Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0315.001 2018-2020 ira Harry Kim •-o;�t- qc.-Ns••'• Michael Yee Mayor -^ 41,1/t. Director Wil Okabe • +: `••_:;;/'�1 • ys•r Duane Kanuha Managing Director •o�, .��� Deputy Director 7TE,CFN'� West Hawai`i Office East Hawai`i Office 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy . 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 Kailua-Kona,Hawai`i 96740 County of Hawaii Hilo,Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)323-4770 Phone(808)961-8288 Fax(808)327-3563 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fax(808)961-8742 May 21, 2019 ry -.4 .1147> Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair ' and Members of the County Council 9 County of Hawai`i N 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Chung and Council Members: SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 17-000049) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 17-000223) Request: A-20a and 0 to RS-10 and FA-la Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust Tax Map Keys: 2-6-008:026 & 027 In regards to the Windward Planning Commission letter dated May 20, 2019 concerning the above-reference matter, attached please find a copy of the draft transcript for the May 2, 2019 hearing for your information. Should there be any questions, please contact Jeff Darrow at 961-8158. Sincerely, MICHAEL YEE Planning Director LO1sonSLU 17-049REZ I 7-223wpctranscript r Enclosures Comm. No. S 4 • I Ref. To: PC Rgf. ing 2 2019 www.hiplanningdept.com Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer p amm�g rt„.,, `WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 2, 2019 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of EDMUND C. OLSON TRUST (SLU 17- 000049/REZ 17-000223) was called to order at 9:02 a.m. in the County of Hawai`i Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Dean Ail-;':Joseph Clarkson, Thomas Raffipiy, John Replogle. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy.Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay(Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), and SaiahrHata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 6 members from the public in attendance APPLICANT: EDMUND C OLSON TRUST (SLU 17 000049/REZ 17-000223) Applications for a State Land Use_aBoundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 14.95 acres of land and a Change of Zone__from an Agricultural-20 acres (A-20a) and Open (0) to a Single-Family Residential .1.0,000 square feet(RS 10) zoning district for approximately 14.95 acres of land and a Change o;f Zone from n;Agricultural-20 acres (A-20a) to a Family Agricultural 1=acre (FA-la) zoning districtfor.approximately 24.73 acres of land. The subject properties are located mauka(west).of Wainak.0 Street and north of Amau'ulu Road in the vicinity of Clem Akina Park -Puueo, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 2-6-008:026 & 027. CLARKSON: And with that, we'll proceed to the first item on the agenda, which is an application from Edmund C. Olson Trust for a rezone, and the presentation to the Commission on this application Wjlls be by Christian Kay. JACKSON: Chair Clarkson,'if you can just give us a few minutes. We're having difficulties with the— CLARKSON: Clicker? JACKSON: —clicker. CLARKSON: I'm reminded also that this first item also has a State Land Use Boundary Amendment involved. 1 KAY: All right, we're going to do this "old school" today. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for coming today. So, as the Chair stated, this is a two-fold application, a State Land Use Boundary Amendment and a rezone request. The subject parcels are located in the South Hilo District of Hawaii Island; more specifically, in the Wainaku/Amau`ulu area. As you can see, we've got two parcels outlined in red here. Parcel 26 is the more makai parcel, and Parcel 27 to the north, direct north of the subject parcel, Parcel 26, is the Dodo Mortuary, and toward the bottom, indicated in the green color, to the south is the Clem Akina Park. Please track forward, Maija. JACKSON: I'm going to shut it down and restart. KAY: If we can have a break, sorry. Technical difficulties. Okay, I think we've got it now. The Applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for a 14.95-acre portion of Parcel 26 and a Change of Zone from Agricultural—20 acres and Open to a Single-Family Residential— 10,000 square feet zoning district for the same land area. In addition,they're requesting a Change of Zone from Agricultural—20 acres to a Family Agricultural— 1 acre zoning district for approximately 24.73 acres of land, and this includes a remainder of Parcel 26 and the entirety of Parcel 27. The Applicant's current proposed project includes plans to develop 51 total lots including 49 habitable lots, 30 in the Single-Family Residential — 10,000 square feet designation and 19 in the Family Agricultural designation. One approximately 1.7-acre lot to expand Clem Akina Park and one approximately 2.11-acre lot to preserve a historic era cemetery. I just want to note here, and it's in the Background and Recommendation, that the proposed ;I zoning could allow for a maximum density of 89 lots via subdivision, and this is excluding land area to be set aside for roads, the park expansion, and the cemetery preserve. So, when we look at Changes of Zone, unlike some other permits that we do where it's very proposal specific, when we look at Changes of Zone, we want to look at the maximum density that could be allowed because if the Change of Zone passes, they're not required to develop this 51-lot subdivision. They can realign it, add lots, subtract lots, things like that, up to what the zoning would allow. County zoning for the subject parcels as we said is currently Ag-20 on Parcel 27 in its entirety, and a split zoning for Parcel 26, Ag-20 and Open. That Open zoning coincides with the area to the north of Clem Akina Park. That area has been used historically as part of the park under a lease agreement with the previous owner and kind of unofficially with now this current owner, so again, part of the proposal is to formalize that additional area for park expansion. Just for reference again, we've got Wainaku Street running north-south through the slide, and Amau`ulu Road running east-west through the slide. Other zoning in the area to the north is Ag-3. We've got some Multi-Family Residential designations across Wainaku, makai, and across Amau`ulu. Some Single-Family Residential—7,500 square feet and then some Resort zoning further makai. 