Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2019/06/18 2018-2020Committee on Planning 11th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii June 18, 2019 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 1:05 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, 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: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Dwight J. Vicente: Donald Rudny: Cory Harden: Jeno Enocencio: Donald Medeiros: Abalghassem Abraham Sadegh: Bill 81 (Comm. 313); Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84 (Comm. 315), comment. Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84 (Comm. 315), in opposition. Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84 (Comm. 315), comment. Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84 (Comm. 315), in opposition. Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84 (Comm. 315), comment. Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84 (Comm. 315), comment. PC -11 COMMUNI- CATIONS: Comm. 320 Hanalei Fergerstrom: (representing Na Kupuna Moku O Keawe) June 18, 2019 Bill 81 (Comm. 313); Bill 83 (Comm. 315); and Bill 84 (Comm. 315), in opposition. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you so much. Seeing that there are no other testifiers, I'll be closing public testimony at this time and moving on to our business of the day. Mr. Clerk, if you could please read in Communication 320. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Communications. NOMINATION OF ANGELA IANNIDINARDO FA`ANUNU TO THE HAWAII COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated May 30, 2019, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: July 14, 2019 (Section 13-4(l), Hawaii County Charter) Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend confirmation of the appointment of Ms. Angela Iannidinardo Fa`anunu to the Hawaii Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by Mr. Richards. (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Rose Bautista came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. BAUTISTA: Good afternoon and thank you very much. I believe we made communications to the fact that Ms. Fa`anunu is not available today because she's in Ireland speaking at a conference. And so, we're requesting that perhaps you could move her nomination with a positive recommendation. And she's assured us that she'll be back, I think the beginning of July and will be able to appear at the next Council hearing. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Bautista. Yes, I understand that she is traveling presenting at a Sustainable Cities Conference. But if you could just for the record, why don't you read in her nomination report. I don't see a problem with moving her nomination forward to the Council, and I believe that she will come before us and answer any questions or make a statement for the record at our Council Meeting in July. MS. BAUTISTA: Great, be happy to do that. Actually, doctor Angela Iannidinardo Fa`anunu, Ph.D., is from Hilo and has been nominated by Mayor Kim to the Cultural Resources Commission. Dr. Fa`anunu is currently an Page 2 PC-11 June 18,2019 Assistant Professor of Tourism at the University of Hawai`i at Hilo and has extensive background on land-use and environmental and community planning. Dr. Fa'anunu holds a Bachelor of Arts in Biology from Middlebury College in Vermont and a M.S.P.H. from the University of Colorado Health Science Center and a Ph.D., in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Hawai`i. Originally from the Kingdom of Tonga, Dr. Fa'anunu has resided in Hawai`i for the past 17 years. She generously volunteers her time to our community and has worked with the charter schools; also, with Hui Makua 0 Punana Leo 0 Kona, Amy Greenwell Farm, and many more. Dr. Fa'anunu states that she is not a member of any political party. Basically, that's her background. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Rose. I just have a question. Is she aware of the monthly meetings, I think every first or second Wednesday? MS. BAUTISTA: Yes, she is. Yes, she's very aware. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, it seems she's a very impressive candidate. She's very impressive. I just want to make sure that she's able to attend the meetings because this body has, for some time now, not been able to make quorum. And I know you've been working hard to get us good candidates. So I just want to make sure that she's aware of the expectations that we have of her. MS. BAUTISTA: Yes, she was made fully aware of that. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, great. Council Members, any comments for the record? Any objection to moving this forward to Council, at which time we'll be able to ask any questions of the nominee? Okay, all in favor of moving Dr. Fa'anunu's nomination forward to the Council with a positive recommendation please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 320: The motion to recommend confirmation of the appointment cApproved) of Ms. Angela Iannidinardo Fa'anunu to the Hawai`i Cultural Resources Commission was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 3 PC -11 ORDER OF RESOLUTIONS: BILLS FOR ORDINANCES: June 18, 2019 MS. BAUTISTA: Thank you. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for Ordinances. Bill 81: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-19 (NORTH HILO DISTRICT ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — TWENTY ACRES (A -20a) TO AGRICULTURAL — FIVE ACRES (A -5a) AT KIHALANI, NORTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 3-5-004:030 (Applicants: Leonard and Marianne Freeman) (Area: approximately 11.57 Acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicants to apply for subdivision of the parcel and create a two -lot subdivision for estate planning purposes. The property is located on the northwest side of Kihalani Homestead Road. Reference: Comm. 313 Intr. By: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) ; and Comm. 313.1: From Planning Director Michael Yee, dated May 21, 2019, transmitting the draft transcript from the Planning Commission's May 2, 2019, meeting. Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend passage of Bill 81 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Will the applicant and/or their representative please come forward? (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Zendo Kern and applicant Marianne Freeman came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Committee. Thank you for your time. This is a relatively straight forward application here. The subject parcel is a little over 11 acres. Zoned AG -20. There's currently two homes on there. One regular home, one additional farm dwelling, and so the change of zone request is to AG -5 to create a two -lot subdivision. Page 4 PC -11 June 18, 2019 Last year we did a change of zone across the street for the Andres', a very similar situation. This area is comprised of a multitude of different sized lots; two acres, five acres, ten acres. There's actually very few 20 -acre parcels in this area. So in one of the areas that was essentially created, the lots were created prior to the Zoning Code, and then the County came along with the Zoning Code and said AG -20. So it doesn't really match the area, and so the AG -5 zoning actually fits in very well there. State Land Use ag, County water, like I said, two homes there. With the conditions, it won't increase the density. So essentially, it just allows it to be subdivided for estate planning purposes. Like I said, pretty straight forward and I'm happy to answer any questions. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Council Members, any questions for Mr. Kern? We also have members of the Planning Department. Hi Jeff, Christian, Deputy Director Kanuha. Thank you all for joining us. They're also available to answer questions if we have any. My understanding is that we reviewed a similar application back in October. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Zendo, for being here. I ask this all the time of our applicants. Has the applicant reviewed and agreed to the conditions of approval as outlined in Bill 81? MR. KERN: Yes. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. I just want to focus a little bit on Condition G, "Prior to Final Subdivision Approval, the applicants shall cancel the Additional Farm Dwelling" permit that's already been recorded. So, based on this, my understanding is now there's two homes on it? MR. KERN: There's two homes, yeah. One was the primary farm dwelling, and the other one is the additional farm dwelling. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, and then once the cancellation of the additional farm dwelling permit when you go through subdivision process, that second farm dwelling will become the primary residence? MR. KERN: That's correct. MS. LEE LOY: Perfect. I have no questions. Thank you, Zendo. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Any other questions or comments? If not there's a motion on the floor to move Bill 81 forward to the Council with a positive recommendation. All in favor say "aye." Page 5 PC -11 Vote on Bill 81 (Approved) June 18, 2019 The motion to recommend passage of Bill 81 on first reading was carried by the following voice vote. Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bill 81 will move forward to Council with a positive recommendation. MR. KERN: Thank you all very much. Have a great day. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you for being here. Mr. Clerk, if you could please read in Bill 83. MR. HENRICKS: Madam Chair, so we have Bill 83 and 84 which are essentially related. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. MR. HENRICKS: I think typically we would read in both bills; take a motion on 83 then you can have full discussion; vote on 83 and then take on 84 separately with a separate motion. Is that acceptable? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Absolutely. Thank you for your recommendation. Bill 83: AMENDS THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAP FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT PU`U`EO, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-6-008: PORTION OF 026 ; and Page 6 PC -11 June 18, 2019 Bill 84: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-33 (CITY OF HILO ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — TWENTY ACRES (A -20a) AND OPEN (0) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET (RS -10) AND FAMILY AGRICULTURAL — ONE ACRE (FA -la) AT PU`U`EO, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-6-008:026 AND 2-6-008:027 (Applicant: Edmund C. Olson Trust) (Area: 39.68 acres) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment to the State Land Use Boundaries Maps and change of zone, which would allow the applicant to consolidate and resubdivide the proposed project site into 51 total lots. Reference: Comm. 315 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) ; and Comm. 315.1: From Planning Director Michael Yee, dated May 21, 2019, transmitting the draft transcript from the Planning Commission's May 2, 2019, meeting. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, and just for the record, the bills were introduced by request. MR. HENRICKS: And perhaps since there may be more robust discussion, maybe we should go for Bill 84 and deal with Bill 83 after Bill 84 has been disposed of. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Great suggestion, thank you. May I have a motion? Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 84 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Will the applicant and/or their representative please come forward? (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Sydney Fuke and Planner VI Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. FUKE: Good afternoon, my name is Sidney Fuke, I'm a Planning Consultant. This is supposed to be like a straight forward application like Mr. Kern's but it had a lot of twists and turns along the way. I'd also like to, before going on with my presentation, acknowledge the presence in the Hilo Office, John Cross, the former land manager for the Edmund Olson trust, and he's currently serving as the consultant. So he has a lot of background on this matter, Page 7 PC -11 June 18, 2019 so he'll be able to answer questions that I'm not able to answer or if you would want to direct any other questions to him. MR. DARROW: Good Morning, Chair Kierkiewicz and fellow Council Members, Jeff Darrow with the Planning Department. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you Jeff, good to see you. Alright Mr. Fuke, if you could take us through those twists and turns. MR. FUKE: Sure, the twists and turns. It's basically a 40 -acre property. It's adjacent to the Clem Akina Park and if you're familiar with Dodo Mortuary, it's on the downside of Dodo Mortuary. It's formally a part of C. Brewer's original 800 lot plan in that area. Back in 1996, C. Brewer was the former owner of the property; had proposed an 800 -lot subdivision in that area, which encompassed approximately about 300 acres of land. Then Brewer sold the property to this family trust called Greer and Greer did not want to proceed with the development because of the high infrastructure and related type of costs combined with their desire to use the land more agriculturally. So they, on their own, initiated to have the State Land Use Boundary declassified actually from urban back to agriculture. And at the same time, proceeded to have the Council nullify the existing zoning that would enable them to do that 800 -lot project. Along comes Mr. Olson, the Edmund Olson Trust, who acquired the property in 2015, the entire 800 acres plus, and their intent was to use the land primarily for agriculture activities, which for the most part, is being used very actively in agriculture right now. I'm sure all of you know who Mr. Olson is. You know he has gifted lands for the Public Open Space Trust. He has engaged in large-scale agriculture, both in the Ka`u, Hamakua Districts and also in the District of Hilo. And he has fostered and nurtured many small farmers by leasing out land as he does currently right now with a portion of the C. Brewer property. So anyway at the same time, you know, in keeping with his philanthropic environmental mode, he still is very concerned for the community. And so he was looking at trying to create properties that would make them available for residential house lots. So, for those of you who know Mr. Olson and know of all of his lands on this island, this is his first residential project. So he's not like a typical land developer. He's basically a philanthropist though, agriculturalist, conservationist, whatever—someone who's very concerned with the community. So he's told me, like everybody knows, he's like about 87-88 years old. He's kind of coming up there in age. So he said if he doesn't develop it, then obviously he's going to find a partner to do it. And at the last resort, sell it to Page 8 PC -11 June 18, 2019 someone who would actually develop the land in accordance with the residential vision that he has. So, the original plan was to create of this 40 acres of land; to create like a 29 -lot residential -AG subdivision. Then we submitted the application in, I think it was in 2016 or 2017. Then in the discussions with Planning, they're saying, well the General Plan calls for low density, it's close to town, so on and so forth. Why don't you guys consider having a little bit more intensive type of development? So the plan was withdrawn; we started again, and then they created a 49 -lot subdivision with the mauka portion being one acre in size; one -plus acre in size, largely because they would serve like a transitional area to the larger agriculture properties further mauka. And the lower side, which would be adjacent to the cemetery as well as the Clem Akina Park, would be set aside for 10,000 to 20,000 square foot residential lots. So we had the proposed subdivision map prepared, submitted it to the Planning Department. And if you see the map, you'll find that there's roughly about 1.7 acres of land that has been set aside as an addition to the Clem Akina Park. It's not really like an addition, it's an area that the community has been using basically for free all these years. So, the subdivision is basically going to kind of legitimize that historical use of this area and convey it officially to the County. There was discussion about, like a cemetery. Bear in mind then this cemetery is not the 39 or 40 -acre area. It's only like a little bit more than an acre of this area that's a cemetery. And I think it was pointed out by one of the testifiers, it's adjacent and mauka to the Clem Akina Park. If you look at the proposed subdivision map, that's exactly where it's at. And so, what we're proposing in the preliminary layout is not about a one -acre area, but to provide an overly generous area of more than two acres for this cemetery area. So that's the concept plan. This thing about this purported violation, I'd like to kind of just summarize what had happened. After the Olson Trust bought the property in 2015, they did some land clearing of some Albezia trees in that area. So during the course of the land clearing in September of 2015, they inadvertently discovered a tomb in that area, and so the work kind of stopped. Then they had an Archeological Inventory Survey (AIS) completed, and contrary to what was represented in the public testimony, an AIS was already done. It was submitted to the State Historical Preservation Division back in 2016, and no response, so over two years. So then in September 2016, there was a heavy equipment operator. He was hired by not only by the Olson Trust but also by one of the tenants, to kind of help clean up that area. And at that time when the AIS was done in 2016, they had already identified the limits of where the cemetery was. So the bulldozer operator, you know, when he tried to clear that area, was well beyond that area. But he had inadvertently knocked down one or two headstones in that area. And so, that Page 9 PC -11 June 18, 2019 precipitated the call to, you know, SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) and so on and so forth. So the revised Archeological Inventory Survey was done then to kind of now reflect a wider area of the cemetery. Although we didn't have any formal review and approval by SHPD on the Archeological Inventory Survey, a draft preservation plan was prepared in February of 2017. And that preservation plan had two components. One was the burial treatment portion and the other one was the preservation portion. That plan is done. It cannot be submitted to SHPD until SHPD approves the Archeological Inventory Survey, but it's been done, waiting around. So 14 months passed, nothing happened, so in December of 2017, the Land Board receives an item from SHPD saying that there was a violation, the Edmund Olsen Trust is going to be fined X -number of dollars. Well, the landowner, Edmund Olson Trust was not notified of this and so two or three days prior to the hearing, the Trust's attorney wrote a letter to the Land Board saying that, "You've got to give us notice." And so at that time, the Land Board removed that item from the agenda. So then in January of 2018, that item was also on the agenda and it got pulled off because there was representation made that SHPD was going to meet with its attorney and Mr. Olson and Mr. Olson's attorney. So they had a meeting in January of 2018. According to Mr. Paul Alston, Mr. Olson's attorney, when they had that meeting in January of 2018, Alan Downer, the SHPD Division Chief basically said that he'll look into it and get back to you. So nothing happened. All of 2018, nothing happened. Finally in 2019, we asked the Planning Department, "What's the scoop?" I mean, like, you know, we want to go ahead with the rezoning. Isn't SHPD going to respond one way or the other? So they conferred via email or maybe telecom with SHPD, and SHPD said, go ahead and process the application. And so, it was under that kind of notion or understanding, then we had proceeded with the application. In the meantime, I asked Mr. Alston, who is Olson's attorney, please check with SHPD and their attorney to find out what's happening. He does in March, and still no answer. And this kind of like brings us to where we are. So, the Planning Commission; the department reviews the application, the commission as well as the director recommends that the application be favorably considered; and you know, this is where we are. I think like several things that we'd like to make clear. One is that there's no reasonable person who knowingly would destroy a cemetery or a burial, and let alone someone like Mr. Olson. To even suggest that Mr. Olson would want to do, you know, or commit something like that I think is ludicrous. Page 10 PC -11 June 18, 2019 The other thing is, it's not like the applicant's fault. All this delay is SHPD's responsibility. They should have responded way back in December or January of 2018. And they haven't done it. So why is it now the fault of the applicant? And lastly, I think, you know, there is this kind of belief that this development will destroy a cemetery. Not so. As I mentioned earlier, this whole 39- or 40 -acre, only a portion of it at the corner is the cemetery. The balance of the property has historically been used for sugarcane and other agricultural activity. Oh, one more thing I forgot. So like, at the behest of Council Woman Poindexter, we had a community meeting two Fridays ago. And basically the same kinds of questions were raised when today's testimony came up. And as a result, I kind of worked with Council Woman Poindexter to come up with added conditions that would further address the concerns raised by the community. One dealt with like, okay fine, you got like an Archeological Inventory Survey, you got like a Burial Treatment Preservation Plan prepared. Well, you know, like although it's kind of known in the SHPD protocol that over and beyond that, you need to have like an Archeological Monitoring Plan. And so we kind of put that in, so you'll have to have a monitoring plan. And we're also saying that all of these have to be in place prior to any land disturbance activity. And the other thing was they talked about flooding. We said, sure, there is an existing floodway in that area, and we all know that Department of Public Works has their own standards, and you know, you cannot change where the water comes in and where the water exits the property. Neither can you increase the volume. You know, that's all standard, but area residents have said, you know, we know a lot about this area. So, we then came up with a proposed condition that would say, okay, after the engineer prepares the preliminary plan, we will have a community meeting and get your input. And if there needs to be revisions, so be it, revisions would be made to the drainage system. So that, we believe, you know, kind of addressed both the kinds of issues that were raised at the community meeting. Drainage and the adequate protection of the cemetery as well as potential inadvertent finds for the balance of the property. So if over and beyond that there's a need for additional meetings with the community, we'll have to do it, so be it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Thank you. And thank you for coming to that meeting. That was, I think, a very informative meeting for the community. Unfortunately, I don't think they—they knew that I wanted to come in with some conditions because during that meeting, as you said when things came up, I asked, can I put those conditions in? And you agreed to work with me on those conditions. However, they haven't seen the conditions. I'm going to put the amendment in, not quite yet because I just want to maybe bring Christian up to the table. Just for Page 11 PC -11 June 18, 2019 some questions on—when Mr. Fuke stated that they came in with an application and it was, you know, one -acre lots, which the community I think are more agreeable to because it was already ag lots. And like Jeno Enocencio at the meeting unfortunately you weren't there at the meeting to hear that. That ag was important in that area, so when they went in for the one -acre ag that was great. However, it was the Planning Department that told them, "Hey take this back, and the General Plan says this, so make it more lots." How did that transpire, were you part of that or do you know what happened? (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Duane Kanuha and Planner IV Christian Kay came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KAY: Yes, thank you. Christian Kay, Planning Department. Back in 2016, I was the Planner assigned to the original application that came in for a change of zone from Open and Agricultural -20 acres to Family -Agricultural one acre. When we took a look at the application, reviewed it for completeness and kind of conformance with the General Plan, and in conversation with our long-range division, the General Plan indicated that the lower portion of the properties was set for a medium density urban and the upper portion of the properties including the entirety of the upper property and then, you know, much farther up was low density urban. With that designation, given its proximity to Hilo; given the additional more intensive agricultural land and uses taking place farther mauka, the long-range division and us decided that it would be a good idea to go back to the applicant and ask for a different proposal that would be more in conformance with the General Plan to provide greater density in the area. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, so is it normal procedure for you to do that with every application that comes in? That you say, "Hey, it looks like maybe you should do more. Can you resubmit an application to get more lots?" I mean is this normal procedure for you guys to do that with every application? MR. KAY: I wouldn't say its normal procedure with every application. Most times when applications come in what they're asking for is relatively consistent with what the General Plan calls for. For instance, if the LUPAG (Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map) designation in the area was important agricultural lands, then that would have been a more appropriate fit. In this case it wasn't, so you know, in the past we have had preliminary discussions with the applicants and asked them to come in with something more consistent. But, not as a matter of course. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, and the General Plan, we're going to redo it because it's kind of old and outdated, correct? We're in the process. Page 12 PC -11 June 18, 2019 MR. KAY: Yeah, it's currently going through an update right now. And we did have an opportunity to speak with the long-range division, after the fact as we started going through this update process and asked them, is this area going to change. Is it going to shift more towards agricultural? Is it going to stay the same? They indicated to us that again, given its proximately to town and the desire to place density closer to town and closer to infrastructure, that it will likely remain the same. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, so how does it tie into the Hilo CDP (Community Development Plan)? MR. KAY: The Hilo CDP, I believe was adopted, and I'm not sure if it was by ordinance or resolution, in 1975. So the Hilo CDP I believe covers this area if I recall correctly. Maybe Sid, you can tell me if it was considered agricultural or for residential purposes? I'm not sure, but in the absence of an updated CDP for the area, in that area and the rest of Hilo we generally look at what the General Plan has to say. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, so right now the CDP is kind of like outdated or archaic, because it didn't go through the same process as the current CDP went through, is that correct? MR. KAY: I am not sure, that was before my time on earth. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, and I think when I read it, they included a community citizens group or something. Go ahead. MR. FUKE: You know, from a geographical perspective, the Hilo Community Development Plan actually stopped at Wailuku River. So, this area was kind of like in no man's land. And Mr. Kanuha confirmed because he was there then. And it was not adopted by ordinance. It was adopted by resolution by the Planning Commission. MS. POINDEXTER: So in all actuality, Hilo needs to go through what Hamakua just finished and Ka`u just finished. I would hope so. MR. FUKE: It's grossly outdated. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, so right now in all actuality they have no CDP. Really a CDP or a CDP Action Committee. There's nothing there. And like you said, because our Hamakua CDP stops before this project. MR. FUKE: I think it's Kaiwiki Road was the boundary. Page 13 PC -11 June 18, 2019 MS. POINDEXTER: So again, it's just an unprotected area as well when we talk about community input. And so that's why it was so important to get to that community meeting, and Duane did you want to say something before I ask my next question? MR. KANUHA: Yes, Duane Kanuha, Deputy Planning Director. And we call ourselves FLOPS (former leaders of public service). You know, what I'm here for is to answer Planning policy related questions. Jeff and Christian worked on this application. They interacted with the applicants and various agencies, so they know the specific application inside and out. You know, I think the short answer is that with the lack of any intermediate planning coverage, right, whether be a community development plan, or an area development plan, or a special purpose plan, then what we'll do is we'll just fall back to what the General Plan calls for. Okay, and so in this situation and other situations like that, it's not really a policy call because the General Plan itself is a policy, and if it dictates, that's what the uses are anticipated for that area. That's probably what our professional call we'll make, notwithstanding that we also will need to look at what's physically there, right? In terms of infrastructure, whether or not adjacent community has changed by different land uses over time and things of that nature. But, across the board, that was a policy call and that was, in my opinion, the correct policy call. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. I was just concerned because the General Plan, I know that it was some time ago, and it was time to revisit that again. So, trying to go back to that plan and say this is the plan we should use, that was a little concerning. But again, this is a community that has no representation on any CDP, you know, at this moment, or didn't even have. From even with the Hilo development plan when it was initially done in the `70's, they still weren't represented in that. So, then I heard that, okay, 49 lots planned. So in the future, can they go up to—what amount of lots can they go up to and not exceed? If they decide to do more than 49, can they decide that at a later time? Say he sells it and they want to do more lots. They're able to do that correct? MR. FUKE: Well, mathematically you have the area that would enable you to create maybe, you know, a few more lots. But, you know, if you go according to what was originally proposed and then, as maybe modified by the conditions if the conditions eventually get adopted by this Council and the zoning gets approved, then obviously the layout is slightly changed. One of the things that the staff is recommending, which the applicant has no objection to, is like the construction of a County dedicable standard road running on the Hamakua side, you know, towards Hamakua and also towards the Puna side. And also the main spine road leading, you know, mauka-makai would also be County dedicated. So, when you look at it from that standpoint, you know, obviously, the road right-of-way is going to be wider than the proposed 20 -foot Page 14 PC -11 June 18, 2019 wide private driveways that are reflected on this plan. So, I think mathematically, you'd be able to probably get a little bit more than the proposed 49, but substantially more, I really doubt it. Because I think, you know, you might have some lots, although the zoning might be like RS -10,000. And you might have some lots that would be like 15,000 square feet. Well to begin with, you know, unless you coordinate with your neighbor, consolidate and resubdivide, you won't be able to create three lots out of two lots. And as I mentioned earlier, the reason why the lots on the mauka portion which is proposed to be zoned for one acre is a little bit larger than the normal amount. It's like they wanted to provide an area of transition and making it somewhat reasonable for family agricultural activities to occur there. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. So, when you talk about the amount of lots, you know, they're concerned about the traffic impact. You know, that was brought to my attention after the meeting. I don't think we talked much about traffic impact there. We talked about a lot of flooding because of the possible grubbing and grading going on there with the sweet potato farming, and they were scared because already they're inundated with water in that area. So what was going to happen when you clear it and now you have more lots there with more water coming down? But, we talked about that and I think they were satisfied with, you know, the possible drainage solutions that you came up with. And then, we'll talk about that in the amendments. I want to just to go the Archeological Inventory Survey that was done. So, first there was one done, then they found out about more of the graveyard area. They had a wider area, so they're now in the second draft of that survey. MR. FUKE: Yeah, they initially had an Archeological Inventory Survey done and that survey said that there was only one archeological feature on the property and that was the cemetery, so they had identified the boundaries of that cemetery. And then as I mentioned earlier there was some, like when further activity occurred in that area just immediately outside of that boundary, then that's where like one or two of the headstones were inadvertently knocked down. And so then, the archeologists went back again, resurveyed the whole area and came up with a larger area. And that was then the so-called revised AIS that was submitted. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, so that's in second draft. SHPD didn't review that yet. And then at that meeting, we heard from an elderly gentleman older than me, that's why I said elderly—but remembers growing up as a child in Japanese camp, because there was all plantation camps up there. Japanese camp, Portuguese camp, Filipino camp, you know. And they each had their own gravesites. So one of the gentlemen there said he remembers some of the Japanese graves getting relocated to Alae Cemetery, but he also said they didn't take all of the remains. Page 15 PC -11 June 18, 2019 Then Jeno Enocencio talked about, you know, there's other gravesites around that area that have not been identified. MR. FUKE: There were other cemeteries? MS. POINDEXTER: Other cemeteries, yeah. That's because people were so poor that they couldn't afford to do those nice cement headstones back then. It was either guava sticks that they made into a cross or just wooden crosses. And over time, that would disintegrate. So the questions from the community was if that's known to SHPD, or is there going to be another archeological survey to make sure that we don't disrupt anymore gravesites. And they were saying, you know, SHPD didn't even approve your burial plan or the archeological survey yet, and we're moving ahead and now there may be more gravesites. So, how would you deal with that? MR. FUKE: So what you're referring to is like having these potential burials like all scattered throughout this 40 -acre site. You know, I think its common knowledge that the burials would be within the cemetery, and not like, you know scattered throughout the rest of the property. If they were scattered throughout the property, I think it would be very difficult to have like all these historical agricultural uses on the balance. So nevertheless, there is always that potential. So you have like an Archeological Inventory Survey, which kind of identifies as best as you can what features are on the property that require preservation. And for those that require preservation, and in this case only those in the cemetery require preservation, then that preservation or burial treatment plan would have to be approved also by SHPD. Tied in with that you have like an archeological monitoring plan that's also part of the SHPD protocol. So that monitoring plan is that as you do land disturbance activity over and beyond that preserved area, if there are any inadvertent finds, then the protocol calls for you got to stop, notify probably the Police Department and also notify SHPD and the Planning Department, and then you take appropriate protocol from that point. And if it's found out to be like a historical burial, then I think every effort is going to have to be made to try to find whether there are any lineal descendants. And if there are not, then they're going to have to find a place to properly reinter them, whether it's going to be as is, or you know, into a cemetery. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Ms. Poindexter, I'm just going to interrupt real quick, the five minutes are up and I just want to MS. POINDEXTER: Can you give me a little more time, like everybody else? Page 16 PC -11 June 18, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'm going to just check in with everyone to see if there are any comments, because I'll happily come back to you if nobody else has questions for Mr. Fuke. Colleagues do you have any questions or any objection to Ms. Poindexter continuing? MS. LEE LOY: Chair, no. I do have questions, but keeping everything in context for Ms. Poindexter, I'll be more than happy to yield to her so she can finish. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I'm going to extend a little latitude and allow you to finish. Thank you. MS. POINDEXTER: Thank you, Chair. Okay, so one last thing, and I won't be long because I want to hear from my colleagues, as well. Because I was asked by the community since they didn't see the amendments either yet, for me to have this postponed. Actually, they wanted it postponed till SHPD can come in and look at the archeological survey and also the burial treatment plan. So, I guess Duane you're going to have to answer this, and I was going to call Christian again, because it was he that I met with and Director Yee. But, since you're here as the Director, I'll ask you the question. Okay, so the Planning Department from what I got wanted to move ahead with the application because they did check with SHPD, and SHPD said that they would no longer pursue this with the board. That's what I got. Is that a true statement? MR. KANUHA: I think that in combination with—this application has been pending with the department for some time. And we have a certain timeframe where we have to, you know, move it along provided that it's a complete application. But in a sense, that's correct. I mean, the information and commentary we got back from SHPD was MS. POINDEXTER: They wouldn't pursue it. MR. KANUHA: Yeah, right. Either that or if SHPD doesn't give us any comment, you know, that would also allow us to proceed. You know, technically the rules require them to go up or down, I believe, in 30 days. But because of the nature of what these studies are, you know, we've been pretty lenient on that. MS. POINDEXTER: So, could the director have said, "Yes," "No" or "Let's do an extension on the application." Or he still could have decided let's extend this and get more information, because from my understanding, we didn't get anything in writing from SHPD. Not an email, not a letter. Nothing, it was just a phone call from Shane that said we're not going to pursue this. So, was that his decision? Or, you know, that's where I question if it was SHPD's decision or his Page 17 PC -11 June 18, 2019 alone to make. But again, this is where everything gets kind of muddy with SHPD. MR. FUKE: Well, anyway, indifference to the staff too, I know that there were like emails or discussions between the staff and Sean Naleimaile. You know, the area archeologist. But subsequent to that, indifference to the staff, they asked us, can you please check with SHPD as well? And so we did, and Mr. Olsen tried to make contact with Mr. Downer and Mr. Wyenof£ And then finally, I believe it was in March of this year Mr. Wyenoff said like, they talked to SHPD and nothing. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, so all of this is done via phone call, because there is nothing in emails or anything that I know of that I was trying to get, or anything in writing from SHPD for the Planning Department, you know, continue with this or go forward with the application. But I just wanted to bring that to everybody's attention, that we should, I would say at least an email or something. I mean it's so hard for the community to hear, well, on the phone call they said go ahead, you know. And was that only his personal opinion or was that overall SHPD's opinion? And I don't know, because we don't have anything in writing. So, I want to hear from my colleagues. I'll yield at this time, but I am going to bring an amendment forward and then I'm possibly going to do a postponement. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Poindexter. Ms. Lee Loy? MS. LEE LOY: Thank you former leaders of Planning Department. I really like that actually. So we actually have two things going on, right? We have the State Land Use piece, right and then the Change of Zone piece? And so just help explain to the rest of us how this would actually work, because we need the two parts to kind of, at some point, go together. And then adopt the State Land Use Boundary amendment piece. Mr. Kanuha, please? MR. KANUHA: So your question is procedure? What goes first? Okay, the State Land Use Boundary amendment has to go first, followed by the rezoning and any conditions related to the rezoning ordinance. MR. FUKE: And if I can add to that, I think that, you know, whatever SHPD does relative to this at this point in time, I have to say this alleged violation, you know, with the landowner, that has to be, I would recommend be taken like on another track. Largely because if you make that as a condition or you just hold it off, then you know, you're kind of bordering on kind of trying to legislate infinity because you'll never know like when that's going to happen. And even if there is a resolution, or not a resolution, but the land board or whoever decides that this is Page 18 PC -11 June 18, 2019 so-called what you need to do, that could conceivably be contested. You know, then you don't know how long that's going to take. I think, you know, speaking on behalf of the Olson Trust, they want to get this thing resolved. I mean, you know, they don't want to hang it on, so they were always asking SHPD, what's the situation? Because, sure, you know there's some amount of accountability on the part of the Olson Trust, but they maintained that there is also some other people who were using that area. They were like scavenging bottles, and that place has also been used by some of the homeless that could have inadvertently resulted in some of these destructions. So to put the entire burden on the Olson Trust, I think this is where between Mr. Olson and their attorney, they kind of want to try to work this thing through with SHPD and the land board. And when that's going to happen, basically they're waiting for SHPD to come back. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for that gentlemen. Yeah, I'm generally concerned about the timing elements as far as, you know, five years on final subdivision, but we've got to wait for the approval of an AIS. And this body has seen what has happened down at Kaupulehu where you had landowners put in the burial treatment plan; put in, you know, all the various park plans and it sits for many, many years in these state agencies. And despite a lot of prodding from the applicant or from the County, you know, they're on their own timeline. I'm going to yield at this time because I do have some general concerns about the subdivision and the timing of that, but I also saw some of that reflected in Ms. Poindexter's amendment, so I'll wait for that discussion. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Council Member Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, what was it? FLOPS? Is that who we were talking to? Okay. Coming back to this timing and we're heard a lot of concerns and I don't think anybody up here in the dais is not deeply bothered by impacting a cemetery. We all agree that that's problematic. I am concerned that SHPD is not responding, and I think we get into a procedural problem here. And help me through this Mr. Fuke. The damage was done sometime in 2016, do I understand that correctly? MR. FUKE: That's correct. MR. RICHARDS: And then, again reading in the paper, this was reported by Ed Olson Trust themselves, it wasn't that somebody discovered it, they reported it themselves. Correct. MR. FUKE: You know, the first time it happened, I think in the latter part of '15 or '16. Hang on a sec. In June of 2015, that was when they started to do, you Page 19 PC -11 June 18, 2019 know, the broad clearing of the Albezia, then in September, they discovered a tomb, you know, near this cemetery. MR. RICHARDS: Right in the same area? MR. FUKE: There was no destruction then. So, because they discovered a tomb, then they said, like, "Oh, it's not fully used for agricultural purposes in the past." So, then they commissioned with scientific consultants services to do a formal Archeological Inventory Survey of this entire area. So then, that was done, the application was filed, you know, for that one -acre lot. Then Mr. Olsen had, you know, some of his tenant farmers use that area. And so, in conjunction with the tenant farming activity, they had another heavy equipment go in there. But it went in there, but he went in outside of the initial boundaries of what they understood to be the cemetery, and during that activity, they inadvertently knocked off one or two headstones. And that occurred in 2016. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. That puts a better timeline. And no one wants to disturb this. I do appreciate that Council Woman Poindexter has worked with the community to bring the concern forward. My concern here is that SHPD is not responding back to what would appear to be a concern. And that puts the landowner in a kind of never, never land because nothing's happening. And so, that probably concerns me more. We raise the concern and then it doesn't seem to be a concern to the State and that is problematic. I'm going to yield at this point, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Richards. Council Member David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Thank you guys for being here today. This is a very complex, complicated and drawn-out situation. Mr. Fuke, I would like to first note that I believe why we're here today has no reflection on Mr. Olson and all the good that he and his family has done for this island and for this community, that's no question. And I just wanted to make that clear. But, what I do have questions about is the fact that we're wondering what the delay of SHPD has been. And so, in going through the transcript of the Commission meeting that you folks had, I came across this comment that part of SHPD said they didn't want to review the documents and then go ahead with the application to that application of something to that effect. So, part of the holdup they said they didn't want to review those documents until the violation with the State was dealt with. And so, having no written document within the paperwork from SHPD saying that they said go ahead, I called. Page 20 PC -11 June 18, 2019 And so, my understanding is at this point the violations are being negotiated. SHPD and I believe Mr. Cross, they're negotiating the proposed violations. And my understanding is once the trust and his attorneys agree on I guess the settlement of what was proposed initially, then that would be agendized on the Board's agenda to either accept or make their own recommendations on what kind of terms they're going to agree to, or whether they're going to accept the negotiated terms. So, I can see that part. I