Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN LAAC 2024/10/01 (2022-2024)Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions 32nd Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai'i October 1, 2024 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions ORDER: was called to order at 1:01 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Michelle Galimba, Vice Chair. •8 Present: Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair (came in later) Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Vice Chair Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member (came in later) Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent & Excused: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.) Change Order As directed by the Acting Chair and with no objection from the Committee of Business: Members, the following items were taken out of order: Bill 207: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAI'l BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL TO THE RURAL DISTRICT AT PU'UKAPU, WAl?\4EA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAI'l, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 6-4-017:001 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 ; and Bill 208: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-11 (LALAMILO-PU`UKAPU ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAPI COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — 40 ACRES (A-40a) TO RESIDENTIAL — AGRICULTURAL — 0.5 ACRES (RA-.5a) AT PU`UKAPU, WAIMEA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAI`I, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 6-4-017:001 (Applicant: Kelvin P. Jarneski) (Area: 1.997 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to the State Land Use Boundaries Map and for the requested change of zone, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into three lots. This property is located at 64-5208 Alanui Ohana Place. Reference: Comm.1050 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to pass Bill 207 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Could we have the applicants come forward? (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sidney Fuke came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of this Committee. My name is Sidney Fuke. I here representing the owner applicant Kelvin Jarneski. I'd like to initially apologize for his absence. He was supposed to be here and for some reason he's not and I can't say why. But I just texted him and I didn't get any response. But really, it's no disrespect to this body. Nonetheless, Mr. Jarneski is a local boy. He has three children, and he's lived in Waimea for a number of years. His intent is to basically subdivide his 1.997 acres into three parcels and eventually to convey it to his three children. He lives on the property right now. He has an approved permit for the construction of a second dwelling, which he intends to implement. Should this rezoning be approved, and the state land use boundary amendment be approved, then his eventual goal is to create three lots, one for each of his children. We needed the state land use boundary amendment from agricultural to rural largely because the lots were going to be less than one acre in size. And so, to be able to do that, the state land use designation has to be reclassified. All of the utilities are available. There are two existing water meters currently on the property. He basically needs to have another meter installed. Our Water Department had no objections and as we went through the hearing process, both Page 2 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 before the Planning Commission and also prior to that when notices were sent to surrounding property owners, we did not receive any objections from the neighbors. So, having said that, if there are any questions this body may have, we'd more than happy to answer. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Any questions? Member Kdneall'i- Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Fuke. Understandable if the applicant is not here. What is the current use of the property? MR. FUKE: Current use, he has I would say about like one-half to about two-thirds of the side is currently, he has this heirloom cocks, or fighting cocks on the property, and the rest of the property is his dwelling and a lawn. MR. KANEALIl-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, he's raising poultry? He's raising poultry. Okay. And he has a, I mean, looking back at some of the history, it looks like he had an AFD (Agricultural -Family Dwelling)? MR. FUKE: Initially, it was an 'ohana dwelling permit and subsequently was converted into an additional farm dwelling. So, he applied for the building permit, the building permit expired. Now, he's just going to resurrect the resubmittal of that building permit application. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: I'm sorry, the additional farm dwelling being a farm dwelling as well as another farm dwelling? MR. FUKE: No, no. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: This is just one? MR. FUKE: Just one. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, we have one house, and he had a permit for a second house? MR. FUKE: A second house. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: It expired, correct? MR. FUKE: Correct. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: And now he's looking to both subdivide the property as well as change it from state land use ag to state land use rural? Page 3 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. FUKE: That's correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, this is an interesting one mainly because of the ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) bill, because the ADU bill is specific. You can do ADUs, but they cannot be on state land use ag. So, I'm looking at this almost as a cookie cutter for what someone would need to do if they were wanting to do a number of ADUs on their property and needing the required zoning to be allowing them to have multiple ADUs on one property. So, I'm interested. I understand the background that's being provided and there's no way of knowing what happens in the future, but I'm very interested to see this process come in following the passage of Bill 123, which was the ADU bill, for a process that would exactly follow what's required now to implement a series of short-term vacation rentals on a piece of property that otherwise never would've been able to have. You follow what I'm saying? MR. FUKE: Yes. Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. FUKE: I think like, you know, the fact that the property is currently in the state land use agricultural district and given the state supreme court's decision, then it makes it very difficult to have an additional dwelling, you know, unless you can legitimately consider that as an additional farm dwelling. So, by putting it in the rural classification, then I think that takes off some of the arguments that the court had made. So, notwithstanding that, you know, had we had this, the owner had like two acres, for example, and he came in for just straight County zoning from Ag-20 to FA-1 a, then on each of the respective lots then he would be able to construct one dwelling. But at the end of the day, it doesn't meet his objective because his objective is essentially to have three parcels on that same property. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Given the zoning that he is requesting, I know it's our next item but given that because I'm looking at the state land use in parallel with the other. Given the zoning request, what would be the maximum number of ADUs he could build on each lot? MR. FUKE: If you take away the state land use portion and just dealing purely with the County RA-.5a, I don't know exactly whether the additional ADU applied, you know, how that applies to the RA (Residential Agricultural) district. But assuming if it were the same as like the residential district, then theoretically, he could construct an additional dwelling on each of the proposed three lots. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, it could be four lots with two per? Page 4 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. FUKE: Three lots with a potential six dwellings on it, you know, two on each. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Wow. MR. FUKE: And so, of course, I understand the ordinance that was recently passed. It's still subject to the availability of infrastructure. So, if the Water Department hypothetically said no water, then that would be grounds for the Planning Director to deny the additional dwelling unit. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I don't see that in here. Again, we don't know the future. But just interested in this bill as it follows our conversation on Bill 123. So, thank you for being here. I appreciate it. MR. FUKE: You're very welcome. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: I yield, Chair. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yeah. I have a question. So, in terms of our Zoning Code, would it be a R (Residential) district or an RA district? Because it's just saying it's — MR. FUKE: The zoning would be RA, Residential Ag. MS. EVANS: It will be RA. MR. FUKE: Yeah. .5, and the .5 refers to a minimum lot size of half an acre. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, we wouldn't we just go Ag-.5 versus RA-.5? MR. FUKE: Based on the County zoning, there is no classification of an Ag-.5. MS. EVANS: Okay. I just have to say for my colleagues, I've always appreciated going to the Planning Commission and seeing the staff give presentations to the Planning Commission and sometimes I feel like I really wish I had the same type of presentation because it really put it, for me, it's a perspective of what's going on in the surrounding area and how this corelates to what other things and what trends are going on in the community. I know for perspective for people that are listening, how close is it to downtown Waimea and this I assume for everybody, is this on the east side, the west side, the wet side, the dry side? I mean, because I've got to tell you, the community in Waimea right now is reeling because they have some concerns about protecting what is the best soil and ag growing land. On the one area of Waimea is very well known for the quality of soil they have, and then the other areas, not so much. And so, the Page 5 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 community sees the growth and the density growth moving towards one. They see it going in one area of the community, but they are resisting it going into another area of the community. So, if we all kind of know where this lands, it could really equate to what the public settlement is in the community. So, can you give us a perspective of where this is? MR. FUKE: The location of the property is, I guess what we would historically, you know, like euphemistically it characterizes being like on the wet side of Waimea, like on the Honoka'a side. I'm just taking a guess right now, but if I were to guess, it's probably maybe about a mile and a half or two miles from the town core itself. There are like a number of single-family residences in that area, lots ranging from 7,500 to 10,000 or 15,000 square feet. The Kamuela Lakeland subdivision is located maybe further on the Honoka'a side of the property. So, in spite of the, you know, the so called designation, a lot of the agricultural designation in this area, it doesn't fit what's actually on the ground. So, you could have properties that are zoned Ag-40 or Ag-20, and if you look at the map, you'll find a lot of those so called smaller lots in that area. So, the rezoning and the subsequent subdivision of this area kind of like falls into this general kwazi rural residential kind of pattern. It's not like an area where you have exclusively surrounding that area all five (acres), or 15 (acres), or 20 acre size parcels. The other thing is the distinguishing factor. And I think that if you look at the South Kohala Community Development Plan, one of the things that it said was that, you know, in the Waimea area, so if you just go outside of that area, which is, you know, presumably designated for like urban or residential use, it explicitly stated, like as in this area, it would be good for like small farms or family oriented type of subdivisions. So, as the staff's report, if you read the background report, you know, it kind of acknowledges like this is really like a family oriented subdivision. It's not like having 15 or 20 lots, which would be, you know, made available to the general public. MS. EVANS: I'm just looking at the map that you provided, and it looks like this particular road has maybe two acres, like you go down the road, maybe it's two, two and a half acre lots all the way down. So, this would potentially break it down into three, which then could be a trend for the rest of the people on the street. I'm just kind of curious when you start doing that, it could be what will happen going down the street. MR. FUKE: Conceivably, I guess that could happen. But as we all know, each application has to stand on its own. So, in terms of the accumulative impact, you know, say you have like the second or the third one, and maybe when the forth one comes in, there may be different kinds of concerns raised, maybe inability to provide water, the roadway infrastructure may not be sufficient. I can to some extent appreciate, you know, the "precedence" kind of concept. Page 6 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 But nonetheless, I'm a firm believer that, you know, each application has to be taken on its own because if you are exclusively guided by pattern or precedence, then if you have an area that is rezoned resort, hypothetically, then basically you could an argument that the whole island would be zoned resort out of sheer precedence. But that's not the case. So, you would look at application by application on its own and see how they stack up with your General Plan, your Community Development Plan (CDP), as well as your infrastructure. MS. EVANS: Just for the sake of the public, was there a sign posted on the property so everybody in the neighborhood — MR. FUKE: Correct, as well as notices to a thousand feet from the surrounding property. MS. EVANS: They were notified? MR. FUKE: A thousand feet, yes. MS. EVANS: Okay. Good. Alright. Great. Thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. GALIMBA: Thanks. I will be transferring the Chair to Council Member Inaba at this time. Relinquish Chair: At this time, Acting Chair Galimba relinquished the chair to Chair Inaba. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Vice Chair Galimba. Good afternoon, Mr. Fuke. MR. FUKE: Good afternoon. CHR. INABA: At this time I'd like to give the opportunity to the Planning Department to weigh in if they have anything further to add on this application. Director Kern. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. Thanks for the opportunity. Really nothing much more to add to what Sidney had given in the overview. It's consistent with the plans for the area. You know, the lot right now is 1.9 acres or so in size and part of the question that came up earlier around the one acre size or excuse me, the kind of the ag, the .5 ag. If it's state land use agriculture, your minimum lot size is one acre. So, that would set it. And so, if you have a parcel that's less than two acres, you wouldn't be able to do it. So, the next version down would be our rural designation, which is very —it's a good state land use for many places on the Page 7 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 island that would allow that half acre size to be effectuated. I'm happy to answer any other questions. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Director Kern. Quickly, Mr. Fuke, are the property owners here today? MR. FUKE: Yeah. Just prior to you coming in I had to apologize to this body. For some reason I can't explain their absence. I tried contacting right before the start of the meeting and I was not successful. But they were informed of this meeting, and they had ensured me that they would be here but they're not here. So, I can't —I apologize for that. CHR. INABA: Got it. Okay. Thank you. I'll bring it back up to discussion again around Bill 207 for the state land use boundary amendment. Further discussion? Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thanks. I guess I'm just feeling like I'd really like to have the landowner here. So, I'm feeling a little uncomfortable advancing this forward without the property owner here. That's where I'm at right now. CHR. INABA: Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thanks. I just had one question. I noticed, and this probably pertains to the next item, but I'll just ask it here. I saw that there's a requirement for a six-inch water main if they do subdivide it further, I believe, is what it said. I'm not exactly sure if it's this that's triggering it or the next subdivision, but I'm just wondering, six inch, that's a big pipe. So, I just wondered if there was any special reason that that's such a big requirement from the Water Department. MR. FUKE: I think that Column 8 translate to a five -flow requirement. So, in this case here, I know that if they just do a two -lot subdivision, which is their initial plan, because they have two existing meters servicing the property, there is no water improvement requirement. In the event they want to subdivide one of those lots to create the third lot, then there invariably will be some waterline improvements. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. And they will need to come back to do the third? MR. FUKE: No. At that point and time it would be all administrative. So, when they submit their application for a subdivision, then it gets routed to the Water Department. They review it, they make their comments, and Planning would have to incorporate that as a condition before they can get final subdivision approval to create the third lot. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. Did you have? Page 8 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. KERN: If I could add to that? In your background report, almost at the very end, Page 67, is the memo from the Department of Water Supply, and they're the ones that articulate their needs for the project if it were to go forward. And then we take their requirements and then put those into our conditions. So, that's where they're coming up from. There's a letter in there from them, Page 67. MS. GALIMBA: Okay. Thanks. I guess I didn't get to that one. Thanks. MR. KERN: It's buried. MS. GALIMBA: I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Villegas and then Kdneali'i- Kleinfelder. MS. VILLEGAS: Sure. Thank you for being here. I share the sentiments of Council Member Kagiwada, and I'd like to be able to ask questions of the landowner. Through a quick Google Map search, it looks like the property is currently being used as a game farm. I have a couple questions as they relate to what this puts them in as far as a potential for short-term vacation rental and potential ADUs if they're changing from state land use ag to rural. MR. KERN: Yeah. The way that Bill 123 is written, that would allow for ADUs. They'd obviously have to meet the infrastructure requirements, water, wastewater, et cetera. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. I suppose I have reservations and concerns because this is right on Mdmalahoa Highway going straight through Waimea where that road is already dangerous. And adding more traffic by splitting up these properties, yeah, this is an agricultural area, and while it may have happened on another piece of property, I have concerns that we're setting precedent here and we're creating for more. I just recently had some folks reach out to me on how to change from state land use ag to another zoning and purposes were short-term vacation rental allowance related. And so, I'm not super comfortable with this right at this time. So, I'll yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Director, if they did change to state land use rural and they were able to build ADUs, given Bill 123's passage, how many dwellings can they have on each lot? MR. KERN: So, Bill 123 would allow for three additional ADUs on that lot. think the biggest constraint will be the wastewater systems. There's no septic. Page 9 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Sorry. We're creating three lots, right? MR. KERN: They'd be creating three lots as it's proposed. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: And so? MR. KERN: So each lot, whether they create two lots or three lots, once that lot is created, then they would be allowed three additional ADUs. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Three ADUs on top of the primary dwelling. MR. KERN: Correct. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: So potentially then, we could have three lots with 12 units if space allowed for that type of development. MR. KERN: Possible. I don't know how probable it would be because it be space, and I think the wastewater would be the biggest constraint. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Okay. So, kind of like my question I was thinking about, I think Council Member Galimba's questions about water, but is Water Supply understanding the impact potential of their water infrastructure when they say how many water units are provided to a property when we've increased the potential building density on lots to your knowledge? MR. KERN: I can't speak for Water Supply but, you know, a water meter or a water unit has daily usage allowance, right, so 400 gallons a day. And so, when you have that water meter, the landowner is supposed to keep to that amount, or they'd have to try to get an additional water meter, or they would have to put in a catchment system to offset the additional water needed. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Let's say that they could do two ADUs and their primary dwelling, and water units were allowed per lot to be whatever they need it to be, I guess it's a big question to me because it's going to start happening, I'm guessing more and more, is Water Department ready for the kind of usage that's going to happen because we've just created the density allowance, now what? MR. KERN: I think the question is, is can the landowner make it for what's allowed for what water has there. So, for example, water may not be contemplating all of those, the three dwellings. But what they are saying is that our water meter, you're allowed to have 400 gallons a day. And if you exceed that, you're going to get a letter and you're going to have consequences that come along with that. So, you have to adjust back down to that. So, however, that property has to work with that whether it's reduction in water or they have to see Page 10 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 if there's an additional water meter, not sure if that's available, or they'd have to put a catchment tank in. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. KERN: So, it's really the responsibility of the applicant and the landowner to comply with the Department of Water Supply in that regard. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. It's about to get interesting, Mr. Fuke. This is going to get real interesting, real fast. MR. FUKE: I didn't realize all of that. So, has that bill passed? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: It passed. Yeah. MR. FUKE: So, maybe this is kind of like a really good test case to see like how it really would unfold, you know. And so, if there's some heartburn regarding the potential of having three or two additional units on a lot on a property that's with an ag or rural district then maybe the whole ordinance should be revisited and just kind of like limit it only to, you know, urbanized area. You know, having said that, you know, to answer Council Member Villegas' question about the access. The access is proposed not off of Mamalahoa Highway. It has to come off of the side road. But we do realize, I think the applicant realizes that it is a relatively high traffic area, and so that portion of the highway, I believe, falls under the state's jurisdiction so I think it's going to be very difficult to secure an access off of that area. Relative to the issue about the water. I think that the Water Department, and as the Director indicated, you know, we can't really speak for them. But traditionally, when they look at the rezoning application, their assumption is that if you're going to create three lots, then are there like three water meters that can be serviced to that parcel. They're not looking at any new ordinances that would allow for additional dwellings otherwise. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. I think Water Supply needs to be cognizant of what's about to happen with the ADUs. I think even for you, this was a little bit of a learning experience. I'm concerned about the density increase and that's what we're shooting for, but I don't know that everyone's ready for this. I mean, you, with your experience, can understand the impact that this could have on an island -wide level. Yeah. Okay. MR. FUKE: And just be mindful because the next application before you has the same implication as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, one last question for you. Does Page 1 I LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 Bill 208 require Bill 207 to pass? MR. FUKE: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. MR. FUKE: They're actually in tandem. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. CHR. INABA: And before I send it back to Council Member Kagiwada, I did check in with Water to see if they were able to chime in on this specific application and it might be an opportunity for us to have a separate communication to kind of discuss how Water plans to implement the passage of Bill 123 and applications just in the general sense. So, Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. So, Planning Director, given that the Bill 123 had not passed when you made this recommendation originally, do you have any concerns or things that you think need thinking through a little more now that Bill 123 is passed? And the reason I'm asking that is because, you know, I was a big proponent for Bill 123 because it's based on density in urban districts. This is not what I think I had in mind and maybe, I don't know, I can't speak for anybody else and for your team as well. But as far as people starting to jump from ag to rural in order to do this density, which was really when we talked about it, about density more in urban areas, I'm just wondering, is it something that you've had a chance to think through and process with your team? And, you know, this all happened, like I said, right before this passed. So, any thoughts on that? MR. KERN: I mean, I'd say we're still, you know, we're still processing, right, and digesting, not sure how the bill was going to be passed. And now that it is, this one's very interesting because it was already in motion prior, right, here we are and as I'm thinking about this conversation and that could be a lot of density right there on that corner. There's always the possibility for you guys to condition something, you know, when that's being looked at. So, I think with the limited amount of rural that we have, we won't be seeing a lot of this. I think what we might see is people, if they're trying to do that for this purpose, I don't think that this was the case in this one. I think we'll have to look at those maybe a little bit different when their true intent is just to do that for that uplift of the ADU density. MS. KAGIWADA: Yeah. But regardless of the true intent, once we change it over to rural, the possibility is there. The property could be sold. They could change their intent, they could change their minds, and that opens that up. Page 12 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. KERN: Correct. And I go back to kind of what we had talked about through the Bill 123 process is infrastructure is going to be limited. And if there was sewer right there, I think that might be a different conversation, but it's septic systems and that's going to create a natural limitation. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Well, once again, I'm a big proponent of density within the urban areas. One of the main reasons is to save our ag lands from density and from being overbuilt and not being used for ag. So, for this one, I'm not feeling great about it at this point. But I'll listen and hear what everyone else has to say. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. I'm sure we've all seen that recent Supreme Court ruling and how many more questions that's bringing up when it comes to ag land. And so, I wondered how, if you could provide any bit of understanding about how that ruling would affect proposed zone changes from ag to rural or residential. MR. KERN: We've received the ruling, but we haven't done the debrief with our Corporation Counsel yet, so I'd be speaking prematurely. My understanding is that from a change of zone from ag to rural on itself, I don't believe the ruling has any bearing on that. I think it's really around short-term vacation rentals. But again, we're waiting for a debrief from our Corporation Counsel. MS. VELLEGAS: Okay. You know, not to make any judgements on anybody's intention but I feel that the timing, it's going to pose a challenge to these folks. If their truest intention is to, you know, subdivide so that they can provide a lot for their family, which is something that I think is a valuable practice for us. However, I don't think that it's unfortunate that it's based on this timing because loopholes have been opened up while some have been closed and the risk outweighs the reward at this point. So, I'm just not comfortable. I'm also familiar enough with this roadway that whether or not the road goes straight, their driveways go straight onto Mamalahoa or not, it's still adding more traffic to that area and that roadway that does not have the infrastructure to support that at this time. Also, you know, putting in a septic system, you know, is something that's possible to change a piece of property so that they could add on all these excessive ADUs. I understand, Mr. Fuke, your job is to represent the landowner and to petition us with all the means necessary to convince us that this would be an okay decision, so I respect and understand that. I'm just not particularly comfortable with this right now. There's just too much going on and the intentionality as communicated by Council. Member Kagiwada, of ADUs then residing in urban areas to increase density there. Page 13 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 You know, I did not support Bill 123 because of my concerns for unintended consequences, and I think we have a circumstance right in front of us that may open that box. And as stated by one of you prior, this is something that happened already, recently, in this area and I do not want this to become a precedent. So, that's just my feelings right now. I yield. CHR. INABA: Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL So, I think this bill could also be an example of the intended consequences of Bill 123 from the standpoint that if you look up the location of this particular property and the context of the larger Waimea region, you have a series of straight streets, both above and below, Mdmalahoa Highway that have smaller lots with residential use. And so, this would not be in my mind necessarily outside of the standard that you would see in the area. So, you'd have subdivisions of much smaller lot size on either side as well as on the other side of Mdmalahoa punctuated in between by some larger agricultural properties. If this were to be subdivided into half acre parcels. That's about 20,000 square feet per each dwelling, 10,000 square feet is going to be the minimum requirement for individual wastewater systems. So, by the nature, and this was something we talked about with Bill 123, by the nature of the wastewater requirements, they would be limited to two ADUs. The median rental rate for a three -bedroom two bath house in Waimea right now is $4,500 a month. Okay. So, part of what Bill 123 was intended to do was provide opportunities for long term rentals. Now I know that the uncomfortableness comes from the Transient Accommodation Rental (TAR) issue. It's important to temper the concern about any additional dwelling unit becoming a TAR by doing the math, which is basically —it is not going to be very economically feasible for people who are building a thousand square foot home, let's say $500 a square foot, which is low under these current commissions, and then turn it around and make it a TAR to operate and still make that pencil out in the long. They're going to take forever to pay it off. It is much more likely that they are going to make it for a kid, for a family member, or something like that who can contribute to the overall payment for it on a regular basis. It's just too risky. I don't want to spend too much time on Bill 123. That's been decided. But the whole point about the TAR piece was that it can happen anyway regardless of whether or not we set it or didn't. People can just redesignate which is which and it could've happened anyway so, we just were overt about it. So, as much as people have concern about this, please take a look at, you know, one of the many maps that are available and what's happening and the rest of the region, what the costs are in Waimea right now, you know, this is something I regularly hear as people that are firefighters, our police officers, our nurses, our teachers up there, they can't find a place. At $4,500 a month, who could find a place? So, this has Page 14 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 the potential to create six units, five of them potentially long-term rentals that, you know, could be available to the community. So, thank you. I yield. CHR. INABA: Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. So, Mr. Fuke, to your client, it may be possible to condition it to where his true intent is to build this for his family, and so there would be three homes on it and for him to agree to that. So, that would be a condition that he would have to agree to given what I'm hearing about Bill 123. But the other thing is if people want to have lots that are small, like other ones in the area, then they should come and, I think, apply to this Council to go for the small lots, and that way they'd be TMKs (Tax Map Key), they'd be paying their taxes, and we'd know exactly that we're creating a new subdivision up in Waimea that maybe everybody on that street will like end up with 10,000 square foot lots. I mean, if that's the trend and the way it needs to go. But one of my concerns about Bill 123 is like it's kind of like the CPR (Condominium Property Regime), it's kind of like a way for people to increase density without going through the long process of subdivision and coming from the Council and going —that's a much arduous, longer process than maybe doing it this way. And, you know, I understand what my community is very sensitive to families wanting to give their children lots and it's kind of a value system up in Waimea to support the family in the next generation by figuring out a way to take their land and divide it up and their children living on the land with them. So, I understand that as a value. I do have concerns though about what we just did with Bill 123, and that this could definitely create this huge density, and I don't think my community would be happy with that right now because of what's happening on the highway up there and the traffic. And I guess the last thing I would close is that we assume that the people that would move on there would be the local working class, middle class people. The reality is, we have people moving from the mainland, from everywhere on the mainland that don't want to live their anymore and want to live in Hawaii. I'm not convinced $4,500 rent is ever going to go down over the next couple of years because I keep meeting people that are moving constantly in to Waimea. They're coming from LA (Los Angeles) and Spokane, and I keep talking to them and it's like they don't want to live where they live anymore and they want to come to our Island in Waimea. And there's many theories why, but it is a real hot spot for people wanting to move there and they're willing to pay the high price. So, it's unfortunate but that's what's happening. MR. FUKE: Can. I answer your questions? Specifically in response to your questions. The concept of limiting one dwelling per lot, I'm sure, would not be aberrant, you know, to the owner because that's his intent. So, if it's legally Page 15 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 supportable, that's a condition that I'm quite sure that Mr. Jarneski would be willing to accept. The other thing is like on the CPR, based on my understanding of the CPR law, you cannot CPR properties that's within the residential or the agricultural zone. I mean, you can but provided that it conforms to the zoning and subdivision standards. So, theoretically, if you have this current property that is zoned Ag-20 or Ag-40, and you want a CPR to create two or three lots, by zoning that would not be allowed. The last comment I kind of want to make, I think this is a very healthy discussion, you know, on all this because I'm not really totally conversing on this additional dwelling unit bill that was recently passed. I thought it was still two. Now, I understand that it's three per existing lot. You know, to me, the irony behind all of this, is that if you were to deny this rezoning. Then it kind of like goes against the old ADU notion. The ADU notion was intended to provide opportunities for more lots, more homes for the local guys. What more, this guy Kelvin Jarneski, he's a local boy. He lived in Waimea for about 15-20 years, born and raised in Hilo. Three of his children live in Waimea. They need the homes. So, if you deny that, you know, then what do you get. You know, so that's why it's kind of ironic that, you know, like there's some sentiment of saying that maybe we ought not to approve this. Yet, on the other hand, you had this ADU law to say like, "Let's liberalize all residential units on all lots." So, if there is a concern, I would say that you don't want to liberalize the number of lots in an ag or rural district, change the law. To me, it's simple as that. Don't penalize someone that wants to do exactly what we all want; provide opportunities. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Anything further, Council Member Evans? Okay, let's wrap this up. I don't know that this body's able to make a decision. DWS (Department of Water Supply) is attempting to join right now regarding the water. But Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Kern, the move from state land use agricultural to state land use rural, just noting this property was designated as prime agricultural land with a classification of C, meaning moderate productivity. Does it lend itself to being rural in that case? MR. KERN: The rule and the residential ag district do not preclude any farming. So, it actually allows for smaller scale, still allows for the farming. It's actually a really good zoning and designation for a little bit tighter density that local folks tend to generally like because you can do all your ag on there without the constraints of the state land use ag. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And reading further down; residential agricultural use would support more sustainable small scale ag Page 16 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 activities while also providing low density housing, low density housing availability. MR. KERN: Exactly. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: And I would stress the word low density. Mr. Fuke, with all due respect, none of us can foresee the future. The zoning is zoning. Once granted, the zoning runs with the property. So, anything can go in the future. I'm understanding Mr. Jameski's want, and I have the same want for my children in providing land for them in the future. But to do so carefully for the community as a whole because this isn't specific to just one lot. I mean, sorry, this ordinance is specific, but the idea can be broadcasted across the island. So, we need to do this carefully. But I appreciate your comments. I yield, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Checking in, any further discussion? I think Water is having some trouble. But regarding the water availability, as shared thus far, confirming that there are two services there and water is available in the area for the third proposed lot. In the case of ADUs, they would likely be able to provide the water for the additional ADUs in that area for this specific application. The tricky part is the need to install waterline, hydrant, and other things that other normal subdivisions would require and that's what I was hoping Water was going to be able to jump in and share about, but just so we all know right now, the general water availability is there. It's a matter of additional infrastructure required of the property owner should they try and proceed with any ADUs. Overall, I don't necessarily have myself a lot of concern on this application, but I would like to hear from the property owners, and I do support Council Member Kagiwada's suggestion. So, Council Member Kagiwada, do you want to make a motion? MS. KAGIWADA: Sure. CHR. INABA: October 15 th is the next Committee Meeting. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Kagiwada moved to postpone Bill 207 to October 15, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Evans. CHR. INABA: On postponement? Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I just wanted to make sure, Mr. Fuke, will the applicant be able to attend in Kona or should we postpone to the next Hilo meeting? MR. FUKE: Yeah. I'm quite sure that the applicant can be there, but I definitely will not be able to make it. I have some personal things to attend to that day. Page 17 LAAC-32 Withdraw Motion to Postpone: October 1, 2024 CHR. INABA: Okay. Noting that — Ms. Kagiwada withdrew her motion to postpone Bill 207 to October 15, 2024. CHR. INABA: Okay. And the next committee meeting here in Hilo would be November 71n Vote on Motion Ms. Kagiwada moved to postpone Bill 207 to to Postpone: November 7, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Kimball and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Lee Loy — 1. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: We will proceed then to Bill 208. MR. HENRICKS: It's been read in. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Apologies. With that, Mr. Fuke, would you like to get to a postponement or would you like to share on this application today. MR. FUKE: I think that Council Member Kagiwada's comment is taken to heart. I think the applicant should be here and why he's not here, you know, I can't explain. He just called me, but I didn't want to answer the call. So, I think that Council deserves to see him in the flesh. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Motion to postpone Bill 208 to our November 7th meeting. MR. HENRICKS: Chair, I first need a motion on the floor, main motion on the floor prior to postponement. CHR. INABA: Apologies. Read in, but not motion. Okay. First motion. Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 208 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Page 1.8 LAAC-32 Vote on Motion to Postpone: October 1., 2024 Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 208 to November 7, 2024. Seconded by Ms. Kagiwada and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kdneali'l-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Lee Loy — 1. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Thank you, Director Kern. With that, we'll take up the other planning application at this time. So, Bill 209. Bill 209: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAPI COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — 20 ACRES (A-20a) TO FAMILY — AGRICULTURAL — I ACRE (FA-1 a) AT NORTH KONA, HAWAPI, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-004:011 (Applicant: Wattie Elizabeth Kaiokalani Green) (Area: 4.985 Acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone request, which would allow the applicant to subdivide property into four lots. The property is located mauka of Kaiminani Drive on Old Government Mauka Road, approximately 800 feet south of its intersection with Hawaii Belt Road. Reference: Comm. 1051 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Galimba moved to recommend passage of Bill 209 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR. INABA: We have Mr. John Pipan and the property owner, Ms. Green, here today. Mr. Pipan, if you'd like to make your presentation at this time and then I'll call Deputy Director Darrow forward if there's any comment from the Planning Department. (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant John Pipan and Applicant Wattie Green came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PIPAN: Thank you, Committee Chair Inaba. Good afternoon, members of this committee. I'm here assisting the applicant Wattie Green to my left. Her son is attending today, too, to really soak in and learn about this process. This project is for her family, is for her kids. They're here. They're looking at a housing Page 19 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 market that is unattainable. They're graduating from school and finding that there is no place to call home in Hawaii. So, this request for a rezone to family - agricultural one acre minimum lot size is for family. The implications for Bill 123 are not applied here. Bill 123 specifically leaves agricultural state land use requirements for dwellings intact. So, any additional dwellings would have to be additional farm dwellings and that is the status quo right now. So, there's no change with respect to Bill 123 for this request of change of zone. This leaves state land use ag as state land use ag. We've done a lot of work with Department of Water Supply to ensure that the water system that will serve this property makes sense, will work, will provide standard quality, quantity and pressure water for all of these dwellings. In fact, this was kind of laid out for us in the property just to the south. They went through a rezone; they had the same substandard water pressure issues and, in the end, ended up installing private tanks and pumps for the result in subdivision. So, with that, we're here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you very much. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Ms. Green, would you like to add anything at this time? MS. GREEN: Aloha, everyone. I'm Wattie Green. I am an heir to this property that we are discussing today. And with me is my koko, my kane, my son, Keoa, and he holds the name that represents the `aina that we live on today. So, hopefully, he will continue to live on the property, and then his children and his children's children. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. And do you folks currently live on this property. MS. GREEN: Yes. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Just wanted clarify that. So, at this time, Deputy Director Darrow, I want to give you the opportunity on behalf of the Planning Department to share anything further on the application. (Note: At this time, Planning Deputy Director Jeffrey Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. DARROW: Aloha, Chair, Members of the Council. Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. I really don't have anything else to add. This is a pretty simple application. It's a little different from our last application in that it is remaining in the agricultural district, state land use. They are just creating four lots down to one acre each and again, to provide for their family members. The soil in this particular area is very poor for agricultural type activities. You still can do it, but it is identified as a very poor soil for this area. Yet, it's in the Page 20 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 General Plan low -density urban area and important ag land. Conditions look good. If there's any questions that anyone may have, I'm more than willing to answer. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Deputy Director Darrow. With that, I will open it up for discussion at this time starting with Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Yes. There was a comment by Mr. Pipan that the accessory ADU, Bill 123, wouldn't apply to this. But I'm reading Bill 123, and it says accessory dwelling unit shall be provided within the RS (Single Family Residential), RD (Residential zoning Districts), RA, FA (Family Agricultural), and A (Agricultural) districts. This is FA-1, so that's what I'm reading, that it applies to FA. CHR. INABA: Yeah, just to clarify, Bill 123 doesn't apply to state land use ag, and this is going to remain in state land use ag. The County zoning is going to be ag, but the state land use will not allow for ADUs and that's not changing. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, it's the state land use overrides the zoning. CHR. INABA: Yes. Yup. MS. EVANS: Okay. Alright. Good. Well, I think that needs to be important because it does say in here — MR. DARROW: That would be under the next section after that particular section, Subsection B. MS. EVANS: Okay. Good. Alright. That's really, really good to know. So, yeah, again, my comment always has been, when we come in front of the Council it sure would be nice to get a little bigger briefing like you do for the Planning Commission. That really shows, I mean, every time I've been to Planning Commission, it just really shows the whole picture of what's going on in the neighborhood and kind of what's happening. And I have to look to my colleague who represents the district to talk about kind of what the general nature of this part of your district looks like, you know, how this fits into to the kind of the bigger sense of what's going on in the community. Yeah so, I just don't know that area. So, thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. This is kind of a more general comment with respect to rezoning ordinances and everything that goes before the Planning Commissions. You know, about a year or so ago, the Planning Department made the decision to no longer print out the full booklets around each of these rezoning ordinances. I Page 21 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 want to make sure that everybody's aware that they are available electronically and we store them on the Council operations webpage. So, there's a spreadsheet there that clicks through to the link in Laserfiche to access the slides and the minutes from those Planning Commission meetings. So, I just want to remind folks that those are available. I wanted to ask. So, this is a little bit north, I think, of the area that's covered by the resolution recommending keeping some amount of forest cover, correct? CHR. INABA: Yes. This is not a part of the Kaloko Mauka subdivision. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Is that a condition that —it's always tough. But it does look like it's not cleared. It's primarily got some scrub on it now and some trees. Yes, to the applicant's representative. MR. PIPAN: Yes. Historically, this lot was cleared many years ago, I think around 1970 before the house was built. Since then it has come up in non-native and basic trees. So, there's really no sense in keeping those, and that kind of ties the hands of potential forms of agriculture that could occur on these lots. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Alright. And the plan is to subdivide into four properties? MS. GREEN: We already have one. MR. PIPAN: It's three new lots. MS. KIMBALL: Three new lots. MR. PIPAN: Yes. One is the preexisting lot. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Yeah, just interested to hear from the district representative, but otherwise looks okay. CHR. INABA: Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. So, just a quick question. So, it's currently one lot and after this it will be three lots, or it will be four lots? MR. PIPAN: It'll be four lots. MS. VILLEGAS: It'll be four lots. MR. PIPAN: And there is an interesting kind of cutout you see in the map, and that is water board lot for a future tank site. Page 22 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MS. VILLEGAS: A future tank site. Okay. Water tank. MS. VILLEGAS: Hi, Wattie. Nice to see you. MS. GREEN: You as well. MS. VILLEGAS: Yes. You know, we've had long conversations about your `ohana and you have shared from your heart some of the challenging circumstances due to the nature of the history of our island and where it's left your family with having land but not necessarily other resources. And we worked together to make some of the changes for the other property that's kind of more in the Keauhou area. And so, you know, in looking at you and your 'ohana here today and your statement of intentionality and my trust and your legacy of looking for opportunities in order to ensure that you and future generations from a lineage of Hawaiian Cultural Practitioners, and yeah —our host culture as perpetuated by having a home. MS. GREEN: Well, we've all seen the exodus of our children already. MS. VILLEGAS: Exactly. MS. GREEN: I mean, they're going by leaps and bounds. And that's the last thing, I think, my child wants to be doing, or I would not want him to do, is be forced to sell my land to a guy with $50 million dollars and he goes and builds that, I don't want, mansion on that land. And my son is the exodus and go live where, ninth island? Come on. That ain't going to happen. The people that saved this land that I live on are my ancestors, and I want my son to live on the land. So, this only increases the need to help us as local people. I mean, I speak for every one of you speaking on this board. You have kamah'i coming around. Think about your mo'opuna's that are right behind you. If I can pave the way for my child right now, so be it. I'll take all the bullets I need to do it now so that my child doesn't have to exodus Hawaii as a Native Hawaiian and go live somewhere with an excuse as I can't afford to live at home. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. MS. GREEN: I don't have an excuse. I live at home, like you, like you, like Mr. Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, I've lived on Kalaua. I work. We all do. Sometimes you've got to work two, three jobs, but you do what you have to do. I don't complain. But now, I'm looking at my child and say, listen, I'm not going to leave my kuleana for you. I'm going to take care of it. My mother, my father, could never afford it. They were not rich people. They were basic people like all our ancestors were. But, I'm proud to be Native Hawaiian. I'm proud to be a Page 23 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 landowner of Kalaua. I'm proud to inherit land of my ancestors. So, seeing people of a Council of same people like you and I makes it worth coming here today and every day until I can get my kuleana taken care of for my child. Do I know anything about that ADU thing? No. Do I want to know? No. Do I have a pocketbook for that? Hell no. I do not. So, when I you, and John, and everyone sitting in this room, I'm going to plow that road for our children, let's set a path for them so they don't exodus Hawaii and turn around and make this an excuse. It's not. It's not an excuse to say I can't afford to live here. Yeah, you can. You're doing it; I'm doing it; Holeka, your family; everyone's doing it. Cindy, how long you been in Hawaii? Yeah, I'm born and raised here. Born and raised, and I'm going to die here. That's the difference. My family are Hawaiian people. We are going to live and create here. That's what this is all about. So, thank you for having us here. I showed up. I drove in the rain and thunder last night over the mauna, screaming on my windshield. I'm looking at my tires, are we going to make it? Yeah, we're going to do it. I brought my child here to show you what I'm doing it for, who I'm doing it for and why I'm doing it. It's my kuleana, not his. Let's do it now, and let's set a precedence for this. With John helping me and guiding me on the verbiage, thank you; Dr. Darrow, thank you. Zendo, thank you. Everybody that has helped educate me to get me here, so I hope that you can kokua me on that because remember, what you chose to do today and the next meeting and the next meeting, will also guide your children and your kamali'i coming right behind you. Let's set that up. Let's not make it an excuse anymore. I told my son, no more excuses. I'm going to do it. Like I said, I don't have that money in my pocket, but god be willing, we'll find it. I'll find a way to do it. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. And I remember that about your diligence and tenacity and commitment to find a way to provide for your 'ohana with the resources that were left to you through your 'ohana's legacy and lineage on these lands. So, thank you for your passion and your purpose, and I know you're making it happen on manini resources. But you are getting yourself where your `ohana needs to go for future generations. So, thank you for being here today. I yield. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Kimball, you think we can wrap this thing up? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, if I can, I just —I want to make a quick point with respect to this and to the previous. And your testimony, very, obviously touched the hearts of many in here. I want to warn my colleagues, we cannot make decisions based on, we like this person, and we care about this person sitting in front of us, right, versus, okay, the guy wasn't here, so we don't know what kind of person he is and what kind of story he has to tell. These types of decisions have to be Page 24 M W.-TI am October 1, 2024 without consideration of the individual in front of us or we can get ourselves into some serious legal trouble. So, just wanting to say that to my colleagues right now, analyze this from the standpoint of what is appropriate in the zoning. I'm not trying to diminish at all what you've just provided to us. MS. GREEN: No. No worry. MS. KIMBALL: But we need to be comfortable saying we would make this decision if it was some haole guy from the mainland sitting in front of us. I mean, that's the truth. And so, I want to just caution my colleagues as they make their statements, to be careful of that. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada, and then Council Member Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder. MS. KAGIWADA: Thanks, Chair. Yeah. So, thank you for being here and thank you for presenting this information. Yeah, I know. The difference I see here is this is not a change to rural where the ADU, you know, additions would kick in, you know, it's staying ag land. Very important. And also important to hear from the Planning Department that this is very poor soil for actually doing ag. So, living on the land seems to make more sense than it might if it was really good soil for ag. So, I appreciate that, and appreciate the fact that this is, you know, going to be staying ag. So, once again, listening to my colleague remind us, it's not about who you are. Although, obviously, you're very passionate and doing, you know, amazing things for your 'ohana and your keiki. Really, for me, it's about the fact that this is not a request to change out of ag and that the soil is not super great for doing ag. So, yeah, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. To the Planning Department, thank you for making the maps. They're different now; they're actually in color, which gives us a better view of the surrounding properties. I think that was recent to this meeting. I haven't seen this before. Those are nice. Thank you. And then, given the testimony from the applicant, Ms. Green, thank you. Good testimony. Thank you for being here today. MS. GREEN: Mahalo. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: For me, given the surrounding properties being of similar zoning type, I can support this. Then, just on another note, I always did wonder how to access Matsuyama's Market easily than going up and around the back of the building, which seemed like a one lane road. And I've Page 25 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 gone there a million times, I just never wanted to park in the upper parking lot. But I didn't know it connects to the road that services your property. I might use it more. I might be driving by your house more frequently now. MS. GREEN: Now you know you can walk down to get musubis, yeah. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Just on a different note. Thank you for being here today. MS. GREEN: Thank you. Mahalo. MR. KANEALI'l-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, mahalo. I yield, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder. With that, I think that's it for discussion. This is in the heart of my district and a lot of the properties along that road are long time kama'dina families who are needing to kind of reevaluate, you know, a one large parcel, five -acre, three -acre, and we've seen other families do similar applications in the last couple years, even when I've been on Council. So, in support of that level of density still allowing for adequate property sizes after a subdivision. I want to put that mahalo out there to the Leeward Planning Commission for including the condition there regarding the water pressure and water improvements so as not to impact surrounding properties at such time that the subdivision does occur. And, I think, that's all I have to add on this. I'll be in support. And thank you to the Planning Department for the five year subdivision approval provision of this bill. I appreciate those things being provided to us. So, with that, there's a motion on the floor to forward Bill 209 to Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor? Vote on Bill 209: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 209 on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kierkiewicz and Lee Loy — 2. Excused: None. N.-owlesm.-my "m Imirel MS. GREEN: Thank you, everyone. Mahalo. Page 26 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 CHR. INABA: Let's see. I know we have folks, so we're going to continue out of order with Resolution 633-24, please. STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Res. 633-24. PUBLIC ON RES. 633-24: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Kaldmanamana Harman: (representing Ala Kahakai Trail Association) KeoniFox: (representing Ala Kahakai Trail Association) Res. 633-24 (Comm. 1052), in opposition. Res. 633-24 (Comm. 1052), in opposition. (See Comm. 1052.1) Res. 633-24: AUTHORIZES THE ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF A PORTION OF TAX MAP KEY: 9-5-007:016, SITUATED AT KAHILIPALPIKI AND KAHILIPALINUI AHUPUA'A, DISTRICT OF KA'C, ISLAND AND COUNTY OF HAWAPI, STATE OF HAWAI'l, FOR THE NA'ALEHU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Authorizes the Corporation Counsel to initiate proceedings for the taking, acquisition, and condemnation of private property for the construction of a wastewater treatment plant required by the Administrative Order on consent entered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Reference: Comm. 1052 Intr. by: Mr. Inaba (B/R) CHR. INABA: A motion to forward Resolution 633-24 to Council with a favorable recommendation? MS. GALIMBA: Before all that I just want to say that I will be recusing myself from this. CHR. INABA: Okay. If I can get a motion. Motion to Approve: Mr. Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder moved to recommend adoption of Res. 633-24. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR. INABA: We have DEM (Department of Environmental Management) Director Ramzi Mansour and Deputy Corporation Counsel for DEM here. Yes, if there's a presentation by the department, you can go ahead. Page 27 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 (Note: At this time, Environmental Management Director Ramzi Mansour and Wastewater Division Acting Deputy Chief Mark Grant came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. MANSOUR: Good afternoon and thank you so much for the opportunity. I'm here today to address any questions and concerns that may come through this resolution. In 2005, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) enacted a law where all cesspools must be converted. C. Brewers owned the cesspool community wastewater within Nd'dlehu and Pahala and a deal was made where the County ended up taking both wastewater from Nd'dlehu and Pahala and we were supposed to close these gang cesspools by 2005 when the law was enacted. So, when this administration started there was an existing AOC (Administrative Order on Consent) requires the County to close the gang cesspool within Nd'dlehu community area and convert it to wastewater treatment plant. There was some studies were done on the property and other property to side up the best location for the waste treatment plant and based on that study, the location before you was the recommended location due to the use of the effluent after the wastewater is treated. When we took over, we negotiated part of the AOC with EPA. The proposed wastewater treatment plan was aerated lagoon, which required a lot of excavation, 18 feet deep excavation, and large area was going to be disturbed. So, when we negotiated that AOC with EPA, we were given four options to review, which is IWS (Individual Wastewater Systems) with a maintenance agreement, IWS, where the County also oversee and with a waste treatment plan package unit. And looking at these options during the review and the community meetings, the community chose to go with the package unit. So, there's a lot of process. We've been meeting with the communities; we've been vetting out the environmental documents and the preliminary engineer report. Our deadline to complete construction is 2027. That means the project had to go out sometime soon because it takes about two to three years to complete construction. And we're asking you here today so we could pursue position of the land, so we could start doing more testing, more surveys and be able to lay out the ground for the project. Mark, do you have anything to add? MR. GRANT: Hi. Mark Grant, TA (Temporarily Assigned) Deputy Chief for Wastewater Division. Just being in respect to Mr. Fox's concerns, we've had several discussion meetings with Mr. Fox, in person as well as at the site. So, we have heard his concerns, and we have been open and willing to work and find a reasonable and feasible solution to try to accommodate these known historical features as well as try to meet the broader goals of Ala Kahakai Trails. There's no sure thing any of these impacts will or will not happen, but the County has been very open to kind of work and continue on that communication with Ala Kahakai Trails and Mr. Fox himself. Page 28 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. MANSOUR: In addition, just please note, this action does not stop us from continuing working with Mr. Fox. We have and we're going to continue. It's a commitment. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. With that, wanted to give the opportunity to Corporation Counsel if there's anything to add at this time? Deputy Corporation Counsel Diana Melon -Lacey. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Diana Melon -Lacey came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. MELON-LACEY: Diana Melon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel. I have nothing to add but if there's any questions, I'm happy to try and answer them. CHR. INABA: Thank you for being here. With that, I'll open it up for discussion. Council Member Evans, please tee us off. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, can you tell us what happened at the last meeting with the Ala Kahakai Association? Was there any agreement; agree to disagree; agree what's the next steps on kind of what happened at the last meeting? MR. GRANT: So, we walked the site out with Mr. Fox. He pointed out those known historical sites. Some of the cultural site he pointed out and he did express how the County along with Ala Kahakai Trails will have to go and present to the board and his stewardship this new project, right, because as Mr. Fox noted in his testimony, the original concept was these wet lands, such as aerated lagoons, that would create this wet land environment. So, we've been very open to communicating and working with Mr. Fox to meet in front of the board. What I have expressed is we will need to get our design consultants out in the fields so that they can conduct these topographic surveys as well as Geotech boring testing so that we could develop a conceptual plan that takes into account these types of features, you know, knowing the physical locations, how it is in relationship to the land, so we know how to develop this solution and try to work with what's feasible and reasonable accommodations on those. MS. EVANS: Okay. This is what's bothering me. It sounds like a lot of promises. Promises or words. If you honestly believe that you can work on this site and address the things that have been brought to you that need to be addressed, these agreements or these promises that were given over the year of how there would be protection for a lot of these sites, why don't you put it in the resolution? Why don't you say that we want eminent domain, but we will commit to blah, blah, blah, blah, and put it out there. Be very clear that you're agreeing to it now, because I really have concerns. Page 29 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 Eminent domain, like you go in, you know, you have your attorney here. Eminent domain, you get control of it, you get control of it, but yet you've been promising things. So, I'm feeling really uncomfortable that it's just a straight eminent domain. Why can't you commit now and say we need to do this, we need the treatment plant; we have an AOC, we want to move forward; however, we will do anything and everything and we will commit that we will protect the wet lands, we will protect this; we will do that? And the consultant, the designers, and everybody is just going to have to figure out how to do that while they're doing their design; not wait for the design people to come back and say, "We can't do it." That's like saying a reason not to do it and I'm looking at your commitment to do it, and why can't you say that now? MR. MANSOUR: Let me answer this question. There's no wet land on the site. What he's referring to the wet land is the aerated wastewater treatment system. So, there's no such wet land exists. We have entered into an agreement; the County entered into an agreement in 2019. The County of Hawaii funded some of that land. It's not only state fund. County funds went into the purchase of such land, and part of the agreement when the County agreed to put fund into purchasing that 2,000 acres to exclude 28 acres for the purpose of the waste treatment plant. That was the agreement and that's what they agreed on in 2019, and I think it's part of the attachment in your document. We go through environmental process. Everybody in the County has the right to go through the process and submit their concerns pertaining to the layout and the designs that is being presented, and we've received Mr. Fox's comments, and we responded in writing as well. And that's the process. We've been talking to SHPD (State Historical Preservation Division) about historic preservation of the land, and we promised them, we need to be part of the process. We haven't had the plans yet, so we cannot even start