2, The State Land Use designation for the subject parcels is Agricultural as indicated in the green color. Makai of that and on either side north and south is Urban as indicated by the pink, and then some Conservation, pardon me, some Conservation which is indicated—pardon me, indicated in blue, and that is at the river. The General Plan designation for the subject parcels is also split. The bottom two-thirds of Parcel 26 is Medium Density Urban, and then the remainder of Parcel 26 and all of Parcel 27 is Low Density Urban. And, here is an aerial photograph of the subject parcels. Again,just for reference, we've got Wainaku Street running north-south through the slide. Clem Akina Park here. Dodo Mortuary hereto the north. Amau`ulu Road here running toward the bottom of the slide. Access to the, to the subdivision is being proposed as all off of Wainaku Street at this point. Amau`ulu Road in this area is a County road up to about 650 feet from the intersection with Wainaku Street. Above that, about this area here, is all a private road. Here is the Applicant's proposed site plan. Again,just with the proviso that this is what's currently being proposed but once the zoning is granted, it can be changed. We've got showing here on the lower portion of Parcel 26 and kind of to the right of this dashed line is the area to be set aside, or to be converted from Agricultural to Urban. That's the 14.95 acres. And, this is where all of the RS-10 zoning is. Again, the current proposal is to bring a road from Wainaku Street, and this is going to be a 50-foot wide County spec dedicable standard road all the way up to the top of the property. And we've got the approximately 1.7-acre portion that's proposed to be dedicated to the County to expandthe park, and then this is the area right above the park where there is the old cemetery that is being proposed to be preserved in place with this approximately 211-acre parcel. Farther mauka is again the area where it's being proposed for Family Agricultural– 1 acre lots, and its showing these two roads here are being proposed to be kept in private ownership. And— I apologize—this cul-de-sac road here was proposed to also be built to County dedicable standard as part of the RS-10 neighborhood development there. Here are some site photos of the subject property. Here is across Wainaku Street looking mauka. This area right here is grassed area, is generally the area to be set aside for the expansion of the park. The proposed roadway would be going in here to the south of the Dodo Mortuary property, and above here is generally where the RS-10 zoned area would be, and then farther mauka would be the FA zoning. And then here on the bottom right, see a little bit closer view of the, one of the park structures, the grassed area to be set aside for the park, and then the cemetery lot is generally in this area that would be set aside for preservation of the cemetery. Here's a view of Wainaku Street looking south toward Hilo. The subject properties are on the right-hand side. And a view of Wainaku Street looking north toward Hamakua, and the subject property is on the left-hand side. 3 The Planning Director is recommending that we forward a favorable recommendation for both the Change of Zone and the State Land Use Boundary Amendment to the County Council with conditions. Since the Background and Recommendation was sent to the Commission, there were two documents that we provided to you. One was just an amendment to Condition S, and that was just to clear up what we're talking about in terms of what types of lots, or what would be required in terms of making the fair share contribution. Used a condition that normally would apply to commercial zoning, and so I just wanted to clear that up that what we're talking about here is residential lots created since the resulting action here is going to be a subdivision. So, and also, that the trigger for paying that fair share is prior to Final Subdivision Approval. So, any new lot that's going to be slated for a residence will be assessed this fair share value. We did have one caveat to that, and that's at the bottom, that the fair market value of the lands to be dedicated for park expansion as required in Condition R shall be credited against the fair share requirement, because they're donating the land to a regional park. The other document that we received this morning, or yesterday, sorry, late yesterday, was a piece of testimony from Barbara Andersen. You should have gotten that either late yesterday or this morning, and it's just questions about traffic impacts of the development on Wainaku. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. AU: Mr. Chair, I have a question. KAY: Yes? AU: So, did the Applicant request for this amendment to Condition S? Was that, was it the Applicant's— KAY: No, no, the, sorry,the amendment to Condition S was a Director-initiated amendment, and it's just again to clean up the language. Before it was talking about a number of residential units developed. Again, the trigger here is going to be a Final Subdivision Approval, and its number of lots developed, so we just wanted to clean`that up in terms of the language. So, yeah, it was a Director-initiated—: AU: Thank you. KAY: Yeah. CLARKSON: Any further questions? RAFFIPIY: Mr. Chair, I have a question. You know that, the 2.1, the 2.11-acres that will be set aside for the State Historic Preservation? KAY: Yes. RAFFIPIY: Yeah, will—who will be controlling that after, if the rezoning is— 4 KAY: —Sure— RAFFIPIY: —goes through. KAY: So, if you take a look at your Recommendation for the Change of Zone, let me find the condition here, all of this comes from—once the cemetery was identified on the property, there was an archaeological inventory survey done, and also a burial treatment plan done. SHPD has those documents. They have yet to review them, so we haven't gotten any comments back from them. There was also a matter of some violations `cause some of the headstones were damaged from clearing work. So, parthold-up of the from SHPD's side was they didn't want to review those documents until the violation was dealt with at the State level. Unfortunately, that's why this application came in in 2017 and now we're only getting to it in 2019. We got to a point where we were told by SHPD that they were no longer pursuing the violation, and so we decided to move forward with this. But, the condition we added in was to make sure that, that conditions of that AIS and any subsequent study that would be done, whether that's the burial treatment plan or a preservation plan, be added into the, to the subdivision, and one of those requirements was to set aside an area for preservation in place. So, I believe the 2.11 acres came from the AIS, and that's the idea there, so that's why, that's where they'd be locked in.`And, the condition is—sorry—Condition P. Is,the question who will own the property or who will control the property? RAFFIPIY: Yeah, I wanted to know if, well, if they—right now, right now, the Trust owns that, right? Right now, right? KAY: Correct. RAFFIPIY: Okay, so their wishes, their wish is to convey that to, you know, to State or are they going to kind of need to hold it for-?