer does nothave toadhere toitbecause it’swhat becomes after the beit resolved bytheCounty Council ofHawai`iiswhat hastobe done. Soif we pass this, we’resaying Exhibit A, that’sall they have todoand they don’thave to dothe affordable housing portion. There’snothing, legally, after the beitresolved that says they’re going todo this. They talk about it. All thethings wetalked about today andlast time, have been talked about. None ofitisinthebe itresolved stuff as the what has tobeimplemented. 2239Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 AmySelf: Well, there’salso the housing agreement that they have with OHCD. And, Ms. Ford: What housing agreement? AmySelf: Ialso wanted to… Ms. Ford: Excuse mebutwhat housing agreement? What housing agreement? AmySelf: There’s, the affordable housing agreement. They have to have anaffordable housing agreement Ms. Ford: Idon’thave that. AmySelf: under the Housing code. That’sunder the Housing code. Ms. Ford: Do wehave, where isit? Ihaven’tseen that. AmySelf: It’sat the Housing department. Ms. Ford: Okay so this, this agency isnotprivy towhatever that agreement might be? Please goon. AmySelf: Anyway there’salso aproblem, ifyou, I’m, soI’m referring totheamendment, Idon’tknow what happened to Exhibit Abutnow it’ssaying Exhibit B. SoIdon’tknow what happened tothat. Ms. Ford: MayIexplain that? Exhibit Aiswith the original ordinance. Itis the mapof the subdivision, it’sthe last page of, should bethe last pageofthis amendment. And ifyoulook inthe lower left hand corner, you will seeExhibit A. I changed this toExhibit Bso there’dbeno confusion. AmySelf: Okay but Iwant topoint out that, there, the exemptions they’reasking for aren’tonly contained inordinance seven sixteen, they’realso asking for achange of, they’realso asking for anexemption from building permit fees, subdivision inspection fees, sothose aren’teven part ofthe original seven, ordinance number seven sixteen. So this resolution is Ms. Ford: Actually they are. Actually they are. The phasing isincondition band thecurbs, gutters and sidewalks are in condition f. 2339Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 AmySelf: No, I’mtalking about exemption number three. Hawai`iCounty fees. Ms. Ford: Oh, that’stheonly one, that’stheonly one that truly is anexemption. The other two areamendments tothe ordinance that you’redoing byresolution. AmySelf: Butthe resolution covers any exemptions that are contained in, I’mtrying tothe statute for you, theycan be exempt, they canaskfor exemptions from allstatutes, ordinances, charter provisions and rules ofany government agency relating toplanning and zoning construction standards forsubdivisions and soforth. Sothat’swhy, and it’srequired tobedone byresolutions. Sothat’swhy there’saresolution that is, that’swhy this thing isbrought byresolution cause it’sper statute. And itmerely requests, itsets forth the exemptions from any ordinances, laws, codes, whatever, inone resolution. Andthe whole purpose behind this istofast track affordable housing and tomake itaffordable sothat affordable housing can bebuilt. So, the whole point istomake asimpler process when you’retrying toget affordable housing built. So theresolution merely states what they’reasking for and then the Council just votes, you know, within 45 days after receiving it. The Council will either vote for orapprove, vote to approve the exemptions, approve itwithmodifications ordeny it. Soit’sjust uptotheCouncil tovote for itor todeny it. And soatthe Housing Agency, Iguess your, it’sjust for purposes ofdiscussion atthis level and then later itgoes up to theCouncil. Ms. Ford: Ms. Self, would youplease answer thequestion about thefact that nothing after the beitresolved contains anything that’sinthe whereas statements isnot enforceable? Wedo not have aHousing Agency whatever itwasthat youcalled it. This, this agency isnot privy tothat document, sotheonly thing we have iswhat’sin this resolution. Andthere’snothing inthe beitresolved that indicates that they’regoing todofair housing, atall, much less the swales and much lessanything else. The only thing that Isee inthe exemption that istruly anexception isthe point two five percent oftheinspection. Therest ofitare amendments totheordinance andnow you’re denying that wecan, that this agency has the authority tomake additional amendments totheordinance, or tothis resolution for that matter. AmySelf: Well, 2439Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Ilagan: Ms. Self andMember