The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-01-10 HCDP Meeting PacketMitchell D. Roth Mayor Lee E. Lord Managing Director Zendo Kern Director Jeffrey W. Darrow Deputy Director County of Hawai‘i PLANNING DEPARTMENT HĀMĀKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Hawai‘i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 1 Wednesday, December 13, 2023 1 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 2 CALL TO ORDER 3 Chair Tawn Keeney called the Hāmākua Community Development Plan (HCDP) Action Committee 4 (AC) to order at 5:30 P.M. Quorum was established at this time. This meeting was held online via 5 Zoom, and in-person at the Kula’imano Community Center. 6 The YouTube video of this meeting can be found here: 7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQXyYKo47lQ 8 9 ROLL CALL 10 AC Members Present: Brad Kurokawa, Robert Nishimoto, David Meyer, Tawn Keeney, Richard 11 Bidleman 12 AC Members Present via Zoom: Tisha Mahealani Maikui (arrived 5:35 P.M.), Crystal Kua 13 County Staff: Planners – Maryam Palma, Janice Hata, Bethany Morrison & Jessica Lahip 14 Approximately 18 members of the of the public attended the meeting (8 in person and 8 via 15 Zoom) 16 County Officials: Council Member, Heather Kimball and Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sinclair 17 Salas-Ferguson 18 ANNOUNCEMENTS: 19 Chair Keeney read the announcements from the agenda [SEE YOUTUBE TIME STAMP 27:55] 20 Council Member Heather Kimball shared an announcement [SEE YOUTUBE TIME STAMP 28:18] 21 Chair Keeny makes another announcement [SEE YOUTUBE TIME STAMP 43:15] 22 PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: This item was taken out of order. 23 Community member, Chuck Flaherty, provided written testimony on agenda item #2 24 See Communication No. 2023-33 25 Five (5) members of the public provided oral testimony. 26 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 2 Cory Harden public testimony on agenda item #2 [SEE YOUTUBE TIME STAMP 6:51] 27 Marissa Harman via Zoom public testimony [SEE YOUTUBE STAMP 10:58] 28 Meju Lui public testimony on agenda item #3 [SEE YOUTUBE STAMP 13:33] 29 Marissa Harman responded to Meju Lui testimony [SEEE YOUTUBE STAMP 15:24] 30 Michael Buth public testimony on cellular/internet outage in Laupahoehoe [SEE YOUTUBE 31 STAMP 17:32] 32 Claudia Rohr via Zoom public testimony on agenda item #2 and #3 [SEE YOUTUBE STAMP 20:25] 33 AC member Robert Nishimoto wanted to comment on agenda item #3. Corporation Counsel, 34 Sinclair informed him to comment when discussion is brought up on Fire Preparedness [SEE 35 YOUTUBE STAMP 27:08] 36 Question came from the public on how to put items on the agenda. Corporation Counsel, Sinclair 37 responded that members of the public are to email Tawn and to put it on the agenda. [SEE 38 YOUTUBE STAMP 04:53] 39 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 40 This item was taken out of order. Committee Member David Meyer moved to approve the 41 November 8, 2023 minutes with amendments by Committee Member Brad Kurokawa . Motion 42 seconded by Committee Member Richard Bidleman. Motion passed unanimously [SEE YOUTUBE 43 TIME STAMP 0:56] 44 BUSINESS: 45 1. Election of Committee Chairperson and Vice Chairperson 2024 46 The Action Committee began discussion nomination of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for 47 2024. Tawn will continue as chair until someone volunteers to take on role. Will defer item to 48 next meeting. [SEE YOUTUBE TIME STAMP 44:30] 49 Community Member Alana Wallace via Zoom had a question asking what are the requirements 50 for a Chair [SEE YOUTUBE TIME STAMP 45:39] 51 County Staff, Janice Hata provided application link https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/our-52 county/boards-commissions-application to serve on Hāmākua CDP Action Committee. 53 2. General Plan 2045 (September 2023 Draft) Presentation and Q&A by Hawai’i County Planner, 54 Bethany Morrison 55 County of Hawai’i Planner, Bethany Morrison, provides presentation on General Plan 2045 and 56 shares PowerPoint [SEE YOUTUBE STAMP 51:07] 57 Comments made by the committee members and the community. Questions/comments arose 58 on affordable housing, the different phases/chapters of the General Plan, and land use 59 maps/zoning. 60 Planner Morrison emphasizes needing input and getting comments on the General Plan and that 61 public comment is open until March 1, 2024. The General Plan is available online and physical 62 www.planning.hawaiicounty.gov/ CDP@hawaiicounty.gov Page 3 copies are available in libraries. People could also come down to the Planning department to use 63 a computer or purchase a hard copy for $22.20. 64 3. Hāmākua CDP AC’s Investigation into the Fire Preparedness of the Communities in the 65 Hāmākua District: 66 Agenda item deferred to next meeting [SEE YOUTUBE STAMP 2:14:14] 67 4. Mud Lane Roadway that runs from Kukuihaele to Māmalahoa Highway 68 Agenda item deferred to next meeting [SEE YOUTUBE STAMP 2:14:14] 69 5. Scheduling of Future Hāmākua Community Development Plan Action Committee meetings 70 Chair Keeney began a discussion on setting a schedule of future meetings. He suggested that 71 they meet every 2nd Wednesday of each month at 5:30p and to find different facilities to use. 72 The committee agreed. In addition, Chair Tawn mentions that Kō Education facility will be 73 available in January and the Laupahoehoe Library will no longer be available until after March 74 2024. [SEE YOUTUBE TIME STAMP 2:19:45] 75 PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING: [SEE YOUTUBE TIME STAMP 2:21:15] 76 1. Hāmākua CDP AC’s Investigation into the Fire Preparedness of the Communities in the 77 Hāmākua