All right folks we are going to get back to legislative approvals. The time is 512. I'm going to call this meeting back to order. Just let the record reflect that council member Odishi and council member Kirkwitz have joined us and we may have lost. No, council member Kagiwata as well. All right. Would it be possible to take a rental 1-8-7-25 out of order? Because it's just basically ex... Yeah, communication 100 will be really fast too, because it's just a closed file vote. Okay, yeah. And then after that, you'll keep going. Thanks. Ready, Char? Last chance of anyone elected to testify in Communication 100. Please speak up now. Hearing none, Communication 100. Request formation of an ad hoc committee for the purpose of reviewing applications and developing recommendations for fiscal year 2025, 2026. ViVi nonprofit grant and awards. From council member Heather L. Kimball, dated January 14, 2025. This was postponed on February 4, 2025. Please note there's a motion by council member Kagiwata, second by council member Glimla to close file in communication 100. And communication 100.1 from finance director Diane Nakagawa, dated March 7, 2025, transmitting applications from eligible nonprofit organizations and Communication 100.2 from Finance Director Diane Nakagawa, dated April 1, 2025, transmitting a revised list of nonprofit organizations and applicable information and Communication 100.3 from Council Member Heather Elk, Kimball, dated April 30, 2025. Transmitting recommendations for five by nonprofit grant organizations for fiscal year 2025, 2026. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay, with this, there is already a motion on the floor to close file. This is the report. We will discuss the actual awards when the resolution comes before us. So at this point, there's only questions on, any questions on process, no questions on content. Otherwise, we'll move forward with the vote to close file. Council member Heast-Hist. Thank you, Chair. We had that discussion earlier with the auditor. And it was my understanding that that information wasn't available to time that the ad hoc made, made its So I guess a recommendation and I made it to, in front of you as well with the auditor, is totally expedite that process so that criteria can be somehow incorporated into the ad hoc's decision. And I don't know if that, I don't know how that kinda gels with this here at the moment, but it's just a thought and recommendation moving forward. Thank you. Any further questions about process only with respect to communication 100? Council member Kaguya, thank you chair. Just following up on that, my understanding is that the information presented by the auditor wasn't really for the purposes of helping us like make any decisions around individual. Um, great. the auditor wasn't really for the purposes of helping us like make any decisions around individual grants per se, but it's really just about process. So I think it's good going forward. I don't think there's a lot we could do about it at this point with the process. Thank you. I think we were Tipping, tipped owing into discussion, but I would concur with your assessment there. I know. Council Member Inaba. Yes, I'll just want to take this opportunity to share the process on the record for those who don't know that four of us sat on this ad hoc committee council member Kimbo, Glimbo, Kagiata and myself. Every council member did have the opportunity to score all of the applications, the applications were then any application that was scored less than 70% was disqualified. And the ad hoc committee met on a couple of occasions to go through the remaining eligible applications and review those applications for alignment with public purpose and proper alignment also with overhead and admin rules per our county code. So that's how we had that recommendation before you, but just wanted to state that on the record. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council member Houston. Thanks, Sher. Just back to that, the process of it. I had opportunity to review those applications. So thank you for granting me that it wasn't easy. I would say there were 120 applications. So it took some time to kind of go through them. I mean, my first kind of go out at my first stab at it. It was definitely a learning curve to kind of see how would that kind of make that comparison across the board. But I would stress that that I don't know how the timing works for the ad hoc on your end, but it was a pretty tight turnaround as a reviewer of those applications. So receiving that information must have been pretty a strenuous stressful to kind of get that turnaround into this report here. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Justice Councilmember Kirkwoods. Just going to provide a little bit of history for Council Member Hustis, because this is your first term. The last couple of cycles, every single Council Member had the opportunity to review, evaluate score applications. Prior to that, it was members of the ad hoc that basically had the ability, and you could say power, to review all of the applications, score them, and then make recommendations to the council. We wanted to be more equitable in the approach, and so shifted away from four people making the decision to opening it up to all. In the past, the members of the ad hoc actually had the non-profits come to council and do a presentation on their application. And my understanding is before that, maybe this is during your first time on the council of council member Inishi, but council members would actually do site visits to the various non-profit organizations. This kind of process has evolved over time in Sunshine Law, really precludes our ability to... to the various nonprofit organizations. So this kind of process has evolved over time in sunshine law. Really precludes our ability to do work. Efficiently everything has to be, you know, agendized, done in a public sphere. So again, this process of evaluating the applications, it's very stressful because there is a very the minimum amount of time for you to review 120 really worthwhile applications and make a decision, but I think it was one way that we thought we could just open it up to more of our colleagues seeing what was offered and having the ability to weigh in and score. What you folks choose to do next term I'm really interested in. Thank you for your great work. How many months now comes a member of Kirkwoods? Yeah, okay. Council member O'Neill. Okay, I just wanted to bring about the past since Kirkwoods mentioned. But to me, I believe without a committee of the four members having them come in front of the four members to interview, to me was better because then if you had questions about their program and why they're requesting all this money, the funding they would have to answer it to you at that time. And so it would be much more clear for the members of the four to decide okay who's going to get awarded and who's not. And then like I like you, you know, when we were there, we had 100 plus applicants and we only had a thing at the time, $2 million, or even like what's 1.5 back then. And so it was hard. So we, I guess I'll be looking into seeing how we can increase that to help out the nonprofit. Because like, if you get this whole thing, it's basically on four points, something million, right? So we can go up to maybe five, and then we can award everybody who's requesting the funding. But yeah, but that's a little bit fishy of why I would be in support of having them come back in front of the adult committee to do their interviews. Thank you. All right. Any further comments, questions on the process? I will say it is very challenging, as mentioned before. There are some really unique nonprofits out there doing unique work. So it's like caring, pairing apples and oranges and pears and bananas and thumb quads and, you know, everything out there so Coming up with a more standardized approach and letting everybody participate has been part of making sure that we had a fair process and I think the other thing that it lends to For folks that that have applications that don't get approved through the vi-vi grant because everybody has an opportunity to to review those. There's the chance that we can go back with CRF for those that aren't awarded and support some of those programs directly as council members. So with no further comments, we'll take the motion or the vote to close file in communication 100. All of those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, you have seven I's, council members. Coneley, Kleinfelder and BAG is excused. Go into the next item, please. If anybody would like to testify in resolution 187-25, please speak up now. Hearing none, resolution 187-25 authorizes the grant of a gas tank and pipeline easement under portion of Kaewelani Fire Station in Hilo Municipal Golf Course. Identify this tax map keys to dash 4-002-001 and 2-4-002-128. Situated YK, a salt hilo county and state of Hawaii. Allows for the grant of easement from the county of Hawaii to the gas company LLC for a tank and underground pipeline purposes introduced by council member Kimball by request Motion to approve resolution 187-25 and forward to council of the favorable recommendation Motion by council member Glimba seconded by council member Houston to approve resolution 187-25 and forward to council with a favorable recommendation I believe we have finance presenting on this. Thank you. Good afternoon members of Council Diana Cagawa Finance Department. Most of it was just summarized but yes we are here today here today requesting authorization to grant an easement to the gas company. And I will say that they have a representative here today as well to answer any questions. But it is a renewal of an easement for 65 years. The cost is 7,496. And it is to maintain an operate gas facilities at the property to allow service in the area. But if there are any further questions, he's also available to answer. Thank you, Director. Any questions for the Director or the gas company's representative on this matter? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor? Please say aye. Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, you have eight eyes. Council Member Villegas, excuse resolution 187. please say aye. Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, you have eight ayes. Councilmember Villegas, excuse resolution 187 is forward to council with a favorable recommendation. We'll now move on to bill 198 and 199, please. Last chance of anyone like to testify in bill 198, 199, Please speak up now. Hearing none. Bill 198, amends the state land use boundaries maps for the county of Hawaii by changing the district classification from the agriculture district to the rural district at Waimea, South Kohala, Hawaii, covered by tax map keys six dash four dash zero, two four zero, two seven. This was postponed on September 16, October 15, 2024. It was also postponed on January 7, February 4, in March 6, 2025. Please note there's a motion already on the floor by Council Member Kirkowitz, seconded by Council Member Lee Loy to recommend the passage of Bill 198 on first reading. And Bill 199 draft to amend Section 25-8-11. La Lomillo P'Ka Pu Zone map, article eight, chapter 25, zoning code of the Hawaii County Code 1983, 2016 edition as amended by changing the district classification from agriculture, five acres, eight-five a, to residential agriculture, point five acres, R-A-point five a, and neighborhood commercial, 10,000 square feet 10, a way male, South Kohala, Hawaii covered by tax map keys 6-4, that 0-24027, applicant, Kaupulehulan, LLC area 5.349 acres. The Lee Replanet Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to the State Land Use Boundaries map, and an unfavorable recommendation for the requested change of zone which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into eight lots consisting of three retail commercial lots, fronting Mamalhoa Highway and five residential agriculture lots. This property is located at 64-93 Mamalhoa Highway, introduced by Council Member Inabba by request. This was post-pwn September 16 and October 15, 2024. Also on January 7, February 4 and March 6, 2025. Please note there's a motion already on the floor by Council Member Kirkowitz, seconded by Council Member Glimba to recommend passage of bill 199 on first reading. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. All right, before we begin discussion and deliberations, I want to share with with the body, some of the events that occurred in the intervening period. So at our last hearing there was some concern and feeling conflicted feelings about passage and whether or not some of the folks that had testified in opposition could potentially work together come up with some additional amendments or some proposals that make make this a women for everybody. And so in that first intervening period ahead of meeting with the messlers and their representatives to discuss any types of changes or amendments to the conditions that they might be willing to consider subsequent to that. I had a meeting with some of the members who testified in opposition today, sharing with them that, you know, what some of the parameters might be with respect to what would be allowable in terms of additional conditions made to the amendment and expressed the intent to bring this back before this committee at the very beginning of April, the first committee hearing in April. At that time it was expressed to me that the community members wanted a little more time to prepare a response. I shared with the medslers that the community would like to have more time and opportunity to communicate and meet. They were willing to extend this out to be heard today to provide that opportunity for the community to create feedback. The members of the community did organize and provide the documentation of this meeting. I'd like to make it expressly clear that councilmember Houston and myself were not party to organizing this or involved in any way. This was entirely community led. At all points in this, these conversations, it was made absolutely clear to all parties that they were not obligated to take any action as far as accepting any amendments or putting forth any amendments. This was just an opportunity for the community as a whole to have a dialogue. So that's the background. I'm happy to take any questions from the body about any opponent forward. We have representatives from the applicants. We have the applicants. We have the planning department. We have, oh, there he is, in the back. And then we have, of course, members of the community that organized this meeting and provided this report for your questions. With that, I will open up the floor to discussion. Council Member Inava. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I would like to call. I don't know who the community's speaker is, but if anybody wants to give us a summary and then, you know, what I have to also hear from the applicants as well you know you're you're gonna own the meetings that were held since our last hearing and if we can just please be brief I'm wanting to get the meet of what happened at those meetings thank you. Thank you for opportunity to present on this community engagement meeting I'll be brief because you do have a summary of the report before you. So we were tasked when I say we the community members were tasked with putting on a community meeting to engage the community further on these bills 1.98, 1.99. The there are over 80 participants who came to the meeting. It was held in May 13, 2005. Our council member, UCIS, was also made and is available to be there as well. So in the report, all the written comments compiled and analysis was done from that meeting, committee engagement meeting. I want to just point out that really the burden, the time and the cost of putting on a community meeting was burdened upon the community members. This is actually a type of community engagement meeting that the applicant should have done long ago, even before they went to the Libert Planning Commission. They went to the Libert Planning Commission in three, I believe, it was a date or two thousand in 21, sorry, and it was presented there and there was opposition at the initial application and they went through the application and it came back to the Libert Planning Commission. When there was already overwhelming opposition at that point, we believed that this type of committee engaged in meeting should have occurred, but it did it. And that's one of the reasons why this legal planning commission voted to end unfavorable forward is now bill 1 in 2009. And just real quickly, the meeting objectives, we're just real simple. Introduce the community to the project proposed project. Just what is the project that's happening, which many people were not familiar with. The second objective was to solicit comments. And so it was open up for comments. And the way it was done was we had a facilitator there, the coordinated and there were three breakout groups and they wrote their comments and you'll see in the back page of the report an example of some of the comments and how it was set up and those photos in the back demonstrating that people posted up the comments they regrouped and then we looked at discussing those very different comments of what people put up there. And the second part was the third part of the objective was to discuss options. And it was made very clear that we weren't there to tell the applicant what to do with this property. It was made very clear. So we weren't there to tell if all you should do this, you should do this. No, we became very clear that whether it's amendments or anything else, what people were suggesting. And so basically we were looking like a blank piece of paper. And what do you think should occur there? And so some of the comments came when we looked at it in general was what African has egg 5, What can you do with Ag5? You could build two existing building buildings, you could put 80 use or some is suggested, maybe you break it up into five family one acre lots. And so the various different comments was not to tell the applicant what to do with this property, but to provide some options that the committee might be more favorable for. In the end, there was overwhelming opposition. After the report, I mean, after the end of the day, after the end of the meeting, we took a hand poll. There was no one for that project. There was one person who was undecided. and everybody else there was opposed to the project as listed for the reasons as stated in this report. I'm gonna re-emphasize, community members bore the costs for how to do the meeting. For getting a PA system, to do an all the printing of visuals, to do handouts, to do forms, that was all the costs that were borne by the community members. This is something that should occur long goal with applicant. And when you look at the report that was done, the time and effort to put all these comments together for all the community members who were there is reflective of all the other testimony that has been opposed to this project from the time it went before the legal planning commission is not much different and so at this time is there any specific questions that people might have on regarding this report I could answer them at this time thank you thank you Mr. Flores. I don't have any specific questions for you at this time. I want to mahalo the community for organizing the meeting. Would like to hear from the applicants or the applicants representative if there's any additional information you want to provide regarding the community organization or the application itself. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and Committee members. I'm Catherine Garcin. I'm from Carlsmith Ball. I am the applicant's attorney. Also in the audience is on a phone from Carlsmith Ball, who is also representing the applicant. Darren Array is our planning consultant and to my left is Mr. Messler, he's a member of Kapolehulan. First of all, I do want to thank the community for having the group of testifiers that had opposed the project the last time got together and created the venue for the meeting that took place and which resulted in the report. So we do wanna thank them for doing that. We were not invited. This was something that they did on their own and we didn't realize that it was happening. So we were not able to engage and I understand that the planning department was also not there. So this is purely, purely a meeting with the people that got the notice and not everyone. What I do want to point out and remind the committee is that the applications are compliant with the general plan and the CDP and also the front of the property is owned to urban. And I know you've heard that all before, but I think that that's extremely important because what the applicant is asking for is what the applicant is asking for is not that dissimilar from the things that came out in this report and they're in fact allowed in the zoning that is being requested. So for example, the state land use district boundary amendment to rural for the back part of the property. In the rural designation, you can do everything that you can do in EG. That is in the rural, you can do everything that you can do in the EG. And as I said, the front part is already urban. So the point of the application was to bring the zoning in compliance with the state line use urban designation in the front of the property and also makes all opportunities in the back by changing it to a rural. When we went through this report yesterday and this morning, so first of all, ag uses can be done in the rural designation. Ag uses can be done in residential, in commercial neighborhood zoning, you can do crop production, you can have farmers markets. Those are all permitted uses. They're not taking those uses away from people. They're still allowed. So, agriculture, the emphasis on agriculture, you can do APR, farmers markets in neighborhood commercial. Use the based INA education or highly valued. You can do schools in neighborhood commercial. How's he maybe acceptable if local affordable? You can do duplexes in neighborhood commercial. There were, let's see, ecological and cultural restoration. So there was talk about botanical or native gardens. And residential Ag, you can do, it's a permitted use to do a botanical garden, specifically listed in your zoning code. Same is true for public spaces, parks, public uses and structures. One of the things that is listed is elder and affordable housing. In the residential and neighborhood commercial group, group living facilities at all daycare homes are allowed. So for the specific recommendations that had come out of this meeting which we weren't invited to, I was actually pleased to see that it seems to me when I look at this that we have chosen the appropriate zoning designations for these parcels because they give the broadest opportunities to do what the community wants and to implement those and they're consistent with the plan. So it gave me comfort to see that this is what came out of it. And again, the agricultural use, residential ag, you can do everything there that you can in the, and in rural that you can do in agricultural district. And I'm gonna ask if Darren has anything to add in case I got anything wrong. Darren or I, Ms. Carson spoke very well. This is really about creating opportunities. I remember, Chair Campbell has mentioned numerous occasions that you're not approving a specific project. You're approving a land use designation. And that land use designation creates the opportunities for a land owner to explore what is appropriate to what is right for a particular area. What has been presented to you throughout the application process is just a concept. But in order to realize that concept and in order to frame it, you need the zoning in place. And once the zoning is in place, then the applicant can take the next step forward. Zoning is just pretty much step one. After should the zoning be granted, you have all of these administrative level processes that the landlord needs to go through in order to stand up any project. And in this particular area, especially in draft tool of Bill 199, we were amenable and agreed to, including a condition that ensures that the YMAD design plan is engaged in developing this property. So again, there are mechanisms in place. People have spoken today and in past meetings about the lack of evidence, the lack of studies. The applicant has and the record will show the type of studies that was prepared in support of the application, but it doesn't necessarily stop there. Should the zoning be approved, the next steps will occur, and that's additional studies to ensure that appropriate traffic mitigation is put into place, that drainage and floodways are properly managed in our soil. It doesn't have a deleterious effect on adjoining properties. Again, we are at step one and we're hoping that you see it reasonable to support this zoning that will allow the applicant to take the next steps forward. Thank you, Mr. Array. Mr. Metzler, anything to add? Oh, very little to add. Darren and Kathy have done a great job. I want to say just a few quick things. First of all, I hope that the county council and this committee will realize that just Council and this committee will realize that despite the opposition testimony I have not been disconnected from the community I'm a big part of the community and so I just want to make sure that everybody here understands that just because we're proposing a subdivision doesn't mean that I'm bailing out on my neighbors. One testifier said something about the evidence that she would like the council to follow the evidence. I would say that there's overwhelming evidence today that our young people are moving away. Our young people are not farming. And I think that through this whole process, the resulting zoning of the ag residential parcels at a half acre is virtually going to guarantee what this community meeting and the report is requesting. And that is you're going to have five half-acre egg lots for some young families. And I'm sure that based on what I've heard, there are going to be a good number of youngsters who want to purchase egg lot. You have within the record, I don't know how many, but there's a good number of testifiers in support of the project who have written letters of support. So I would ask if there's any question about the public support for the project, if you would just review some of the letters from our local residents and community members. I think that's all I had to say. Thank you, Mr. Metzler. With that, I think everybody at least had their opportunity to share what's happened in the interim. Interested to hear from my colleagues and the Councilmember of the District. Thank you. I yield chair. Thank you chair. Inaba. Anyone else going to you Mr. Houston. Thank you chair. I first want to start off with pointing out that in your folder is communication 1015 180 and that references the YMAD design plan as one of the conditions on bill 199 so that references condition key on bill 199 just for reference there because we're having some of the conversations about what that means so if you have any questions about that I would refer you to that there. In terms of you know a lot of the community conversations at a number of meetings with community members and community groups have been about the roads in Waimea and