Ford, hold on. We, I’mjust going to clarify some things. From myunderstanding right now, thetechnical part ofthis resolution iskind ofmurky. And let’sstart back to the subject and the substance ofthis amendment. And start from there Member Ford. Ms. Ford: Thank you, Iwould be glad to. Mr. Ilagan: Goahead. Ms. Ford: Thank you. Because this, the original exemptions came through with amendments tothe content ofthe ordinance, I feel that ifyou are going toallow that, ifCorporation Counsel is saying that’sokay todo itthis way by resolution, then it’s okay toadd other amendments tothis resolution exemption. And Ihave added everything Ithink isimportant toprotect the people and the taxpayers of this County. IftheCouncil chooses not todothat, that’sokay, it’syou know, uptothe Council. Butplease beaware that the exemption resolution, asitstands, hasnothing after the beitresolved clause toenforce anything that they’reasking except what is inExhibit B. There’s nothing inthere tosay you’regoing tobuild 43 homes that meet HRS, nothing inhere about the roads, I’msorry, strike that, nothing about fair share forthe rest ofthe property. Fair share was not addressed 31years ago. This is, this came out, what is it, isit 31or 22? Decades ago, wedidn’teven have fair share back then. Sothe rest of thehousing will not be subject tofair share, inwhether Ithink it’slegal ornot. That means this developer isgetting preferential treatment compared toevery other developer, development that brings forward anordinance. That is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory. It’snotright, which is why Ihadto doit this way. Now, ifthe Council prefers, Ican withdraw this, Ican goback, ifaslong asit’spostponed, this whole issue, Iwill goback andIwill amend the ordinance and putit through theproper channels. Iwant toget affordable housing inheretoo. But this resolution is not written correctly. Mr. Ilagan: Member Ford? I’mgoing toaskMember Yoshimoto, would you, howdo you feel? Would yourather haveMember Ford withdraw this amendment? Or wegofor acall for the question. Mr. Yoshimoto: Both are attractive actually. But no, Ileave itupto Ms. Ford. Ithink wevoiced ourconcerns quite clearly. Ithink weneed tostay ontheamendment, which is 2539Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 what we’redoing now. Ithink Ms. Poindexter wanted tospeak, but since you gave meabrief opening Mr. Chair, Mr. Ilagan: Goahead. This isinyour district. Mr. Yoshimoto: Yeah. Weonly have 45 days, soweneed tomove this forward toCouncil inwhatever way shape orform. Ms. Ford cando whatever she wants. Wecan vote itdown or vote itup or whatever wewant todo. But let’sfinish upwithMs. Poindexter and then call for thequestion. Mr. Ilagan: Ijust want toalso clarify, thetime does not, does not start right now. It’swhen itgets totheCouncil, then the time starts ticking. But, Iknowthere’salot of Council Members that want to voice outtheir concerns. Butin alldue respect tothe developer, I’mgoing tohave him saywhat heneeds tosay. And then I’mgoing togoontotheother Council Members. JimPappas: Thank you. Letmeshed alittle light cause I think Ms. Ford has brought upsome interesting discussion points that have actually been addressed. There isanother document that isexecuted between thedeveloper andthe department of Housing. And that document actually has very specific requirements init. And ifthat document was here, and I’m sorry Idon’thave itwith me, but wehave executed an affordable housing agreement. It actually gets recorded and that one provides, ofthe 43 lots that will beavailable, and I maybe wrong inmynumbers alittle bit, but it’seither eight ornine ofthem have tobedeveloped andsold attheeighty percent affordable level. The next tranche, andIthink there isaCouncil approved newhousing requirement onaffordability, and we, this, wemeet that. Ithink there’salso then 11 units or 12units that arebuilt atahundred percent. And then the balance ofaffordable housing isallbuilt toahundred, andI believe it’sahundred andtwenty percent only, Ithink inthe agreement, butthere’slimitations onitthat meet that Council approved statute number one. Inourwritten agreement, wehave been very clear and the agreement states that theaffordable housing arethe only ones that are exempt from any oftheother fair share, sospecifically the forty lots that are market units will all pay their fair share, just forclarification. And that’sinawritten agreement. Ms. Ford: Thank you, point oforder sir. Mr. Ilagan: What’syour point of order? 