` KAY: I believe and maybe, maybe the owner's representative can address that— RAFFIPIY•- —Okay— KAY: —but I believe it will would just stay in ownership of whomever owns the property. But, the requirements to keep it preserved— RAFFIPIY: —Yeah, I see— KAY: —and allow descendants to come and visit and things like that are all part of the AIS and subsequent preservation plan, so they would all be required to adhere to those requirements moving forward, regardless of who owns it, yeah. RAFFIPIY: Okay, so—so, will they be submitting some kind of plan on,preservation plan, how they're going to preserve it? 5 KAY: So, that's, that's what remains to be seen. Because SHPD has yet to review the original archaeological inventory survey, they can't make their recommendations for next steps. Our understanding is the recommendation will be some`kind of preservation plan, and the preservation plan will lay out interim mitigation steps as well as long-term mitigation steps and so that will be done subsequently. And the way the condition reads,just to make sure, it's all done prior to any work on the property is, "Prior to [the] issuance of any land alteration permits, the applicant, its successors or assigns shall secure approval of an Archaeological Inventory Survey [(AIS)] by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources–State Historic Preservation Division [(DLNR-HPD)] and implement interim preservation mitigation measures as may be recommended for the rezoned area. Moreover, prior to or as part of the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval, the applicant shall implement mitigation measures for the historic area cemetery as recommended by the AIS and directed by[DLNR-] SHPD." So, essentially, we wanted to build in the requirement that prior to any more land alteration, they had to install the interim mitigation measures. And then before we finalize Final Subdivision Approval, they had to basically agree to and implement the long-terra mitigation measures. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. KAY: You're welcome. CLARKSON: Any further questions? I have a question about the slide that's up right now. KAY: Okay. CLARKSON: What is the difference, I guess in law or ordinance, between the standards that the residentially zoned, roads inthe area of the residentially zoned lots, have to be versus the lots zoned Ag. KAY: So County dedicable standard is a minimum 50-foot right-of-way. I'm not sure of the pavement width. Okay, yeah,so for the.Ag portion further mauka, again, this is being proposed as County dedicable, so the right-of-way would be—would be 50 feet. The Ag I believe is 20 feet paved, and the Urban may be 24 to 30 concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk. CLARKSON: Yeah, I'm actually referring to the two side roads that serve those lots— KAY: Oh these? CLARKSON: Yeah. KAY: So, the non-dedicable standard is a 20-foot right-of-way, and I don't have it in front of me. I'm not sure what the pavement would be, the pavement requirement,but it could be 12, 14—I don't-16, 16-foot wide pavement within a 20-foot right-of-way. We did— CLARKSON: —No, I'm just curious because I have seen this over and over again, Ag subdivisions, and usually they have to bring a pole out to the nearest County road. But, you're 6 telling me that they could have put in a single road to serve multiple lots as long as it met the standards like that? • KAY: Up to six lots. • CLARKSON: Up to six lots? KAY: Correct. So, a non-dedicable standard can serve up to six lots. In this case, again, in this particular proposed— CLARKSON: —There's eight— KAY: There are,but these two lots would take access off of these road. CLARKSON: Oh. KAY: So, these six lots here would take access of the, these. CLARKSON: Very clever. KAY: So, yeah. CLARKSON: And, so the reason they can't do that with the residential lots, they have to bring the poles out to the main road? They can't dust put a little.side road in to serve those two lots, or there's a couple of places where you have pairsof lots. KAY: Again, they, they could. All of the, again, this is— CLARKSON: —No,-on the Urban— KAY: The Urban area? Yeah, as it,as it's designed right now,this is approvable,but again, the design may change, so it really depends fon what we are looking at Final Subdivision Approval when it comes.in .We— CLARKSON: —And I have one- KAY: —Yeah, go ahead CLARKSON: further question about if you could bring up the aerial photo, please? KAY: Yes. CLARKSON: In the—in the reference material that was provided us, there was many, many, many pages of correspondence relating to access for Mr. Inouye? KAY: Correct, Warren Inouye. 7 CLARKSON: And, could you just briefly explain that to me? KAY: I can if I can use a different graphic, though. It might help better explain that, yeah. Give me one second. I thought that might come up. So, what we have here again is the two subject parcels, Parcel 26 and 27 outlined in blue. We've got Amau`ulu Road here; Wainaku Street here. Here is the Parcel 24, the parcel that Mr. Inouye was talking about. All of the—so, Mr. Inouye claims that there is legal access from Amatfulu to this property as well as from Wainaku to this property, and has asked us to kind of agree with that and condition that access be made available. All of the research that we've done has not been able to find legal access to that lot from either of those places. He references the tax map. There are roads on the map that are showing old plantation roads, but nothing that showed any kind of legal access. And, then two other things. We asked Mr. Inouye to provide us with evidence that there is access that this would be impinging upon. He wasn't able to do so. The second thing is we haven't been able to find that he has-any ownership interests in Parcel 24. He is a representative, legal representative, of one of the owners who owns a small portion. There's several owners who own interest in that parcel. There were several Quitclaim Deeds that we were able to find that showed people deeding over a portion of their property to Mr. Inouye; however, the people who were deeding over that, that property, we weren't able to determine Or it was shown that they didn't actually own an interest in that portion. So, there's a lot of back and forth, and a lot of back and forth in that between Mr. Inouye and the Olson Trust and their attorneys. Where we've landed after a lot of research was, again, we weren't able to find any legal access from Anau`ulu nor from Wainaku. And, again, we weren't able to find any evidence that Mr.Inouye owns any,has any ownership interest in the property. CLARKSON: Could you just bring up the aerial one more time, please? KAY: Sure:' CLARKSON: So, there's a road. It looks like there are two old plantation roads going south to north through these parcels, one of the very edge, and one right through the middle of the proposed urban area, and I'm just—so there's no way that Parcel 31 or Parcel 24, Parcel 31 being the one that surrounds 24,have any kind of prescriptive rights over those roads? KAY: None that we could find. They were no recorded access easements. CLARKSON: Well, those wouldn't be recorded. KAY: Oh, prescriptive rights. CLARKSON: I don't know, maybe I'll ask our Corp. Counsel. KAY: Pardon me. CLARKSON: Can you get access by prescriptive— 8 KAY: —So, so that's where— CLARKSON —in Hawaii?— KAY: —the other thing that we said in our, in our Recommendation, our Background, is that's a civil matter between the owners of that lot and the Olson's. So, at this point, we couldn't make a determination from our side, and left it up to them to work that out. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. Any further questions? KAY: One last thing, sorry. There was one other piece of kind of confusion in Mr. Inouye's correspondences, and it was, there was a reference in the original application saying that the northern boundary of the subject parcels was the Pukihae StreamT In fact, that was incorrect. The Pukihae Stream is farther north as indicated in this darker blue line. So, what Mr. Inouye thought was that his, his parcel was right in the middle of the rezone area when, in fact, it's farther north and kind of an island of its own. S:o,.I just wanted to point that out, and with that, I'd be happy to answer any other questions that the Commission may have. REPLOGLE: Yes, I have one. So, Mr. Inouye's parcel is not even part of this discussion really? KAY: That's correct. He claims it is. He claims that there's access from Amau`ulu and access from Wainaku that would be impacted by this rezone and subdivision action. We were not able to find that, that to be the case. - REPLOGLE: But, it will have no effect on that red piece of property? KAY: This REPLOGLE: —Other than the access issue. KAY: That's correct that that's a separate piece of property that isn't involved in this action. AU: Mr. Chair,I have a question.- So, his current access is coming off of—he's currently accessing his property not off of Wainaku, right? He's currently accessing it off of Amau`ulu. KAY: There is no current legal access that we could find. I'm not—there's nobody actually living on that property, so it's a vacant piece of property. Again, Mr. Inouye got the surrounding property owner notice because he's a representative of one of the property owners, and when we initially, when the Applicant initially sent that out back in 2016 is when this whole conversation started. So, as it is now, we were not able to find any legal access to that property, so it appears to be land-locked. CLARKSON: I just gotta ask. How does a subdivision get created that has no legal access? 9 KAY: I would have to take a look at the tax map and see. I'm not exactly sure how that lot came to be in the middle of the larger lot. It could be a land grant or it could be a pre-existing lot there that was designated, yeah. CLARKSON: Any further questions? If not, will the Applicant or their representative please come forward? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Commission today? FUKE: Yes, I do. CLARKSON: Please introduce yourself and your relationship to the application and proceed. FUKE: Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm representing the Applicant, the Edmund Olson Trust. Initially, I'd like to acknowledge that the staff's report is very comprehensive. We've had a chance to review it both with the Olson Trust as well as its attorney, and they both found the report as well as the proposed recommendation and the amended condition to be acceptable. I'd like to just, before responding to I think two different issues,one relating to the cemetery archaeological issue and the other one related to the roadways,but before doing so, I'd like to kind of like give the Commissioners some idea as far as the general. history of the property. The property way back when and probably Mr. Replogle knows, was owned by C. Brewer. And, then at way back when I think it was in the 1990's I think, C. Brewer came up with this ambitious plan to have like.about,800 residential lots encompassing this property and an adjoining property further mauka. So, they secured a State Land Use Boundary Amendment. They got the appropriate rezoning to create this residential community up in that area. Subsequently, C. Brewer sold the property to a family called the Greer Family Trust, and they wanted to not dothat because developing the property according to what was at that time and thought it was, they thought it was'a little bit too expensive, and so they said like no, we'll just kind of like do a little bit agricultural activities on that area. So, they went to the Land Use Commission. They had the property reclassified back to Ag, and then went to the Council, County Council, and had the land also revoked, you know, like in term of the County zoning. So, that's—that's how it came about. And, then, Mr. Olson,the Olson Trust picked up all of those properties in that area. The mauka portion is kind of like actively being farmed right now, and then this area on an intermittent basis is kind of like used for small'-scale farming. So, the Olson Trust then, you know, they acquired the property in 2015, and so they said like maybe we ought to do like, like an one-acre lot subdivision because, you know, there is a potential for small-scale agriculture in that area. So, they asked me and at that time then)I submitted a one-acre, you know, rezoning application in 2016. It called for over this 39-acre property, it called at that time for the creation of 29 one-plus acre sized lots in that area. The staff reviewed it, and then they said like well, you know, the General Plan, it calls for Low Density and Medium Density on the makai side, so maybe you'll guys really ought to consider a more denser type of development. And, so, I said okay, then we went back again, and then this scheme came about because the scheme came about because they 10 still kind of wanted to create much lots larger than the normal, whatever the zoning would call for, whether it's one acre or RS-10. So, that's why like as the staff accurately pointed out, you know, coming up with like 49 lots, you know, developable, not developable, but habitable lots. But, if you look at it from a mathematical perspective, there is opportunity to create more, but that's really like not the Applicant's intent. I can understand, and the Applicant understands that there is a condition that the staff has recommended that there be a traffic impact study done nonetheless, so that, you know, looking at the maximum development potential. I mean, I can understand that because this is Mr. Olson's plan, but whoever acquires the property, they may have different points of view, so the staff has wisely recommending and then the Applicant has no objection that before you come in for your subdivision application, then you have-an updated, well you prepare a traffic study, and then you comply with whatever Department of Public Works may require. So, you know, that's fine and understandable. So, along those lines then, you know, talking about roads first, you know, and if you look at the subdivision map and the issue about the land-locked parcel, again, you know, like the staff is recommending and again I think it's a wise condition you know in the interest of connectivity, they are recommending that there be a mauka access on the northern point, mauka access, and then also like a Hamakua access and also like a Amau`ulu access. You know, at least when you develop the property, there will be County dedicable standard road abutting north, south, east, and west. So, what you see, what you see on that map, you'll:obviously have to change because it does reflect like some, the lots on the agricultural portion on the mauka section is like narrow lots, I mean not narrow lots, but the roadway is narrow. It's on a 20-foot wide roadway. However, to address the staff's proposed condition, which is acceptable, it's suggesting, it's recommending that on the north side, you already see that. You know, like on the—what is that—on the left-hand side of this, the map, you can already see, okay—so you have