Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN LAAC 2024/06/18 (2022-2024)Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions 28th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii June 18, 2024 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions ORDER: was called to order at 11:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (came in later) STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Brenda Ford: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Janice Palma-Glennie: Bill 166 (Comm. 885), in opposition; and Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Bo Kahui: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in support. (representing Laiopua LCDC) Joel Gimpel: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. (representing Pualani Estates Homeowners Association) LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 Clare Loprinski: Res. 543-24 (Comm. 912), in opposition; Res. 544-24 (Comm. 913), in opposition; Bill 166 (Comm. 885), in opposition; and Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Simmy McMichael: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. John Powell: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Robert Harris: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Debra Ward: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Rebecca Melendez: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Marry Wakat: Bill 166 (Comm. 885), in opposition. Laura Johnson: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Wesley Moore: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in support. Lamaku Mikahala Roy: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Laura Aquino: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in support. Carolyn Pellet: Bill 166 (Comm. 885), in opposition; and Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Cindy Freitas: Res. 543-24 (Comm. 912), in opposition; Bill 166 (Comm. 885), in opposition; and Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Committee Members, of Business: the following items were taken out of order: STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Bill 169, Draft 2. PUBLIC ON BILL 169: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called (DRAFT 2) by the Chair: Anita Barker: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Elizabeth Dunn: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Page 2 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 Diane Blancett-Maddock: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. David Blancett-Maddock: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Patricia Van Every: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Renee Inaba: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Janet Matlock: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Peter Matlock: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), in opposition. Zahz Hewlen: Bill 169, Draft 2 (Comm. 896.5), comment. MR. ARACELLEY: Chair, those are all the testifiers you have for Bill 169. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Before we recess, can you please read the bill in? Bill 169: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 02-131, WHICH AMENDED ORDINANCE (Draft 2) NOS. 97-99, 94-34, 93-26, 91-96, 90-62, 88-4, 84-42, AND 84-23, WHICH RECLASSIFIED CERTAIN LANDS FROM UNPLANNED (U) TO MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — 5,000 SQUARE FEET (RM-5) AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL—15,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-15) AT HOLUALOA 1 AND 2, NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEYS: 7-6-021:004, 009-013, AND 015-017 (Abblicant: Kona Three. LLC) (Area: abbrox. 175 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its unfavorable recommendation for the applicant's request for a 10-year time extension to Condition I (Complete Construction of the First Increment on RM Zoned Lands) and amendment to clarify Condition N (Roadway Standards), which would apply only to Tax Map Key Nos. 7-6-021:016 and 017, consisting of a total land area of 67.162 acres. The subject properties are located along the east (mauka) side of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway at its junction with Kuakini Highway, between Pualani Estates subdivision to the north and Kona Vistas to the south. Reference: Comm. 896.5 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Postponed: June 4, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz, to recommend passage of Bill 169, Draft 2, on first reading.) CHR. INABA: Thank you. So, we do have the motion on the floor right now and we will take a recess for about 25 minutes, and we have to decide how we're taking up our next Committee, which is supposed start at 1:00 p.m. But Page 3 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 if we open that up, we'll get right back to this matter, Bill 169. So, we're in recess till approximately 1:00 p.m. Thank you. Recess: At 12:36 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 1:00 p.m. CHR. INABA: We have the applicant and the applicant's representative forward to make their statements, if there are any updates since our last hearing. And then we'll call on the Planning Department if there's any further comment, and then we'll open it up to discussion from Committee Members. So, good afternoon, Mr. Arai and Mr. Wheelock. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Daryn Arai and Applicant Richard Wheelock came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. ARAI: Good afternoon, Chair Inaba, Members of the Committee. Daryn Arai. I reside in Hilo and I'm assisting the applicant Kona Three LLC. With me today is Richard Wheelock, who should be sitting next to me. But also, in the audience is all the members of Kona Three LLC, Roland Higashi, and Robert Williams. We also have some of our consultants with us as well. Mr. Glenn Escott, Archaeology, and Mr. Keoni Kalawe is still here, and he can speak to H6lua slides. We are in receipt of Bill 169, Draft 2. We've discussed amongst ourselves that the applicant Kona Three LLC is amenable to Draft 2 as presented. So, we appreciate Council Member Inaba's efforts on Draft 2. There has been some testimony and how this project is 40 years in the making and questioning the ability of the applicant to move this project forward given the amount of time that has lapsed, but to put things in proper perspective, this request for a ten-year time extension has now taken nine years to get to this point. So, I think that kind of explains the amount of effort and time that is necessary to stand up a project like this. We stand ready to answer any questions the Council Members may have. Again, there have been concerns about the archaeological and cultural resources. We have Mr. Escott and Mr. Kalawe present at today's meeting, so please feel free to reach out to them as well. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Arai. Mr. Wheelock, anything to add at this time? No. Alright. Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow, wanting to check in with the Planning Department if there's anything you folks would like to add? Page 4 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 (Note: At this time, Planning Deputy Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Aloha, Chair, Member of the Committee. Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. I'm so used to the different groups we've got to speak to. Nothing to add further. Just to reiterate this particular project will bring much needed housing, both affordable as well as market. There's a nice blend of rentals as well as for sale units for this project. It is consistent with the General Plan (GP). It is consistent with the Community Development Plan (CDP), and the Planning Department has provided a favorable recommendation. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Deputy Director. With that, we will open it up for discussion from members of the Committee, starting here in Kona with Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Deputy Director Darrow, did this project get a positive recommendation from the Cultural Commission? MR. DARROW: It was recommended — MS. VILLEGAS: No. MR. DARROW: It was recommended that the project be preserved, but it also said that if that was not achievable or attainable that there was a condition to be added in the rezone. MS. VILLEGAS: Can I correct you on the fact that it did not say that the project should be preserved; it said that the land should be preserved. MR. DARROW: I'm sorry; that the land be preserved. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. So, they forwarded it to the Leeward Planning Commission. MR. DARROW: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: With a negative or a positive recommendation? MR. DARROW: It MS. VILLEGAS: It's a simple answer. MR. DARROW: It's a recommendation, it's advised Page 5 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MS. VILLEGAS: But it's a simple answer. Was it a positive or negative recommendation? MR. DARROW: It's a recommendation to put conditions within the particular application. MS. VILLEGAS: No. MR. DARROW: And again, they were asking that the land be preserved, but if that was not able to be MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, Director Darrow, that's enough. MR. DARROW: Thank you. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Today, we have the honor and privilege of having the foremost H6lua Sled Expert in the world here in Chambers with us, and he came in specifically to be able to answer questions. Council Member Galimba, you had some questions in a prior meeting about the documentation of cultural sites and specifically H6lua Sleds. Mr. Tom P6haku Stone is here today. If you gentlemen wouldn't mind stepping aside. I'd like to invite Mr. Stone to come forward and he is going to share with us his knowledge and the history of the studies he's done as this relates to this piece of property, and then will be available to ask questions from this Council or Committee. He also testified at the Cultural Commission and was integral in educating that Commission that did provide a negative recommendation for this property. And so, you know, we're sitting here in Committee, and either way, Bill 169 will move out of Committees and move into Council. But our job today is to decide whether it would move with a negative or positive recommendation. It's already received a negative recommendation from the Cultural Commission, and by way of skipping the Leeward Planning Commission and denying our community the opportunity to have further conversations and address the issues brought up by the Cultural Commission, they've now brought it to us. So, now our job is to decide if it moves forward with a negative or positive recommendation. So, with that, I'll go ahead and let you introduce yourself, Mr. Stone. CHR. INABA: Sorry. Right before you get started, if you could please introduce your name what matter you'll be providing expertise on today, and then any information that you do share, if you can have it be pertaining specifically to the project. (Note: At this time, H6lua Expert Tom P6haku Stone came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 6 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. STONE: My pleasure. I can do that. I'm Tom P6hoku Stone, III. There's been question about my lineal descent. Sarah Kanuha, who became a villain, is my great, great, great, tutu Wai`inu. So, that's my lineal descent, plus Kalaunui Ohua is my kupuna too. So, I don't believe I have to say much more of that, right. So, that's why I have an interest in this. So, if you go on and you really look at what I've done over almost 32 years to the date, that I've worked on our family knowledge of He`e H6lua. And that knowledge was compiled not only through my family, but it became my academic endeavors, journey, however you want to look at it, and I've studied and found, you know, every single slide that we could find in Hawaii and not one of them is identical. So, what brings me here is to clarify what was written by the developer, and I am anti to this development. It was written by the developer and presented as evidence from Keoni Kalawe, who was a student of mine on a project that Uncle Eddie and Aunty Pua Kanahele asked me to do. It was supposed to be a five-year educational project so there would be more teachers, more traditional cultural knowledge to share about this practice because in 1993, no one even knew what a H6lua was, what we were talking about, except for two individuals. One is my cousin Kawika, from Kohala, and the other was his kupuna `Omao. That's the only two people with the exception of my family, which was my grandfather who trained me in the art of that. And so, when I was asked to do that, Keoni was part of the project, so were several other guys, but no one stayed through that five-year time period that was mandated by the Kanahele Family. So, let's get that straight. I have all the H6lua's are not just linear straight lines. So, you've got to forget that. And the presentation that's presented inhere is incorrect. H61ua slides took many turns depending on topography and angles. And you're looking at H61ualoa, you've got to look from a native point of view of what you're looking at today because a lot of it has been developed. But what can we retain, what can we save, to provide that cultural information for our growing community and our growing visitors that don't come for just sand and ocean. They come also to get cultural knowledge, to experience it. And so, H6lualoa is a very unique place, and anybody can question whatever. I see it as I was presented from my family. So, Keolonahihi was a larger complex than what remains at Kamoa, or H6lualoa Bay as everybody calls Lyman's, right, because that complex, when Henry Kekahuna did the survey of it, that was probably about one-third of the complex left. That complex connects to several heiau's, which include Kealakowa`a, because as Hawaiians, as native peoples, we didn't just take things from the great mountains and the great trees. Those were living beings to us. So, we had to honor the transition phases, and if we go further to the mountain, what is it, 8,267 feet is the pinnacle of Hualalai, I believe, but somebody can look it up. I