understand that this is a lengthy process. In looking at we, as the legislative body, I'm looking and reading the Board's comments about this application that basically refers to our duty under 6E-42 (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) to basically before any "political subdivisions approves any project," we should "advise the department and prior to any approval allow the department an opportunity to review and comment on the effect of the proposed project on historic properties." So my question is, I know where we are right now, but this pretty much tells me that we're supposed to get this before we make a final decision on approving any application. And so, my problem with this is there was an investigation for proposed violations. Testifiers have been saying that, you know, these historic properties have been in existence, and I'm not comfortable in saying, well, we're going to take care of it after when 6E basically says that we have to make these determinations beforehand. And I know the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was done. MR. FUKE: The Archeological Inventory Survey, yeah. MS. DAVID: And so it's to me, I don't believe thatI know the State takes a long time to do their due diligence, but I think we also have a responsibility in following the process, especially when the Board is also saying—right now, we're pointing the finger at SHPD for not reviewing the survey and giving it to the board. But the documents in here, the letter from the Board dated October 2017, basically has some very valid concerns about, number one, their belief. I guess it's their belief that the application is engaged in parcelization, and that would circumvent the comprehensive view by the LUC (Land Use Commission). That's one of their points that they're making by keeping the delineation of the 14.95 acre Single -Family residential lots below the 15 -acre limit. So that was one of their concerns. The other one was there was a traffic study thing that they really believed should be done. The other important one that caught my attention is that the County's environmental report acknowledges that it is not known whether the subject of the immediate surrounding area was used in the past for gathering of plants by native Page 21 PC -11 June 18, 2019 Hawaiians. And the report concludes that because the applicant has not observed any native Hawaiians on site or the adjoining properties, that there's no impact. But the board is saying there has been no formal cultural impact assessment prepared for this project and that the environmental report's conclusion is without basis because it does not comply with the Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Ka Pa`akai O Ka `Aina, which mandated agencies to determine impacts prior to approving applications. So this is the Board's concerns, and I just want to know whether we have responded to these concerns in the meantime. And for now, I just have those comments to make, but that's why I am really uncomfortable at this point in time listening to the reasons why. I hear the justification why we should move forward because the State is taking so long, but I don't find a reasonable answer for me that we can go beyond our responsibility to make these determinations beforehand. MR. FUKE: Well you know, like as far as the cultural portion, one of the steps leading up to whether there's a need for a separate CIA (Cultural Impact Assessment) is like an Archeological Inventory Survey. And the AIS basically pointed out that the only thing that was worthy of preservation was the cemetery portion. The historical use of the property on that portion anyway has been for the cemetery. It was already conceded that that area was going to be set aside and preserved and lineal descendants would be allowed to gain access to it. And that was why in the original rezoning application, the lot layout, it was already made clear that the primary road leading up to the subdivision and also leading to the cemetery would be available to the general public. The road would be publically dedicated. Over and beyond that, you know, the historical use of the property has really been for agriculture activity. So all that was stated was that's been some, you know, that's the historical use or recent history. And representation was further made that—you know, by John Cross and also in conferring with Mr. Olson when they had ownership of the property, if they had received any requests from Native Hawaiians, so people who are interested to say, like I need to get to the property not only to visit the cemetery, but maybe to do harvesting or things like that. And they did not receive any such request, and as a result, that was the conclusion that was made in the report that I prepared. So during the course of the review of the application, should SHPD who also receives copies of the application, you know, make that request to say that, no, but we learned something, something, something. Then it would be incumbent upon the applicant to try to address that particular question. Page 22 PC -11 June 18, 2019 MS. DAVID: So, would you think that, because now it's come before us that SHPD is taking their sweet time and are not moving as fast as we would like them to at the detriment of this applicant, that if we put this application off for a few weeks or a couple weeks until we can actually encourage them that this is, you know— MR. FUKE: Subpoena them? MS. DAVID: No, not subpoena them, but you know, I think we can basically encourage them; call them and encourage them. You know, it's holding up our decision here. And I just don't want to make a decision based on the fact that some agency is taking too long, because that becomes a precedent and I don't want to go there. MR. KANUHA: Council Person David, let me respond to, you know, your statement before the applicant replies. What it comes down to is this. Yeah, this particular project, before it can be rezoned for the zoning that they're asking for, has to be converted from the State Land Use district to another Land Use district. So in this case, the existing State Land Use district, and there's only four of them, right? Agricultural, Rural, Conservation, and Urban. Before you can convert from district to the zoning, you have to go through that process, okay? And that process for a long time required that anyone that wanted to convert those districts, that conversion, that district redesignation could only be done by the State Land Use Commission, okay? The Legislature in its wisdom amended Act 205 to allow the counties the authority to do that conversion for the State Land Use boundaries for areas that are 15 acres or less. Now here's the difference, if you do a petition before the State Land Use Commission, the rules of evidence are much higher and the burden of proof is much higher. And so, their standards for approval, you know, are much higher. So the commentary that they provided there was based on, you know, what they would see. They've always, and still express the preference that boundary amendments considered and granted by the County should be under their purview. So what they usually try and do, right or wrong, is they try to introduce this argument of segmentation, you know, where you take 14.9 acres for a particular increment and you keep moving it on. But, I just wanted to make that distinction. The procedures in the County Code are not as stringent as those of the Land Use Commission. It's primarily because their procedures are all quasi-judicial. You know, based on contested case. Whereas the County's procedures and processes are more like rezoning. We consider the same rezoning, but in a lot of areas what the County requires of the applicants kind of mirrors the same concerns that the State Land Use Commission does. Okay, so in this particular case, the surveys, Page 23 PC -11 June 18, 2019 things of that nature, that would be what the State Land Use Commission would require as well. So, I just wanted to get things clear on that, yeah? MS. DAVID: Yeah, I know that there's two different processes. MR. KANUHA: And the other thing you need to remember is that the violation component, you know, is clearly a separate track from SHPD's review and approval or disapproval of the inventory surveys, right? That they're two different tracks there, and I think they're still on two different tracks, right. Which is why SHPD can say we have no comment or go ahead and do it, while the violation track is still out there and pending. Okay, there's just two separate tracks there. MS. DAVID: Yeah, I understand that, and again my concern was that we proceed without getting a preservation plan for the historic properties that were identified as being historic properties because it wasn't an inadvertent discovery, it was a discovery made as a result of a grading and grubbing permit that was not obtained first hand. So, those things I'm having to go through it in my mind because I think for me, in order to make an informed and reasonable decision and what I'm to do right now, it seems like because there have been historic properties identified on the property, then there needs to be a comprehensive plan on how to address that and how to go out to the public and notify them that, you know, if you have any interest in this area whether it's cultural, historical or traditional, give them an opportunity to come forward as opposed to bringing them forward on an inadvertent discovery after the fact. MR. KANUHA: Well, let me just say this, if it wasn't for this inadvertent action on the graveyard, based on all the studies and based on all the requirements, we'd still be right back here today. MS. DAVID: I understand. MR. KANUHA: Right? We'd still be right back here today. The studies would show that there was this graveyard. They'll do whatever more analysis they would need to do as part of that study to determine what's the extent of that graveyard; who was there, you know; where it leads to. And all of that would be presented to SHPD for them to look at. And they take the same approach that they've done now, which is not to say anything or they could have looked at it and said, what about this; what about that? That's part of, you know, part of the process. So in my mind, from the department's standpoint we're comfortable that everything has been done that we required them to do. And what other agencies have provided us even SHPD's no comment to us, you know, is a comment of sort. So, our position here is before you—you know, it's in your ballpark to decide what you want to do with it, yeah. Page 24 PC -11 June 18, 2019 MS. DAVID: Right. And I appreciate that. And I just wanted to get your sense of this section of this statute that says, "Except as otherwise provided in Section E-42.2, before any agency or officer of the State or its political subdivisions approves any project involving a permit, license, certificate, land use change, subdivision, or other entitlement for use, which may affect historic property, aviation artifacts, burial sites, the agency or office," which is us, "shall advise the department and prior to any approval, allow that department an opportunity to review and comment on the effect of the proposed project on the historic properties." So, that's where I'm stuck. MR. FUKE: If I can just kind of like just— MS. DAVID: They haven't commented yet. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member David. Mr. Fuke before you answer, I just want to say a little PSA (Public Service Announcement), if you're tuning in for Public Works and Mass Transit or Finance Committee, we are still deliberating in Planning Committee. And if you could wrap up questions and I'm going to check in with Council Chair Chung. Thank you. MS. DAVID: Yes, I'm going to wrap it up. So, that is what I'm reading and I just wanted to make that— MR. FUKE: If I can just kind of just make two comments on, you know, related to that? MS. DAVID: Sure. MR. FUKE: One is that I can't understand why SHPD withheld the review of the Archeological Inventory Survey, which prevented the submission of the Burial Treatment Plan, while this so-called reported violation issue was kind of ongoing. I don't think they're kind of like related. There may be some relationship, but they can be like both independent processes. Secondly is that true, you know, it would be good to have like the review and advice or recommendation of the different agencies, but absent that, if you have the required information absent comment from the person that's going to be making it; if you have the required information, I would assume that you have the knowledge to be able to read it. Make your own assessment and make your own conclusion regardless of what SHPD says and doesn't say. If, for example, we don't have like any Archeological Inventory Survey and we just say. "Council Woman David, trust me," you know like, I don't think I would trust myself in being able to say you have to trust my recommendation. Page 25 PC -11 June 18, 2019 MS. DAVID: Right, I understand. MR. FUKE: On the other hand, if you have like a professionally done Archeological Inventory Survey, you've reviewed the recommendations. And then, in conjunction with that, they're recommending a Burial Treatment Plan. A Burial Treatment Plan is also part of your submittal, and if you look at that, it also says that they did make a notice. They had a notice sent out and published in the newspaper. So I guess like, well I can appreciate your point wanting to wait to hear what SHPD has to say. I think that you have enough information before you. You all are reasonably intelligent people that you can kind of make your own assessment, and I would entrust you to make your assessment. MS. DAVID: Thank you. And with all due respect to the private Archeological Inventory Survey that was conducted, I really think that the State should weigh in, and that's according to the statute. So anyway, I hear what you're saying, and I know that it's our decision. So, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member David. Council Chair Chung in Hilo, would you like to make any comment on these bills? MR. CHUNG: Yeah, briefly. You know, first of all, I listened to a lot of the testimony. And most of them, if not, all of them were done here in Hilo. And very interesting, all points well taken. You know, we had a person, Donald Medeiros, who is actually still around but I think he has to leave pretty soon. You know, he's a longtime resident of that area. He stated some concerns. Mr. Rudny also, but you know, a lot of it centered on the matter of the cemetery. And you know, the way I'm looking at this is from a land use standpoint. Let's take away the cemetery from the equation. Is this a good use or a proper use of land in that area? I don't know, so I have to seek guidance, of course, from you know, the representative from that district. Although, you know, I probably live closer to that area than Val does. And I go up that Amau`ulu Road, you know, quite often to take my daughter to the soccer field, which is owned by the Edmund Olson Trust, of course. And I don't see a problem, quite frankly. Flooding may become problematic in that area, but you know, we haven't raised it yet. But I'm just looking at the amendment that's been prepared by Ms. Poindexter, and it seems to address that flooding issue as well. So, I'm just looking at it from a purely land use standpoint. I know how visceral, and you know, maybe to other people, offensive, you know, desecration of cemeteries and gravesites are, and I certainly feel the same way. I've shared the same feelings that Mr. Rudny had expressed earlier, you know. To this very day, I will certainly not walls over a grave. I don't even point at a grave out of respect to those who are there. Page 26 PC -11 June 18, 2019 But SHPD has to do their job, and I think the amendment which hasn't been put on the floor yet will address those concerns. I don't think there's any reason to hold off on this matter, in my humble opinion. Then it would become incumbent upon the applicant at some point. Let's say this matter was approved. This application was approved at the County level and the State still wasn't doing their job—because they owe a ministerial duty to the public to do their job, and they're not doing it. So I think it would be incumbent now upon the petitioner to go and file a law suit against SHPD and say, what the hell is going on? Do your job, one way or the other. People have to know where they stand, plain and simple. So I look at it again, as you know, I just have to take away that whole cemetery issue. You know, we've spent most of this discussion talking about the gravesites. That's really, and I don't want to seem flippant about it, but it really is a red herring in all of this. The main thing is that we need to look at it from a land use standpoint, and I think that what was there before—I mean I know this is only part of the large C. Brewer development which called for anywhere, from what, 400 to 800, I'm not too sure, properties until it was down -zoned by the Greer's. This is far less, and I think Mr. Olson has proven over, you know, the years, even if he's getting up there in age, that he's out there to do the right thing. So that's my thoughts anyway. I prefer to move this thing forward, but that's only my feeling. That's not my district. Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair Chung. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Hello FLOPS. That's a good one, that a very good acronym. I like acronyms. I've listened to this discussion and I really thank the Council's discussion and for your input as well. I do agree with Maile David that, you know, regardless of any philanthropic actions by Ed Olson, and with all due respect to him, because he has been a leader in this community as far as building business and helping people become things that they may not have had the option to without him. This really is and does fall back on him as a landowner and his faults along the way, which I find interesting given his background and given what he knows and what he has done. So I find it slightly disturbing that we found this site in the process of grading and grubbing, and then we continued to desecrate that site. And you've got to be honest, they found it, they noticed it, they disturbed it; and then by accident or not, did it again. And if that was anyone of our families or our people that someone had dropped a tree on or disturbed with the bulldozer, I'm pretty sure we would be up in arms against what had happened, and maybe not so forgiving. And more of a let -it -go mentality. And that's just how I feel. If that was my grandmother, that's how I'd feel. Page 27 PC -11 June 18, 2019 So regarding what we have in front of us, after the letter from SHPD was received, October 18, 2016, there was an investigation from the DLNR, and then there was a violation, and then there was a fine for disturbing four burial sites. And as that violation was scheduled to be heard January 12, 2018. It has been postponed, but has yet to be rescheduled. So it says SHPD is not yet finished their review of the draft, and although that may be an answer, like you said. Mr. Kanuha, it still isn't an answer and we're still kind of floating. That's why I tend to agree with Maile David on that because we're still waiting on an answer. Unless we've had an answer since then, but I'm not getting that we have. And then, what I wanted to clarify too is, when you submit to SHPD for, you know, when you take over a property, you're going to do some work on a property and you submit to SHPD and there's no answer, that's usually a go ahead. But in the case of a violation, a post -violation, is that the same style of thought, not same style but actionable items. Is that still the same? MR. KANUHA: That's a good question. I don't know what the answer is to that. MR. FUKE: I'm sorry, I wasn't' listening to the question. Can you restate it? MR. KANUHA: The comment is on, if there's a violation like in this case, there's a violation that's ongoing, does that stay their responsibility to respond? MR. FUKE: I don't believe there's any rule to that effect. That's why my earlier comment was I believe that they can be taken on both tracks. You know, like one is the review of the Archeological Inventory Survey, and the other one is reviewing the damage portion. Because independent of that, even if you're going to, say for example, if you resolve the damage portion, the violation, and then does it change the nature or the composition of the AIS, because the AIS is already recommending that a wider area be set aside for this cemetery area. And it also goes into the protocols about like what should be done in the event there's some inadvertent finds. So, honestly I don't know whether there's any statute or regulation that prohibits SHPD from continuing its review because there's a pending violation. MS. LEE LOY: Chair, if I might, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I just took a look at HRS, Chapter 6E and I sat alongside Mr. Richards looking for that specific part. There is no timing element under that section of HRS, which is kind of the purgatory that we find ourselves in. SHPD is a State agency and they have their own rules as designed by our State statutes. They're the authority on this one. So that's why I'm kind of eager to see Ms. Poindexter's amendments and how we can actually get some comment back, which is what Ms. David is looking for and yourself, while still kind of holding the land owner accountable to meet the various conditions of approval. And maybe some time to just take a look at that Page 28 PC -11 June 18, 2019 section. It's a pretty quick read, but if you want to take a look, it's Chapter 6E in our Statues. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Switching then—so land use here was prime Ag, yes? Is that what this was called? I read that in the report. MR. FUKE: Okay, according to the status report, it was prime agricultural land and existing urban development. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I've got to ask the question then, for developing into one -acre lots, is that for the top half or for the whole section? MR. FUKE: The top portion. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: The top portion. When we develop one -acre lots like HPP (Hawaiian Paradise Park) or anywhere else, I really don't see much Ag happening after that. So I know this island is heavy in Ag lands, but as part of the Ag Committee when we take prime Ag land then develop it into one -acre residential lots and they call it something else, and I'm going to say that. And as part of the—when you make a subdivision, five to ten percent of the total land area is to be developed into a park or a green space or an open space or some sort. Is that correct? And then preserved in a way, and then given to an entity like the County. It's in the Subdivision Code, I forget what it's actually called. It's preservation of space or something. MR. FUKE: Well based on like the way the County has been approving the zoning ordinance, you know, you have like your fair share impact, which addresses the parks, the roadway, your solid waste, police, and fire. So, if you provide a park space within that area, and it's going to be available to the general public, then that gets credited against the park requirement. Like in this particular instance, as I had given my opening comment, more than two acres of land which has been traditionally used by the community for I don't know how long, will be conveyed to the County. That's part of the Clem Akina Park. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So I read that as 1.7 acres. Am I mistaken? MR. FUKE: Whatever, you know, it's a proposal, yeah. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So I did some math real fast. Five percent of 40 acres comes out to two acres of land. So we're under on our five percent, unless you include the cemetery, because then you'd have three point something acres. So that's my question. Are we doing the five to ten percent? Being how philanthropic Mr. Olson is. Is he giving his five percent? Page 29 PC -11 June 18, 2019 MR FUKE: If the Council in its wisdom chooses to increase the park requirement, you know you can make that as a condition. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You might want to think about that, Ms. Poindexter when you do your amendments. Okay, thank you, I have no further questions. MR. FUKE: I would like to just, you know, clarify one comment that was made just from a factual standpoint. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'd appreciate that. MR. FUKE: You know, when the—I'll make a copy of this and provide to the Chair later, but this is like what was presented to the community and it was a detailed chronology prepared by Mr. John Cross. And pretty much like what I'm reciting a lot is what his narrative. And what he points out is that when the tree felling, you know, on the Albezia first occurred in 2015, at that time, John has some familiar—in that area. So like, there's potential for a cemetery over there. So then, he had work stopped over there. Sean Naleimaile, according to his chronology, and I'll make it available to you. He came out to the site twice and based upon the two visitations, with SHPD local staff The preliminary boundary of the cemetery was identified. Once that boundary was established, then in September of 2016, you know, roughly like about one year later, there was some activity going on in that area outside of the so-called boundary, then during that time they discovered an inadvertent destruction of one or two headstones in that area. Work was stopped and it was represented by Mr. Cross and the bulldozer operator to SHPD, and then during the course of that, the AIS was amended to now reflect a larger area. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's good. And with that knowledge it hurts me that we desecrated graves. MR. FUKE: Well, I think that, you know, according to—if you read his chronology, according to them they made a good -faith effort. You know, because once they discovered it then they hand -cleared all of the particular area. And then they, you know, they poisoned. And then they figured out like where the boundary was going to be. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I appreciate that. That is good. I respect that, little bit late, but I respect that. Now still, I'll say it again, if that was anyone of our families in this room and that had happened, we would not be smiling down on whoever did that. So regardless of what we are talking about, which is Page 30 PC -11 June 18, 2019 rezoning, you've got to talk about this kind of stuff because it did happen and we can't glaze over it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, do you yield? Thank you. Council Member Eoff, then I'll go to Council Member, Villegas. MS. EOFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just wondering of Ms. Poindexter is planning to make a motion to postpone, because there's so many things at play here right now that I really believe that would be the best route for us today. The community concerns; the use of the land. Several of testifiers eluded to too many different things, but most importantly I think is what Ms. David has raised and what's been raised by a few testifiers in writing. That we need to follow the proper process. And you know, you folks are recommending something, but we are actually the decision -makers, and I think we are bound by laws to base our decision on facts that we have satisfied any kind of impasse to historic sites, historic properties and cultural practices. So, I don't really feel comfortable that's taken place, unless we get at least the proper information sent down to us. And in whatever order that's supposed to be done. If SHPD has to wait for a negotiated settlement, if that's proper for them before they further opine, then maybe we do have to wait. And I don't know how long that will take, but maybe if we do postpone it today we could find that out and then go from there. So I just suggest that might be the safest route for us as decision makers and law makers. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Council Member Eoff. Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you for being here and for your patience through this process in providing so much information. This is a tremendously complicated issue. On one side might seem simple, but for myself from a principle standpoint, it gets complicated by the fact that there's some violations being cited and actually I'm friends with Ed Olson's wife. And so, you know, I have extreme gratitude for all that his trust has done for so many areas on this island and his generosity to the people here. However, I would agree with a motion to postpone because this just is too complicated, and I just think out of principle, we shouldn't be rushing things like this. The Olson trust is not in jeopardy of going bankrupt if this deal doesn't happen quickly. This is not a case of somebody having dire circumstances if we wait to get answers from SHPD and continue to follow through with the process as the law requires. I also just want to point out, it just jumped out to me that, you know, in recent history, this was sugar cane land, but the history of our islands tells us that there Page 31 PC -11 June 18, 2019 were people in that space that utilized that land for other things prior to the plantation era. So I just want to be sensitive to the potential of other iwi and other circumstances that might be relevant in the area. Just have been hearing from a number of different constituents, and while it's not my district, when we get an overflowing of people asking for a postponement and asking for things to be slowed down, and also people that through the exposure of these gravesites and some of the headstones, people that didn't know where their kupuna were buried have been able to find them. And as we all know, you know, in the history of Hawaii, sometimes we all get displaced and disconnected from our families. And in some way this has provided an opportunity for some of those families to identify the placement of their ancestors, which in its own odd way has a silver lining. But I'm more comfortable with postponing this and doing some further research and connecting with SHPD and making sure that all the legal processes are followed through in completion, so I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Since everyone has asked questions, I have a few questions. And then I'm going to ask Council Member Poindexter if she would like to introduce her amendments. Just a few questions, Mr. Fuke. You mentioned in June 2015 there was a clearing of the property. Was there a grubbing permit for that? MR. FUKE: According to the chronology that Mr. Cross provided, that he had applied but none was issued, and he said that since no stump removal was planned and soil disturbance was expected to be minimal and within the exempted amount, they proceeded with the felling operations, you know, of the Albezia trees that do not require a grading permit. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, so that was in June 2015? MR. FUKE: June 2015, correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And then in December 15 as you stated, they discovered the cemetery. Was there additional grubbing work that was happening? MR. FUKE: No. In September of 2015 while the tree felling was nearing completion in the lower area of the project and as they were working near the cemetery site, they saw a cement rectangular tomb near a large Monkey Pod tree, at which time then, Mr. Cross informed the contractor to kind of stop all activity in that area. That was in September 2015, and then they formally contracted with an archeologist to do the survey, you know, of that area and then the entire parcel, which was completed in March of 2016. Page 32 PC -11 June 18, 2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: At what point were you notified, or was the developer notified by Public Works to stop? MR. FUKE: They were notified in March of 2016 by Public Works that there was a grubbing violation. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And at which point, the trust submitted an after -the -fact grubbing permit? MR. FUKE: Correct, yeah. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And that's when we kicked off the AIS process. MR. FUKE: Correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I want to turn to an October 2016 letter from SHPD regarding the after -the -fact grubbing permit. There were a number of requests on SHPD's end to be resolved. They basically said no further work until a number of items were met. So I'm just wondering the status of that. I mean one of the things that are very obvious to me are that the orange mesh construction fence be erected around the cemetery area. And that's a very easy way to prevent any other inadvertent accidents when clearing, so I'm just wondering what the status is on implementing those requests, because they're about two -and -a -half years old now. MR. FUKE: You mean pursuant to that October 2016 letter? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. MR. FUKE: As far as what's on the ground right now? Whether there's like an orange fence? Can I defer it to John Cross, who's in Hilo? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, please. If Mr. Cross is still in Hilo, I would love to get a status update, as I'm sure my colleagues would be as well. (Note: At this time, Land Consultant to Edmund Olson Trust John Cross came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. CROSS: Yes, we did erect the orange field fencing after that September encouragement by the bulldozer operator. And that orange field fencing remains today. Although it is covered by grass and vines now. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And Mr. Cross, do you have a copy of that letter from SHPD in front of you from 2016? Page 33 PC -11 June 18, 2019 MR. CROSS: No I do not have it with me. This is the one that was written to Duane Kanuha and Warren Lee? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. MR. CROSS: Yes, not to the Trust, but it is in my files, but back at the Papa`ikou office. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, but maybe you know off the top of your head if the requests were met. So the 10 -foot interim protection buffer; the orange mesh, which you stated for the record was erected. The preservation plan has been submitted to SHPD but it hasn't been reviewed and accepted. And that the preserve has been recorded on a plat map with the Bureau of Conveyances. MR. CROSS: It has not been recorded on the plat map with Bureau of Conveyances. The orange mesh fencing was put up with a more than adequate 50 -foot wide buffer between what was known to be the edges of the gravestones that we had a surveyor mark out. And we would do that with the metes and bounds and recording upon the plat map, but that would be done at subdivision. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Got it. Okay, thank you. And then I just want to bring everyone's attention to the very excellent planning report backgrounder, page seven. It actually starts on page five, Number 18, "Archaeological, Historic, Cultural Resources." Council Member Poindexter had alluded to this earlier about just the interaction with SHPD, and I do find it bothering that we haven't gotten anything in writing to confirm that they aren't pursuing violations, but if you read a little bit further, there is a phone conversation just a couple of months ago in March where SHPD staff indicated that it may be changing course and resurrecting pursuance of the violation anyway. So I just have concerns all around, and I don't see a rush in having to move this forward to Council at this point. I would like to hear Council Member Poindexter's amendments because I know that she worked really hard to engage community and worked in partnership with Planning to sort of create conditions that are a little bit—are just strengthened and have a little bit more detail, so that we can ensure that the existing developer and future developers are held accountable. Mr. Kanuha and Mr. Fuke, did you want to comment at all about the planning report and this sort of miscommunication within SHPD and State and how that's translating to the County level? MR. FUKE: No I think that as you pointed out, like on page seven of this planning status report, you know, that's kind of like an accurate characterization of what I understood to have happened between, you know, that dialogue between Planning Department and SHPD. You know, if I can kind of add, I can Page 34 PC -11 June 18, 2019 understand maybe there might be a concern for wanting to defer, and admittedly Mr. Olson is not really like in a rush, except that we have to understand that he is 88 or 87 years old, so there is a little bit, you know some measure of urgency. But I would suggest that, you know, like how you Council, you all have deadlines, whether it's for the budget or whatever have you. You have to make decisions, and I think that in fairness to the general public, SHPD has to be a little bit more responsible, more accountable. So if you're going to defer it, I would recommend that the deferral be for a certain period, or if you have the powers of subpoena, tell SHPD to come and give them a chance to say something, you know, and not let it be deferred in infinity. And conceivably that's what could happen. And that's not going to be fair to all involved. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, I was going to suggest that we actually defer until the July 8th meeting, and then I'm going to check with Corp. Counsel. Do we have subpoena power as a Council? MS. POINDEXTER: Madam Chair, I would want to talk about that in my postponement when I make the motion to postpone because Mr. Fuke will not be here on the 8th, so I was going to say the 23rd meeting, Committee Meeting July 23rd. So I was going to bring in my amendment, then make a postponement so Mr. Fuke and I could go back to the community and see if there's any other conditions or if they're okay with these conditions, to try and move forward. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And I think there's been some other remarks made by Council Members that you might want to consider in another iteration of proposed amendments. Okay, so I'm going to turn the floor over to you for a second, Council Member Poindexter to, let's see, do we need to amend Bill 84? Motion to Amend: Ms. Poindexter moved to amend Bill 84 with the contents of Comm. 315.2. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Member Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: And these are the amendments that were made because of the concerns that the community had at that meeting, and Mr. Fuke was so kind enough to help me get this done and agreed to these conditions. This, I feel if it - I hope you support it so that we can take this back to the community, and again you know, get their blessings on it. In fact when we were at that meeting, Mr. Fuke, as you remember, there was a descendent who found out where her great grandmother was because her sister, I think or cousin from Honolulu called and said, "Hey, did you see the news? It's Page 35 PC -11 June 18, 2019 grandma's grave." You know, and so, that was important because we finally found a connection too, and that was part of some plan, I guess the burial plan put together to find the lineal descendants. So, we're starting that. I guess it's pretty self-explanatory. I just ask for your support in this amendment. So I'll yield the floor to hear from my colleagues. Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Council Members, any comments, feedback for Council Member Poindexter, Mr. Fuke? Planning Department, do you have any comments? MR. KANUHA: Yeah, I can just add that we've reviewed proposed amendments. We have no objections to them. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Fuke, I know that you worked with Council Member Poindexter, but I just want to hear, for the record, that the applicant is in agreement. MR. FUKE: Yes, like I had drafted that and also had a discussion with Mr. Olson's attorney, and he too concurred with the proposed amendments. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, any other discussion on this? Okay, Council Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair, Mr. Kanuha, Mr. Fuke. And I'm going to be supporting this amendment, but I was just wondering, because we have Condition (d), "Final subdivision approval shall be secured within five years from the effective date of this ordinance." And I understand subdivision really isn't a land -clearing action. It's drawings on paper. But in light of what I've experienced here on the Council and just the timeliness of SHPD, I'm wondering if this is enough time, and I also recognize there's five years from the effective date of this ordinance, and then a time extension which would allow for another five years. I just wanted to get your thoughts on that particular condition. MR. FUKE: Well I believe like that's kind of like a standard condition that the staff, you know, and the Council usually adopts. So which is like, you know, basically a five-year, plus the five-year. And I would hope that within the ten-year period, you know, that the project can be completed, because most of us will be former FLOPS. MS. LEE LOY: I agree, I hope FLOP -outs. I agree. MR. KANUHA: You mean, you would hope SHPD would respond in ten years. Page 36 PC -11 June 18, 2019 MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I'm going to be supporting this amendment and then defer until we can kind of get a bright line as far as where SHPD is. I'm also reading through various administrative rules as it relates to SHPD and their timing elements. And I understand there's an active violation with SHPD. And so I'm not sure if there's procedurally with SHPD that they have to address the violation and then look at the AIS. So even if the applicant were to prepare an AIS and get it in to them, if SHPD doesn't clear the violation with the board, then that clock will still be ticking. Is that kind of a correct understanding? MR. KANUHA: I think the question was asked earlier and I'm not sure, you know, whether that applies. But obviously, you would think that it would be an appropriate response from SHPD to our department and the applicant that they are withholding further review on the AIS pending resolution of the, you know, alleged violation. But you know, as the record shows, there's nothing on either side. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, gentlemen. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Any other comments? If not there is a motion on the floor to amend Bill 84 with the contents of Communication 315.2. Any other comments? If not, I'll take a vote. All in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 84 with the contents of Amend: Comm. 315.2, was carried by the following voice vote. (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. MS. POINDEXTER: Madam Chair, now that we're back to the main motion, can I make a motion to postpone it to our July 23rd meeting? That will give an opportunity for Mr. Fuke and I to go back to the community and Mr. Fuke will be back in town and be able to be here at that time. MR. FUKE: Plus, it would give SHPD ample opportunity to review. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Hopefully, they're live streaming right now. Susan Lebo, Alan Downer, Sean Naleimaile. Do you hear us? Page 37 PC -11 June 18, 2019 MS. POINDEXTER: Even if they're not live streaming now, they can always watch it. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And I'm sure there's going to be an article in the Tribune Herald tomorrow. I will entertain the motion. I just wanted to provide some final remarks, if that's okay, then I'll ask you to raise the motion. You know, going back to what Council Chair Chung pointed out, if we take away what happened with the cemetery, I think it's a good project. There's good intent there, but I think this body wants to be sure that if mistakes are made they need to be rectified. There's a lot of issues that caused domino effects, and I'm hoping that this project in particular, all parties are able to find a sense of taking some ownership and reflect on what's happened. You know, I have a lot of appreciation and respect for Mr. Olson. I wonder why no grubbing permits were obtained, or more pressure wasn't put on Public Works twice. And so that doesn't sit well with me. Our Code, when I take a look at it, maybe the consequences just for these kinds of violations are inconsequential. We're going without permits, and we see this across the board all over the island for different kinds of scales of projects. So I question, perhaps, our permitting process. It's very clear, you know, the first Planning Committee that I chaired, Bill 1, Kaupulehu Developments. SHPD hadn't responded to that project developer in seven years. They are maxed. Sean is maxed. It's not the first time we've heard this and I will put my money on it, it's probably not going be the last. It's years long review, and I think that many projects are often victims of this process. I also think about DLNR and how this was on their agenda in December of 2017, and again January 2018. And it really hasn't been resolved to the satisfaction of the public and the County. We need answers; we need explanations. The minutes that I've looked at, they don't provide any context, any background. And I think we need that in writing because that information is really foundational to any of our decision making. And with all of these elements together, I think it's just created a recipe for a very disastrous cocktail. I think Planning has done an excellent job where possible, to create conditions where we keep developers accountable. So I want to thank you all for your hard work on that. And given the discussion that we've had as a Council, I would like to entertain the motion by Council Member Poindexter to defer. I'm so sorry, to postpone Bill 84 to the July 23rd Planning Committee meeting in Kona. Page 38 PC -11 Vote on Motion to Postpone: (Approved) June 18, 2019 Ms. Poindexter moved to postpone Bill 84, as amended to Draft 2, to July 23, 2019. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Chair Chung. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, just wanted to briefly say, with regard to that motion, you know, I'm going to support because it's going to be brought up again on July 23rd I don't like indefinite types of postponements particularly when we're talking about the approval process relating to some separate agency like the State. But saying that, you know, I just wanted to make one comment. You know, I think a lot ofagain, I want to reiterate, you know, I'm not downplaying the importance of the gravesite matter. In the eyes of many, it's very important. I know Matt kind of brought it home like he normally does when he said, you know, he'd be very angry if it were his ancestors who were there. And as would I, but as the same time, as emotional as this matter may be, I think we are duty-bound to divorce ourselves from that emotion and make objective decisions when it comes to the public. And what I'd like to see more of will be discussions relating to the land use aspects of this development. I would like to make one more request, though. Given the high intensity of this matter, and you know, there's a lot of credibility issues involved. Again, becoming emotional, I'm wondering if it's possible if Mr. Olson himself can be present at one of these next meetings. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Fuke, would you be able to make that happen? MR. FUKE: I will ask. That's all I can do. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair Chung. Mr. Clerk, motion to postpone Bill 83. Page 39 PC-11 June 18,2019 Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend passage of Bill 83 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. David. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. A motion to postpone Bill 83 until the July 23`d meeting in Kona? Vote on Motion to Ms. Lee Loy moved to postpone Bill 83 to July 23, 2019. Postpone: Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Motion carries. Bills 83 and 84 will be heard at Planning Committee on July 23`d. Do I have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:27 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Committee is adjourned. Approved: Nii) 7/3o/149 Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 40