2639Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Ms. Ford: Ithink that this Council can’tmake aninformed decision without seeing thedocument that Mr. Pappas is recommending, orisreferring to. Mr. Ilagan: Ihear your point oforder. Right now wearegoing todiscuss ontheamendment and I’mgoing togowith Member Poindexter. Ms. Poindexter: AndIjust wanted tomake aclarification ona statement, with no disrespect toyou Ms. Ford. But Ijustwant toget this clear sowedon’thave amisperception out inthe public that Ms., when Ms. Ford stated, the new people may not understand affordable housing. Ijust want tolet you know, I’m one ofthe new Council Members and Itotally understand affordable housing because Ihave worked for many years with the Hawai`iHousing Authority andour County agency when Iwas working with theOffice ofSocial Ministry. SoIjust want the public tobeaware ofthat alot ofusnew people here onthe Council are, notoblivious toissues that come before the Council, cause we have been out working in the private sector andsometimes in the public sector. So Ijust want tomake that clarification that, so with nodisrespect. Thank you. Mr. Ilagan: Council Member Kern. Mr. Kern: Thank you Mr. Chair. Again, taking arelatively simple subject and getting very deep into something that should be relatively simple, wehave avery competent Housing Director, Mr. Arnett. Wehave anattorney, ourattorney, Deputy Attorney Amy Self saying that this isall allowable, we’reontrack here. Weshould just simply vote for this. Again, it’ssimple. It’s going tohave agood impact. The more that, mycaution is, I want things tobe right, but mycaution isthe more that we nitpick, take ourtime, dilly dally, postpone, itsends the message out toanyone else looking atdoing anything, ohit’s hoop after hoop after hoop after hoop. Idon’twant tohave a open door policy anything happens but Ithink weshould be working together and be, haveamutual respect onwhat the developer, thepeople ofthe public need out there. And Iagree that affordable housing isnot ahundred and forty percent of the value. They obviously have intheir agreement that it’snot allahundred andforty percent of the value but that’sa separate issue, that’sseparate law. What weneed todeal with right now isthis project so itcan move forward and people can actually start getting towork. With that, Imove tocall for the question. 2739Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Ilagan: Dowe have asecond? Mr. Onishi: Second. Mr. Ilagan: Moved byMember Kern, second byOnishi, there’sno discussion on call toquestion. Allinfavor say aye. Mr. Kern: Mr. Chair, this is forthe, just point of Mr. Ilagan: This isfor the amendment. Mr. Kern: Correct. Mr. Ilagan: This iscall to the question for the amendment for clarification, Ms. Ford: With no discussion? Mr. Ilagan: There isnodiscussion forcall the question. It goes straight tovote and since this is, seems like a controversial issue, we’regoing todoaroll call. Deputy Clerk would you please… Point of order, before, but there was amotion onthefloor from Member Kern asto his, he made amotion for anamendment to add that language Mr. Kern: Isaid Iwas going to. No. Ohokay. Mr. Ilagan: We’regoing tomove on. Deputy Clerk, could you call for roll? On the Jeanette: Call for the question. Mr. Ilagan: What we’re voting on isthe amendment. Mr. Kern: No, we’revoting oncall for the question. Mr. Ilagan: Actually, what we’re voting onis the call forthe question. Ifthis goes through then we’regoing tovote for the amendment. 2839Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Jeanette: Okay, onthe call for thequestion, Member Eoff? Ms. Eoff: Aye. Jeanette: Member Ford? Ms. Ford: Aye. Jeanette: Member Kanuha? Ms. Kanuha: Aye. Jeanette: Member Kern? Mr. Kern: Aye. Jeanette: Member Onishi? Mr. Onishi: Aye. Jeanette: Member Poindexter? Ms. Poindexter: Aye. Jeanette: Member Wille? Ms. Wille: No. Jeanette: Member Yoshimoto? Mr. Yoshimoto: Aye. Jeanette: Chair you have eight ayes on the call for the question. Mr. Ilagan: Thank you. Now moving on to the amendment, and Deputy Clerk? Now this is, forclarification, we arenowvoting on theamendment for the main motion ofthe resolution. This is Member Ford’samendment. Jeanette: Yes, onthe motion toamend with proposed draft two. Member Eoff? Ms. Eoff: No. Jeanette: Member Ford? 2939Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Ms. Ford: Aye. Jeanette: Member Kanuha? Ms. Kanuha: No. Jeanette: Member Kern? Mr. Kern: No. Jeanette: Member Onishi? Mr. Onishi: No. Jeanette: Member Poindexter? Ms. Poindexter: No. Jeanette: Member Wille? Ms. Wille: No. Jeanette: Member Yoshimoto? Mr. Yoshimoto: No. Jeanette: Chair Ilagan? Mr. Ilagan: No. Jeanette: Chair Ilagan you have oneaye. Mr. Ilagan: Thank youDeputy Clerk. Moving onto the main motion onthe floor on this resolution, any discussion? Mr. Kern: Mr. Chair? Mr. Ilagan: Council, Member Kern. Mr. Kern: Thank you. Onexemption number two where it, after itsays drainage and swales, I’dlike toamend it tocontinue to say built to County standards. Ms. Ford: Point oforder. Mr. Ilagan: What’syour point of order? 