Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2020/03/10 2018-2020Committee on Planning 24th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i March 10, 2020 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 11:01 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, 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 (came in later) Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Member (via videoconference from Kona) 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: Toni Withington: Bill 141 (Comm. 764), support. (representing Ka Makani O Kohala Ohana) Gene Tamashiro: Albert Kaho`opi`i: Matthew Kaho`opi`i: Chad Ha`a: Dwight J. Vicente: Sariah Evans: Bill 141 (Comm. 764), in opposition. Bill 141 (Comm. 764), in opposition. Bill 141 (Comm. 764), in opposition. Bill 141 (Comm. 764), in opposition. Bill 141 (Comm. 764), comment. Bill 141 (Comm. 764), in opposition. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other testifiers? Remote sites, last chance for testimony. Seeing none, I am closing public testimony and moving on to business of the day. PC -24 March 10, 2020 COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. (There were none.) ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions. (There were none.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, Bill 141. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 141: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-7 (NORTH & SOUTH KOHALA DISTRICT ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — 15,000 SQUARE FEET (RS -15) TO RESIDENTIAL & AGRICULTURAL — FIVE ACRES (RA -5a) AT KAHUA 1sT, NORTH KOHALA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 5-9-001:008 (Applicant: Kohala Shoreline, LLC) (Area: 37.88 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into six lots to develop a residential subdivision. The property is located three miles north of Kawaihae Harbor on the makai side of Akoni Pule Highway. Reference: Comm. 764 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) ; and Comm. 764.1: From Planning Director Michael Yee, dated February 12, 2020, transmitting the draft transcript from the Leeward Planning Commission's January 16, 2020, meeting. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, do I have a motion to forward Bill 141 to the Council with a positive recommendation? Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to recommend passage of Bill 141 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Will the applicant and/or their representative please come forward? Page 2 PC -24 March 10, 2020 (Note: At this time, Land Use Consultant Greg Mooers, representative for the applicants, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. MOOERS: My name is Greg Mooers, I'm a Land Use Consultant representing the owner, Dr. Myhrvold and his wife. This project has a long history. I think Toni alluded a part of it, the property was rezoned from Ag -5 to RS -15 a number of years ago by a previous owner. That was in 1997. My client acquired the property after the previous owner passed away and is not a developer, and so he sat on the property for over 20 years. He would like to now develop it and felt that the current zoning, the RS -15 zoning which would allow up to 110 lots, was inappropriate. After discussions with many people in the community, there have been two EAs (Environmental Assessments) done on the property, and in response to those the owner has come up with a plan that the people felt was a lot more palatable. I think you've probably seen it. This is the map showing the subject property. Originally, there was 50 lots under a previous SMA (Special Management Area), that would have required massive, basically just, you know, grading the entire site. And it would have been very destructive to a number of things. This plan here proposes to go back to the original five -acre zoning that the County had asked for back in a rezoning in 2007. And by doing this, one of the things that became important obviously, was the trail, which is depicted in orange across the property here. The Ala Loa which became the jeep trail, and we have received numerous testimonies from agencies and individuals about the significance of the trail. The owner has made a determination that they would not breach the trail at all. They would not develop anything makai of the trail. And in addition to that, there's a 150 foot setback from the highway, and then a stipulation that nothing would be built higher than 25 feet to minimize any visual impact. We have been working with the community for a number of years. We've been meeting with the community access groups; Toni and her group for probably every first Monday of the month for the last two years. We have tried to address everything that was submitted in the previous EA. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: (Addressing the audience) Excuse me, decorum. Point of Order: MS. POINDEXTER: Point of order. Can we take a CHR KIERKIEWICZ: We're in recess. Page 3 PC -24 March 10, 2020 Recess: At 11:30 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:43 a.m. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha, Council Members. If we could get back to the business of the day. I believe Mr. Mooers was in the process of explaining the history of the project. And just to remind everyone, what we have before us is a matter of the rezone. MR. MOOERS: Thank you, Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Please continue. MR. MOOERS: Yeah, I'm a little bit off guard here. I think the applicant has made every effort to create a project that is consistent with the resources on the land and reserve as much of the natural resources as possible. The public use of the property has always been the shoreline area. And again, if you notice all the area in yellow below the trail, nothing would be developed makai of the trail. Nothing would be developed makai of the 40 -foot elevation and a minimum of 100 -foot setback. You can see the setback along the highway is 150 feet. You can see that width, so you can compare down to the lower area and you'll see that's, you know, more like a 250, 300 -foot setback from the ocean. And this is done so that there'll be uninterrupted lateral access across the property. Currently there's no mauka-makai access through the property. There's a road access up here, and this access was gated by Kahua Ranch in the late 90's because of the number of abandoned vehicles that were being abandoned on the property and other junk. And so that was terminated almost 30 years ago. The lateral access will be maintained. There will be no vehicles on the Ala Loa. We've been told by the public and by all the various agencies that that is a historic site and should be preserved and so it will be. We will be working with Na Ala Hele and Ala Kahakai to establish the Federal trail through the property so that it would run uninterrupted from Kohala Kai next door to the state land to the North. By changing the density of this, the number or archeological features that would have been previously where it was going to be data recovered has now been lowered by 11. So now there's only seven sites that would have data recovery. As part of the conditions that are proposed there will be a data recovery plan, a preservation plan, burial treatment plans, all approved by State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) prior to any land disruption. Page 4 PC -24 March 10, 2020 I've read the background report and recommendation forwarded by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. We have supported the conditions as stated. Although I would like to amend two of the conditions to clarify some things. If I may, Madam Chair? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Please go ahead. Could you identify the letter? MR. MOOERS: Yes. Condition J currently says, "All proposed structures shall be sited 100 feet from the shoreline mauka of the Ala Loa/jeep road." I would like to add two words after, "Shall be sited" say, "A minimum of 100 feet." Because many of these sites are far more than 100 feet from the shoreline. And then in Condition K it says, "All proposed structures shall have a maximum height of 25 feet." I just wanted to add in what had been in the transmittal from the Planning Department, which says, "As measured according to Chapter 25 of the Hawaii County Code." The Planning Department has a method in which they determine the heights of structures, and I just wanted to clarify that. I would like to take a moment to speak to the public testifiers. I certainly don't question the sincerity or the legitimacy of some of the concerns about ownership. I would simply point out that this property is land courted. We believe we have clear title. We have title insurance to it, and believe very strongly that the proper venue to determine ownership is not the Planning Commission or the County Council. And I'm sorry that that issue has come to you today because you cannot provide the relief that these testifiers are requesting. I think what is before you today is simply a question of what is the most appropriate use of this property. Should it be 15,000 square foot lots, as it is currently zoned or is it five -acre lots that we are proposing and has been endorsed by the Planning Department and the Leeward Planning Commission? I have nothing else and prepared to answer any questions that you folks may have. I know it's a rather long 500 -page application that we've prepared. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Mooers, for your summation. Colleagues any questions for Mr. Mooers? I also want to point out that we have members from the Planning Department here to provide any justification for their recommendations. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to acknowledge the testimony, Mr. Mooers, that you just acknowledged. And then, yes, you're right that it is not under our jurisdiction to make those decisions. However, you know, when things happen to a land or the piece of property that people are claiming that may have some clout to it, regardless if you say you had clear title. Page 5 PC -24 March 10, 2020 Because I did have a friend who ended up going to Maui and fighting for their property when the people who had it said, "Well we got a clear title," and it was documented because your tutu man put the "X" and somebody witnessed. Well, she showed proof that her tutu man could write his signature and knew how to read and write, and he was a smart tutu man. So the court awarded her the property. However, the people who had it went for adverse possession and got it back. And she just didn't have enough money as a Hawaiian to fight for that more, and so kind of let it go. So I know and I feel for the Kaho`opi`i `Ohana and what they've stated. So know that we've heard you; and you know, there's other ways that we could probably be resourceful to you in our personal lives. But as far as what's coming before us for a down -zoning, that I think would also be in your best interest should you move forward going to court for some type of, you know, regarding the land title, that it's not 100 homes there or whatever but it's down -zoning. So why we're here today is to look at the zoning, which I feel had enough testimony from that community to also support it, and put it into the, I think it was Ag -5. So that is what I'm supporting, but I just want to acknowledge my heartfeltI would like to even say condolences on your journey to make what you feel your family needs to be pono. And I apologize, you know, for what had happened here that may have put a damper on the importance of what your testimony stood up for. So, I apologize for the other testifiers who kind of put a little damper on that, and that should not have happened. And I bless you going forward. I'll pray for your `ohana. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And this is a day of ditto. I'm going to echo what Council Woman Poindexter said. But I grew up with the Kaho`opi`i's. Your grandfather—we all grew up together. I haven't seen you a long time, Matthew, but good to see you and Junior. We'll talk story outside. What is before us is the zoning, and we'll be talking story about that. And I actually give credit to Greg for bringing this forth and working on trying to strike the balance for the property going forward. Question, this is a procedural one and maybe the Planning Director this request that Mr. Mooers put forth, Planning Director Yee, the request concerning the clarifications as far as the setback, is that something that formally has to be done, or how does that get amended? I understand with Condition J, "Sited 100 feet" back that's instructing to be Page 6 PC -24 March 10, 2020 100 feet as opposed to be a minimum of 100 feet back. And so, how do we do that? Is that that's a procedural thing. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Right. So procedurally we would be introducing amendments, but I do want to get clarification and confirmation from Planning Department that Mr. Mooers presented these amendments to Conditions J and K, that you find those to be acceptable? I'm getting nods from Planning Director Yee and Mr. Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager). So let the record reflect that they are amenable to those changes. Does that answer your question? MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, that answers my questions, so we have the vigorous nods in agreement with the amendments. So that's the things I wanted to talk story about. And again, I learned today from your family. That's interesting, I want to talk story more about this. So with that Chair, I'm going to yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Mahalo Chair. And mahalo everybody for being here today. And I personally want to apologize for the display that we all experienced and the hurtful things that have been said. But what I wanted to say was to the Kaho`opi`i `ohana is that, you're issue is a real one. Title to our lands has been neglected. Can I say neglected from day -one when everything that we understand as, take it culturally, as our land is our land, is our parents. And then in our society today, it's totally different. So while we sit and be comfortable, our lands were being sold or taken and laws had to be changed. The adverse possession law as pretty much the worst thing that impacted our natives. Until today, quiet title actions are still being filed on this island. And that's because we still have families that have managed throughout society. And the economic disasters that we have experienced as Hawaiians to try to hold on to something that was ours in a world that was so confusing to everyone. And I talk from experience of my family losing a lot of land that way. So while I sit here in this role, I see my role as trying to help you folks. And I've offered my help to you, not on this body, but as my experience in land issues in my prior life as a paralegal. And I reach out to you folks to come and I want to help you. So that aside, what I'm doing today is supporting a down zone of land that would have been so devastating to the Kohala Coast. And we now have to deal with six lots or 115 -lot subdivision, you do the math. You know, I'd rather see six lots than 115 high-end lots that will just clutter our shoreline. So, I want to apologize for being taken to a place that I have tried very hard not to go to. But I'm sorry, today was the straw that broke my back. When you mix Hawaiian issues and Hawaiian culture with other political issues whether it's Page 7 PC -24 March 10, 2020 Hawaiian or governmental, I see your issue as separate. Gene Tamashiro's issue is a totally different issue, but it was blended with your issue. And I take offense to that today. And I think that's what did it for me. So I really want to express how sorry I am for not practicing what I preach or trying to uphold every time. But to everybody else—so we all do what we can, and please reach out to me, okay? Thank you. Mahalo, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. David. And I think I speak for everyone when I say that you are full of integrity and virtuessence, so no apology necessary. We stand behind you, thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. Following Auntie Maile's challenging—so a couple of things. My `ohana, although my nameplate says Lee Loy, I'm actually a Keohokapu with ties to so much of our testifiers. And so Auntie Maile, thank you for standing up with grace and dignity. I too have done a lot of work with land use and understand the action to quiet title and some of that adverse possession, and how that really became a tool for so much of what native Hawaiian issues struggle with. And I too take exception to some of the blending of the issues. And I've said it before, I don't appreciate native Hawaiian issues becoming a springboard for other issues. But what we have in front of us is a downzoning, and I have to say it again, it's a downzoning. And that is a good thing. I do want to speak to the conditions of approval, so Mr. Mooers, in addition to the conditions of approval that you identified, there is