kind of the traffic congestion and the challenges there. I feel bad it's not, it's a lot of it's been placed on this property as a terms of the regional traffic that we face in Waimea. Maybe I should put a little blame on District 1 for that, I don't know. But that regional cross island traffic is really the challenge that we deal with in our communities that have limited infrastructure. And I think that's pretty transparent for all the community members here. We've had a lot of conversations about what would another large skill infrastructure be for Y-mail? Like that bypass road or something like that? We've had those long conversations for many years in Y-mail. And it's been unfortunate that there was no compromise ever found on that scenario. I think it's possible that there are voices that want to revitalize that discussion and conversation, specifically in the Pugacapa area, because they would be, you know, impacted by that sort of decision and conversation. It would need to involve some of our state partners in that conversation to kind of find that solution. So at the moment we are stuck with our role roads and we feel the impact of the transition and transport of goods from our major Kwaiha Harbor, as well as our daily commuter traffic to and from the resort communities. And then of course, that high peak times during school traffic hours. So that problem already exists. And I think a lot of us know that problem is there. And I highly acknowledge that challenge we have in our mail. And we need to work together on finding that solution for sure. And with the other development that we see in the area for other projects, this is just going to be adding to it all. So we have other large landowners that are considering ideas within the core of Waimea and then really that need to fill the needs of the community. So one one thing I wanted to note and I want to I'm one of my colleagues for sharing this in the Housing AdHot Committee regarding a study, award research study on Hawaii Housing Planning Study 2024. It is staggering how many homes and home units we need. So we need 50,000 units, you know, between the years of 2020- 2025. So we're in this huge deficit and we need to jump it up to 64, 65,000 in a couple years. And the challenge has been about how do we meet this need if we're not finding solutions, or not agreeing to solutions about where our cakey could come back, where does community expand, and how do we meet these housing needs of our community. So I just want that to kind of sink in about data that's out there and the progress we need to make. We've had conversations here about affordable housing And what that means and trying to redefine that language too to make it more equitable for community Yeah, but that's it's pretty staggering where we need to go in terms of Growth I know it's a it's a strange word to say we have to grow and a lot of our communities are already constrained So we do have to find some solutions in that capacity, whether it's greater density in the core of our urban environments, or thinking outside the box about what our housing structures look like, multifamily shared walls, townhouses, all these sort of things. I guess a question I have for Mr. Metsard applicant Mr. Array Ms. Garcin if you could if you would elaborate on this a little bit I know we have Director Daryl here as well. The five house lots on the back portion of the property if the zoning goes through one of those those by code of, thank you Chair. I'll finish this and I can pass it over. One of those, as defined in the bill on $199, Chapter 11, one of those is defined as an affordable unit. What does that look like with regard to mapping this property out? What does that affordable piece look like with regard to mapping this property out. What does that affordable piece look like? I'm not an expert on the affordable housing councilman used this, but the fact that there are two homes existing there, which were original homes built by the Ishihara family probably about a hundred years ago. Mr. Array and our legal team will have to determine which properties will be affordably priced per the county codes. We had tenants in both of the houses until a few weeks ago, one of our tenants got tired of waiting for us to get through this process and left. So we have one vacant house, one house is rented and then there will be three vacant lots. So by code one of those properties will have to be designated as affordable. We don't know which one that would be. If we if we have to decide tomorrow could probably figure out something, but I think it's a little premature to make a commitment. Thank you, Chair. I just asked one more. Can I ask Mr. Array to point on that? The easiest solution is to disenade one of the properties as affordable whether it's for rental or for sale and it has to meet chapter 11 guidelines, affordable housing guidelines. So whatever that metric is, that is what the applicant will have to satisfy. So that's the best we can do at this time because we haven't run to the any of the numbers. So my understanding is it'd be 10 years affordable for sale and then 20 years as a rental at affordable rates. And that's kind of the conversation to have with Office of Housing and Community Development on what does that look like. I guess a question to just ponder on and think about is, would you be willing to have more of the House lots be at the affordable rate beyond the one that's required by chapter 11? Because one of the challenges is with the zoning that accessory dwelling units are not allowed on the back parcels, right? So trying to look at another lens of would you consider other affordable, you know, properties in the back? And those kind of, right? Councilman, we would consider something like that. We have, indeed, considered and taught to various entities talk to various entities about the perpetual lease hold options for a lot or multiple lots. Again, it's a little premature, but we have already discussed that. So yes, we would consider such a thing. Thank you, Jarrow. You're for now. Thank you, Councilmember. Anyone else? Councilmember Kauya-Botta? Thank you. Director Darrow, can I get you up here for a quick minute? Thank you. Thank you, director. So the applicant's attorney was eloquent in speaking to what uses the new proposed zoning would allow being similar to some of the uses currently allowable. But could you just please for everybody's edification one more time describe what uses the new zoning would allow that are not currently allowable, both for the 0.5 acre ag and the commercial. Sure, thank you council member Jeff there with the planning department. That's a long list. Right. So I can go through it. In the commercial zoning that's being proposed, you have different types of commercial uses, offices, restaurants. You do have neighborhood type uses, community buildings, churches, schools, those kind of things. But you do have some ag uses as well. You have crop production is one of them that's in there in the sand zoning. So just not to interrupt but just to to to underline I'm just looking for any additional uses that are not permitted in the current zoning. So anything that's not permitted and that's the commercial and Yeah, I mean so right now the zoning is ag5 you have a split zoning on the state land use urban and ag In the ag zoning you actually have two lists of permitted uses state land use zoning as well as county. They line up pretty well but there's some discreancies. In the RA, your uses are more aligned with the agricultural uses, but they're much more limited. I was speaking to one of the testifiers earlier. And you know, when you look at it, you have some agricultural uses in there. But it's mainly a dwelling. And you have some livestock production, but very limited, some ag. But again, it's not something where you have a lot of difference in the two zoning. Agriculture zoning actually allows a bit more. Other than the additional dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit, which currently is limited by a condition here. In the commercial zoning, that's completely different. So there's a number of commercial type pieces. Thank you. I think you touched on those. I just wanted to be clear, because they are very much emphasizing the similarities, but there are some major differences, especially in the commercial zone change. Yeah. OK. Thank you. And just to reemphasize currently, the zoning does not allow for ADUs. The current zoning could allow for ADUs on the portion that is zone to agriculture and state land use urban. Okay, so the front portion basically. Right. Okay, so and just to reiterate, as we just went through all this, the ADUs are limited in size that they can be built, correct? Correct. Whereas once you do say, if you were to open it up for multiple parcels, they will not be limited in size except for based on what the land can the parcel can hold. Is that correct? Well you would be limited to the amount of dwellings, right? We would only allow one dwelling. And even with a parcel that allows ADUs, the first dwelling is not limited. So it's any additional dwelling or accessory dwelling. Right. OK. So