Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Development Time Extension topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee amends and forwards Kona Country Club time-extension request amid debate over affordable‑housing credits
Summary
The committee amended Bill 121 and forwarded it to full council after an extended discussion about a 10-year time extension for the Kona Country Club Inc. development, the applicant’s $7M-plus investments, infrastructure timelines, and unresolved affordable‑housing credit issues identified by the Office of Housing audit.
The Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions voted to forward Bill 121, as amended, to the full Hawaii County Council after lengthy discussion about infrastructure timelines and the validity of previously recorded affordable‑housing credits.
Planning consultant Sydney Fuquay, representing Kona Country Club Inc., described extensive pre‑development work and said the owner has invested more than $7,000,000 addressing archaeological requirements, access roads and other site work. “We have kind of expanded in both hard and soft cost in excess of $7,000,000 for the project,” Fuquay said, and told the committee the applicant needs up to 10 years to bring basic infrastructure online and secure financing.
Planning Director Jeff Darrow summarized the project history and the department’s recommendation. He said the applicant initially proposed up to 60 units, later revised to 29 single-family dwellings and related amenities, and that the property sits within the urban state land-use district and special management area. The department recommended forwarding the extension with amended conditions to reflect current code and permits.
Anne Bailey of the Office of Housing and Community Development told the committee that an audit of the office’s records had led staff to invalidate certain previously recorded transferable affordable‑housing credits. “We found over time... we had to adjust balances based on that lawsuit,” Bailey said, describing federal prosecutions and the office’s revalidation work. Committee members pressed the applicant and housing staff on what the developer’s affordable‑housing obligations will be under Chapter 11 and whether prior credits remain valid for satisfying requirements.
Council debate was substantial. Some members said the amendment provides necessary protection (tolling and a requirement to reappear if conditions are unmet), while others opposed a long extension for a project oriented to vacation or luxury units given limited water and other infrastructure. Council member Villegas said the project “doesn’t provide authentic, affordable workforce housing” and opposed the 10‑year extension on principle.
Council member Inaba moved to amend Bill 121 (communication 689.4) so the applicant would have to reapply if initial conditions were not met and to incorporate tolling language; the applicant accepted the amendment and the committee approved it by voice vote. The committee then voted to forward Bill 121 as amended to full council with a favorable recommendation; the chair announced the motion carries. The committee adjourned at 12:19 p.m.