this connection,and then it will also, it also requires like a connection to Amaueulu Road, you know, whether it comes from this section or one of these roads here, and then also a connection on the Hamakua end at some point over here.' So, it—and then these connections, according to the staff's Recommendation, the roadways have to be all built to County dedicable standards, so in the case of Mr. Inouye, the properties that he has expressed an interest in, anyway, like on the top side of the page, if the adjoining property owner develops something, there is a chance for, you know, to have it connected, and eventually it will provide access to that area. So, I think from a purely planning standpoint what the staff is recommending is really like'on point. So, it will provide this connectivity, you know, overall. You asked a question about the roadway standards between agricultural and the urban area. Really, like the only difference is the base course. You know, like if you're doing a lot that's more than, I mean, if you're creating a roadway whether it's in an agricultural area and a residential area, and if it services more than six lots, then your right-of-way has to have a minimum of 50-feet wide. To make it County to dedicable standard, your base course has to be improved, and you also have to improve the balance of the right-of-way. Your roadway width 11 ranges from about 20 to 22 feet, whether it's in an agricultural or the urban area. It's more like what is dedicable standard. Within also the ag or the residential area, you are allowed to have like a private road, a private road which if it services less, you know six or less lots, then the minimum right-of-way is 20 feet, and you know, your pavement width is 16 feet. So, like in this situation here, the private roads are like those narrow ones that you're suggesting here, so that is like 20 feet wide with a 20-foot pavement, I mean a 16-foot wide pavement. Relative to, you know, the cemetery question, as the staff pointed out, if you're going to—let's assume that this subdivision, this is for the sake of discussion, is granted Final Approval as is right now. So, whoever owns the cemetery lot will still be the developer. So, the developer then has to decide on like what he or she wants to do, whether he wants to attempt to convey it to the County, convey it to a, you know, the community association within the subdivision, or to convey it to some other entity. About, over the last six weeks, I've had some discussions with Council Member Val Poindexter, and then so she mentioned that there is an organization in the Hamakua area that, you know, has taken it upon themselves to kind of do caretaking of a lot of these plantation-type of cemeteries. And, so, this could possibly be one of those that would be kind of like an adopted cemetery, because it's all in, it's really like in a state of disrepute right now, and that's the reason why I think when there was some mechanical equipment in that area, you know, there was some bamboo groves and large trees, so the—Mr. Olson had agreed to let one of these guys do some interim farming in that area, so an excavator was put in that area, you know, to remove a lot of these, the trees and the bamboo groves, and during the process of doing that, at least like four or five, I think, some of the headstones were kind of like knocked over because they couldn't see it. But, so that's like as the staff has indicated, is now a situation between the State Historic Preservation Division and actually like Mr. Olson because he still owns the property. Specifically on that, SHPD had requested the Land Board to fine the landowner in violation of like certain State statutes, you know, because of this, this inadvertent desecration. They were supposed to go before the Land Board in December of 2017. It was agendized. It was never considered. It was kind of like withdrawnand then-it was back again on the agenda the next month in December, ah, in January. At that time also it was withdrawn and at that time, Mr. Olson and his attorney became aware of this situation, so they had a separate meeting with the SHPD director, and the,and their attorney. And, at that time, Mr. Olson explained the circumstances behind it, and so SHPD division chief basically said, okay, we'll look into it, and it's been over a year, and nothing has happened. And, the attorney basically informed me, and then as well as I conveyed that information to the staff, that as far as their concern, they did as much as they could. The ball right now is in the State's court, and whatever the State said, then they'll have to comply with. But, to add to that, there is an archaeological inventory survey done of the property although, you know, for all intent and purpose, the only feature on the property is really like the cemetery, because the rest of the land was used for some form of agriculture, primarily like sugar cane. So, the archaeological inventory survey is still kind of stuck at SHPD for over two years. And, in the 12 meantime, the—Mr. Olson had contracted the same archaeological consultant to prepare a preservation plan. So, there is a preservation plan already,but it's not approved, and it can't be approved until, you know, chronologic—from a procedural standpoint, you have to have the inventory survey approved and then you can act on the preservation plan. I mean, that's the protocol that they go through,but they have that plan already prepared. So, we have in that preservation plan, there is like a buffer indicating, you know, how wide it should be, but we don't know ultimately what size it will be, whether it will be 2.11 acres as kind of shown on the map or something larger or smaller. So, very definitely the layout that you see on there based on the staff's condition and what we have to go through relative to the cemetery is definitely, it's not going to look like that, and I think it will be better and in the long run. CLARKSON: Thank you. Any questions for the Applicant's representative? AU: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Mr. Fuke, I have a couple questions. The first question I have is in regards to the headstones. Has any of the families come forward that you know of? Or maybe staff, has any families of these headstones or of any families of the cemetery come forward? FUKE: Well, all I have is just the information that the archaeologists provided us, and then the short answer was no. Because, you know, it seems like there is no, I guess, like entity or individuals that frequent that area and, you know, clean it up, and that's the reason why it was very difficult I think, you know, to see the extent of the cemetery. You know, if you go up and down the coast, a lot of these plantation communities,you're going to find a lot of these cemeteries, and so—but as far as the preservation program, I don't know whether they need to find descendants of the, descendants of, you know, those who are buried there and then try to make contact. I know if you have a burial treatment plan, you know, you have to make some effort to do that. But, the short answer to your question is, is that no. AU: Okay, second question is your project timetable and costs. Can you just talk about