basically, it's the same, but you just not afforded the opportunity for the additional dwellings. Okay. Well, I guess I'm, it was mentioned, I think, in some of the discussion here that ADO use could be developed in the front parcel. And being that they're limited in size, they're more likely to go to people who could need affordable housing or lower income. They're not going to be these massive properties that are, you know, as somebody mentioned, for families to move here so their kids can go to HPA or whatever necessarily, right? So I just, I guess there are some strange or some different considerations there on what is allowable and what the limits are of the different pieces and some of them seem to be like maybe good for agriculture there's still a lot of possibilities there but there's also also a lot of possibilities and as was pointed out I guess the concern I have as was pointed out is we're not talking about the specific designs or proposals for this we're talking about just general rezoning so could be used for restaurant spars that stores that kind, right? Once it is re-zoned commercial. Okay. Okay. I guess I'm hearing from the community that they have some deep concerns about this. So, um, and continue to, I understand that maybe that meeting was not, uh, like, a open, you know, giving all sides and having debate kind of meeting. And so I am taking it with a grain of salt that the meeting, the results that came out of that meeting are probably pretty one-sided. But we've also heard from the adjacent properties all directly around this parcel being very concerned. So yeah, at this point, I'm not inclined to support the reason. Thank you, Aya Elcher. Thank you, Council Member Kaguya, Council Member Amish. Thank you, Aya Elcher. first thing, Council member Kagu. I want to come to me around me. Thank you, Elcher. First thing is, Elcher. So you can correct me if I'm wrong, but at the last meeting, when we postpone this, I guess you're supposed to contact or get involved with the community to get this discussion done to see how we can move this project forward or told did that ever happen? Yes, I explained earlier. I've met with the Mitzlers, the applicant, as well as members of the community provided some guidance there in terms of how they might incorporate some feedback and suggest some amendments. And there were no, I mean, nothing was decided. What this report in what you had in front of you is the recommendations from the community group. What I will say is that there's nothing in here that is in the form of an actual amendment. And maybe Councilmember Houston can speak to that a little bit but the direction given was you can provide suggestions in the form of amendment or whatever feedback and this is the feedback we got. But then what I understand you weren't there at the meeting. That's correct. Yeah, OK. OK. OK, moving forward. So during the testimony, we are about housing and affordability. Traffic. So let's talk about housing first. So basically, to me, the way I feel affordable housing the land on this island is very expensive so that's already hard where you know a family a you know young family tried to get a housing and to purchase this property unless like this morning's use I heard more I heard, more interest is now at 7%. And so, have you guys ever thought about, if this is approved to do like a leasing program, like a 50 year lease for housing? So this way, this young family could lease that property for 50 years and build their home of what they can afford on this property. Have you guys ever thought about that? Councilman O'Neill, we have and the results have been so far directed at the perpetual lease programs that are available. There are a half a dozen or a dozen of them here in the state of Hawaii. by the current landowner conveys the title to a 405-101-C3 entity they become the perpetual landowner and it's in their charter therefore to lease to Available and needy families. So that's been a that's been a discussion that's been ongoing so far nobody, nobody really wants to talk turkey, if you will, until we have our zoning and everything is ready to today, if you will. But you'll be willing, or committing those five lots to that program? Well, right now we have only considered one doing that with one lot. It's a it's a interesting proposition that you bring up and I'm kind of an inventive type of person. I think that we will have no problem conveying or selling three vacant lots and two lots with houses on them. And it may easily come to pass that we would do some seller financing just to keep these young folks in a position where they could afford something like that. I a little bit shy away from leases just because they're a long-term commitment. But certainly, we're very interested in finding five families that want to house in a half-figured odd. Okay. That thing about traffic, close to memory uses, you can correct me if I'm wrong, that Mamaloha, that's a state highway. So, for me, it's like, what our problem is, the state highways are, Department of DOT They're the problems of not improving our roadways. We look at Kind of you a call going up to kind of a little, takes you about an hour from Cairo or even longer because of the traffic. Then what the county did is we did the bypass on Oculia. That helped relieve some traffic there. We had problems in Pohua, right? And what happened was they did the bypass in Pohua, and that helped a lot of traffic that was on the Pohua Old Road. Coming into Panereva, you have state highways again, and now you have people from volcano to Loura Puna coming into one area into a bottleneck and now we have any problems again. But everything is done on state roads. And that's where we the body of the county need to push our state legislators that is in representing you guys districts to take, to bring in funding to improve your guys roadways. But they never do that. For some reason, for how many years, my family to go to Colorado, to drive through Hama Goa, and then go to Kona. Sado was so bad. But thank God for Senator Tinoi, he got the funding from all over the place to improve that. So now a lot of the cars are going on saddle if they need to go either white claw or they go to Kono, right? In fact, they're not going through how much co-anymore. So I think this body with the leadership of Councilman Houston needs to do like a resolution to get our state legislators on that side, our senators, our house reps to get and fight for the funding to improve your old ways. And you know what was interesting was that back then when they was doing the shoulders coming into Waimea, I thought there was going to make it wide enough, right? And maybe even having like one turn in the middle, so cars that are going to turn off to the different streets wouldn't block or stop the traffic from flowing. But then it never happened. It was like shock like, all that work for nothing, right? I don't know why. But so maybe, come to remember, do the push, right? Get your roads fixed with with the state Tell them get the investments and putting that money Right, and then if we the county needs to help match maybe a little to help out our residents that we do that but so traffic I mean, it's not like really your problem. It's a state's problem, right? And but the housing part, the affordable part, that could be you guys that can help on the committee. Okay, but I'll yield. But I'll yield. Yes, you may, but you'll have to come up to the microphone. Thank you. The main thing I want to address is throughout this whole process over the last six, seven years, what we have tried to do is address all of the comments from the public, from the local people. And in planning this project, we've taken everything they've said to heart. And the main thing with the five half acre lots is everybody was pressing. We need agriculture. You got to keep the ag in in why may. This is the most important thing to us. So when we made those five lots we wanted them to be large enough where someone could build a house and then keep agricultural on the property. And then some it was suggested to us well the people of the community they were concerned that we were going to build too much. And so the suggestion of limiting the ADU, do not allow ADU. We'll go either way. If you want ADU, we'll do ADU. If you want AG, we'll do AG. Through this whole process, we've tried to please all of the people, and as you guys probably appreciate, you can't please all the people. And then also to address your concern is we don't plan, nor do we have the ability to build restaurants on those commercial properties. There's not enough water, there's not enough ability to do a restaurant there. We've never planned a restaurant. What we have planned is small buildings to accommodate small local businesses, doctors, whether it's insurance people, whether it's lawyers, whatever it is, to keep the community within the community. So someone could actually live there and work there. And we've had, like I told you in many meetings before, we've had many doctors approaches that would like to build a building to suit their practice, a dermatologist. We've also had architects that