District 78 2. Mud Lane Roadway that runs from Kukuihaele to Māmalahoa Highway 79 ADJOURNMENT: 80 Chair Keeney motioned to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Committee member 81 Nishimoto. Motion passed with unanimous aye vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M. 82 These minutes and all related documents are available in the Planning Department’s Kona 83 Community Development Plan Action Committee folder via the County of Hawaiʻi Public 84 Documents Repository. These documents may also be requested from the Planning Department 85 by calling (808) 961-8288 or emailing cdp@hawaiicounty.gov. 86 Comments and Questions collected from the Hamakua CDP Action Committee members regarding Draft General Plan 2045 to be included on the Agenda of the Jan. 10 Hamakua Action Committee meeting as a Communication for discussion and consideration with anticipation of decision making at the February Action Committee meeting. GENERAL PLAN COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - HAMAKUA CDP ACTION COMMITTEE INITIAL CONCEPTUAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN 1.The basic concept underlying the notion of General Plan is desirable. However thiscurrent Draft General Plan 2045 raises questions about practical application of that notion.It is found, in survey of the proposals here that the Draft General Plan is laden withcontentious ideas which are likely to represent the thinking on one administration but maywell be rejected by a subsequent administration, or, more importantly by the general public.If the General Plan is to be posited as a guideline or aspirational document that spans aperiod of 20+ years then contentious proposals, or proposals that have a shifting or limitedsource of support or are poorly understood by the public or the administration, should notbe a part of the document.2.Regardless of whether the apologists of placement of contentious proposals in the DraftGeneral Plan attempt to justify this document as a ‘Living Document’, they may also posit itas foundational to the development of ordinances and administrative rules that maysubsequently arise.3.Where there would be signiﬁcant opposition, even if the document framers should feelthemselves in a majority postion, the General Plan should be avoided as residence of thatdirective4.If a General Plan directive may expect even modest opposition, then that proposal shouldbe accompanied by a full explanation of the reasoning behind its position, as inclusion inthe General Plan may become rationale for proposal as ordinance or administrative rule.5.Does the State of Hawaii or the United States have a ‘General Plan’ that it createsperiodically. No, they have constitutions. However these ‘constitutions’ are not given tocontentious proposals which arise with the shifting of societal circumstance orenvironment. They are fundamental guidelines which are truly foundational and not subjectto whim of administration. And it is from that document that legal applications arise. Thereis no intermediate ‘General Plan’, formulated as aspiration by one administration afteranother, not subject to public debate and discussion6.If a General Plan is posited by an administration as description of intention of where itsaspirations lie, and especially if that Plan contains contentious or poorly understoodproposals then that document should be retired at the conclusion of each administrationrather than posited as a guidepost for a 20+ year period.7.And if such a document is of such fundamental importance to construction of societalrules, then its evolution should take place by amendment of the underlying documentrather than reconstruction of a new document which allows only incomplete or limitedunderstanding of how that document has transformed from what has proceeded it.8.If the document is reformulated as transformation rather than edited as transition fromcurrently existing structure, then a full explanation of the rationale for each proposal shouldbe available to the public. Even in the model of transition, an explanation of changesshould be available to the public.9.The above considerations conclude that: A) The General Plan should not containproposals where agreement will be subject to signiﬁcant contention. Rather, suchproposals or directives must ﬁrst be considered and endorsed in their individuality. B) AGeneral Plan should have clarity of transition from its predecessor. C) The timeframe ofapplication of the document should be shortened, perhaps as much as to the term of theadministration which has generated the document. This shortened timeframe in itself willencourage transition rather than transformation. Communication No. 2024-01 PUBLIC UTILITIES - COMMENTS 10. P. 91. Be a net power producer with Hydrogen and Waste Management. This directive should not be included in the General Plan. It is understood by the administration and much of the Public that the intent to use Hydrogen pervasively as energy storage mechanism, and various waste to energy strategies, whether by burning or a pyrolysis mechanism, are controversial and thus are of questionable propriety in such a ‘foundational level’ policy document as the General Plan. In evidence of this controversy I cite a recent Tribune Herald headline, “National Expert Questions County Energy Policy”. The expert’s comments were directed toward countering proposals for extensive use of hydrogen for energy storage and waste to energy proposals. The County has presented no response of which I am aware to the issues raised in that presentation. Until clarity is given as to how Hydrogen will add to our net power production or storage, and what technology will be embraced in converting waste to