that a bit? You know, I mean, I'm looking at it, and I'm reading it, but maybe tell me what that three million dollars is going to incur. Is it the bare minimum or is the Applicant going to go out and beyond what they are required to? And, talk about the time table. FUKE: Well, first of all, from a timetable standpoint, you know, the, Mr. Olson would like to whether it's on his own or like working with a partner and, you know, if he has to sell,he has to sell,but, you know, he is like I'believe like 87, 87 years old. So, his timeline, the development timeline is much shorter than many of us, but I think that in a perfect world, he'd like to really kind of like get started immediately. However, before you can actually, you know, make it shovel ready, there's a lot of steps that has to be taken prior to that. One is, you know, obviously as we mentioned earlier, the archaeological thing, the plans gotta be redrawn, you know, to reflect the north-south and east-west kind of connection. The other thing is like the sewer connection. You know, `cause the sewer line is in the Wainaku area, but it doesn't necessarily abut the property and one of the conditions require like not only connection, but you have to also do a study, and if there's going to be an upgrade required, then 13 those upgrades would have to be made. So, I think when the engineers did a preliminary estimate in the beginning, that I think is in my estimation right now and I'm not an engineer, I think it's a conservative estimate. It will probably be much higher. AU: Okay, thank you. CLARKSON: Any further questions? RAFFIPIY: Mr. Chairman, I have one,'one question for Mr. Fuke. In your statement, you were talking about, you know, when you made mention something about when the developers or whoever is going to start owning this property is that they are going to start, that they can start talking about road improvement and stuff like that. I don't know if I, if I get it right. How did you—can you say that again? In your opening statement you were talking about road improvements and they can discuss that when ownership,taking over the properties and stuff I don't know if I get it right. FUKE: Okay, maybe, sorry, even my wife get hard time understand me, so I'm very sorry, but if I can kind of like, you know, restart again. So, as part of the, part of the subdivision, you know, process based on the condition that the staff has recommended,-is that they're going to have to, you know, like redraw the map, and whenthey redraw the map, the map is going to have to show like a County dedicable standard road that connects to all edges of the property. Then, the map would also have to reflect the setting aside of the land for the Clem Akina Park expansion and also for the cemetery. The actual size of the dedication for the Clem Akina Park and the cemetery still, you know, needs to be worked out, and that will be worked out in conjunction with the subdivision review process, RAFFIPIY: What is the plan for the roadways? FUKE: Okay, so the way that the condition reads like the road that goes, you know, like from Wainaku Street all the way up, you know, up to the top, that's going to have to be built to County dedicable standards. And, then the road that goes to the Hamakua side and also the Hilo side, you know, that also has to be built to County dedicable standard. And, so, as I mentioned earlier, I think that's very good because, you know, if it were kept in private, and you have the adjoining property owner develop something, then they can't get access to it, yeah. RAFFIPIY: Thank you,thank you. YEE: I'd like to just add. So, one reason we want connectivity to, to all the edges is otherwise if we didn't look for future connectivity, we would be creating one giant cul-de-sac, right? And, that's not what we want. AGUINALDO: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Adding onto Dean's question for you, on the construction timetable and cost, you talked about dedicated number, "x" amount of number given for roadway, drainage, water, and wastewater. Are you including also for the utilities, meaning power? To that certain point of your 30 lots? 14 • FUKE: That, that would have been like the understanding,because it was prepared by the civil engineer, you know, that estimate. But, as I indicated earlier, I think that cost is going to be higher. AGUINALDO: Higher? FUKE: Yeah. AGUINALDO: And'then my other question on this Figure 3, I notice that we're only focusing on the 30-lots and the other one is just a reference. Am I understanding correctly? FUKE: No, it's for the entire area. AGUINALDO: Okay. FUKE: What you see is the area that's being considered. AGUINALDO: So, so my question is those two narrow gravel—say you guys call it"private roadway." Number one, who is going to maintain that? Secondly, is that enough turnaround point for Fire Department? I know they have, you know, specifications of, you know,how they gonna turn around, yeah? FUKE: Okay. AGUINALDO: "Cause timing is of one essence, like a cul-de-sac. And, my opinion is there was a subdivision, Waiakea Fairways, there was one designated private road, and it's kind of narrow, you know? So, has that been—I know it's a minimum requirement—but is that, is that enough as far as your gravel? Now, gravel or private, is it going to be paved or gravel. FUKE: Okay. AGUINALDO: You know?- , FUKE: So, again, you know, as I mentioned earlier, that map is definitely going to have to change, but let us assume for the sake of, you know, your question that this is the map. AGUINALDO: Okay. FUKE: So, the two skinny roads that you see kind of like heading toward the Hilo side, Amau`ulu Road side? That road would be, the right-of-way would be 20-feet wide, and then the requirement calls for a 16-foot wide pavement. Now, at the end of that private road, there has to be like a"T" to allow for the, you know, it's like a "T"intersection. AGUINALDO: Right. 15 FUKE: So, that, that's where the, to enable to the fire trucks to be able to maneuver and turn around. AGUINALDO: Okay, `cause, yeah, you see your approach way on the top where you first say your designated County, you know, required roadway, as you come in, making back to Hilo, you don't have your apron, yeah? FUKE: Oh, so like where, what usually happens is that when you have a private road and where they intersect in that, you know, so-called the main road from Wainaku going all the way up, yeah? So, that's going to be County dedicable standard road. So_, where you intersect, it has to be built to County standards, so they require the necessary flare. AGUINALDO: Okay. FUKE: Yeah. AGUINALDO: Okay, and waterlines are going to go in there as—fire hydrants or— FUKE: That's all part of the Subdivision Code, and the Water Department and the Fire Department, primarily the Water Depaitalent's requirement for fire protection would have to be addressed, so you have to have like a water line into the private roadways, and then they would have to—I think there's a minimum 100-foot spacing of the fire hydrants and certain pressure. AGUINALDO: Okay, and then my last question. Amau`ulu, I know we want connectivity for all the lots. As was mentioned, there's a portion that County-right-of-way stops at a certain