the plans until we get on the property. And it's been since 2019, we're in 2025 come two months. So, six years in the process and we haven't gotten anywhere. If given the topography, understanding the site, and start laying out plans. So, the agreement also allows ten years window. If we cannot have construction completed in ten years, it's null and void. So, that means we have no right to that property even though the County funded that property. And that's where the catch 21, we're five years into it, we've got five years remaining, we've got AOC 2027. We haven't even started the design plan because our consultant cannot get to the site. We've got four years to act because the ten years limit will expire. MS. EVANS: Right. I understand. I just have to tell you, Director, when you work with the community and promise and there's really amazing things going on in the community that's important to the community, you need to figure out a way to achieve both, not exclusive. One exclusive to the other. What I heard from the testifiers before you is I think there's a lot of intent to do the right thing for the community. I understand there's a problem with wastewater and it needs to be Page 30 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 addressed. They get it. I understand that. I want to make sure you get it that there's some important stuff going on, on this land, and how are you going to and what agreement; is it through this reso? I don't know the right agreement to do this, but there has to be something that is really more solid than a hand shake or a promise in a meeting because I don't think that's the way we should go. I think we should have a lot more clarity, comfort level with the community, however that looks like. But I don't think the community wants not to help the community, it's just they know more about that community and the importance culturally, historically, however you want to say it. Spiritually, they understand the importance of that, so why can't you be together. I want to see it together making it happen, not pitting one against the other, I guess is what I'm getting at. MR. MANSOUR: Hundred percent. Hundred percent. MS. EVANS: It sounds like you're just moving forward. It's just, you're going to do it. And that just is not resonating. MR. MANSOUR: I think I'll have our Corporation Counsel; I think it's part of the acquisition of the land. We have to go through it. It's a process. MS. EVANS: I understand. MR. MANSOUR: Yeah. And we understand and we respect highly the concerns and, like I said, we met, our staff met —like, we've been here three and a half years, four years almost, and it's through the work that we have done with the community as a whole. We had quarterly meetings, monthly meetings sometimes, with the communities. We drive up there and we talked to community and what they'd like to see and what they'd like to do, and we give the options. We do presentations, we do graphics so everybody comes on board of what we're trying to achieve and we're going to continue that until we finish the construction and get these people better systems environmentally. It's for the benefit of the community. We're not working in a vacuum. I guarantee you that. We've been having meetings after meetings after meetings with the community. MS. EVANS: So, what you're saying is you cannot, even with all these quarterly meetings and monthly meetings, you cannot move forward, you have to do eminent domain, which means all discussions are done because you're going to move and get it? MR. MANSOUR: The eminent domain is to get possession of the land for the waste treatment plant so we can start designing, doing layouts, to see what layout they'd like or don't like. Without being able to do that, it's only talk and we're losing time because we only got four years within the ten years to complete construction. If the question is that land is never going to be a location for waste treatment plant, then that's a different discussion than having the land and work Page 31 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 with the community. So, if the question is that land not to be looked at as a potential, we're too late in the game because they did look at different locations and that's the location, based on the current soil condition, best fit for the treatment plant. MS. EVANS: Okay. So, I'm going to hang my hat on you saying it's too late in the game. So, having said that, I'd like to have Mr. Fox for just a couple questions, and I'm done, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Mr. Fox, if you could come forward, please? Council Member Evans has some questions being that you are with the Ala Kahakai Trail Association, who currently owns that property. MS. EVANS: So I know members of your trail association. You have a lot of qualified, a lot of people with a lot of knowledge there. So, having said that, if there a way forward? Like obviously, they want to move towards eminent domain but how could you have a comfort level that this is the parcel that late in the game, the soil is right, they've made the decision, this is the right location, the right soil. The question I have for you, is there a way to move forward with this parcel but yet protect what you want to protect? Is there a way forward? (Note: At this time, Ala Kahakai Trail Association Representative Keoni Fox came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FOX: Yeah. I definitely think so. And that's what we want, is more opportunity for us to work together in partnership with DEM. Since this design change, we need to readdress how this is going to impact those resource values, and I'm really glad that you asked these questions, Cindy, because I think Mahukona is a property that just recently got preserved in your district, am I correct? So, you got funding from a lot of different sources. You too, I think through HILT (Hawai`i Land Trust), or whoever applied, had to identify the resource values that the land conservation agreement was protecting. It doesn't matter if there's a house site; I know it's not the best house site, you know, we don't really need to protect it. Whatever HILT or your office put in that grant application as a resource value, it needs to get protected. And together, we're going to have to come to the BLNR (Board of Land and Natural Resources) with a solution on how this treatment plan can move forward without impacting those resource values. When we first went to BLNR to exclude this area from the conservation easement, the BLNR did not just come right out and say, "Oh, yeah. This is great." They wanted a lot of reassurances that we are going to work closely together to protect everything that the state paid for because really, their interest is protecting the monies that the state put into it for everybody in Hawaii, not just our County. It's a resource that protected for the people of Hawaii. Page 32 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 I definitely think that we can work together. We just haven't had a time to sit down, I'm getting a lot of push back and then this condemnation resolution really was a surprise. We the right of entry agreement from Mark two days before this was introduced, passed to you, Holeka, for introduction, hardly enough time for me to review it. they actually had a right of entry agreement back in 2020 that expired in 2022. They sent out archaeologists, surveyors, they did everything they needed to move forward with the constructed wetland design. This is a different design. That's why they are asking for a new right of entry agreement to come back in and do the testing. And I will look it over and work with them so they can get access, but we have to have this open dialogue. We have to be able to trust each other in order to make this work and if I don't have that from the Director, I'm not sure how we're going to get this passed by BLNR. MS. EVANS: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Evans and Mr. Fox. MS. EVANS: I yield. CHR. INABA: Further discussion at this point? Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Just to our department, the purpose of the eminent domain at this point, what is the purpose? MR. MANSOUR: The purpose is to get possession of land. It does not constitute to not continue communications. It's two different things. I do respect the comment that was made with Mr. Fox, and we're going to continue. This is the whole idea about corporation with he design and that's one route. The other route is you have to have the land to be able to put a waste treatment on it. So, right of entry does not give us the right to build on the property. We have to have the property as it was agreed on in 2019 so we could be able to build the facility, we could have contractors, we could have engineers, we could have construction. But all that is to get the position of the land so we can start planning and does the design plan. That doesn't take away, and I assure you and he and I talked about it, it doesn't take away the continuing communication of commenting on the design plan. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's why I said, we have the agreement that you submitted as Exhibit A, which was made between the Ala Kahakai Trail Association, aka the ATA, as well as the County. In 2019, looks like granting use of 28.7 acres for our wastewater treatment facility? MR. MANSOUR: Yes. That's correct. Page 33 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. That's done, agreed to? MR. MANSOUR: Well, that's why we're here today because we need to get that 28 acres, we need to go through this process, through the court system to be able to get granted that 28 acres. Mr. Fox wanted to keep that 28 acres, even though the County paid for it. So, our hands are tied because I cannot get a consultant on the side, I cannot start drawing the plans. So, we need to get possession of that 28 acres as agreed on in 2019. And the rest is just communication and cooperation. So, the idea is, you're right. We need to get that granted 28 acres under the County ownership. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So, if the 28 acres wasn't provided to the County, then what use was Exhibit A? MR. MANSOUR: That's the legal description. You're referring to describing the 28 acres. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I mean, it starts off on the top, disagreement regarding the Nd'dlehu Wastewater Treatment Plant. The agreement is made this 16`h day of December 2019, between the Ala Kahakai Trail Association and the County of Hawaii. It clearly shows ATA as the fee simple owner of the entire parcel, which is 2,300 acres, plus or minus, and then it shows that the County has identified 28.7 acres as a potential location. MR. MANSOUR: Right. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I mean, it keeps going, going, going. And this, to me, clearly shows that we've kind of settled on this idea. But now we're coming in with the eminent domain request via this resolution and is that the problem, is that we're asking for eminent domain of a property that hasn't been discussed with the fee simple owner? Or was this agreement the binding document that set this install? MR. MANSOUR: Maybe Diana can answer that better from a legal point of view. The way I understand it is, the 28 acres is still part of the 2,317 acres, it's still fee simple under ATA. So, for us as a County to take possession of that 28 acres, we have to go through the eminent domain process so it could transfer to the County. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But if we're the —okay, go ahead. MS. MELON-LACEY: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Diana Melon -Lacey. So, this was a PONC (Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation) purchase and it was with the County and Legacy Land providing the funds and it has a conservation easement on it, the property. So, the 28.739 acres Page 34 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 that was identified by the County as the possible site or probable site for the wastewater treatment plant, the conservation easement is not on that land. That's why it can still be considered by us because once a conservation easement is on land, you know, that's permanent. So, the County was asked to enter into this agreement with Ala Kahakai Trails by the state and that's because in the event we take this property, they wanted an eminent domain proceeding to ensure that Legacy Land gets the money back, that the County will pay for the 28.739 acres. And, you know, just to be clear, a resolution doesn't create an eminent domain because that's a legal action that has to be filed in court. It just, you know, you cannot file the action without the resolution passing and I think the concern that the director has is that we're under a time constraint, you know, with the AOC, and EPA, and we want to keep being able to provide evidence that things are moving forward. I believe that, by the schedule they've submitted, they're behind on their design because they haven't been able to get on the property and at least be able to show the EPA that this has been brought before this body, which is required by our state law before an eminent domain proceeding can be filed shows good intent on that part of the County that we're trying to continue to move forward. The other issue that Council Member Evans raised as far as an agreement. The agreement that was crafted with ATA, in Number 4, states that the parties acknowledge the importance of the conservation easement, preserving natural and cultural resources of the Waikapuna property, agree to make good faith efforts to adhere to the spirit of the conservation easement over the surrounding Waikapuna property should the County develop the Nd'dlehu Wastewater Treatment Plant on wastewater treatment plant location, and intend that they will openly and transparently communicate with each other about conditions and actions on the Waikapuna property and the wastewater treatment plant location that may impact the conservation of the natural and cultural resources protected under the conservation easement. So, I believe that, you know, the County has agreed to that, and, you know, of course the County's vested in this property. They also have an oversight as the grantee to make sure that the conservation easement is property maintained. So, I don't think the County is schizophrenic. We're trying to be here. We have, you know, duties on both sides and it's my understanding that Mr. Grant has, you know, been making considerable effort to work with ATA. But we are under this time constraint with EPA and the fines could be considerable if we are not making proper progress. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: When was the Ala Kahakai Trail Association notified of the eminent domain resolution? MS. MELON-LACEY: I don't have that information. Page 35 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. MANSOUR: I'm sorry. I sent Mr. Fox an email I think probably a week or two weeks prior to. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: To today? MR. MANSOUR: Yeah. And when I met with Mr. Fox MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm sorry. A week or two before today? MR. MANSOUR: Yeah. And then when we met on the side, the discussion was I understood his concern. Eminent Domain is strong language, and we talked about it. You know, we've been using friendly condemnation. And we talked about it and we look at it as a friendly condemnation because that's what we did with the other sites through the different property that we went after, it was friendly condemnation, where you get the two parties get together. So, him and I, we talked about it in the field, which I think was probably months again when we met at the field with the idea because I know he showed objection of using the word condemnation. It was strong but, you know, that's what they use with the do eminent domain. So, if friendly condemnation, if it's a better word. CHR. INABA: Sorry, real quick. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I just want to make sure this conversation moves forward. So, if a question is asked, can we just answer the question. I want us to move through this conversation. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. Ms. Melon, just briefly summarize eminent domain proceedings, like very high level, like zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom. MS. MELON-LACEY: So, the eminent domain proceeding, it requires a resolution from the County Council and then the petition is filed with the court, which has to demonstrate that the land is being taken for a public purpose. It also ultimately has to be supported by an appraisal that would demonstrate that the County is going to pay fair market value for the property and then, you know, the court would make a determination as to yes, this is or no, this isn't a public purpose, and also hear from any concerns that the landowner may have. And then if the court decides that that is a public purpose, then usually the only remaining issue is —well, I guess there could be two. One is that the amount of property being taken is what the County really needs. It cannot take more than what it needs to do the project. So, the County would have to demonstrate what it really needs, and I believe that's another reason they'd need the design information to determine that because it could be, you know, less than that 28 acres. And then also, that the amount being offered is fair market value is fair compensation. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And has an appraisal been done? MS. MELON-LACEY: No. The appraisal has not been done. Page 36 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. MELON-LACEY: As the Director reminded me, the appraiser would have to be able to get on the property and at this point we don't have an agreement for that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. I yield, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. A couple of questions were answered but I have a few more. So, the change of the actual wastewater treatment plan is what triggered the need for a new right of entry? That was something that was said. I'm just trying to find the spaces where there seems to be malalignment in the understanding and it sounded like there was an agreement for a certain kind of wastewater treatment facility, but that changed. MS. MELON-LACEY: Diana Melon -Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel. There was under the previous administration, a contract with a different contractor and there were design plans that were developed. I don't know how much formal approval there was of the design plans, but there was development of them. And the previous contractor wanted to go on the property to do certain studies. And so, a right of entry, I worked with Mr. Fox on getting something that was amenable to both parties and that contractor, you know, went on the property for the specific purpose of some design plans and field testing, I believe. And that was for a couple of year time period, which expired, and that contractor is not the one that the County is working with now. MR. MANSOUR: In addition to that, I just want to make sure it's clear. Right of entry, a few years back when they were asking because they were trying to explore the option, right, with that site and a different site. Right now the option's been determined. This is the site that the County needs. The best site that fit the waste treatment plan given on the date that the prior administration and the consultant have done. So with that, we need to have possession of the land to be able to construct the waste treatment plant because it's going to be a County facility. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. I get all that. So, thank you. I get that too. So, it sounded like, from what Mr. Fox said, I understand the desire and need for the urgency to move forward with things. And it sounded like what Mr. Fox was asking for was a postponement from today to provide, I don't know if it's two weeks, if it's a month, for more collaborative work between you guys, not an indefinite postponement, but just a shorter period of time that would allow for some final details. I mean, that's what I'm hearing here today. So, to me, that sounds —I understand what you're saying on this process. I also hear from Page 37 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 Mr. Fox, the desire for there to be continued —you want to know how much money this property ends up being worth. No. Okay. So, sorry for the miscommunication there. But that's what you're explaining the process of eminent domain and then it goes to the court, and it gets appraised and then there's a certain amount of money that the County needs to pay in order to basically take ownership of this property even if it is through eminent domain, the state, which is what all of this says needs to happen. But if I'm understanding correctly that that is the ask of the testifiers here today — and actually you're partners in this project. You know, I was sitting here on Council with, you know, one of my long time mentors, Maile David, when this all came to fruition. So, with the hopes of not tainting what has otherwise really been a smooth and moving forward program, project, and parcel, is that something that you're open to for today, is a postponement for —and I would kind of ask that to you. What's that amount of time? MR. MANSOUR: Yeah. Thank you. It's a great question. And I think really it goes back to the first intent. If Mr. Fox doesn't want to have waste treatment at all, even if the agreement says granted 28 acres, different discussion, then let's talk about how the design would look like. If the discussion about how the design is going to look like, we haven't even got to the property to be able to survey it and do aerial and do layout. And because we cannot get into the property and the most expedient way to do it is to be able to get a, go through the process, get the eminent domain so we can start the design and the negotiation of what design, how do you want us to modify it. MS. VILLEGAS: And I firmly recognize that. I guess what's striking me today with the number of different things that are coming up for us Council is some of the dichotomy and the differences between what seems the most reasonable and expeditious was from a colonial government mindset and the responsibility we have to the lineal descendants and the cultural practitioners who thankfully have been allowed again and provided the opportunity to steward these lands. So, for myself, I would love to see the opportunity for the best case scenario. From what I've heard, and he spoke it on the record, so you can hold him and me accountable for that, is that the intention of coming and testifying in opposition today is asking for a postponement and a pause to then be able to move forward. And he's shaking his head, yes, as are the other people. MR. MANSOUR: If two weeks is adequate for him and us to figure out what the ask is, I'd love to do that. There is no objection. The concern is if Mr. Fox is not to put the waste treatment plant there and find another location — MS. VILLEGAS: That's not something you can do, right? Because this is already signed, sealed, and delivered. Exactly. Got it. Page 38 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. MANSOUR: I just want to make sure on record. MS. VILLEGAS: Got you. On the record. MR. MANSOUR: But if he wants two more weeks just to talk about what he would like to see, I would love to do that. I met him on the site, and we walked it, and he said, "I want a fence here." I said, "We'll give you a fence." And we hired a consultant to do archaeological survey, historical preservation survey. So, we hired all these consultants — MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. You're following through. I get it. You're following through and you are, you've got a fire lit under your `okole to get this project moving because literally our `okole's are toxifying our ecosystems. MR. MANSOUR: And just to let you know, I think going through the eminent domain is six (months) to a year process. MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. MR. MANSOUR: Just that by itself. MS. VILLEGAS: Gotcha. So, Chair, I'm going to relinquish — MR. GRANT: Sorry, Council Woman. So, just to kind of chime in what kind of postponement we're looking at, so from my implementation standpoint, design perspective, if we're able to work with Mr. Fox, say we get a right of entry within two weeks. Our consultant will be able to go out to the field, do their surveys. It would probably take them about two to three weeks, about a month. And then what I'll see is about maybe a month of developing a site plan to kind of present to Mr. Fox. And that might be some back and forth, right, because again, our archaeological inventory survey reflects no further work is required based off their determination. Now, I can understand there's significant value greater than what a determination on Ala Kahakai Trails part. So, to be mindful, again, what's reasonable and feasible solutions to accommodate these concerns at Ala Kahakai Trails broader goals. So, that back and forth I can see taking about another month. So, you're looking at about a two to three month postponement for this push. Now, we've all got to be aware that month that we push out, poses us closer to the AOC deadline date. So, it's likely we've got to most likely have to go to EPA and request for a time extension. There's no guarantee such extension will be granted. So, we put the County at risk for that duration of the push. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for pointing that out. I think the reward outweighs the risk on that, and I think we do have special circumstances being that we are — Page 39 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 so, I firmly understand, but I guess I'm willing to, you know, I'll talk to them if I have to, not that they'd listen to me. But I get what you're saying so my question then, and I'm not sure on process here, but if we come up with what the time of creating a lag here so we can get where we need to get to, so this facility can be built with as much pono movement forward as possible. And so, I think it's worth the investment. So, that's my— CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Before we potentially consider a motion to postpone, I would suggest that since this will require another reading in Council. Given the urgency, we pass this through today, give the opportunity for further discussion when we come back on October 16t'. If we find that we still need more time, we can hold it there. But I think we just continue the forward movement today. CHR. INABA: Council Member Kagiwada. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Just a quick follow up. I wonder if, Mr. Fox, if I can ask you a question? Because I noticed that you seem to be nodding along and shaking your head at certain things that are said, so I just want clarification. MR. FOX: Yes. MS. KAGIWADA: If we're able to postpone, are you willing to work with the team here so that they can get on the site? Because I think that's one of the things I keep hearing is that they felt like they haven't been able to get on the site. MR. FOX: Yes. We are a willing landowner. MS. KAGIWADA: Yeah. MR. FOX: I just want to confirm that. MS. KAGIWADA: So, I mean, that's what I keep hearing, is that you really want to get on the site so that you can start visualizing and planning and all that stuff. And I also hear from you that this eminent domain thing maybe seem a little like aggressive and scary and maybe just like slow down a little. So, I'm wondering can we do both those things, like slow down but also get you on the site at the same time so that you guys both feel a little more comfortable going forward? MR. FOX: Yeah. It's the condemnation hanging over my head is not something I'm comfortable with. I mean, I love Waikapuna dearly. It's also important to note that the state has a deed restriction. They're going to have to bring in the state as a defendant. That's the way I see this. I mean, originally the plan was Page 40 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 that we go back to BLNR together, sell this idea to them, that the resource values are going to be protected, and if they have to do a condemnation, they do a condemnation, or we just sell it. You know, that was always our — MS. KAGIWADA: Right. Understood. But what I kept hearing, I hear multiple times the director saying that the reason they felt like they had to go this way was because they weren't able to get onto the site to start planning or at least seeing where they are at. So, I feel like that's a big sticking point that there could maybe be some collaboration around. And, Director, you can let me know if that's wrong, if I was mishearing that or anything. But thank you, Mr. Fox. I appreciate your responses and willingness. MR. FOX: Thank you. MS. KAGIWADA: Director, is that correct? What I heard is that one of the main reasons you felt you had to push this kind of quickly is because you haven't been able to get on the site? MR. MANSOUR: Right. That's one of the main reasons. The other main reason is that the eminent domain process — MS. KAGIWADA: Takes a long time. MR. MANSOUR: Takes a year. MS. KAGIWADA: Right. MR. MANSOUR: Just to have the court say. And if that's the only process for us to get possession, we need to start yesterday. MS. KAGIWADA: I understand that. But you're understanding that what we're hearing here is this kind of aggressive stance or at least what was perceived to be an aggressive stance is kind of like making them like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. And so, it seems like if we can get you on the site and get you to start being able to do the things you need to do, at the same time giving a little bit of break on this, that might get us further along together. Does that seem doable? MR. MANSOUR: If they both could work together. Because it seems like there's no —my understanding standing from legal, there's no way around not going through the eminent domain. If we're going to call it a friendly condemnation, I agree with Council Member Kimball, go through it, we continue working with Mr. Fox, and we see where that's going to take us. But there's two things. One is the route of eminent domain which has no other junction or exit to it. Page 41 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MS. KAGIWADA: Got it. MR. MANSOUR: We have to go through that process. It doesn't matter if we do it two months from now or do it now, we have to go through it. Let's do it now and we'll continue working the other route to make sure that if we need to get into a different agreement or if the language in the current agreement is not adequate, we could work it. But that's a different route. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. I'm willing to vote on passing this today with the hope that you are going to work with the owner, the fee simple owner, to make him comfortable enough until you guys get to a place where this doesn't seem like an aggressive move, but the path forward for the whole project. MR. MANSOUR: Sure. Definitely. Yes. MS. KAGIWADA: So, I think that seems to me to be some work on your part is to just really spend that time to make sure that there's a comfort level there to go forward. MR. MANSOUR: Agreed. 100 percent. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, I think I have a question. Director, was there an attempt to sign a new entry agreement before this started? MR. MANSOUR: The right of entry agreement. Yes. Mark will — MR. GRANT: Yes. The intent was to get a right of entry agreement signed in place. The time frame of it, we met with Mr. Fox out in the field on August 22"a We talked about the previous right of entry that was executed, about reutilizing it, just swapping a few words, update the dates, send it back to him for review and approval. That was sent back to him around September 10a'. So, a couple of weeks, I followed up with that draft for the right of entry and I think from that point he got notified about the resolution being posted. CHR. INABA: I think that is not pono. How can you put out an agreement request and two weeks later bring this resolution before the Council for eminent domain. No. So, I want to point out that on previous eminent domain requests, we've requested kind of like detailed maps and I'm hoping —I don't know how we're going to proceed with this. But if we can —can you just share us what's going on in Exhibit B map? Because it's a little difficult. You know, we're not all from this area and I'm wanting to make sure we are oriented and understanding this map correctly. Page 42 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 MR. GRANT: Okay. So, Exhibit B, if you look to the right hand to that inset plan, that's the overall large parcel that's owned by Ala Kahakai Trails. That's 2,000 plus acres. That stretch is, you know, close, almost near Mdmalahoa Highway down to the coastline. And then to the left, the Inset A, you would see the exclusion area of the 28.739 acres that's been excluded out of the conservation easement for the purpose of the Wastewater Treatment Plan usage on that. CHR. INABA: Okay. And was this reviewed by the Environmental Management Commission? MR. MANSOUR: Recently or when it was purchased? Remember we came into in 2021, so this has been in progress since 2017. The agreement was written in 2019. A lot of work has been done, so we're just carrying over of what was left from the prior administration and the prior design to be able to meet the AOC. So, it's not like it just started. This has been in progress for the last four or five years, prior to us. CHR. INABA: That's not what I asked. I asked if they reviewed this, this resolution and this eminent domain proceeding that you folks are trying to initiate? MR. MANSOUR: No. They have not reviewed. CHR. INABA: Okay. Thank you. So with that, I guess this type of resolution as pointed out by the Clerk does require two readings at full Council, unlike normal resolutions where it's just a Committee and a Council, and I have not heard a motion to postpone, although I believe the intent of the body is to postpone when we get to the next point. And I'm hoping by the time we get to Council, there would have been discussion that we can report on at least for the entry agreement. So, with that, please get that done. We have a motion to forward Resolution 633-24 to Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor? Page 43 LAAC-32 Vote on Res. 633-24: (Approved) Return to Order of Business: COMMUNI- CATIONS: October 1, 2024 The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 633-24 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Kagiwada, Kdneali'i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy — 5. Noes: Committee Members Villegas and Chair Inaba — 2. Absent: Committee Member Kierkiewicz — 1. Excused: Committee Member Galimba — 1. CHR. INABA: Thank you. We look forward to the update from you folks in a couple weeks. Last communication, please, and we will be on our way to the next Committee shortly, for those who are waiting. The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Communications. Comm. 934: FORMATION OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE COUNTY WAIWAI GRANTS From Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Committee Chair Holeka Goro Inaba, dated July 2, 2024. The ad hoc committee would evaluate and review the 2024-2025 application process, discuss and provide recommendations for improvements to the 2025-2026 application process, develop a scoring rubric for the 2025-2026 application process, and make recommendations on the six-month progress report and review process. Postponed: July 23, 2024 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Ms. Kimball, to close file on Comm. 934.) ; and Comm. 934. 1: From Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Chair Holeka Goro Inaba, dated September 12, 2024, transmitting a request to report the ad hoc committee's findings and recommendations. ; and Comm. 934.2: From Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Chair Holeka Goro Inaba, dated September 12, 2024, transmitting draft documents regarding the upcoming Waiwai Nonprofit Grant cycle. Page 44 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 CHR. INABA: Don't we love these; these ad hoc committee reports. Alright. Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah. And I'll make it brief because, you know, the recommendation can be found in Communication 934.2. But just to highlight, the group really focused on what we could do better on our side of the counter. We heard a lot from applicants about the confusion about the application, how we could provide more clarity around the application and even training videos. So, the first recommendation really is to streamline the application process along with the budget sheet, because it seems like a lot of the applicants were challenged with that area of the application form. Second was, and I'll actually start, which was the third, the sixth month progress report, the timing, all of that. But we really landed in a space that that six month report is valuable and now that we have a dedicated staff to that, it helps with the compliance piece of the entire Waiwai Grant application. However, still more clarity around that process and how we can streamline that six month progress report. And then finally was the scoring rubric. You know, the group really focused a lot on how to score. We recognized that we as Council Members could use a lot of help with how we score and, you know, define good, fair, poor, and a lot of times emotion goes into that. But at the end of the day, the deficient applications would be receiving a score even if it's zero. That way when we complete the entire Waiwai grant process we can look back at all of the applications, recognize that we did our part on communicating information, giving them all the tools to either self -resolve or get help to filling it out and providing very clear language on what is required of them. Open to any questions or even other members who sat on the sub -committee or permitted interaction group. But I just want to comment. I started this in 2016 and here I am putting it down eight years later. And this program has transformed for the better. We were definitely just giving away pennies when we could've been more focused with priority funding, and I think that's where we are as an entire Council, but as an entire program. So, really, thank you to all my colleagues. But also a big, big mahalo to Council Member Inaba, who really pushed hard for us to reform this program, and it's something I know personally, we can all be very, very proud of. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. MR. HENRICKS: Chair, I'm sorry. Before you proceed, this is a presentation of that of the Committee's report. There's no deliberation. There's no discussion. Page 45 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 CHR. INABA: That's right. MR. HENRICKS: So, this is the second of two meetings so, after this report is presented, the ad hoc committee dissolves and then there'll be a subsequent meeting where the Committee or Council can take actions on its findings. CHR. INABA: Thank you for the reminder, Mr. Clerk. So, with that, that's kind of where the group landed. If you have anything to add, Council Member Kagiwada is a member of the permitted interaction group. MS. KAGIWADA: Thanks. I just wanted to add that I think two of the sticking points that we really worked hard on and are still working hard on, but are really important to the public is the issue around public purpose and really being very clear, everybody on the same page of what that is and also trying to be as clear as possible about things, you know, kind of on the flip side of that, things we cannot fund because I think it's something that has hung people up with their applications in the past. And, you know, I think we all feel bad when that happens and want to clarify as much as possible. So, I was just really happy that the group came together to really spend a lot of time on that. And I do want to thank everybody on the team and Council Member Lee Loy for starting this off with so much passion and keeping with it, and for Council Member Inaba for taking up the helm and stepping up, yeah. So, thank you, all. I think it was a good experience and I do think it's much improved and will keep going. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kagiwada. So, with that, we postpone? MR. HENRICKS: As opposed to the recommendations that I know you've provided where you would take further action on those recommendations, I'm not sure you're going to proceed with your findings. You could probably just vote to close file at this point and not postpone it again and then figure out what you're going to do with the, as far as a group, and taking action at a later time. So, you can vote to close file at this point. And if you wanted to bring it back for further discussion, you could bring it back again with a new communication. CHR. INABA: Perfect. With that, if there are any questions or concerns regarding the draft documents that are shared in this communication, there might be a little bit more refinement that's to happen and I want to give a special mahalo to Jessica Valdez, Special Assistant to Council Chair, who's here and she has put together all of these documents and is working actively to prepare the application and work with Finance to get it up on their website for opening on November 30th. If there's any questions, please come see me or Jessica and then we can have those conversations. But those draft documents are what we're Page 46 LAAC-32 October 1, 2024 looking to kind of base our next grant cycle on. So, thank you, everyone. Council Member Evans, quickly. Point of Order: MS. EVANS: Point of order. Just for clarification reasons. So, if there is some other things that we'd like to see considered, that would have to be, because of the Sunshine Law, we'd probably need to bring it back for discussion at the Council? MR. HENRICKS: That's the safer route. MS. EVANS: Okay. Alright. Thank you. CHR. INABA: Alright. Thank you. With that, there is a motion to close file on Communication 934, and subsequent communications. All those in favor? Vote on Comm. 934: The motion to close file on Comm. 934 was carried by Filed the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Inaba — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kierkiewicz — 1. Excused: None. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (Note: The item in this category was taken up previously, out of order.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. (Note: Items in this category was taken up previously, out of order.) CHR. INABA: Thank you, all. This meeting is adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Page 47 LAAC-32 MI-IL49 1kV41 041 Approved: October 1, 2024 There being no further business, Chair Inaba adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m. Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions Committee I 1H ra 1'11-�-Iaq " (Date) Page 48