guarantee that's it. But up there, Umi, Umi-a-Liloa, creates the heiau that we Page 7 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 recognize there facing east at Mauna Loa, because Mauna Loa is an erupting volcano. So, he understands that and to appease the gods for taking these great trees, because our kupuna at that time were building voyaging communities to stay at, and you're talking about trees that are over 100 feet tall, with stone tools to bring them down, and that takes years. Years and hundreds and hundreds of man hours, or people hours. It wasn't just men working, it was women too. And along that way, every single slide that I've look at throughout the pacific, from here to Rapa Nui, to Aotearoa, to Tahiti, to Samoa, to Fiji, and Vanuatu, all have these same slides to move the great trees from the mountains. Their mountains out there to the west of us from Wai Hona is a little straighter, a little easier to work with. Here in a volcanic setting, this area is completely —it's all lava rock, right, it's lava zone. So, we had to construct, and this isn't Holualoa wasn't the largest slide in Hawaii. Kahikinui, on the Island of Maui, is the largest slide. And so, when I look through the paperwork and I looked at the presentation of my student and he's a good student, but, you know, sometimes you've got to be more educated right. You've got to take time. But what we see is that there's an attempt to eliminate this knowledge, and because I've studied it so diligently, so deep, that all these slides weren't for sledding originally. The great slides were constructed to move great trees. That's what they were. This artistic renderings that's, let's use her comment about them carrying these logs out of the mount. That was just an artist point of view. That didn't happen. And you're asking me how do I know this. Because when you write your thesis papers, you have to defend them, and in that defense, I had to prove what that sled was actually made for. I had to show that this whole system here in Kona, to archaeologist, because that's my original studies, was archaeology. I worked with Professor Patrick Kurtch, Roy Dickson, Terry Hunt, Patricia Macinanny, Dr. Green, you know, I've worked with all these archaeologists. I became, when they did the studies here in Hawaii, I was the cultural consultant. And I went on to study, you know, how things were laid out. So, what makes this whole place unique, and what we have left, we should make an effort to retain culture. So originally, it was the Kona Field System. All of you know what the Kona Field System was, right, or is? Some of it still exists. Everybody talks about all these walls going all over the place. Well, these walls, and I had to prove this too, you know, for my Committee, my professors, that were either give me my degree or not. We had to prove it. The Kona Field System was established for a purpose and that was moving water, because we all know Hualalai almost every day rains, and that little bit of water over time moves through rock and carries the water down. I had to prove that, right, by a drip system, built a model, everything. Drip system, and the water eventually began to flow out of this model. Page 8 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 Then, it's the construction of the Holua slide, so in these certain areas, where the trees were, all we had to do was fill in the ravines or whatever it might be with enough stone, work the topography to create the movement of the log like water. That's the principles of that. The linear concept of Holua sledding was the closest thing and, you know, I think as a teacher, as a kumu, my mistake, I should've shared more with my students at that time, which Keoni was part of. So, it was my shortfalls that, you know. But I am going to correct it because the Holua's are not just strict. You can go Molokai, you can go to Maui, you can go to Kauai, and you'll find all these slides that existed or still exist partially are different constructs, right. Puowaina, for example, you wouldn't even think because we see Honolulu down below. You wouldn't even think that the coastline, the ocean was right there at Puowaina and are sledding off of Puowaina went right into the ocean. And, you know, I could tell you a whole story about that but let's stick to the point. And the point is, is that we wouldn't go through such a tedious task as, and I'm going to use that, as what the rest of the world sees us, primitive natives. If we didn't have a connection to it. That's why we constructed the religious components, the ritualism components to go with Holualoa. We wouldn't name it Holualoa. As native people, we don't just throw names out. There's a reason. Just like Puapuaa, which is the ahupua`a right next to it, right, you could do anything. In fact, the purpose of those names is to record what's going on, what is going on at that time. So, for us, to just say we need housing. We do. But let's be realistic and, you know, it's not going to be affordable to native CHR. INABA: Mr. Stone, can I ask that you summarize at this time and then you can be available for questions should the body have questions specific to your expertise? MR. STONE: Please. Okay. CHR. INABA: Alright. Council Member Villegas, you still have the floor. Do you have specific questions? MS. VILLEGAS: Pohaku, is there a Holua slide on this property? MR. STONE: From my research over the years, and I was called there three times for the Holualoa Inn, to go over that property. I have walked that property. I've gone through Hualalai, up the mountain, followed what I could. What properties I could pass through going downhill was subject to, you know, whether or not the owners wanted to let me pass through, which most of them didn't. But what remains is definitely components of the Holua slide that was constructed there. I know that for a fact because the Kona Wall Field System, whatever you want to call it, that still exists. There was Thruston, yeah, the Page 9 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 missionary built his house right on the slide and the reason he did that is because he was an annexationist, and his portion goes right over this slide. MS. VILLEGAS: So, this is what's left of that sacred and important system that connected mauka and makai, and the ahupua`a for the sacred practice of canoe building? MR. STONE: Yes. It definitely was. I don't think it ever became something to slide on. It was just given that name because they were all given that name. It's just like people mistake Kanekau or Kaneaka because they carry two names, two meanings, which is at Keauhou. That slide was not constructed by Kamehameha. The slide that Kamehameha constructed for Kamehameha III, the birth of his son, was in Kahalu`u, just up from the beach. So, that's the mistakes we make when we make interpretations. Just like Edmund Ladd in 1966, did the same thing in his archaeological works out of, you know, through the National Parks Honua, right. And then Kaloko, it's the same thing. I did, you know, the research. And yes, it is sacred because canoe building was important to us, and we have to find a way to work with a concept of growth today that does not impede and further destroy the cultural part of what makes Hawaii really Hawaii. Let's be clear about that. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, P6haku. I'll go ahead and yield at this time so my colleagues can ask you some questions. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. I do want to request of the Planning Department when you folks get the chance to read for the record the letter as written by the Cultural Resource Commission (CRC). When you have that available, we can come back to you unless you're ready now? Alright. There's just been some discussion regarding what was forwarded by the Cultural Resource Commission, and I do want the record to be clear and correct. MR. DARROW: Thank you, Chair. Again, Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. I'll read the letter verbatim as far as the recommendations. Number 1: "Due to the historic and cultural significance of the property the CRC recommends that the property be preserved in perpetuity. In the event that this isn't feasible, the CRC recommends the following conditions be required to be completed prior to any development permit approvals by the County; a. In order to be integrated into the development design, the CRC recommends further documentation of lineal descendant and kama`aina knowledge of the natural and cultural resources of the project area, inclusive of trails; b. That the applicant, in consultation with the community, amend the current development plan to include larger open space areas that more sensitively integrate and protect the natural, historical, and cultural features of the landscape, including trails and other cultural sites, as well as natural features of the terrain such as drainage channels, and native plants." Thank you. Page 10 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 CHR. INABA: Thank you, Deputy Director. Thank you. I'm bringing it back. Council Member Evans, I think you had your light on? MS. EVANS: Yeah. When you're ready I had questions for the Planning Department. CHR. INABA: You have the floor. MS. EVANS: Thank you. So, I'm just curious because we're working off the current General Plan. In this particular area in the current General Plan, is it a zoning area that is kind of a transitional area where you have, let's say, an urban line next to an ag? So, urban zoning, ag zoning, no rural divide, no buffer area. Just kind of explain to me what direction you got from the General Plan on this. MR. DARROW: Sure, Council Member Evans. This particular area moving north south encompasses a General Plan designation of urban expansion. Urban expansion allows for quite a variety of uses including low -density, medium - density, high -density, as well as industrial type uses; it doesn't mention anything about agricultural type uses. There is a small portion of rural density that is located near the highway, but majority of the property is within the urban expansion as well as part of Kona Vistas and Pualani Estates. MS. EVANS: When you worked with the community and you're now looking at a newer version of the General Plan, the comments from the public, did it keep it in this designation as an urban expansion area or did it change? MR. DARROW: It's still going though revisions as we speak. This particular area has been a focus in discussions not only because of the location but actually the actual designation itself to try to see if we want to maybe decrease the amount of uses that we would identify in the urban expansion area. So, it's not solidified at this point. On this particular program I have, it does allow me to see what the General Plan was in the 1989 LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide) designation and it appears to be the same. MS. EVANS: Well, I think that's important to note that even in your time certain now, people, when you're talking to them about the revision of the General Plan, people are not wanting or not seeing that there's an urban expansion even with high -density. It sounds like you're getting that feedback already. MR. DARROW: It's a number of comments. It's a variety. It's not just one particular direction. MS. EVANS: Okay. Page 11 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. DARROW: Yeah. This is, again, the Kona urban area. MS. EVANS: So, I was looking at a couple of conditions that were written in the this affordable housing thing just really gets me going because, you know, when the Land Use Commission did their order, we're looking at ten percent. Was that the original Land Use Commission or did they go back in front of the Land Use Commission and take it from 30 percent or 20 percent and get an amendment. So, has it moved over the years from what its original affordable housing requirement was to where we're at today? MR. DARROW: My understanding is that was the standard back then, ten percent. They applied ten percent in the Land Use Commission. There was an amendment in 1993, which identified the 12 acre site as compliant with the affordable housing condition, but that has since changed. So, it's reverting back to the ten percent. MS. EVANS: Okay. Thank you. I just have to state for the record that I am not going to support this. And the reason for me, it really is disturbing that 40 years later, that they're asking for an extension and to ask them to try to build it out or to get things done within ten years, it just feels it's just not feeling right at all compared to where the community is at. I'm very familiar with the field system. I have actually gone and looked at the field system up on the top of, you know, up above, and seeing the importance of that field system in terms of how the water runs off and goes down. So, when I think of that area when I drive, and mind you I represent north and south Kohala, but when I drive into that area, the way I think about it is you have the ocean on one side, and you have the mountain on the other. So, everything we do is kind of a corridor buildout. If I was in Colorado, it would be a valley, right? If I was on a small island, it would be an island. But we already have these geographic restrictions on us and if we don't acknowledge the geography and what it's doing or whatever we do in that could adjust and change that geography. So, with the density, the way it looks, I just don't feel it's right for the area. So, I just wanted to state that for the record. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans. Heading over, checking in on Hilo? Alright, not at this time. Coming back here to Kona. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Planning Director, quick question. The 2005 General Plan would've been developed at a time after this original rezoning ordinance had been adopted. So, would it be reasonable to say that 2005 General Plan that we're operating off of is reflective of that rezoning? I'm thinking about our current process with our current General Plan where the LUPAG map is inclusive of ordinances that have created rezonings. Page 12 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. DARROW: The ordinance that was passed just prior to that would've been 02-131, which would've been the last time extension request prior to the General Plan. I would not agree with that statement in the sense that the urban expansion area again is like a swath over multiple areas, properties, and subdivision that have been approved being in the urban expansion area, not just this particular property, but properties to the north and properties to the south. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you for that response. To the applicant or applicant's representative, can you affirm the date of the traffic study that was most recently done? CHR. INABA: Mr. Stone, can you join the— and we'll have Mr. Wheelock come back forward. Thank you very much. MR. ARAI: I'm sorry. Council Member Kimball, could you repeat the questions again? MS. KIMBALL: Can you confirm the date of the most recent traffic study that was done with respect to this project? The comment was made during testimony that the traffic study was done during COVID (Coronavirus Disease). MR. ARAI: The final traffic study is dated November 30, 2021. I should note that while that's the date of the report, but the actual counts were conducted in 2019, before COVID. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. What was the basis of the decision that you or the applicant made to push this forward without Leeward Planning Commission having the opportunity to weigh in and therefore getting the negative recommendation by default? MR. ARAI: It was just basically due process. When the March hearing was cancelled due to lack of quorum, we reached out to the department to get a sense of when the hearing could be conducted due to the quorum issues, and they couldn't provide any assurance that a timely hearing could be conducted on the application. So, with that information, the applicant decided to make the request to forward this to the Council knowing that it would be accompanied by an unfavorable recommendation. MS. KIMBALL: So, to the applicant, you've stated that it's been a ten-year process, and you made the decision to forward this to us with the unfavorable recommendation, according to your representative due to due process. I'm not seeing the logic in that. So, if you could explain to me the basis of the decision to push forward from your side. Page 13 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. WHEELOCK: Councilwoman, we bought the property in 2015. We started working hard because we believed that Kona wanted and needed housing and roadways in accordance with the General Plan, the current zoning, and the Kona Community Development Plan for the official transportation network road expansion. We worked hard. We redid AIS's (Automatic Identification System). We did various studies. We did TIAR's (Traffic Impact Analysis Report). We went through many years of working hard. Once we got all those studies done, we went forward to the Leeward Planning Commission and we were referred over to the CRC, and we did another year and a half worths of work and reports during that period of time. So at this point and time, we don't really have a whole lot more studies to do. We did interviews with cultural descendants, lineal descendants, kupuna, kama`aina; we researched, we found surveys of Kealakowa`a from the 1800's. We've confirmed with kekahuna where the Kealakowa`a Trail is, and we were ready to go to the Leeward Planning Commission, but they were unable to hold a meeting for several months because they couldn't get quorum. So, we decided to go forward and see if the Council and the community wanted housing, because that's what we'd like to provide. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. I think you made a poor choice. I'll just say it right now. I'm struggling to find something I can grab onto to support other than the housing, yay housing, right. But everything else here is saying no. The testimony written and verbal, the Cultural Resources Commission. I'm very much a process person and so I'm looking for those reviews by other steps in the process, and I'm just Daryn, I have literally nothing I feel I could latch onto to say this is why I can support this going forward. I'd like to speak to Judge Strance, if I may? We've had discussion in the previous meeting about being able to send it back. We are not able to do that per your recommendation. I'd just like you to very briefly provide that response for the record and for the public. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Thank you. Elizabeth Strance. Corporation Counsel. The Hawaii County Code provides that if the Commission doesn't act after a period of 90 days that the applicant can choose to forward the matter on to the Council with an unfavorable recommendation. So, it is a discretion that the Code gives to the applicant and because it's a matter of applicant discretion, this body would not have the authority to overrule the choice of the applicant. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you for that explanation. To the Cultural Resource Commission's finding, Judge Strance, this is also for you. Sorry. Their finding, as Deputy Director Darrow read it, was that it was the area was preserved unless Page 14 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 infeasible, right, which is what he read to us. Who determines the feasibility or unfeasibility and by what measure? MS. STRANCE: Elizabeth Strance. Corporation Counsel. Feasibility would not be legal determination in it of itself. I'm not familiar enough with the rules to know whether that is a term of art within specific professions or whether it's an amalgamation of factors which would be made by this body. So, the short answer is I don't know. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. I don't know either so we're in agreement on that at least. Okay. That was my last question for you. I've also been curious, and I'm not sure who, maybe it's deputy director or Mr. Arai, the 22 units that are needed to be built based on what has already been constructed, what happens with that if this rezoning time extension does not move forward? MR. ARAI: Daryn Arai. The 22 units is an obligation not only to Kona Three LLC that owns some portion, but to my opinion, to all the owners within the Kona Vistas subdivision because those 22 units was actually an obligation associated with the development of that subdivision, not Royal Vistas. MS. KIMBALL: We don't have anybody from Housing I assume, on the call? Oh, we do. Alright Deputy Corporation Counsel Wan, do you have any answer to that? MS. WAN: I believe we also have Harry Yada. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. MS. WAN: And if you could restate the question? MS. KIMBALL: I'm looking for clarity about what happens with the responsibility for the 22 affordable units that were supposed to have been built previously. MS. WAN: Well, if this particular development is not cleared to go forward, if the zoning reverts, then it would have to be whatever other future development would be planned to go forward. So, that obligation would still be outstanding. MS. KIMBALL: Alright. Thank you. That's helpful. Again, I'm at a place where I just can't find the thing that makes this okay for me. It doesn't feel good. And I think that as much as I know that you guys have invested in this, you've got to try again, and you've got to follow process and take what you heard today from everybody and come back and try again. That's my recommendation. I yield, Chair. Page 15 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 CHR. INABA: Thank you. Further discussion here in Kona? Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. So yeah, this is a situation that really makes me sick a little bit. It makes me sick that our County gave the green light to build over 250 multimillion dollar estates for single-family before making sure that the multi -family affordable housing got built. That's not right. And it kind of just makes me sick to just see these two very wealthy communities, who are on either side of this parcel, coming forward saying we don't want this because it's going to cause us more traffic. I realize there's lots of other issues here but that particular argument, to me, is pretty upsetting because we do need housing. We need housing for people who can't afford to live in your developments. And even if it's not the most affordable, it's way more affordable than where you live. And so, there's just something wrong with this picture. And that being said, you know, I cannot really live with my vote going for another ten-year extension without guarantees that this multi -family affordable housing will be built. And I know there aren't any guarantees. There's still the possibility that this will be flipped, sold to a new developer for a profit. And I just, because of that and because it seems to keep on happening, I just don't feel like I can support it this time. But I hope people who took the time and came out here today will also take the time and come out to make sure that they support adequate affordable housing in the community and multimodal transportation issues because traffic is an issue for you. So, we really need support when come out and we try to do more bike lanes, with our mass transit system, that kind of thing. And I really hope that some of the folks here who care about the traffic will come out in big support for some of those things so we can make sure that we have that in our community. So, I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time. Sorry. CHR. INABA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I'm interested in the background on this. I read up on the project. I really do have questions. We had Cultural Resources come back unfavorable; we had the skip through the Planning Commission, and they sent you the unfavorable forwarding to us as the Council, but in reviewing the project, and what I've heard today from different people, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the historic uses and the state's standing and the preservation of anything that was historic on the property. I really just can't seem to put all the pieces together as far as how, if there are historic structures, trails, on the property, which I've seen both now, yes and no, and if so, how will it be preserved in the project. Can you shed some light on that for me, Mr. Arai? Would it be beneficial to have someone from the state assist with the questions? Page 16 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. ARAI: I'm sorry. I missed the last part of your question. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Please help me understand, but I'm also wondering if the state needs to provide more or documents on what is there and how we're preserving. MR. ARAI: You know, and maybe if you'll give me the courtesy to try to capture everything that has been said. There's a question about adequacy of process and we would like to clarify that this time extension request, the reason why it's taken nine years is because of the process. You have a time extension that triggered an environmental assessment, and in order to formulate that environmental assessment multiple studies had to be conducted; cultural, biological, archaeological, all that information was input, placed into the EA (Environmental Assessment), and it went through the Chapter 343 process, public review, public comment, applicant goes out, talks to the surrounding communities, then comes back, develops a final Environmental Assessment that was eventually adopted by the Planning Department and the finding of the significant impact issue. The applicant then took that information and prepared an amendment request for the time extension, filed it with the County Planning Department, and that also took its own paces, which included a deviation to the Cultural Resource Commission for a series of hearings. And now, the process is now before you. That span of time is about nine years. To say that there's a lack of process, I think it's really unfair because the amount of effort, the amount of studies, the reams of information that the applicant has provided, I think, in my thirty plus years in government, I've never seen a request for a time extension generate the level of information and volume of research that this project has conducted. So, a privilege was given to Mr. Stone to speak to Holua, right, Holua slide. We have Mr. Kalawe also in attendance, and he's been here for the past couple of meetings. So, I think it would be also informative for him to be able to speak and to provide you with information on his perspective regarding allegations that there is a Holua slide within this property. Each and every step along the way, concerns regarding archaeological sites, cultural resources, biological resources, endangered habitats, every step along the way the applicant has investigated and tried to provide that information in response in order to ensure that the Council is able to make its most informed decision. We have the material, and we want Council Members to be able to look carefully at that material, which does address some of the very concerns that are being raised by people who have testified. When something is raised, we are concerned, and we will follow up, and they have done so, which is demonstrated by the material that has been presented to you. Page 17 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 So, as far as archaeology, multiple studies, about four AIS's were conducted, reviewed by the state. Mitigation plans have been developed as well, including a burial treatment plan. There's I think one study or one plan that is submitted to the state but has yet to be formally accepted. But that, again, is like a mitigation plan. The archaeological survey itself has all been conducted and accepted by the state, and that state stands by its position that the applicant has done the necessary work to its satisfaction. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, no walls, no structures, no trails, nothings there of any value that needs to be preserved besides a potential Holua slide that I'm getting two opposing points of view and kind of rightly so. They're both on different sides. So, Holua slide aside, are there any other sites that need to be preserved on the property? MR. ARAI: There is a burial site that is going to be preserved and there is a preservation plan in place that has been approved. And again, we do have Mr. Glenn Escott, Consulting Archaeologist, and he is much more knowledgeable and can speak directly to those specific concerns if you wish to bring him up? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Who is that? MR. ARAI: Mr. Glenn Escott. He's our archaeologist and he's sitting right there to my left. Would you like to have him come forward? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yup. Thank you. Please introduce yourself. (Note: At this time, Archaeologist Glenn Escott came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. ESCOTT: Thank you. My name is Glenn Escott. I conducted this work when I was employed with Scientific Consultant Services. MS. VILLEGAS: Excuse me, sir, can you speak up a little. We can't hear you. MR. ESCOTT: Yeah. I worked for Scientific Consultant Services for about 25 years. I think I took a year off to go to work at Pohakuloa Training Area for about 10 months, 11 months. So, I've been here working on the Big Island for 24 years. So, the work that we did out there — MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm sorry, one more time, Scientific MR. ESCOTT: Consultant Services. Page 18 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Scientific Consultant Services. Thank you. MR. ESCOTT: So, if you have specific questions, I can answer them. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm just looking at the background report, and then looking for any sites that need to be preserved on the property, I mean, there is a burial and a mitigation plan. MR. ESCOTT: The original, the first archaeological inventory survey study was conducted in the early 1990's. I think the final report was accepted in 1993. That's one of the dates on the report. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This is by your MR. ESCOTT: Originally, the work was done by Dr. Hal Hammatt, and it was Cultural Surveys Hawaii, I believe, who did the work. So, then, you know, even when they went out there 1993, because that property had been used for cattle ranching for so long, they noted that there were probably more sites out there, or possibly, originally, and a lot of the sites had been partially damaged from train dragging or bulldozing. So, cattle ranching activities. There was a proposed cultural project that someone was going to do, so they actually bulldozed a portion of the project area. Not the southeast corner, but below, so makai of the southeast corner had been bulldozed, and you could see it clearly in numerous aerial photographs that were available to us. So, when we went out there, we did two studies. There's a five -acre portion of this property, which is the southeast corner, which was excluded from the original Cultural Service Hawaii AIS. So, we went out and did that, and that report was accepted in 2018. So, within that five -acres there were 22 sites. And then within the remainder of that property, the larger portion of it, there were 17 sites and one burial that had been reinterred in the early 90's. And of the sites, on the larger portion, seven of the sites were pre -contact era and eleven were historic era. So, the majority of the features that are out there are related to ranching, some agricultural, some coffee up in the northeast corner, and there were a couple of features associated with that. Also, the railroad burned, which will be preserved. And there were a couple of sites along the way that burned. The folks that we consulted with, we interviewed, they said that there were a couple of stops but people couldn't remember if they were stops right there at that property. But we did find a couple of small rock enclosures that looked like they were close enough to the railroad burn that they may have been used by passengers, places to wait when the train came by. So, when we got up there to do our work, we found that the work that had been done, the maps, and the photographs that were provided from the 1993 report, a lot of the sites had been further damaged by bulldozing, not within the last say Page 19 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 five to ten years, but maybe prior to that. But it's tough to say. I mean, we find we go to the location where a site was, there's a pile of rocks there, obviously, bulldozed. There's bulldozer scars on the rocks, so we know that, okay, the feature was there. And then some of the features, maybe half the feature had been removed. So, when we do our work, we have to look at it. We follow the regulations, the statutes and there's a process. As far as interpretation goes, there's a lot that goes into it. You'll find a feature and you look at the structure of it; how is it built, what's the shape of it, and that starts to inform how we interpret this feature. But then we also do excavations and that tells us a lot more. And as you're out there working you start to get clues from the environment, you know, where you're working. So, there's a lot that goes into it. It's not a 15 minute, you walk up and go, "Wow, this is really cool." There's a long process and there's a lot of research that goes into it as well. So, we have to look at titles, we'll do some titles, originally was there a land commission award, is it a land grant, who are the original owners, when was it sold. So, there's a lot of information that goes into the interpretation. And for us, I mean, I don't normally get involved. I don't get involved in what the project it. For me, it's what's on the ground and what's in the archive, you know, what informs, what are we looking at and what is the value of it? So, once you have a site you have to determine what's the condition of the site. So, all this information is provided to the State Historic Preservation Division (State Historic Preservation Division), and we also consult with them while we're doing the work. So, what's the condition of the sites and there's integrity, which is a different evaluation; setting, environment, feeling. There's seven different factors. So, if it's in good condition, if it has integrity, then we move to the next area of work, which is we make recommendations. And the recommendations are usually conducted. We do this in consultation with SHPD and then SHPD reviews our final report as well. So, you know, that's all to say that in this particular property, I've worked all over Kona. The site density isn't as high as some other places and the conditions of the site isn't as good. That doesn't mean that property doesn't have any value, especially cultural value. Cultural value is an independent, personal thing and if you speak with people who are from Hawaii, there'll be differences. Some folks will say, "Yeah, this place, I know it. My family, here's the story behind it. It's important to me, it's important to our family. Other people might not know it." And so, the work that I do, and I'm not here to contradict anybody because it somebody has an opinion or feels that something is important, then it's important. But I have to tell you that I can't make stuff up. If it's in the archive, which is unfortunate because the archive is not complete. If it's not, you know, if I can find something on an early historic map from say, 1850, that's good. But not all maps show all the trails or where things are. So, you know, I realize that Page 20 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 we're working with, what's the right word for it? We're working with resources that we can't always come to definite conclusions. Maybe the archive for a particular area isn't as complete as it is for another area. But that's to say, you know, the work that I do, I don't make it up and I don't change it for a property owner to help a project or for people, folks who are against a project. That's what this process is for, and I've seen it work in the past where there's public testimony, consideration, goes through a whole process. The work that I do is just a small part of that. So, as far as, you know, there's a couple of things. You know, I think originally what happened was there was a member of Na Ala Hele and someone from the Ala Kahakai National Park Service who testified that there was a set of double walls that was absolutely H6lua. And then when we pulled up, we had the original meets and bounds description from 1851, and we have the original map, the surveyors map from 1853, and originally this was done in chains. A chain is about 125 feet. So, we looked at the angles, we looked at the lengths of these boundaries, and we can tell right there where we're looking at those walls, they match the boundary of this land commission award 3660, was awarded through John Mun. He was a herdsman, lived on the property for I think about 20 years. The property was owned. It was in elder Kuakini's family. Elder Kuakini sold it to John Mun. So, John Mun, his wife, and his sister-in-law lived there. And the description information we have says that it was bounded. So, we know that there was a rock wall around the boundary of this property, and we know that this rock wall matches this. That's not to say that maybe somewhere else, you know, there's something else. But this particular area, we know what these walls are from. We know from the construction on this wall that they're historic area walls. So, that's clear. There's another area where there's a possible they're two walls. They're not exactly parallel. And it looks like one wall was built first, the southernmost wall and it goes down the boundary kind of near the gulch. There's a gulch on that one side, which is a drainage and I think it might be owned by the state. I'm not sure. So that wall came down and then at some point another wall was built and just a section of the wall. So, that wall has different construction and it's in much better shape, and it was probably maintained, and they tied it into the other south wall. So, all that information is in the work that we did. It's within the studies and I know there's a lot of information, a lot of, you know, I'm not making it up. It's just whatever pertinent information we found for this property and also surrounding property, and their access easements and trails. And I think the most important thing is, you know, not to say that they put any other trails, but the Kealakowa`a Trail. So, we've located that based from original land grant, survey maps, and also meets and bounds description where they've actually wrote it out. So, we know where it went and we know where it Page 21 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 came down, and it came down where Lako Street is now, and then continued down. So, Henry K. Kahuna MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, we cannot hear Mr. Escott. CHR. INABA: If you can please speak into the mic? MR. ESCOTT: Sorry about that. So, Henry K. Kahuna, who was an archaeologist, and he did a lot of the sketches and plan view mapping for heiau's, especially in this area along the coast. But also, he did a lot of work at Kealakowa`a Heiau. And he put on his maps, there's a description where the trail comes out, roughly about 100 feet south of Kealakowa`a Heiau, and then it continues down. It's shown clearly on the 1924 and 1928 USGS (United States Geological Survey) maps and 1928 strip map the state has, and it might be on the 1972 or the 1995 USGS maps as well. So, that's not to say there aren't other trails in the area, but that trail seems to be the one and there is an access easement. It's a separate easement, a trail easement, it goes all the way above Mamalahoa and then heads up towards Hualalai, and then it's cut off. But it comes all the way down and then portions of that easement are no longer being shown on people's property TMK (Tax Map Key) maps. I don't know why or how those thing fell out or weren't recorded after that time. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Is that heiau or the trails on the property we're talking about? MR. ESCOTT: No. I can show you. I think we have a —well the thing is CHR. INABA: You'll need to stay in front the mic. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, can you please restate your question? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm looking for the heiau or the trails as they may lie or may not lie on the parcel we are talking about. MR. ESCOTT: If it's possible, I can bring this up? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. MR. ESCOTT: Okay. I just going to describe this. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. MR. ESCOTT: Project area is here. CHR. INABA: Please speak directly into the mic. We have members joining us from Hilo. Page 22 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. ESCOTT: The project area is here. There's a gulch here. This is Kealakowa`a. It's bonded by red. And then this is Kealakowa`a Trail. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. MR. ESCOTT: And there are other maps within that report, USGS maps that show the full length of it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, these sites that you're talking about lie outside of the project area? MR. ESCOTT: That's correct. Kealakowa`a is south of the subject property. MR. ARAI: Chair Inaba? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Which has already been bulldozed and built over by a different subdivision, correct? MR. ESCOTT: That's correct. And there are properties above this property where the trail easement once was. And like I said, they're not even shown on the TMK property maps anymore. I don't know how that happened. CHR. INABA: Mr. Arai. Sorry, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mr. Arai, did you have a question? MR. ARAI: Just a point of information. A lot this information that's being discussed now was provided to the Council from the applicant about a couple weeks ago, so it's in your record if you wish to use it. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. ESCOTT: I'd also like to point out, I did see some of the figures for the PONC (Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation) submission. CHR. INABA: Okay. I'm going to ask if, Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder, if you have any questions, folks can answer but I want to keep things rolling along. So, questions just be answered and continue. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Okay. So, 22 sites? MR. ESCOTT: 22 sites on the five acre. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And 17 sites and one burial reinterment on the larger parcel? Page 23 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. ESCOTT: Right. So, the reinternment took place in the 1990s conjunction with the Planning Department, Burial Counsel, and the property owner, so it's no longer. And then that area was, the feature associated with the burial, so the rock platform has been removed or was removed at that time. So, we know where the area is but there's no features there and there are no burials there. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And this was before the current owners? MR. ESCOTT: That's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And you can tell that? MR. ESCOTT: Yeah. We have all the paperwork between —we have the letters between the former property owner, the Burial Counsel, and the Planning Department regarding that reinternment. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I yield for now, Chair. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Coming back to Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Is Harry Yada still on Zoom? Housing. Hello there. So, I know that you were part in this discussion because of the affordable housing requirements and getting the issuance of a plan approval CHR. INABA: Council Member Evan, can you please speak directly into the mic? MS. EVANS: Okay. So, you put together the housing agreement. Is that correct in this project? (Note: At this time, Assistant Housing Administrator Harry Yada came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YADA: Yes. MS. EVANS: Okay. Does the housing agreement —would it allow them to buy affordable tax credits? MR. YADA: Maybe Sylvia can comment on it. My understanding is that the agreement is not effective anymore. Sylvia, are you there? MS. WAN: Yes. Sorry. I was having a couple of technical issues. Yes, I'm here. As far as the there is an affordable housing agreement that had contemplated the use of credits. However, that particular agreement is moot and will need to be amended if this ordinance passes. And my understanding is that Page 24 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 with the Draft 2, it specifically outlines that point Number 3, under Paragraph W states that the prior affordable housing agreements related to 02-121 shall be replaced and amended to have left its conditions in this new bill, if it passes. I would note that that agreement was to try to meet the Land Commission requirements and was subject to the Land Use Commissions approval of the meeting requirements in that way. MS. EVANS: If you proceed with amending it, do you have to go back to the Land Use Commission? MS. WAN: No. MS. EVANS: Okay. CHR. INABA: So, to answer your question, Council Member Evans, no. Excess affordable credits cannot be used to satisfy the requirements as set forth in this ordinance. MS. EVANS: You know, I'm still not supporting this, but I felt it was really important following with Member Kagiwada's statements about, you know, just affordable housing and making sure we're always asking questions about affordable housing so that we start to think about what our barriers and what we need to do to get more affordable housing. Thank you. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. I'm going to head over to Hilo to comment at this time. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, Chair. CHR. INABA: Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Is Keoni Kalawe still in Kona? CHR. INABA: Yes, he is. Mr. Kalawe, can you come forward please? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I just want to address some of the statements that were shared by Pohaku Stone, who I completely respect and admire, total legendary waterman and cultural practitioner. But, you know, I've known Uncle Keoni for a long time and after the last Committee meeting, you know, we got to debrief and he shared with me, you know, "Ash, I don't actually support this project, but I was asked to come in with my expertise in working with heiau and holua, and to take a look at what was on the property and to make an expert determination." So, Uncle, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to address that and kind of confirm the work that you did on this project site and confirm your findings. Page 25 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 (Note: At this time, Keoni Kalawe came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KALAWE: Aloha. My name is Keoni Kalawe. I'm from Puna. I live in Kaniahiku Village. And I just want to share a brief summary and history of who I am and who are my kupuna. So, my kupuna was Kuamo`o Mo`okini. He lived during the 1200. He was the first Kahuna kuikuipuole or architect in Mo`okini Heiau and also Lahaula Heiau. He also designed kahuah6lua or h6lua slides. So, that's my lineage from Kuamo`o Mo`okini. I briefly collaborated with Tom Stone 20 years ago on h6lua and it's been roughly about 20 years since we've collaborated on h6lua, in which time I have worked of several kahuah6lua or h6lua slides in Kona, in Kohala, in Hilo, in Puna. I actually work for a renowned archaeologist, Tom Dye, for almost 10 years. And we were tasked through Kamehameha Schools to work on several of their h6lua slides, and in which time I had the opportunity to work in detail on the h6lua slides and how it was built. It was really comprehensive on how they built the h6lua slide and also the determination of the alignment of each h6lua slide. Each h6lua slide, you know, majority of them, went into the ocean into the bay. And you could bring down h6lua on either side into the bay, you're going to find a cave. Also, when they constructed with the kahuah6lua, it was aligned with the equinox. If you go to Kaneaka, you can see the movement of the sun through the years. Kaneaka wasn't the original h6lua slide built in the area. The first h6lua slide built there was pune and it was built for lonoikamakahiki. Currently, I'm working on Kaneaka and also about two or three land divisions oahupua`a, away from H61ualoa and there's another h6lua slide I've been working of for four years. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Kalawe. I'm going to ask Council Member Kierkiewicz if she can, you know, ask specific questions. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Uncle Keoni, I really appreciate your presence and you clarifying things for the record. I have a question for the applicant, Mr. Wheelock. There's been a lot of question about your intentionality as a hui to actually sell or develop the property and just want you to confirm for the record what your actual intention is. I feel like you folks have worked really long and hard to get to the position that you're in, and it seems that you have every intention to develop. But I just want to hear that for myself and to ensure that it's been recorded for the record. MR. WHEELOCK: Thank you, Council Member. My intention is to stay involved with the project until it's built. I'm the youngest of the three of Kona Three, and I'm in my 70's. So, depending on how long the process takes, we're ten years into it. We got one Council Member saying we took too long; another Page 26 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 one says we should go further. So, I'm not sure how long it'll take. Time from God above given to me, then I will see it through. We've never had any other intention to sell. We've never talked to anybody about selling it. We've never talked about STVRs (Short -Term Vacation Rental). There's a lot of things that are out there that we simply have not discussed internally. My senior partner's probably not going to be around to see it through. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. So again, and I just want to clarify, you acquired the property in 2015 and over the last nine years, you didn't sit and do nothing. There was a lot of due diligence, many different studies and processes on the County and state level that you've had to navigate, and I think this nine years of work really illustrates how long it actually takes for these kinds of projects to get done, especially in this particular scenario where you have a zoning that is stale because the previous developer failed to take action on what they were supposed to do with that particular development. MR. WHEELOCK: It has been a long process. We had to update archaeological reports, cultural reports; there was a burial found in an updated report. We did the burial treatment plan. We worked on the preservation plan; we did the environmental assessments, two TIARs, on and on and on, and more recently we've done a lot of studies on trails and roads. And it does take quite a while, yes. Buying the land is frankly the cheap part. The $20 million in benefits to the County is one of the substantial costs of doing projects on the Big Island these days and the affordable housing component is a big part of that. We'd like to see it through. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. You know, Uncle Bo Kahui testified earlier there was an aunty in a neighboring subdivision and couple braddahs that were testifying about how important it was for a project like this to advance because we need the housing. They want the housing, they need the housing, and I certainly don't want to penalize you for the prior landowner and developer for not taking action. I think about the significant inventory, the 250 additional units that will be added to the market. And I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that we're actually operating as a deficit here in the County when lava took 700 homes in my district six years ago, the County didn't move forward and build 700 additional homes. So really, we're working at a deficit amidst this housing crisis, and I think often times folks get caught up in the fact that every single project is supposed to be the project that saves us in this affordable housing crisis. But I believe that every single opportunity that we have to add inventory really does help to relieve pressure on the market and makes housing more, not just affordable but attainable for local families. So, I will be supporting the project moving forward. And I know that Council Member Inaba has an amendment to make, so I look forward to that discussion. Thank you, Chair. I yield. Page 27 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. Council Member Lee Loy, anything right now? MS. LEE LOY: Not at this time, Chair. CHR. INABA: Alright. Thank you. Coming back here to Kona. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Aloha. Thank you, Chair. I consistently kind of baffled by what happens in these meetings. I have heavy concerns hearing from my colleagues that they're searching for that reason to say yes instead of recognizing the obvious reasons to say no. I've worked hard with my community. I'd like to, for the record, make a correction. The homes that are in Pualani Estates and in the Vistas are not estates. They're single-family residential homes that were built a long time ago and that have now been now are valued at, heck, anything, a coffee shack is a million dollars now in a certain locations. None of that to the fault of being the people who live there. I actually grew up, after living up Kalau, moved off of Kalani Sunset, when the vistas were all cattle land. So, I've watched that all come into existence. So, what I'm asking from my colleagues today is take a look at the things we've seen today. We've had the cultural commission take into consideration the testimony of cultural experts and community and provide a negative recommendation, and the recommendation that this property be protected in perpetuity. The property is currently listed on the PONC list and has been offered to be purchased by the County where it would be protected in perpetuity. There's always challenges and when I look at historically, people that are hired by a developer to create reports, there is too much room, unfortunately, for questionable reporting and its accuracy when people get paid to tell a story that supports what the person who paid them wants it to say. We have major flooding issues. Before you is a map of the North Kona floodways and our flood corridors. This is a state map. Two major flood corridors go through this property, and the buffer that you see around those major corridors is the requirement for health and safety. They pretty much take up the whole property. A gentlemen sitting in the audience today lives just makai of the current culvert, and without any changes to this property his home is still nearly washed out every time we get a major rain. Some Council Members have expressed concerns about this being nimby. The people that live makai of the highway here live in homes that were built in the 1960s. These are our kama`aina. These are our maka`ainana. And these are the people who would be flooded out. When looking at our waterway, today there is something in Civil Beat about the need for Honolulu is looking back at the major Page 28 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 water and flood corridors, and how do they go back and rectify the issues that's been caused by development in those areas. We have an opportunity to prevent those issues. Not all of them, obviously. I've heard a number of times here today, be denied that any of the significant cultural sites or paths or holua actually exist on this property. But at the same time they've admitted that they used to exist on the properties that were bulldozed. There's frustration with the affordable housing not having being built first. This was in the 1980s. Kona was being sold down the river. Large tracks of land were being sold off, and everything was being approved of. And so, no, we didn't require that the affordable housing got built first or the multi -family units. But it sure seems wise that you bulldoze any potential significant cultural sites before anybody noticed any of those. This was a time when the Hawaiian language was just beginning to return to us. This was a time when those of lineal descendancy were actually given support and acknowledgement and provided pathways in order to learn and perpetuate. This community has asked for an open space corridor and this piece of property —excuse me, Chair, just one more thing to finish. This is a perfect piece of property for that. What lies makai of that dropped down to the shoreline is Puapua`a, which the open space fund has purchased 13 acres, and there is connectivity between all of these spaces and the cultural practices. There was greater value for a boarder community in protecting and perpetuating these spaces so that my mo`opuna and your mo`opuna's mo`opuna could walk this land and it not be townhomes that I don't believe my children could ever afford. I just have one quick question for you, Mr. Wheelock. Is the funding secured yet for this development. MR. WHEELOCK: We own it free and clear. MS. VILLEGAS: That's not my question. My question is whether or not the funding has been secured to develop this project. MR. WHEELOCK: We don't know what the project is or if there is a project. So, the answer is no. MS. VILLEGAS: So, that is my answer there. This is all speculation and prospecting. And for that, I ask for the support of my colleagues, for my constituents, for my community of all demographics and all diversities, know no project is going to fix everything and continue to do the same thing we've done is insanity. And this project does not operate on any other different paradigm than what we've done historically in Kona. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. Page 29 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MS. GALIMBA: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask about the amendment. Is that upcoming? CHR. INABA: I don't have an amendment. MS. GALIMBA: You don't have one. So, it's the Draft 2 that's in front of us is? CHR. INABA: Yeah. Bill 169, Draft 2. The motion currently on the floor is to forward to Council with a favorable recommendation. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. And Draft 2, from what I understand, provides greater requirements or assurances around affordable housing, is that correct? CHR. INABA: Draft 2 just clarified what was unclear in Draft 1 and attempted to put together language that encompassed both the State Land Use Commission's order and the requirements from Chapter 11 of our Code. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. What I would like to do is I'd like to get a little more clarity around the affordable housing commitment within this bill and this project and perhaps, Mr. Arai, it looks like he's willing to answer that. MR. WHEELOCK: Are you asking about an affordable housing commitment or about the history? MS. GALIMBA: The commitment at memorialized in Draft 2 of Bill 169. If you have any other information around that, please go ahead. MR. WHEELOCK: Regarding the commitment, at this point and time, pending approval of the project, we've been discussing 112 credits to be satisfied on site by the construction of 67 units, all of which will be sold to affordable range, low and moderate. I believe that's the discussion we've had. Please correct me if I'm wrong. MS. GALIMBA: Go ahead, Mr. Arai. MR. ARAI: So, again, just to clarify, should the time extension be approved then the applicant would be obligated to provide up to 112 affordable housing credits. But keep in mind that also the decision and order by the Land Use Commission compels the applicant to provide up to 67 affordable units on site. Because of the way the language is within the decision and order compared to Chapter 11. So, there's 67 on site units and then another 45 credits, affordable housing credits, must be earned by the applicant in order to satisfy the Chapter 11 requirements. That is expected to be imposed should the request be approved and includes the 22 units from Kona Vistas. Page 30 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MS. GALIMBA: The 22 is included in 112, or included in the 45? MR. ARAI: The 67 includes a 45 at 10 percent and the 22 at 10 percent, the units. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. MR. ARAI: And there's an additional 45 credits that has to be earned by the applicant, which comes out to 112. MS. GALIMBA: When you say, has to be earned, at what point does that have to be? MR. ARAI: All depends on the number of units actually constructed by the applicant. MS. GALIMBA: Gotcha. So I've heard the number 450 units. MR. ARAI: Correct. MS. GALIMBA: Is that the max or is that what is actually planned? MR. ARAI: 450 units is what's actually planned and that's based on the number of available water credits. MS. GALIMBA: Gotcha. And so, the 112 would be part of that 450? MR. ARAI: At the very least 67 units will be built on site and the additional 45 units that must be earned by the applicant, that can be satisfied by whatever means that Chapter 11 allows, which could be off -site credits. A number of opportunities. CHR. INABA: I'm going to ask Deputy Wan to answer your questions because she's done probably the most comprehensive review of the requirements, and it's a legal matter. So, Deputy Wan, if you want to just give a summary to Council Member Galimba and the body? MS. WAN: Sure. As far as the Land Use Commission requirement that was the Land Use Order from 1984, that particular Land Use requirement is a state requirement that requires 10 percent of the units to be built on site of the overall units. And so, that's why we keep talking about units, is because the Land Use Commission Order specifically requires 10 percent units. Now, that particular requirement predated our Chapter 11, thus it did not appear in their prior ordinance from 2002. Chapter 11 as we know it didn't come into effect until 2005. So, if they do go forward and this particular application is granted and a Page 31 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 new zoning is put forward with this ordinance, then yes, Chapter 11 will need to apply. So, for Chapter 11, it requires 20 percent affordable what is calculated by earning affordable housing credits. And that particular means of credits is how you can earn credits is under 11-5, and it provides a number of options for the applicant including constructing and selling affordable units on site, constructing and renting affordable units on site, constructing and renting affordable units off site but within 15 miles, constructing and selling off site within 15 miles. There's also options for donations of property and donation of infrastructure within the units but I understand that they're not necessarily contemplating those options. And last and foremost, is the obtaining excess credits from a different developer that would have to be obtained within 15 miles of the site. So, those options would all be available to meet the Chapter 11 specific requirements. So, because the requirement for the Land Use order is already 10 percent, the additional 10 percent from Chapter 11 could be met by other means that are available under Chapter 11. So, that's why there's a little bit of confusion because the Land Use Commission order isn't requiring the exact same thing that Chapter 11 will be requiring. So, I'm sorry, I guess I need a little bit more questions before I start prodding on. Council Member Galimba, does that answer your question? I can also expand on any of that. MS. GALIMBA: Seems pretty clear to me. Thank you for that. I'm a little confused because the part about the excess credits seem to be precluded by the language in this Draft 2. Is that true or not, or am I misunderstanding? MS. WAN: So, excess credits, theoretically, could only be purchased and applied only for the Chapter 11 requirements specifically. It cannot be applied for the Land Use unit provisions. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. MS. WAN: Yes. So, in this instance, under the current draft, Draft 2, Kona Three will be required at base minimum to provide 22 units of affordable housing built on site. Any future development, they would have to include another 10 percent of units built on site. What they have informed you today is that their current plan is for 450. Ten percent of 450 will be 45 units. That's why the applicant was talking about a minimum of 67 units being built on site because that's the minimum required by the Land Use Commission. There could be more depending on how they choose to meet their Chapter 11 requirement, because Chapter 11 does allow them to also construct and sell or construct and rent and sell particular AMI's (Average Median Income) to ear certain levels of credits. Those credits range from .5 credits to 2 credits. And overall for the Page 32 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 450 unit development, they will be required to earn a total of 90 credits. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you very much. I'm going to yield for right now. Thank you very much for the information. CHR. INABA: Alright. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder and then I'll share my thoughts. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: For Jeff Darrow. Okay, Jeff. Here's my questions. Listening to the Council, what happens if this doesn't pass today? MR. DARROW: We briefly touched upon this at our last meeting. The original zoning was unplanned. In our 1996 Zoning Code update, all unplanned on the island was changed to Agricultural five -acre. There still needs to be an action that's completed, whether it's reversion to its original zoning or a more appropriate zoning. And again, that's an action that needs to be taken. It's not something that automatically occurs. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, if this didn't happen today, actually it would go to Council unfavorably or favorably. It's one or the other. No matter what it's going to Council. The next step would be that if it didn't pass at Council, it would potentially be redesignated back to unplanned, which is Ag-5? MR. DARROW: It would remain as it is currently, which is in limbo. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: In limbo until either the Council, the applicant, or the Planning Department brings it back to the Council to say, "We want to do this with this land." MR. DARROW: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And at that point, if it did just proceed from there, it could be brought forward as anything? MR. DARROW: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I could be brought back as anything; Ag-1, RS-15, or what would happen? MR. DARROW: It should be consistent with the overall criteria for approval for a change of zone for this particular area. But again, the wording in the language, which I believe is in this ordinance, I'd have to refer back. The normal language is it's usually a result of conditions not being met. In this case, this has expired. It's in limbo and it needs additional time to be able to move on. So again, it Page 33 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 could be reverted back to its original, which at this point would be considered Agricultural 5-acres or a more appropriate zoning. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, if it doesn't pass Council, it just goes back to being in limbo in the form that it's in now? MR. DARROW: Correct. If I could just real quick. Looking at the original ordinance out of 02-131, the top portion of Bill 169, Draft 2, has the original conditions striked out. And Condition U is a normal administrative time extension. But it says at the end of that, "Further should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the director shall initiate" —it doesn't say shall, unfortunately. It just says, "The director initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation." But that's the current language now. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, that still applies to right now. If the time extension fails, we go back to Condition U from Bill 169, Draft 2. MR. DARROW: It would be actually Ordinance 02-131. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ordinance 02. Thank you. And then in Condition U in that document, time extension doesn't get met, director initiates a reversion back to original zoning or more appropriate zoning? MR. DARROW: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: If that happened, what would that be? Because we've got a General Plan, we have everything we talked about earlier. MR. DARROW: As mentioned, I mean, it's urban expansion as far as the General Plan, which gives it a wide variety of options. It would be a discussion that would need to be done not only with myself but the staff as well as the applicant. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. CHR. INABA: And I'd like to clarify, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. The County Code allows the director or the Council to initiate reversion or, you know, changing the property to a more appropriate zoning. Thank you. MR. ARAI: Mr. Chair? CHR. INABA: It's 25-2-44E. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Mr. Arai? Page 34 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. ARAI: That's okay. Not to complicate things any further but also keep in mind that in earlier part of this year, we were compelled to appear before the State Land Use Commission for a status hearing, and during that proceeding, it was about five hours I believe, where they carefully went through and questioned us on Kona Three's ability to satisfy their conditions of approval because their expectation is that they classify these lands to urban in 1984 and they want to, no different than you, ensure they applicant or petitioner satisfies their expectations regarding the urban reclassification. So, that is something that also weighs on the applicant as well. It's not only the zoning conditions. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I yield, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Alrighty. I think we can kind of see where this is going. But I'll head over to Council Member Kagiwada, then Villegas, then Kimball. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Deputy Planning Director, just something that was said earlier that units could be used for Short Term Vacation Rentals, or TARS (Transient Accommodation Rentals). Is that a real possibility that some of these could be used for that? I'm understanding that kind of once it's developed and built and everything, it's kind of out of the developers' hands. And then if it's condomized, then it's out of everybody's hands, that's allowable or would they still need a special use permit? MR. DARROW: Right now, as we all know, we're going through Bill 121 which will radically transform our Code regarding STVRs. Currently, without that bill they'd pass at this time, STVRs are allowed in RN (Residential Neighborhood) zonings as long as they've been condominiumized. So, if that's the case it would be option of a permitted use. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. If Bill 121 passes, what would be the difference? MR. DARROW: The difference is it would still be permitted as unhosted or hosted as a permitted zoning. So, it would allow both. But keep in mind too, that the applicants proposed request includes wholesale rentals as well as rental units. MS. KAGIWADA: Sure. Okay. Great. And then it seems like there's nothingI do really respect that these gentlemen want to build affordable housing. I've met with them. I understand that. But there is nothing that prevents them, once getting this if they were to get a ten year extension, of turning around and selling. Is that correct? MR. DARROW: Yeah. I mean, there's nothing that —but that goes with any application that comes before us. Page 35 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MS. KAGIWADA: Right. And I understand, you know, why my colleagues said we don't want to penalize people for previous owners behavior, which is true, very true. But at the same time, we have to learn from the fact that this has been done I will say to us, to our community, over and over again. And so if we don't at least consider that as a possibility given the history, maybe not of these particular individuals but of developers in general over and over, over time, we have to at least consider that that is a real possibility. So, I just wanted to state that, you know, for me it's just really hard to, even though I like the idea of the workforce housing, it's just really hard to get past the fact that our system is set up so that there are really no guarantees for us that this will get built and that it won't end up being a lot of vacation rentals. So, I hope we can continue to work on the way we do business and to try to get things, you know, built in a way that is good for our community and make sure that, you know, maybe some of these —I'll say it again, workforce housing gets built first and then when we see that that works well and that it get built, then we allow some of the other more profitable development part to go forward. But yeah, for me it's this ongoing thing that we just keep doing the same thing and it's upsetting. Okay. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. We're actually going to head over to Council Member Lee Loy. You haven't spoken yet. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. Thanks, Chair. You know, I'm in support of this project for reasons that I think people like Daryn, Jeff Darrow, Rick Wheelock, Roland Higashi, and Bob Williams will understand. Community provides voice and that voice begins to transform legislation. And I remember back in the day when Pualani Estates was actually going through its process because I actually worked for the environmental team that put together the EIS (Environmental Impact Study), and ironically, there was people against that project. And today the people who live in that project are asking us to vote down an adjacent potential housing project. But we gave them a chance. And that's where I land. All of the issues that they want to solve around infrastructure, preservation of cultural sites, that's handled through this process. I heard my colleague say, you know, why didn't they wait at Planning Department? Well, they didn't wait because past Council's put in legislation like concurrency policy, so that they had to have water to give timely effectuation of the infrastructure being built. I'm a little different. I've been around this work going on 30 years now, and this is the nut we have to crack to start solving the problems. I sat and I watched a testifier talk about this housing project who actually put in a moratorium at the time when they were on the Council to halt development until the Kona CDP (Community Development Plan) was done, until the update of the General Plan. We got in the way of ourselves. And so, Page 36 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 for me it's really simple. I'm looking at an applicant who's been around it for as long as I know development to be happening, and they want to contribute housing. And they want to contribute affordable housing and they have talked to the State Land Use Commission and the Housing Department and have made a commitment to that. I hear my colleagues struggling but they really are putting their money where their mouth is. I'm going to be in support of this project because like the local braddahs, like Uncle Bo, this housing is for everybody and when we put people in housing adjacent to affluent communities, their environment changes, and their generational wealth changes. And that's why I can support this project. Because when we provide housing for locals, it transforms their lives in so many ways. Thank you. I yield. I'm in support of this project. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Briefly please, Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Just as a quick follow up. I represent District 7. I live here. was born and raised on this island and have grown up in this space, and I'm asking for the respect and etiquette from Council Members to listen. I have sat for hours in meetings where other Council Members had issues that came that were related to their specific district and done my best to honor the constituents of that district because they will carry the burden and the brunt of what happens. And I'm asking for that same respect from Council Members here today, for the testimony of the people who have been here and for those who couldn't be here, for the over 1,000 signatures on the petition, and for protecting this community from the burden on our infrastructure that we just cannot bear at this time. I am in full support, and I am fully aware that if this is a 100 percent workforce housing project, there would be people here squawking against it. And aside from the flood zones, which have me very concerned because we've already been told by the developer that the flood zones are going to end up being the County's responsibility. So, would the County get sued when these properties flood and the properties below flood. But I am fully aware that sends the flooding issues and the cultural issues. If this was a 100 percent workforce housing project, I would be here in support of it and I would be having to have conversation with the NIMBY's ("Not in my Backyard" used to describe people who oppose new development near their homes.) But that's not the case on this. The evidence and the facts have been presented a number of times today. This is a flood plain zone. We don't have the infrastructure in our roads. There are culturally significant sites there that connect it. The community has already come up with a solution by getting it on the PONC list. This property was purchased for under a million dollars. You can't even buy a home here for under a million dollars. That's amazing. They Page 37 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 have opportunity to make money by selling it to the County where it can be protected in perpetuity as was exactly stated during the negative recommendation from the Cultural Commission. I think that I've said all I can say and it's incredibly humbling and frustrating to sit in a position where you're expected to help solve things and you find yourself begging and pleading for the support and common sense of your colleagues on the Council. And with that, I humbly ask for your respect and the etiquette of respecting the district that would be effected by this. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Council Member Kimball? Alright, with that, there's been a lot of discussion. I do give a lot of weight to the recommendation by the Cultural Resource Commission who are made of individuals that represent various perspectives, I think, of Hawaiian culture and its importance in our society today. There's still big concerns with traffic infrastructure. The affordable housing requirement, what we're guaranteed is the 67 units on site, and the 90 credits that are required, those 45 units would count towards the affordable housing credits. But I don't know, that's 67 out of 450 cuts that in terms of where we are today and our need for affordable housing. I do want to state on the record, there's been some representations that you folks as the applicants chose, you know, to have the application forwarded without a review by the commission. I don't think that's a choice. The Code says that the application shall be forwarded. The only part that may in relate is whether you folks agree to a further time extension. But it doesn't put language in that gives an option, it's "shall move forward" if the Commission doesn't give a recommendation within the timeframe required. So with that, the motion on the floor today is to forward Bill 169, Draft 2, to Council with a favorable recommendation. We'll do a roll call vote, please. Vote on Bill 169: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 169, Draft 2, Draft 2 on first reading was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, and Lee Loy — 4. Noes: Committee Members Evans, Kagiwada, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 5. Absent: None. Excused: None. (Note: Ms. Galimba voted "kanalua" then "aye," and Chair Inaba voted "kanalua" then "no.") Page 38 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 CHR. INABA: Thank you. So, to clarify, this bill moves forward to Council with a negative recommendation. We're going to take a quick five minute recess and then we will take up Bill 166. Recess: At 3:04 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 3:14 p.m. CHR. INABA: Aloha, it's 3:14 p.m., and I'm going to call this meeting back to order. Bill 166. STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Bill 166. PUBLIC ON BILL 166: The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Ryan Leese: Bill 166, (Comm. 885), in support. Bill 166: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA DISTRICT ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — 20 ACRES (A-20a) TO FAMILY AGRICULTURAL — 5 ACRES (FA-5a) AT NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-024:003 (Applicant: Ryan Leese) (Area: 21.942 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone request, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into four lots. The property is located on the southwest corner of the Kaloko Drive/Ha6 Street intersection in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. Reference: Comm.885 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Postponed: June 4, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz, to recommend passage of Bill 166 on first reading.) Motion to Amend: Ms. Kimball moved to amend Bill 166 with the contents of Comm. 885.1. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. CHR. INABA: We did postpone this matter to get some clarification on the conditions. Council Member Kimball, if you could just walk us through this amendment? Page 39 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. I believe that the applicant is supportive of all of these amendments, and I'll ask for affirmation of that in a moment. But most of this were matters that we discussed in the first hearing, and I think some of the key issues here is that we've added this five-year term. There's language that represents when the land clearing activities shall not occur prior to the issuance so that the timing of that is now reflective of, it is more clear, and then I think of most notice is G4, which indicates that this forest management plan will be in perpetuity, and then there's also the clarity around the fair share components and contributions with respect to these parcels. So, that covers most of it. I don't know if you want to —it's upon that but I think most of this was covered in the first hearing, and maybe I'll just pass it to the representative and the applicant to affirm that they are in agreement with these amendments. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Daryn Arai and Applicant's representative Seth Roosevelt came forward and addressed the members of the Committee.) MR. ARAI: Thank you very much, Council Member Kimball. Daryn Arai assisting the applicant, Ryan Leese. I did speak to the applicant, Mr. Leese, as well as his best friend Mr. Roosevelt, and both of them are in agreement with the proposed amendment as outlined in Communication 885.1. CHR. INABA: Thank you. With that, is there any discussion on the motion to amend with the contents of Communication 885.1? If not, all of those in favor, please say "aye." MS. VILLEGAS: `A`ole. CHR. INABA: Okay. Roll call vote, please. Vote on Motion The motion to amend Bill 166 with the contents of to Amend: Comm. 885.1 was carried by the following roll call vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, and Chair Inaba— 8. Noes: Committee Member Villegas —1. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Back to the main motion. Is there further discussion? Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: First off, I want to thank the neighboring property owner for bringing up very real and very relevant facts about what's happening in Kaloko Page 40 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 Forest. Yes, properties have been purchased in large tracks and then subdivided, which is why when you go there now there is a lot of land that's been deforested which makes it more imperative that the 20-arce parcels that still exist remain in that state in order for the forest to continue to connect, in order for our native species to continue to live, not even just thrive. This is one of the last cloud forests on the planet and it is in distress. The `ie`ie do not grow the way they used to grow for gathering. That is our job and our responsibility according to the constitution, is to protect this place and the species that live there and in order to do that this is an opportunity to mitigate and to change the way and the things that we have approved as the County in the past. But we sit here now, and we make these decisions, and we will be held accountable, and it will fall on us, and it will be our responsibility to speak this truth. You buy a 20-acre piece of property, awesome, oh my gosh, you have the most incredible resource. Absolutely divine and spectacular. But to continue to buy pieces of property with the assumption that we as the Council Members, it's our job to make it easy and to provide a pathway in order to subdivide, so that private landowners can make money and pay for their large homes, which I hear being complained about. The hypocrisy, it's absolutely devastating to me. So, no sir. I appreciate that you bought this property, and you went in with family and friends, and I encourage you to honor the integrity of this piece of property. It's not our responsibility to make sure your business investment is successful. And I ask for the rest of our community to continue to speak up the way you have, sir, because it's imperative for the future of our forest, which is our water systems, which connect to our oceans, which is the future for life on this island. And I will not apologize for being passionate about this. I will not, because it's truth. And until we actually start making decisions differently, we are just going to end up where we've always ended up. And we saw that during COVID (Coronavirus Disease), how absolutely fragile our circumstances are, and how vulnerable we are, and that we've just gone back to the status quo. But I can sleep at night, and I can look at my grandson and say to him that I'm making the best decisions I can for the future of our island, not for profit margins, not for prospecting, and not for land banking. And with that, I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: I left that on from the last vote. But I guess I will just say, I'd never ever ask my fellow Council Members to apologize for being passionate. I really appreciate that about you, even if we don't necessarily vote the same way. And definitely understand your deep passion for this land. But given that, and I don't necessarily agree with it that it ever having that Huihui Ranch subdivided this into 20-acre parcels and then that got subdivided into smaller parcels. But Page 41 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 basically, this is one 20-acre piece surrounded by parcels that are as small or smaller than five acres. I've only been up to Kaloko mauka once and the lower parts are largely there's quite a bit of deforestation that happened in the lower parts. So, to me, the argument that this applicant is going to be keeping 80 percent of it in forest because of the nature of the resolution that happened in earlier times. Asking for that to happen, I think that is net positive for the land, and I believe the applicants in their sincerity of wanting to minimize their impact. Thanks. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. In agreement with both statements made by my colleague, Council Member Galimba. One, we appreciate the passion for her community that Council Member Villegas represents, but also reviewing this situation here which is that this parcel, 20 plus acres almost 22 acres, as agricultural zoning, could be leveled and, you know, the forest cut down probably with some restrictions from grading and grubbing. But by putting this forward, we are protecting almost 17 acres in perpetuity as forest and for me, I think that's a tradeoff that I'm comfortable with, that we will have 17 acres out of 22 acres that will be in forest in perpetuity. So, I think that's something I could live with. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Anything in Hilo? Coming back to Kona, any further discussion? Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Can I ask Deputy Planning Director Darrow to come up one more time? Thank you. So, I just want to be clear that if we were not to do the rezone that, I think this was asked before, but I just want to really clarify. Could the 20 acres be cleared pin to pin if it was not rezoned? (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Council Member Kagiwada, the reason why we're able to put the conditions within the rezone are based on resolutions created by the Council back in the 1990s. While we've been consistently putting those in for the rezonings, they're not applicable to any action on a piece of property that doesn't come before the Council. So, somebody could purchase this property and clear it without any restrictions other than getting a grading or grubbing permit. MS. KAGIWADA: Alright. And if they asked for a grading and grubbing permit, what kind of general, I mean, do those generally get passed or how do those work for something like this? I just want to understand what the real possibilities are here. Page 42 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. DARROW: Yeah. I mean, they submit the plans. It does get reviewed by SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) for any type of archaeological, historical sites that may be known in the area around the property, and then it's signed off by Planning as well as Building, Engineering. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. So, it is a real possibility that if someone were to buy it and wanted to clear it for whatever reason, they could possibly do that, and we would lose the forest? MR. DARROW: And we would not really have any type of enforcement action. We have had actions in the past where someone has cleared property that were covered under an ordinance, and we were able to work with them, obviously issuing notice of violation, but also work with them to reforest the property. MS. KAGIWADA: I see. Okay. Alright. Thank you so much for answering my question. MR. DARROW: Thank you. MS. KAGIWADA: I yield. CHR. INABA: Alright. Any further discussion? Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, I just want to point out that this is another historical loophole that's pointed out and grabbed at as a last straw with like, "Oh, somebody could buy this and bulldoze the whole thing." No. No. I call no on that. That's just a loophole in order to justify a compromise and somehow relieve any conscious and make it okay, because that is the professional job of the land planner hired to do this, which is to plant a seed of doubt of another worst alternative and then it justifies going through with what they've proposed. That is the system we live in. It is a broken system. I do not agree with it, nor do I think that you would bulldoze all 20 acres, which is what's being implied, if you don't get the change and the approval for this proposed subdividing. So, I just call bologna on that, and I've heard it come up in a number of different things on this Council, and it's hard to sit here and make decisions. It is much easier to grasp at the straws to say yes. CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas, I'm going to share my thoughts now if you can wrap it up? With that, this is one of the last parcels. We've taken up other rezoning requests in Kaloko. I live my whole life in Kaloko. I put in this language with this communication today to try and make it airtight, the conditions especially for the preservation of the forest and ensuring that there was a timeframe included. Page 43 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 And I would like to state for the record, Planning Department, I find it odd that the timing portion of the resolution language was left out. So, please don't ever do that again. Make sure you put the five years in, very selective. I can't support the application myself. Growing up there, going in the forest, we're presented with this idea, right, that you would go and bulldoze, and I don't think that's the intention. I see your friend, they're part of the community. You folks are part of the community. But I just have a hard time seeing more and more homes up there. But respect that it's at least Family-Ag. You didn't go to the smallest lot size possible, so I thank you for that, but I just can't support it myself, and I hope you understand. With that, we'll take a roll call vote, please. Vote on Bill 166: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 166, as amended Draft 2 to Draft 2, on first reading was carried by the following (Approved) roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Lee Loy — 4. Noes: Committee Members Evans, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 5. Absent: None. Excused: None. (Note: Ms. Kagiwada voted "kanalua" then "no.") CHR. INABA: Thank you. This bill will go forward to Council with an unfavorable recommendation and will likely be heard at the July I Oh Council meeting. We have two more items on the agenda today. Resolution 543-24. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. Page 44 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 Res. 543-24: ACCEPTS THE DEDICATION OF KIKAU PLACE AND KUAHIWI PLACE, DESCRIBED AS ROADWAY LOT 369, PACIFIC HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, INCREMENT IV, IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-006:091, SITUATED AT KUKUAU lsT, DISTRICT OF SOUTH HILO, ISLAND AND COUNTY OF HAWAI`I, STATE OF HAWAI`I, FROM HSC, INC., A HAWAI`I CORPORATION The landowner seeks to dedicate the roadway and all improvements for public roadway purposes. Reference: Comm.912 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend adoption of Res. 543-24. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada. CHR. INABA: We did have Director Pause here earlier but he did have to head out. But this is, again accepting dedication and we do have a letter from both Deputy Corporation Counsel Sinclair Salas-Ferguson confirming that the subject deed was reviewed and is in full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 23, and Exhibit B, which is attached to the resolution, does show the area that would be dedicated. So, I will allow Council Member Kagiwada. I believe this might be in her district. So, Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much, Chair. Yeah, I worked with the Department of Public Works as well as the residents in this neighborhood to get this through. I really was, there was some very manini things that had not been completed on the part of the developer, and the neighbors just wanted the lights turned on. They had the street lights, they were put in, they were all there and they just couldn't get them turned on because this developer had not done a couple little things, some weed clearing and a few things that did not allow the County to accept this deed. And this went on for years and years and years. And so, finally, we were able to reach an agreement and we got the deed, and we got it done, and we just would really look for my colleagues support on this because these poor people had been trying so hard for so long and I'm just so glad that we're reached this point. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada, for the background. Also want to state that Planning and Water did not have any objection and neither did the Department of Environmental Management. So, with that, if there's no further discussion, there's a motion on the floor to forward Resolution 543-24 to Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor, please say "aye." Page 45 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 Vote on Res. 543-24: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 543-24 was (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: Resolution 544-24, please. Res. 544-24: ACCEPTS THE DEDICATION OF ROADWAY "LOT 2," BEING A PORTION OF ROYAL PATENT 4475, LAND COMMISSION AWARD 7713, APANA 5 TO V. KAMAMALU, SITUATED AT KEOPU 3, NORTH KONA, ISLAND AND COUNTY OF HAWAI`I, STATE OF HAWAI`I, A PORTION OF TAX MAP KEY: 7-5-007:033, FROM D&L FUJIMOTO, LLC, A HAWAI`I LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY The landowner seeks to dedicate the roadway and all improvements for public roadway purposes. Reference: Comm.913 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend adoption of Res. 544-24. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. INABA: Do we have anyone from Property Management here by any chance? If not, I believe this parcel is right near a piece of property where the County does have an office in town, in Kailua. There's a letter from DPW (Department of Public Works) Director to Deputy Corporation Counsel recommending that we accept this, as well as no objections from Water and the Planning Department, and Department of Environmental Management, as well. And finally, there is in fact a letter from Deputy Corporation Counsel Sinclair Salas-Ferguson, Communication 913, showing support that this does meet the requirements. So, if there is no further discussion, all those in favor of forwarding Resolution 544-24 to Council with a favorable recommendation, please say "aye." I'm sorry, I'm going to not call for the vote. I'm just going to see if Property Manager Hamana Ventura has anything to add on this matter. (Note: At this time, Property Manager Hamana Ventura came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 46 LAAC-28 June 18, 2024 MR. VENTURA: Good afternoon. Hamana Ventura. Property Manager. Here to answer any questions if I can on behalf of this one. CHR. INABA: Alright. I don't think there is any questions today. If we can have somebody from Public Works be here for Council should there be any questions at that point. So again, all those in favor of forwarding Resolution 544-24 to Council with a favorable recommendation, please say <I „ aye. Vote on Res. 544-24: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 544-24 was (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. (Note: Items in this category were taken up previously, out of order.) CHR. INABA: Brings us to the end of our agenda. ADJOURN- There being no further business, Chair Inaba adjourned the meeting MENT: at 3:43 p.m. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Approved: ff 4/` Z/ Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair (Date) Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Committee HUtk Page 47