point. Now, from that point presently right now, whatever connectivity is planned for the future, that would be the responsibility of Olson Trust? FUKE: No,the neighbors. AGUINALDO: Ah—okay. KAY: If I may, Mr. Chair. Just to address that and the question about Fire Department access, there are two things. Fire Department, Fire Code says that the Fire Department access road needs to be at least 20-feet wide, all-weather material. So, whereas the Subdivision Code allows for 16 feet of pavement, the Fire.Code requires 20 feet, so they would have to build it to the Fire Department access road standard. Again, it doesn't need to be paved necessarily, but all-weather access material. The second piece is right now, like I said, beyond 650 feet from the intersection with Wainaku. Amau`ulu Road is private. The reason that we thought to have a connection there is in the future, it leaves aside the possibility for the County to come in and possibly condemn a portion of that road to take over responsibility and then we would have connectivity there. It's not, it's possible that that connection to Arau`u1u would just be a stub-out at this point and not have an actual connection, but in the future, it leaves the option open for the County to come in and make that connection. 16 CLARKSON: But these roads, the cross, the connectivity cross— KAY: Correct. il CLARKSON: With the Wainaku mauka and then the H o-Hamakua direction, those would remain private roads? KAY: No, so— CLARKSON: —Those are— KAY: —Yeah, so the part of the condition says that those roads that are meant for connectivity would have to be built to County dedicable standards and""dedicated. CLARKSON: Okay. KAY: Yeah. CLARKSON: So, then the properties at the end at which those roads terminate would have access over those roads. KAY: Yes, at this point, but yeah— CLARKSON: Whenever they got dedicated and built? KAY: Right, but, you know, those could come down, but the others could, you know—there could be access-that's prohibited farther up, you know, as far as, `cause it's going to basically terminate with the mauka area It Would be going on then private property. It's just, we're setting aside the possibilityfor if in the future, the mauka area gets developed, then there's that connectivity built in. CLARKSON: So, Mr. Inouye is aware of this and that there will be a public road or at least going to Lot 31,which is the lot that surrounds his lot. FUKE: Correct. So, if and when that lot is developed, then I'm sure the County would require that they build a dedicable standard road and in due time, there may be connection to that land- locked parcel. CLARKSON: Thank you. If there are no further— AU: —One more question real quick. As far as utilities, we talked about water. What is the Applicant's plan for power, telephone, and cable? Do they plan to go underground or overhead? FUKE: Overhead. 17 CLARKSON: There being no further questions, thank you. At this time, we'll have public testimony. We have two people signed up. Jeno Enocencio and Dwight Vicente, would you please come forward? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? ENOCENCIO: Yes. VICENTE: [No response.] CLARKSON: Please let the record show that Mr. Vicente is unsworn, and you'll have three minutes. ENOCENCIO: Thank you so much for the opportunity. At my last testimony a couple of weeks ago, I did mention about the issues concerning hydrology. Has there been a hydrology study being done because of the—always there's flooding down at the lower side of Clem Akina Park which plugs all the drains and everything leading out to wherever it goes. The other part was concerning the access to the property and, you know, as more as I get to learn more about what's happening with the project, I see it as a gated community. Do'you see it as that? I see it as a gated community, and it's going to be subject to thosewho can really afford to be in that gated community. Now, when you look at, you know, ranch lands and, or farming lands and things like that, are these people whose gonna buy these properties—one acre, two acres, 20 acres, and stuff like that—are they really going to be doing livestock? Are they going to be planting things? Is it something that's going to be consumable, you know,for the general public? Is it something that they're gonna purchase out? Export? And things as such? You know, are they going to be hiring farmer and things as such? So, you gotta consider now, when you look at these roads and access, if you got cattle trucks coming in it might not be possible for, why it might endanger the people that's within the area that has area, you know,as far as, you know, access to their properties and to turn around and things like that as far as trailers. So, you gotta consider this, ok? You know, is the property gonna be used, because it's designated Ag, is it going to be used for agricultural purposes? Or is it just another gentleman farm lot? Okay? Now, the other part regarding the cemetery, the cemetery, okay, I was born and raised on Amau`ulu Camp Four, okay?.,We go all the way up to Camp Five. Until my dad died in '57, World War II veteran, because of his injuries, when he died, they closed up a lot of the camps. And, as to why they closed it up, I don't know, but the only Camp One was, what'd you call, where I live with my grandma after my dad died. Now, the thing about it is, that graves that's all over there, when I came back from Vietnam—there's that one minute thing—okay, when I came back from Vietnam, we were closing out a lot of the camps, and one of them was Camp One, the last one. And, the graves on the lower side where you're looking at right now, a lot of the bodies were exhumed. Now, where did they go? Are they stashed somewhere? Were they planted over in Alae Cemetery? Where? Where did they go? Okay? A lot of the people from the camps, Camp One all the way up to Camp Five, as well as Pu`u`eo, utilized that area. When I seen the 18 Banyan Tree, not a Banyan Tree, but a Monkeypod tree cut down, and then realized that a lot of, some of the bodies were exhumed, I'm not sure if it was family members or what,but unless you put notice into the paper that states, you know, you need, anybody that might be descendants of the gravesites and stuff like that, please come forward, so they, you know, bodies can—oh, not bodies,but the gravesite can be identified or something, okay? And, not only that, I don't know how SHPD can get, become involved without the Big Island Burial Council being involved as well as NAGPRA, and this is an act, this Federal Act,North American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. All these people gotta be involved. Not only that, I believe jurisdiction is under the State Department of Land and Natural Resources. They have to be also consulted as well as the Aha Moku Council, which is legislated by the State of Hawai`i Legislature, and it's I don't know, I forget what act they are under. But, anyway, thesepeople have to be consulted. So, you got a lot of work to do. As far as the hydrology thing also when we had our recent storm the past couple of days, it started filling up. I wish I had more time—. CLARKSON: Thank you. Well, thank you. Mr. Vicente? VICENTE: Good morning. My