wanna design the building and have a building that fits in with the Wai-Maiah community plan. We are trying to build something so that when people drive in or out of Y-May-A, they look at it and they say, God, isn't that Y-May-A? That is exactly when you drive through these little communities, like driving over to Hilo, the architecture fits in with the community and that's all we're trying to do. It's to provide small agglots for young people to come in their build a house. John and I will help them. We have the expertise and the ability, like John said, we're willing to carry back the loans to make the interest rate slower. All we're trying to do is help the community. That's basically all I wanted to say is we've always listened through this whole process to try to help people and make it a better looking community instead of just a vacant lot with nothing out there. We're trying to provide housing. Thank you Ms. Spencer. One more if we come it. So it was mentioned. If folks never reached out to the community doing a community meeting. We did. We, I mean, we didn't hold a community meeting, but I can tell you both John and I. My question was, did you folks hold a community meeting? Well, we went to a community meeting that was held by Mr. Justice. No, previous, previous for this. No, never held a community meeting, but I can tell you that we met with the Waimea Community and Design Committee. We presented our project to the South Caholah Safety Committee. We met with DOT. We met with the Department of Public Works. We met with both when the highway was controlled by the county and then now when it was controlled by the state, we met with all those people. We hired Nancy Burns as a consultant that went and met with a bunch of the county officials to make sure that we had done everything that the county officials want. Thank you. Yeah. Well, I mentioned that because to me the rule of thumb is and I always even with county projects is you go out and meet with the community, explain to them what the whole situation is, get their feedback. This is we having a proposal, and then get their feedback. We fixed the feedback, what the concerns were, and they go back and report back to them and let them know this is what we're doing, and this is how we're taking care of your concerns. I mean, that like I do in Hilo in my district that's what I do with projects that's happening here. The only one I don't have an info record is about the Hilo community where they're putting up this fencing and I've told the youth that golf course people that's what they should have done earlier because the neighbors are on that area thought that since county housing got that property, they thought was gonna get a low income project over there. So they were up and kind of upset. But so, I just, like for me in my district, that's what I do is to get that community out. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Houdon. Council, I kind of want to limit the back and forth. So your time is up, Mr. O'Neal. She and then you can give a brief response. And then I want to go to other council members. Thank you. Oh, I mean, John and I got in his pickup truck and went door to door with all the commercial buildings and met with all of the people that own those businesses up and down throughout the whole community. We did meet with a lot of community members and also on the telephone with a lot of neighbors. And there were a lot of neighbors I can tell you that they are relatives or connected, went to school with some of the opposition people and they told us, you know, we support you. We think we know the quality of John's work, but we don't want the wrath of these people. And there are a lot of people that support us, but they don't want to get involved because they don't want the wrath of the people that don't support us. Okay, meh. Stop you right there. The clerk has reminded me that you actually didn't introduce yourself for the record, my bad. Can you just introduce yourself for the record? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm Joni Mezzler. Thank you. Jon's wife. Thank you, Ms. Mezzler. Okay, going back to discussion from the body, anyone else before I go back? Nope. Council Member County of the Clamp other. Thank you. To the applicant, whoever wants to speak on behalf of the applicant, has there been a state study for the roadway access from the state highway? We have had a traffic consultant do a traffic impact analysis report. Where is that? It's attached to the application, the returning application. And he has done some supplements. The TIR is attached to the zoning application. And he did numerous updates to it. Mr. Crick, do we have a record of the TIA, TIA, are there referencing? Offhand, I'm not sure, but if it was attached to some of the planning documents, I'm not sure if planning wants to weigh in on that. Thank you. You should have been sent a link from the link was contained in the recommendation for the planning commission when it was sent to council to the application. Yeah, I was looking back and think the original recommendation given the recommendation from the planning commission unfavorable. This ordinance came to us basically was with nothing attached because it had come unfavorably from the Leeward Planning Commission. Mr. Arise, do we have a copy of the TIA or with anywhere that's been given to us so far? According to the record, it was included as exhibit six of the planning director's background report So if you have the background report, it should be part of it as an exhibit six It's not It was never provided as a hard copy. It's available in the SharePoint directory as well as laser fish and then it was attached as mentioned as a link or it was made available as a link on the PDF Okay, okay. Thank you chair. So not a hard copy, but we have a copy online. Then the public has one as well. It's accessible online to the council's link laser fish link. Okay. So I believe the whole application is attached to the background, or the background part.'s six is the entire TIAR and I should know to and correct me because I came on board a little bit late but then they've had numerous discussions with the state DOT and which resulted on the number of access approaches onto the highway being reduced to only a single access. I think a lot of us who have had experience with state duty knows that they're very concerned about impacts to the roadway systems, so which is why a lot of upfront discussions was held with them, and which is why the site plan itself and the project concept, and including the conditions, I believe, reference a single access approach for this project. Okay, so that single, look at the revised proposed site plan that was provided to us by the, or within the YMA, the YMA community meeting report, is that still appropriate to look at? It looks like this. Do you see that? The one access that's the Korra. Right now I can't see that first. Yeah, that looks me good. If it has to have one access into it, then that would be the one to look at. That would be this conceptual site plan. We have one eas easement on the one-acosite of the property that services the commercial aspect of the property as well as the five locks in the back, is that correct? There's a flag lot easement driveway that goes that will serve the residential lots which which is called Ishiara Farm Road, and then the commercial lots have an access. So the Ishiara Farm Road already exists there. Okay, so is this state aware that there's actually two access roads, one to the five lots in the back, and then one access road in the front for the commercial bumper? Yes, they are. And they approve that in their TIA. Correct. No, the TIA was done by our consultants, but the HDoT is aware of the Ishihara Farm Road access as well as the one access to the commercial. So I won't be talking about this state. Is aware? Or is aware? There's nothing for them to approve right now in front of them so they were provided the copies in and they're aware they had asked us to to reduce the number of access to the commercial portion down from to to one. the remaining Ishihara Farm Road, it serves the residential. So you're not going to get the conflict between like the commercial and the residential. So the ECR road originally service two homes but we'll be servicing five now. There's no issue there for the state. No and I said same access point that yeah if there's two other lots that also take access off. It's like a flag lot with easements over it. Yeah, I can see that there's two lots or three lots, well, maybe more. There's at least two that I can see that have a flag lot easement to the highway from, sorry, using that e-she-hara form road to the correct. Okay. So we actually have one, two, three, four, five lots in this proposed site plan you have provided as well as e-smin for two other lots behind it, all using the e-she-hara roadway. Correct. Yeah. the plan is seven residential. And just so you're aware, there are already two homes on the one property, so there's basically four. So it would be three additional for the residential. Well, okay. And the state doesn't have to be notified that