3039Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Ms. Ford: We’resupposed tobeusing written changes, especially ifit’ssubstantive. Only typographical errors are supposed tobeon thefloor amendment. Mr. Kern: Thank you Ms. Ford, Idid check with LRBand Iwas told that Icould dothis byvoice. This is, with one ofour LRB representatives here. Being that this isnot a Ms. Ford: I’msorry, point oforder. Mr. Ilagan: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Mr. Kern: This is aCounty agency, it’snot, our rules don’t apply the same as inCommittee. Mr. Ilagan: That’scorrect and I’mgoing toletMember Kern carry on. Mr. Kern: Thank you. Soitwould read insection twoafter it says the Hawai`iZoning Ordinance seven one sixetcetera, it’ll sayeliminate therequirement to construct concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks andallow subdivision roads tobeimproved with paved shoulders and drainage swales built to County standards, and then the rest ofitwould continue as iswritten. Mr. Ilagan: The amendment on the floor istoeliminate the requirements toconstruct concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks andallow subdivision roads tobeimproved with paved shoulders and drainage swales built to County standards. Isthat correct? Mr. Kern: That is correct. Mr. Ilagan: Dowe have asecond? Mr. Onishi: Second. Mr. Ilagan: Second byMember Onishi, anydiscussion on the amendment? Mr. Onishi: Ido. Mr. Ilagan: Member Onishi. Mr. Onishi: Thank youMr. Chair. Mr. Lee, can you move, come forward please? Cause Ithink when wegobysaying County standards, it could be different widths. Correct? 3139Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Warren Lee: Warren Lee, Director ofPublic Works. Yes, wedo have several County, there are multiple County standards. Mr. Onishi: Right, right. So Ithink ifwe, you know, like, what is theminimum that they could go? The width. Warren Lee: The minimum width ontheshoulder? Isthat what we’rereferring to? Mr. Onishi: Yes, yes. Warren Lee: Well we’veseen anything from three feet tofour feet minimum andsome cases ithas been wider. Mr. Onishi: Right, right. And I’veseen thattoo. And so, what Ithink you’remeaning is, you need tospecify, cause like we, they mentioned about bike lanes, cause this going include thebike lanes and this isgoing include where people are going tobewalking with, you know, with thebaby carriage and stuff like that, sosafety wise. Plus theswale like Ms. Wille had mentioned, about that’sgoing be part ofthe flood, ofthe water, the drainage, correct? Warren Lee: Right. Mr. Onishi: Soif it’sraining, especially maybe inthat area, yeah sothe people going get one hard time, ifit’sthree feet wide right. And soIthink that’swhere wegotto look atmaybe thechanging ofthe amendment. But then also, you know wehave toalso look atthe developer too because you don’twant tomake ittoo wide then they’regoing tohave totake too much property and then the cost going behigh again, correct? Warren Lee: Mr. Pappas? Mr. Onishi: Doyou have any comments onthat? JimPappas: Ithink you’ll find thestreets are sixty feet wide inthe subdivision and soIdon’tknow what the minimum requirement isand what has been designed. But Icertainly know that there’safair amount ofroom there, Idon’tthink this is ataminimum. But the drainage issue by the wayisall taken care of on-site with dry wells so, Mr. Onishi: Youhave dry wells? JimPappas: Yeah, sonowater is basically going off-site. 3239Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Onishi: Yeah, butImean, but there still would be, like, areas where ithas to gothrough aswale tothe dry well, correct? And cause, right above my parents’ home, this subdivision, andIdon’tunderstand, theCouncil prior tome passed the zoning, but it’slike hundred fifty no, two hundred thousand dollar lots, with no curbs andsidewalks. It’sall