name is Dwight Vicente representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. I've heard false statements made that, I haven't seen any proof that C. Brewer owned the lands. C. Brewer was here under treaty, and the.1875 Treaty, what you call the Reciprocity Treaty, was not signed by King Kalakaua nor was it signed by the U.S. President, so the plantation business, American plantation business being here was illegal. And, there were only leasing the lands. How did they, it turned out lease to own? And, those lands are crown lands. You cannot sell those lands. So, that statement about they owned the land and now Ed Olson owns the land, is fraudulent. There's no document that shows-and there's no document showing that the Kingdom doesn't exist. The Kingdom didn't disappear. It's still here. Iolani Palace still stands. The people are still here. The people's native tenant rights to the land is still here. There's no document that extinguishes any of those rights whether it be the rights of the Crown to those lands and the rights to lease those lands. Ed Olson doesn't own the land. Neither did C. Brewer own the land. There's no treaty right now. The Reciprocity Treaty was illegal, so if you're American, you're an illegal alien here. All the other treaties ended in 1897, so if you come, your descendant or you came from another country, unless you've been naturalized to the Hawaiian Kingdom, you're an illegal alien. And, looking at this Commission, I happen to question your nationality, whether,you have jurisdiction over these lands. You gotta remember in 1898, these lands were not ceded to the United States. The leased lands had a contract on them, and they couldn't impair those contracts. ,The lands that was illegally ceded was the Crown and Government lands that did not possess a valid contract at that time, but under the U.S. Constitution, there is no authority, and the Republic of Hawaii was U.S. citizens who was here illegally. U.S. Minister Stevens committed crimes. Not war crimes, but criminal acts. Same with the other U.S. citizens. They had no right to be here. No right to commit those crimes. It's still a crime today, and this constitutional question is unresolved yet, so you cannot move forward. The Queen's protest of January 17 is unresolved yet. The only court that can deal with it because it deals with U.S. Minister Stevens is the U.S. Supreme Court. His acts was criminal, and the U.S. Supreme Court is the one that has jurisdiction over U.S. Minister Stevens. 19 • So, there's a lot of issues that are unresolved yet. And, in fact, her protest has yet to be resolved, a lot of the issues dealing with the protest. So, it's like a stay which you can't move forward, and I think this procedure should be at a stay, too. All the developments should be at a stay. So, with that, I'll reserve the rights of this Kingdom under the Queen's protest of January 17, 1893, against U.S. Minister Stevens has yet to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, original but limited jurisdiction. And, the other one is the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875. It was invalid because U.S., the U.S. President and King Kalakaua did not sign it. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you. Are there any questions for either of these testifiers? Okay, thank you both. ENOCENCIO: Thank you. CLARKSON: Is there anyone else that would like to testifier on this matter? If not, I'll ask for a motion that public testimony be closed. REPLOGLE: Would it be possible to speak with Mr. Fuke again? CLARKSON: Sure. HALL: Yeah, you should close public testimony first,,though. REPLOGLE: I would like to—I have a question for Mr. CLARKSON: —Well, let's—we can.do that after the closing of public testimony. AU: I move to close public testimony. AGUINALDO: I second. CLARKSON: All those in favor?. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Public testimony is closed. Now, if— REPLOGLE: —I would like— CLARKSON: —Mr. Fuke would please come forward? The Commission has that question, at least one question for you. REPLOGLE: It was, it was brought up in regards to, as I read it, that the one acre lots would be a transition from Urban to Ag, but it would be lighter ag, but as the testifier pointed out, the one- acre ag lots, and I've seen it, sort of become gentleman farms, but not really farms, and I 20 remember reading in the report that it will be incumbent upon the developer to be sure that anybody buying those lots, the 10,000-square acre [sic] lots or the 1-acre lots become completely informed that that is going to be agriculture right next door. So, if let's say that first acre lot in the middle on the bottom row was raising pigs, and the people in that subdivision don't like it, that's just too bad. They get to raise pigs on the one acre. Is that correct? FUKE: That's correct. That's, you know, of course, if you're doing a piggery, you know, subject to Department of Health rules and all that stuff REPLOGLE: Correct. FUKE: Yes, but then you do have that Right-to-Farm Act, so that prevails. REPLOGLE: Okay. I just wanted to be sure that that was a clear intent here. Thank you. CLARKSON: Any further questions for the Applicant's representative?`If not, is there a motion? FUKE: Mr. Chainnan, you know,just because this is already in the record, it's not new information, but I just kind of like, you know, in response to whether there were public notices on the cemetery portion. There was this,'you know, preservation plan that was prepared and submitted in conjunction with the application, and I was scanning through it, and then there was. a public notice about the burials. I think it was published in November of 2016. It's found in your packet. CLARKSON: Thank you. At this time, the Chair-will request a motion for action. AU: Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to make a motion. I move that we favorably, a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on application State Land Use Boundary Amendment, Docket No. 17-[0]00049 based on the Planning Director's recommendation shall be adopted. CLARKSON: Is there a second? REPLOGLE: Second: CLARKSON: Is there any discussion or any proposed amendments to this motion? If not, will you call the vote, please? KAY: Yes, thankY ou Mr. Chair. Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. 21 KAY: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: And Chair Clarkson. CLARKSON: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion carries five, nothing. CLARKSON: The next item on the— KAY: —Oh, we need to the rezone as well. AU: I'm prepared to make a motion, Mr:Chair. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for application Change of Zone Docket Rezone 17-[0]00223 based on the Planning Director's recommendation and amendment to Condition S which shall be adopted. CLARKSON: Is there a second? RAFFIPIY: Second. CLARKSON: Any discussion? KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.- Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. 22 KAY: And Chair Clarkson. CLARKSON: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion carries five, nothing. The discussion ended at 10:09 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission • 23