a Condition F, "Restrictive Covenants in deeds of all proposed lots ..." And I tried to glean from the minutes of the meeting. Will Conditions I, J, and K be made part of those deed restrictions to insure that future property owners are very clear as to what they can and cannot do, and some of the restrictive covenants that come with these conditions of approval? Is that the intention of Condition F? MR. MOOERS: Yes. I think what would be recorded would be the entire set of conditions so that any landowner and anybody acquiring the lot would understand what representations were made and what the expectations are. If you read the application, there are a number of statements made by the owner as far as the highest and best use, and low impact design that were not completely incorporated in the conditions of approval, but will be recorded in the CC&R's to hold that to a much higher standard. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for that, Mr. Mooers. I think, as Ms. David mentioned, you know, there's a number of things in front of us but these are the tools that we have for those testifying to insure some of those setbacks from the Page 8 PC -24 March 10, 2020 shoreline. The protection of our Ala Loa Trail, the setback from Akoni Pule Highway. And then even some of the restrictive covenants as far as height requirements to the structures that will be built on these potential lots. So with that I don't have any questions. But thank you, Mr. Mooers, for clarifying that and demonstrating to our community that as we move through this downzoning, there are going to be more assurances, not only through the subdivision process but through the covenants and the CC&R's that will be recorded right? And then kind of carry forward in perpetuity for each and any of these lots that are subdivided. And there will be a very bright line of expectation for any future landowner for a potential lot. So with that, I'm going to be supporting this downzoning, so thank you very much, Mr. Mooers. Chair, I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Just for the record, Chair Chung has joined us. Ms. Eoff, I just wanted to check in with you to see if you had any comments. MS. EOFF: No, sorry, I really don't have too much more to add to what Ms. David had articulated which I completely agree with. I think we need to support the downzoning. It actually buys some time now that in the meantime the families can take claims to court if that's the direction they pursue. This Council doesn't have too much authority over that aspect. And of course, we don't approve the SMA, the Planning Commission did that. So there's obstacles but there's also opportunities, and I think downzoning this property is the right thing to do at this time. But that doesn't preclude any other concerns that still may be brought forward. As we found in some other land use cases in the past, it's never too late. You need to keep pursuing what you believe is right. And I didn't get a chance to read all the minutes of the hearing, but I know there were some questions about the archeological reviews and some other historic preservation information. So I just want to make sure that, for the record, all those things are also completed and approved going forward. And I hope the family stays involved. So thank you, and I'll be supporting the downzoning. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Mr. Mooers, did you want to address anything that Ms. Eoff brought up in terms of the historic reviews? MR. MOOERS: No, I mean, I think the ordinance's conditions are quite clear that all those things would have to be completed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Division prior to any land disruption. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Right. And the background materials make very clear the work that's been done to date. So I appreciate that. Page 9 PC -24 March 10, 2020 MR. MOOERS: That's correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you Chair. My questions areI'm just going to stick with what we have in front of us. Water, where is the water coming from for this? MR. MOOERS: The owners are part owners of Kohala Ranch water systems, so that came from that system. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So we're going to take water from Kohala Ranch and feed off to this area? MR. MOOERS: Right. They were participants and they've paid their share of development and transmission of that system. So they have rights to a certain volume, actually far greater volume than they would ever utilize now, because we've reduced the number of lots so much. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. And then waste treatment, cyclic biological treatment? MR. MOOERS: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then where does that go from each homeowner? MR. MOOERS: That would be from irrigation water on their property. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And what about what's not usable as irrigation water? MR. MOOERS: No, it all is. I'm not a real expert on that, but my understanding is that the effluent is all usable. And if not, if it had to be pumped, they'd have to, you know, dispose of that in accordance with Department of Health rules. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Because there was mention here of leach fields. MR. MOOERS: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then the drainage would go down to the basalt rock and then into the ocean. Page 10 PC -24 March 10, 2020 MR. MOOERS: No, not in this system. My understanding, and again I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the effluent is not contaminated. You know, the process takes it to a level that it's quite usable for irrigation. And it does not negatively impact the ocean. If you look in the appendices of the 500 -page application, there is an analysis done by both Steve Dollar, Ph.D. on impact on the ocean; and also by Tom Nance on impact brown water. And they both conclude that in fact, that the water quality would be improved by the project being built because it would reduce the amount of siltation onto the reef and other factors. But all of those things have been studied. And that's why we did an environmental assessment, so that if any issues were to be challenged there would have to be a scientific basis to substantiate that, and there is. You know, I'm not the person, unfortunately, to be able to answer all the technical questions, but if you have any specific ones, I'd be happy to get answers for you prior to the next hearing. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, and that is important that we have two more hearings. MR. MOOERS: Sure. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So if there were other issues that were to arise, there is another month or so of ability to have public meetings. Article V, I think, under the letters yeah, we have V which says, "in the unlikely event that we find remains or cultural deposits." I think that wording in this is inappropriate, as there have been identified sites on the property. So that it may be useful to remove the words, "Unlikely event." Because in this case it doesn't hold true at all. It is extremely likely that you'll find, because they already found them. And I'm going to look into this a little more. And I have to agree with Maile and I don't think there's any apology needed. This is something that has been happening for a very long time, and people are starting to talk and so here we are. My family lives on the other side of the highway in Kailapa. And this area is extremely important to them and to the entire community. And what is the actual name of the trail? Is it Ala Kahakai? Is that correct? MR. MOOERS: Federal Trail. Ala Kahakai, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, and there's been some concern from different people that in the past any houses that were built could build directly up to the trail or even into the trail, and then make walls along the trailway, and increase, if needed. Your downsizing of your lots, I think is important. I appreciate that aspect, but I think due to the history of the coastline and what we Page 11 PC -24 March 10, 2020 know is already there, this is a known site, yeah? So taking any and all information into account is going to be incredibly important. MR. MOOERS: I appreciate your comments, and I think if you ask Toni, her trails group has been very involved in an adjoining subdivision, in which some landowners re-routed the trail without authorization and created problems, and we have no intention of doing that. There's adequate area here to accommodate the trail with a buffer. And we also understand that there shouldn't be any visual, you know, 20 -foot retaining walls above the trail. I think if you look at the low -impact design guidelines in the summary of mitigations it talks about, you know, using natural terrain and minimizing those sorts of retaining walls to prevent those sorts of things that happened at Kohala Waterfront. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. MOOERS: We're very cognizant of those issues. Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then, public access, is there still a four -stall access? MR. MOOERS: The four stall was implemented as part of the previous SMA when there was going to be 50 lots, and it carried over to current SMA as being four lots, yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then a walkable path. MR. MOOERS: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: To Ala Kahakai? MR. MOOERS: Yes. And then the entire shoreline and everything below the Ala Loa is open for public use. So it's not just a trail; that whole area is open. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. MR. MOOERS: Sure. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, just wanted to clarify. So for Condition V, are you suggesting an amendment to remove the word, "Unlikely?" I just want to keep track of the suggested amendments. Page 12 PC -24 March 10, 2020 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You can remove the word, "Unlikely." Or just take off the "Un." And put, "In the likely event" Because they are going to be found. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, they've been identified. Planning Department, any objections to this third amendment? Vigorous nods, I'm looking for those. Yes, we're good? Okay. Yes, so confirming with Director Yee, that we can make this amendment. And so, Mr. Mooers, I'll be working with you to finalize the language so that at the next convening of this body we have what we need. MR. MOOERS: I have no problem removing the word, "Unlikely." It's a standard condition that it's been written this way, but whether it's likely or unlikely, it's in the event you find something, this is the process you have to go through. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Exactly. Any other questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, I just wanted to acknowledge the Kaho`opi`i `ohana for coming and sharing your story, for elevating; and I think it's very important. It saddens me that we are not the body and this is not the venue. But again, thank you for building awareness. And I think you've seen that there are many members of this body that are willing to help you in your quest. I did want to acknowledge Mr. Mooers. The work of your team over the years to put forward this work product. I mean it was very clear in reading through the materials and the minutes that this had a very complex history, and that you genuinely worked to address many of the issues that were being raised by the community. And so, I want to thank you for that, it's very appreciated. MR. MOOERS: Oh, thank you. I've worked on a number of projects over the last 30 years. This is my last, gratefully. But we did spend a lot of time with the community. We did hear what they were saying, and a big part was the education of the owner, because the owner is not a seasoned developer. The owner is a scientist. And making him aware of what the issues were and trying to make him understand, it became easy. And if you look in the application, he does have kind of his pledge; his mission of what he's trying to accomplish and creating the state-of-the-art type of subdivision that will preserve as many of these issues as possible. So I think it was really an education process for the owner, and then he was very compliant, and I appreciate that. So it's something that I feel very good about. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, it's nice to see this tone being set for how we should move forward with these kinds of developments. So, Planning Department, just wanted to give you the opportunity to make any other Page 13 PC -24 March 10, 2020 statements. If not, I think we're ready for a vote, unlessoh, any statements from Planning? No, okay. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I have this question for uncle. (Note: At this time, testifier Albert Kaho`opi`i, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KAHO`OPI`L I have a question pertaining to the water. Saying that the water is coming from Kohala Ranch. You know, I want to make it clear, there's a spring water well that is down there, and it's called Waika Iliu. That means the dog found the water. And used to have a windmill over there. That's where the cattle used to drink the water over there. So I want to make it clear, they're not going to be tapping into that water. Because that water there is also outside in that ocean. You know what I mean? Because you can say it's coming from the mountain, but then nobody's keeping an eye on that well there, so anybody can tap into that well. Because I know for a fact that my grandfather used to go on the canoe down the pontoon; go out on that ocean and find the clear water out there, the cold water. And they used to go with their one gallon, fill that up and bring it back in, because we were camping on that area right there on that beachline, that whole coastline. We know there's a lot of iwi's too around there. So we need to be clarified. Even though they have their own archeologists but is that archeology tied into our culture? You know, we need to have some of our people there to clarify that too. But my statement is, if they say the water is coming from Kohala Ranch, fine. But don't touch that water, because that water is the spring water. And then also talking about the leach fields and the septic tanks. They've got to contain that because that water is going to go down into our drinking water, and if all hell breaks loose, where are we going find our water to drink? Everybody's going to be starving for water. How I know of this is, I'm born and raised with my grandfather. When I was small about five -years -old, he used to take me—you can ask Tim, he knows it. So it's nothing new to us; to our family or to the Richards' family. They know about it. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: How involved have you been with this project? MR. KAHO`OPI`L Hardly. The only time I was involved with this project was when I approached Mr. Mooers at the gate when they were going to go down and look at the site. And they didn't go because I told them I have a title to the place. But that's besides the point, because I knew what was down there. Page 14 PC -24 March 10, 2020 So you bring in an archeologist from someplace else to come on our land to make decisions? I don't think that's right. You know, they should have our archeologists, Hawaiians that knows what they're looking at and make this statement along with theirs. Not just one-sided; you need two-sided to make this thing complete. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Would working with Mr. Mooers create an ability to work together or for you to have some kind of, not closure, but a voice. MR. KAHO`OPI`L Yeah, we can do that. As long as we can come to an agreement and that so-called landowner says that he's the owner of the land needs to come to our table too, and understand where we're coming from too. You know, it's not only about us. We've got to move forward because the past is the past, but there's history in that past. If we move forward together, everybody can have a win-win situation out of this. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's something that you're open to? MR. MOOERS: Oh, absolutely. Dr. Rechtman is here who did the archeology and cultural impact assessments, so I think he'd be quite willing to explain the lengths that he's gone through to contact people in the community. And I'm sure he's quite willing to work with the family to review the sites, and if there's any sites that have not been identified, that we're certainly not trying to hide anything. There's been three different archeological studies on that site as far as I know. And Dr. Rechtman's team actually found more sites that had been previously approved by the state. But you know, we're absolutely willing to work with the family or anyone else who has knowledge about the site. In regard to the well, we're quite aware that there is a well on the site. And if there was a window there, and we have no intention of using that water, it would be far more costly to use that water because we'd have to pump it up to a reservoir in order to create the adequate pressure to service the project. There is a waterline already on the Akoni Pule Highway that goes to Kohala Kai that we had to pay our share of. So basically, it's gravity feed there, so it's far cheaper for us to use that water. Plus it's an approved site. The Department of Health would never approve that well no matter how good the water is, to be used for potable use. So we have no interest in using that well for potable water. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Right now you have the table. You have history and you have background of the `aina. And you have the will to or the want to develop, so the two of you together. Page 15 PC -24 March 10, 2020 MR. MOOERS: Fine, yeah. MR. KAHO`OPI`L Yeah. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Is that something we can make a condition for if the applicant needs to work with the community? CHR KIERKIEWICZ: You know, I provided a lot of latitude. We typically don't have constituents and be part of this discussion. I'm open to it and I think that the applicant has a very strong track record in engaging community; very thoughtfully, very consistently. And so I'm comfortable taking Mr. Mooers' word, and we also have Dr. Rechtman here. You know, their word in working with the family that has ties to this place. I don't think we need to create a condition. I think if there's a commitment by the applicant to work in partnership with the family, I'm good with that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You're comfortable? MR. MOOERS: Alright, thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mahalo, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: I know the family, I'll work with you guys. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Dr. Rechtman, did you want to offer anything? (Note: At this time, archeologist Dr. Robert "Bob" Rechtman of ASM Affiliates, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) DR. RECHTMAN: My name is Bob Rechtman with ASM Affiliates. We have preservation planning, burial treatment planning to complete on this project. So we will definitely be working with this family and others that come forward to complete those aspects of the project. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. It's just—you saw today, that's not going to go away, and it needs to start happening more and more and more. I know you have reached out. I know there's been a willingness to work with. But today, there is more of a verbal track record of what was talked about and what needs to happen going forward to make everybody happy. DR. RECHTMAN: And like Council Member David said, we'll work with the families that come forward in this way. I can't guarantee that we can address issues of the legitimacy of the State of Hawaii and the legitimacy of the Page 16 PC -24 March 10, 2020 ownership of Hawai` i as a United States place. That I can't guarantee that we will address, but we can address the concerns of the families relative to the resources and the property. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Any other questions or comments? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, and thank you Dr. Rechtman for being here, because I see in Condition U is, "The applicant shall submit to the State Historic Preservation Division." So we'll see another opportunity for a check and balance there. Along with the burial treatment plan, another check and balance there. And then if I'm reading correctly, Condition X is an annual report, which is another check and balance. Again, annually you guys will have to report on every single condition of approval outlined within this ordinance, which will be recorded with Bureau of Conveyances through CC&R's, so there'll be a number of checks and balances over the course of time, including some timing elements right? A five-year window to meet these various conditions of approval. So for our `ohana out there, those are your opportunities to re-engage. So when they report to the Planning Department on satisfying any of the conditions of approval or what the status update of these conditions of approval, those are your opportunities to engage and re-engage. And I've known Mr. MooersI don't want to say like 30? Just 10 years; since I was ten. Yeah, you know, his word is his bond, and he says this is his last project, and he's going to make sure that he maintains his word. So, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: And I just wanted to clarify and confirm that there's no land alteration until the burial treatment plan and the preservation plan have been accepted. Is that correct? MR. MOOERS: That's correct. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: I just wanted to make sure everyone's clear on the process. MR. MOOERS: No land alteration at all until all those things are done. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Great, thank you. Any other questions or comments from my colleagues? Okay, seeing none and we have nine members present. All in favor of moving Bill 141 forward to the Council with a positive recommendation please say "aye." Page 17 PC-24 March 10,2020 Vote on Bill 141: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 141 on first (Approved) 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: Do I have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 12:24 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn MENT: the 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: We are adjourned. Appro d: .1 IA 1 Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair (1 at.) Planning Committee AK/dt Page 18