swales and sowhat, soit’sdone indifferent areas. But I think too, maybe, weshould dothis amendment once wepass this in Council. Because then we’llgive time for Members totalk to Public Works and also tothe developer tomake sure what isthe, Iguess, the most efficient width ofthe sidewalk should beor the swales. Thank you. Mr. Ilagan: I’mgoing toget the, have the floor toMember Kern on your amendment. How doyou feel after hearing that? Mr. Kern: Yeah, Iwas originally inclined toactually put a minimum width onitaswell but with that being said, I’mokay with amending itatCouncil and withdrawing mymotion now and moving this forward, with the intention ofmoving this forward, talking story more with, you know, ourDirector Warren Lee and coming upwith the right number. Cause right nowwhile wemay throw out anumber, we maythrow outanumber, itmight not have thedue diligence necessary tomake the best decision. Sowith that, I’llwithdraw my motion. Mr. Onishi: And I’llwithdraw mysecond. Mr. Ilagan: Just toclarify, there’sno amendment onthe floor. Weare back tothe main motion. Andon discussion, I’mgoing to bring it toMember Wille. Ms. Wille: Thank you very much. Iwould like to make amotion that goes along with the intent ofMember Kern’sbutas I’m trying togive the Public Works alittle more leeway interms of assuring sufficient standards for pedestrian safety. What I’ve written out is, and this ison number two, regarding curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and itwould read: eliminate the requirement toconstruct concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks andinstead require, cross out the wordallow, thesubdivision roads tobeimproved with paved shoulders and drainage swales to County standards and asotherwise required bytheDirector of Public Works toensure safe pedestrian access inand abutting the residential development. Basically this, instead of… 3339Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Ilagan: Wait. Before you make your amendment, could you please clarify that one more time? Ms. Wille: Yes Mr. Ilagan: Sowe all are… Ms. Wille: Let memake onepoint, isintheway itreads now, theconditions amending, ituses, itsays eliminate such and such and then allow something else tobedone. Allowing something else to bedone, doesn’trequire ittobe done. So, just interms ofthat, andallow subdivision roads tobe, to have swales andshoulders, I’mchanging that language tosay instead require shoulders anddrainage swales toCounty standards and asotherwise required bythe Director of Public Works toensure safe pedestrian access inand abutting the residential development. SoIjust tried toturn it over so you’reworking Inaudible) Ms. Wille: Yeah. And Iknow it hastobe inwriting and… Inaudible) Mr. Ilagan: Hold on. Ms. Wille: Noit doesn’t? Anyway, I’mmaking it (inaudible) Mr. Ilagan: We first need to understand what the amendment is. NowMember Wille, I’mgoing towork with you onthis one. This chair has torestate the motion, atleast soweunderstand. Inaudible) Thank you. Okay so theamendment onthefloor, the motion for amendment isto, okay, what’sbeing amended is eliminate therequirement to construct concrete curbs, gutters andsidewalks and, added in, instead require thesubdivisions roads tobeimproved with shoulders, drainage andswales to County standards and asotherwise required bytheDirector of Public Works toensure safety, safe access and abutting the residential development. Can we have asecond? Ms. Ford: Second. Mr. Ilagan: Second byMember Ford. Any discussion on the amendment? Ms. Wille. 3439Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Ilagan: Member Wille? Ms. Wille: Yes. I’mbasically trying toexpand what Member Kern was saying and let’sensure that weare providing safe access without adding onmore cost andmore hardscape than is necessary to doso. So, Ithere areareas where swales and shoulders maynot beadequate where, for example, problems with kids using them on their, whatever those skateboards are or something. ButI’mtrying togive thedeveloper and the Public Works to work outthis. Weneed to have adequate safety regardless ofif it’saffordable housing oranykind ofhousing. And Idon’tfeel Ican figure out the width and what this is, butIamhopeful this issomething that Warren Lee andhis staff, including Ron Thiel, whoisvery knowledgeable about pedestrian issues, can help with, andagain, forme, it’salso themore wecaneliminate hardscape, the better the environment is. But I’mnotwilling to, Iwant tobe sure thatthere