we're increasing the density of the existing lot to five lots versus the original one with two homes on it, that ECR or the servicing. They have the plan. Yes. They have the plan. They had the conceptual plan. They had the joy. And that's when they asked us to reduce the commercial access. Interesting. Yeah. Mr. Array, is that all on the document that the study was including the new lots with the new homes as well as the commercial activity happening in the front? Yes, I do recall there are multiple variations on the TIAR. So it wasn't just one document prepared and it was based on the initial document subsequent conversations and comments from state DOT that then resulted in adjustments to the site plan to reduce the number of approaches and microcafé. Yeah. So, right. So, you know, again, it was a result of the initial TIR that resulted in multiple follow-up amendments to the study as well as revisions to the, or to address concerns that were predicated on state-of-the-art reviewing the application and original KIA. Okay, I'm going to review that. Thank you. I'm Terry Yopperna. Thank you, Councilmember Bechti, Councilmember Inabo. Thank you. Sorry, I had to step out for a moment. I think in reviewing the testimony submitted and having the conversation over the last, I don't know how many hearings and months, I'm comfortable with the zoning as it currently stands if I have to choose. And not too often do we get a unfavorable recommendation from the Leeward Planning Commission, unless there was an unfavorable recommendation from the planning director. So with that, I today and for the foreseeable future cannot support this application I'll be voting no and just wanted to get that role rolling thank you. Thank you councilmember anyone else councilmember Houston. Thank you chair kind of going back to the TIR and that question there. I'll try and pull it up here as well, but the, were there recommendations back from DOT beyond the single access point for the commercial lots? You'll have to come to the microphone and again, And again, if you can just announce your... Can you please offer your name and then make your response into the microphone. Thank you. Joeyony Mezzler, we hired Nancy Burns as a consultant. She went to the Department of Transportation, and there's an email correspondence with him looking at our project and saying that he, I don't know the exact language, but he acknowledges the one driveway, he was fine with one driveway. So there was no other discussion on other improvements along the commercial frontage then. I'll let Kathy. Not coming from HDOT and I do believe that that email is part of the record. I'm sorry, I don't have a communication number for you. But if it's not, then we'll make sure that we get it to you before the next hearing. So the recommendations are in the T-I-A-R. And I don't know if our traffic consultant, Listo, is still online, but he was available. So I'll be a little bit more specific in my question. Do you presume that, you know, if DOT has to review the process after precedence here at council, and you have to kind of formalize that TIR, and then with the conditions with HDOT finalize their requests requests and their requirements do you think they will presume and require curb scutters sidewalks as a part of the front edge along the highway? Can you answer that? Maybe Director Darrell can assist me with this but my recollection is state deal key looks primarily at mitigating vehicular turning movements and not necessarily pedestrian facilities on the roadway. They're just trying to ameliorate the impacts of traffic generated by a project. Now during the design stage, if they feel that certain pedestrian facilities are needed because of a specific safety concern, then maybe that's something they can look at. But I don't know if it's something that's always embedded in the review and design. Sure. Federation. Is this something that the applicant would be amenable to having as a condition for road improvements that have but this is the frontage and the state highway. I can't get curves gutters and sidewalks. I could say but it okay so you're saying in addition to the condition that we will do the applicant will do whatever H2. Because we don't know what H2OT is going to say, right? We can assume what they're, you know, we don't know at this point. I remember a discussion because there was a discussion about curveter sidewalk improvements along the entire frontage But it was also in recognition that there is a shallow drainage way That runs along the front end is it's come up on numerous discussions, right? So even installing curb gutter sidewalks will have an effect on the overall drainage pattern in the area. So it's something definitely that applicant can take a look at, but I wouldn't hard bake it into the ordinance because of that type of consideration. If it has an effect on the drainage raised in the area, then best that they take a look at it, but not necessarily mandate it. part of that front the frontage is also in that flood plain area which would have to be mitigated after the fact. Some of those infrastructure improvements could ameliorate those challenges right? Putting in storm drain gutters those sort of aspects in the commercial area. It could, I mean, in the end, the applicant is compelled to comply with all of the requirements of State Department of Transportation. It's their system, their roadway, they're going to demand whatever level of improvements they feel is necessary in order to assure proper turning movements and safe pedestrian passage. So I'm just trying to join a couple of challenges here where we have potential pedestrians in that area for commercial structures, as well as potential flooding in that area. So trying to join all that in terms of some of that infrastructure you need, but just putting it out there. I'm going to move on to another question that kind of came up in past conversations. Mr. Messler, you know, any other thoughts, we've talked about this. We've talked about with community on legacy projects. And if you had any other thoughts on like a community legacy project in the area what does that look like? What does that mean for this space is it appropriate? I'm not sure I know what a legacy project is. I know there are various definitions floating around on the internet at least. Some are defined as landscape or a reforestation or native. And some are simply high quality, well-designed projects that fit into the community. So our intent is to do the right thing in YMIA. Okay, thank you. And then the last question I have for now is on the commercial side, you know, some of the concern is the, well, it's actually, there are two things because councilmember Kagiwata kind of, you brought this up about your thoughts on what's allowable in those areas. And it was in reply that there are limitations to the water. What else cannot be developed because of the limitations to the water there? You said restaurants, there's, I mean, there's going be a range of things, right? That kind of at that scale, where you have that limit. He has two existing water credits because of the two houses and there's, and he has 20 more. So it's what, whatever is done of that property needs to be accomplished within the 20 water commandments. Okay, thanks for that number. I appreciate that. So the other last question I have is on the commercial side. And it relates to traffic impacts, congestion, people maneuvering in out of that facility, that's those spaces. And if you're at all amenable to limitations on the building height in that area, to one story commercial. I think we've stated on various occasions that we're very much available and we do a limitation on heights in the commercial space. Okay, thank you, Mr. Matzler. Thank you, Chair. You council member, council member, could go limba. Thank you. You know, you may have discussed this at an earlier time. It's been a bit, but I was wondering about the sort of split between the changing the SLU from Ag to Rural in the back, which then allows for the quarter acre lots, right? Half acre lots, sorry. Yeah. Could you do those in the front as well? Because there's been a split, like actually the Lee Rat planning commission voted favorably for the SLU change and unfavorably for the change of zone, if I'm reading this correctly. And it seems like a lot of the heartburn is around the commercial zoning, which could be wonderful, but I think a lot of people are also thinking of like worst case scenarios of what could be commercial. So, would you do half acre lots in the front as well. Yes. We're going to commercial it's 10,000 square feet. So you can do lots as small as 10,000. With the neighborhood commercial. Okay, you could do that with neighborhood commercial. What about, I mean, if it was the same, I don't know, this is not what you would want to do. If we didn't approve the change of zone to commercial, number one could you do, could you change it to agricultural five, but point five? It's currently five acre. Yeah, it's five acre. And so it would take a change of zone, another change of a different change of zone. And a different bell. A different