is pedestrian safety. That’sall. Mr. Ilagan: Soforclarification ontheamendment, the only thing that’sbeing changed isinstead ofand allow subdivisions, it’s, that wording ischanged torequire. And it’sgoing tobe toCounty standards and asotherwise required bythe Director of Public Works. So that’sthe clarification ofthe amendment, so it’spretty much like Member Kern’samendment, except it’sadded with and Director of Public Works input and instead ofallow, it’srequire. So that’sthe change of amendment. Ms. Ford: Oh mygod, no, no. Ms. Wille: That’salittle confusing. Ms. Ford: Point oforder. Sheread it correctly, you’re changing itnow so are youmaking asubordinate motion? Mr. Ilagan: No. I’mmaking aclarification on theamendment. Ms. Wille: Ihad alittle trouble following you. If you just, when you read the language Mr. Ilagan: Yeah, the language is what you changed is the sidewalks andinstead ofsidewalks andallow subdivisions, you had put instead require subdivisions. Ms. Wille: It requires, itrequires theswales and whatever to County standards, istheimportant point, and thesecond point, 3539Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 andas otherwise required bythe Director ofPublic Works to ensure public safety. Mr. Ilagan: Yes, that’swhat Ijust pointed out. Ms. Wille: Yeah, okay. Ijust was alittle confused. Okay. Mr. Ilagan: Okay. Since we’reshort ontime andthenext committee isgoing tostart atten, eleven, I’mgoing totake a five minute recess, ordered bythe Chair. Recess Mr. Ilagan: Currently theCouncil, theMember of theHousing, theHawai`iCounty Housing Agency, the amendment onthe floor is similar to Mr. Kern’sthe only thing that’sadded isand otherwise required bythe Director of Public Works. Ms. Ford: Point oforder. I’msorry Mr. Chairman, point of order. Nooffense, you haveno right totry torestate this differently, Ms. Mr. Ilagan: Member Ford, Ms. Ford: Wait, please let mefinish Mr. Ilagan: Iheard your point of Ms. Ford: Ms. Wille read ittheway she wanted it. Iseconded it. You cannot restate itinadifferent manner. Mr. Ilagan: Member Ford, I’mclarifying theamendment. Theway Member Wille read it and have itdown, noone canunderstand it. Nooffense. I’mmaking itsoeverybody here canunderstand it. There’stwoways wecould dothis, and Member Wille ifyou’ll work with meonthis, iswecan withdraw this motion orwecan move this toCouncil and have awritten amendment soeverybody canunderstand it. Now Member Wille, you have the floor. What do you, what would you like todo? Ms. Wille: Yes. Iwill withdraw andmove it forward and Iwill be submitting anamendment atthat time. Mr. Ilagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, I, we’re short on time, and Iwill Mr. Kern: inaudible) 3639Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Ms. Ford: Myhand wasupfirst Mr. Chairman Mr. Ilagan: Member Kern? Mr. Kern: Thank you Mr. Chair. Weare back to the main motion now, correct? Imove tocall for the question. Mr. Yoshimoto: Second. Mr. Ilagan: Moved byKern, second byYoshimoto. Deputy Clerk? Jeanette: Member Eoff? Ms. Eoff: Aye. Jeanette: Member Ford? Ms. Ford: No. Jeanette: Member Kanuha? Ms. Kanuha: Aye. Jeanette: Member Kern? Mr. Kern: Aye. Jeanette: Member Onishi? Mr. Onishi: No. Jeanette: Member Poindexter? Ms. Poindexter: Aye. Jeanette: Member Wille? Ms. Wille: Aye. Jeanette: Member Yoshimoto? Mr. Yoshimoto: Aye. Jeanette: Chair Ilagan? Mr. Ilagan: Aye. 3739Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Jeanette: Chair Ilagan, youhave seven ayes onthe call for the question. Mr. Ilagan: Call for thequestion haspassed. Now moving on to the main motion, Deputy Clerk, please? Jeanette: Member Eoff? Ms. Eoff: Aye. Jeanette: Member Ford? Ms. Ford: No. Jeanette: Member Kanuha? Ms. Kanuha: Aye. Jeanette: Member Kern? Mr. Kern: Aye. Jeanette: Member Onishi? Mr. Onishi: No. Jeanette: Member Poindexter? Ms. Poindexter: Aye. Jeanette: Member Wille? Ms. Wille: Aye. Jeanette: Member Yoshimoto? Mr. Yoshimoto: Aye. Jeanette: Chair Ilagan? Mr. Ilagan: Aye. Jeanette: Chair Ilagan, you have seven ayes. Mr. Ilagan: Thank you Deputy Clerk. Jeanette: You’re welcome. 3839Pageof HCHA February 19, 2013 Mr. Ilagan: Moving ontotheoral report, and there isnooral report and it looks like, may Ihave amotion for adjournment? Mr. Kern: So moved. Mr. Yoshimoto: Second. Mr. Ilagan: Moved byMember Kern, second byMember Yoshimoto, all infavor sayaye. Council Members: Aye. Mr. Ilagan: All opposed say no. Theayes have it. This meeting isadjourned. 3939Pageof