bell. Yeah, restarting the whole process again. And I don't know if this is helpful, but Mrs. Metschler talked about the very is different. The very different revisions that have been made to the plan. And it was interesting because one of the first times we went to the Leigh-Werb Planning Commission, they actually were non-paper of the residential in the back, but they realized that because the front of the property was designated urban and the neighborhood commercial was consistent with what, you know, across the street. And on other sides of them did, like that was, they had almost less of a problem with that than they did at that time with the RS-10 that we were proposing in the back. So it's kind of flipped back and forth between what people want and what people don't want. And so what I was trying to explain initially was with the neighborhood commercial zone, there's flexibility with what you can do in that. Right, so you could do residential and commercial, neighborhood commercial, correct? Right. Multi-family. But again, we are constrained by the 20 water commitments that we have. The water constraints are the 20. Right. Okay. And you could also do, like, these sort of retail bottom floor residential on top that's kind of become popular in some places. That would also be possible. Not if you want to restrict the heights. Right, I get that, I know. Yeah. So yes, we'll, we must think about that carefully. Okay, I think just to get to that, it's term of that's term, Terry Nalbo did, I continue to support this. I think there's, and it's mainly because, as you said, it's urban zone, it's, you know, what is it? I'm having trouble with words today. Yeah, all of the things, all of the plans, it fits with it. So to me, it seems just fair. If this is going to happen anywhere, it should happen here, where we've planned for it. But also wanting to explore some other possibilities and also would hope that the sort of spirit of what folks are asking for would be respected and going forward should this pass. Thank you, Council Member Glemba. Anyone else before we wrap it up? should this pass? Thank you, Council Member Gullimba. Anyone else before we wrap it up? Council Member County Lee, Kleinfeld? Mr. Right, where in this document is any of the affordable requirements located in the ordinance? Or is it? The requirement to, I'm sorry, to require, it's a condition P.S. in Paul which speaks to us complying with the requirements of chapter 11 of the Hawaii County Code. Okay and what what is that speaking to? The applicant prior to gaining a certificate of occupancy for any of the residential units, he would have to comply with the county's housing code, which is basically 20 credits. It's 20%. 20%. So if he does five lots, it's one credit. OK. So we're going to require that one lot. This ordinance requires that 20% or one lot be affordable for this project. But it's one credit so you can earn credits in different ways. So you could get two credits if you built a house and sold it for within certain median to people within a certain median. So it's all laid out in chapter 11 how to earn new credits. So it's probably easier if you talk about one credit than one lot necessarily. OK. Is it a requirement that you do so, or is it an option at the end? Compliance with chapter 11 is over requirement. Not so much the compliance with chapter 11, sorry, but that you will build a portion of the property through affordable housing, standards of the county. It's by law, if he, It's recorded by laws in the county. It's by law if he it's required by laws in the county code. Okay so just having condition P requires the developer to have one affordable housing unit. Thank you. Great. That's it. Oh, Councillor providing an affordable unit within 15 miles, and currently in the code of this property. So that's not the only way. It could also be finished lots. There are lots of different ways to, it doesn't have to be one home out of five. Just to be very clear, that isn't a guarantee. Okay, I think you can't remember right I have a couple of quick questions what's the weight the wastewater situation is this are these properties that I'll service by sewer at this time no they're going to be an individual wastewater. Okay. So that also constrains some of the commercial activities, right, in terms of what is permitted on an IWS. And I don't know, Director Dararyl, can you maybe share what sort of commercial activities permitted in CN are prohibited by a lack of a municipal wastewater? It's a quiz. And if you don't get a passy grade, well, you don't want to know what happens. Thank you, Council Member Kimmel. Can you please repeat that? It sounded like you were saying what commercial use would be restricted with the lack of municipal wastewater. That's correct. So unfortunately, I'm the wrong guy to talk to about that. I would, you know, in this particular area of Waimea, you see a lot of different types of uses, restaurants, you see large, you stores, you see Ace Hardware, you see McDonald's, you see, there's quite a bit going on. So however they were able to do it, it seems like they were able to meet some sort of wastewater standard standard for commercial uses without the municipal system. Is it, it seems likely, if not highly probable, that those were permitted prior to the existing DOH rules with respect to municipal wastewater for commercial facilities? Because now, as I understand, you can't do a restaurant without wastewater. You can't do a restaurant without, on an I-D-U-S. Yeah. As I mean, we've seen some, so I'm not sure how that's getting passed. But again, I'm probably not the right guy to answer that particular. Who would be the right person? That would be our department of environmental management. Okay. So for the next hearing, I will ask somebody from DEM to come and maybe shed some light on that. Because I do think that that's a restricting factor. It's certainly restricting factor with the ADUs, right, because that would limit. You can only do five bedrooms per one individual wastewater system. You need to have 10,000 square feet for the leach field. So that already limits even without without the condition in there, the ability to build ADUs on any of the parcels on the parcel. So they could do multiple because of the fact that they're over 10,000 square feet. Well, they need 20,000 square feet and a zero square footage house. Yeah. I will also try to find the answer for that as well. Thank you. I raised these these points to highlight that there are an addition to water, some pretty significant constraints on what actually can be done on this property, including the development of ADUs. And like Council Member Gildenba, I have concerns about the situation where we have the general plan, state land use and the community development plan, which were all developed through community-driven, mediated processes that line up that support in action, and then we're requiring all of these other things which are not that are exceptional. Right? I think that sets a dangerous precedent. I'm still optimistic that there's possibility for improvement in this and continued dialogue. But just so that the public is aware that's here, regardless of what happens today, have at least one more hearing on this. So if it goes through with the unpavable recommendation or a favorable recommendation, it's going to go to council for a reading there. So just be aware of that. So unless there's no further comment, I think I'd like to go ahead with the roll call vote. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, we're gonna start with 198. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Just so the public is aware, there's this is a rare occurrence where we have two pieces of two bills on the floor at the same time for discussion safe, but we will take each one up separately. So on the floor right now, the motion we will take a vote on is bill 198. The motion to send bill 198 to council with a favorable recommendation, Ms. Calimba. Hi. Mr. Houston. Hi. Mr. Inaba. Ahole. Ms. Kagiwara. No. Mr. Kainley Kleinfelder. No. Ms. Carcoïts. Mr. Onishi. Aye. Ms. Villegas. Chair Kimbo. Aye. Chair, you have four votes in favor. Three no's with Ms. Carowitz and Ms. V. Agas absent. The motion will move forward to Council with unfavorable recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Kirk. With that, and saying no further business, we are adjourned. We got to do 190. Oh, six. Say it alone. Go ahead. So in the motion to forward bill 19 to Council with a favorable recommendation, Ms. Calimba. Aye. Mr. Eustace. Canalua. Mr. Inaba. Paulin. Ms. Caguara. No. Mr. Kindly Kleinfelder. No. Ms. Carcoitz. Mr. Onishi. I. Ms. Villegas. Mr. Houston. No. Chair Kimball. Aye. Chair, you have three votes in favor. Ms. Calimba. Mr. Onishi, yourself. Four noes. Mr. Houston. Mr. Inaba. Ms. Kagiwata. Mr. Calimba, Mr. Onishi, yourself, four nose, Mr. Hussis, Mr. Inaba, Mr. Kagiwata, Mr. Kaneli Klein, further with two absent, Mr. Kirkowitz and Mr. Viegas, the motion moves forward with an unfavorable recommendation. All right, thank you, Mr. Clerk. And with no further business for real, the time is 6.49, we are adjourned, thank you.