energy, placing hydrogen energy paradigms and waste management into County energy policy direction for the 20+ year interval until 2045 is inappropriate. There is no question that controversy exists over these energy strategies. It is not inappropriate that the current administration would take initiative toward careful examination and even endorsement of a perspective on these strategies. However, before enshrining their perspective as foundation for County policy over a 20 year period, a pedestal that the General Plan offers, that administration must undertake explanation and education of the Public of the desirability of their endorsement. None of this has taken place. The administration has not explained to the public how Hydrogen will be used in a ‘net power’ strategy. The inefficiency of Hydrogen fuel cell for vehicular power is well known and is approximated at one-half to one-third the number of vehicular miles traveled per life-cycle energy consumed when compared to battery electric vehicles. A vehicular hydrogen infrastructure would be exceptionally expensive and a commitment which the 2000 Hydrogen vehicles as opposed to over 900,000 electric vehicles (and rapidly becoming less) cannot justify. The inefficiency and infrastructure demands have led to abandonment of the vehicular hydrogen model. Whether Hydrogen should be visualized as back up grid storage, with longer capacity than current battery technology, is questionable and the subject of signiﬁcant debate, particularly with the advance in battery storage capability. Any ‘Green Energy’ produced on this island should be applied directly to the grid with battery back up before diverting it to ‘storage’ in the form of Hydrogen production at a signiﬁcant loss of efficiency for grid purposes. Producing Hydrogen from, for instance, virtually unlimited geothermal might make sense as an export product, but for grid back up on this island converting ‘ﬁrm’ geothermal energy to Hydrogen would be superﬂuous as well as inefficient. And geothermal may become a realistic energy resource on all islands. Hydrogen may have certain acknowledged applications in replacement of fossil fuel power such as maritime shipping, fertilizer production, possibly mass transit or trucking, and high heat applications such as foundry or steel production. These applications are in contention also. However, before Hydrogen is advocated as a basis for societal ‘net power production’ at the level of directives of the General Plan, the administration should be transparent and vigorous in its explanation to the Public of how this application of Hydrogen’s potential will take place, well before its endorsement in the General Plan. Waste to energy strategies need clarity for the Public also. Perhaps the administration has been convinced of the desirability of a waste conversion strategy involving a pyrolysis process. This has been opaque to the public consequent to a non-disclosure agreement made by the County. However that opacity should preclude this process as being foundation for Waste to Energy commitment enshrined in the General Plan, which should be available to the assent of the Public. If the Waste to Energy commitment in the Draft Plan (I use the term commitment because the General Plan should not be a document of Advocacy) is the more traditional burning of trash (most likely at the Pepeekeo Hu Honua facility) then this needs to be clariﬁed. It is my limited second hand understanding that the Hawaii County Council has twice considered and rejected endorsing proposals of a waste to energy strategy, once in the Kim administration and once in the Kenoi administration. It would not be appropriate to place this in the General Plan if such controversy exists. Its presence there without explanation and justiﬁcation should lead again to rejection of the Draft Plan by the County Council. 11. P. 91. Pursue ﬁnancial modiﬁcations to provide creative funding for signiﬁcant expansion of water systems to reach new customers in non-service areas. Comment: Please describe the ﬁnancial modiﬁcations and creative funding options being suggested here. Unless these are novel ideas there are probably reasons that such ideas have not gained traction. 12. P. 98. Collaborate with government, private and nonproﬁt agencies, and other stakeholders to remove regulatory barriers and seek funding to complete and improve the islands ﬁberoptic loop in an environmentally and economically appropriate manner. Comment: Please describe what regulatory barriers are being suggested for removal. 13, P. 102. Explore the feasibility of incentive methods such as property tax dedications, conservation easements, or transfer of development rights to protect the deﬁned zone of inﬂuence of existing or proposed public and private wells. Comment: Please clarify the meaning of ‘zone of inﬂuence’ of wells. Please give examples of where and how this might be applied. How is the deﬁned zone of inﬂuence of existing wells currently protected. Suggest: Ensure water distribution systems supply community perimeters with water availability to support intensive grazing for the purpose of ﬁrebreak and fuel break, or support of agriculture, or evens supporting community gardens for purpose of ﬁre break and fuel break for retarding potential wildﬁre. Ensure the hardening of those systems against collapse from engulﬁng wildﬁre. 14. P.105. The County operates municipal sewerage …. Comment: Add Honokaa to the list of county operated municipal sewerage. 15. P. 109. Amend HCC, Section 21-26-1(a) requiring ”all sewer extensions shall be approved by resolution f the County Council” to read “all sewer extensions outside of Urban Growth Areas shall be approved by resolution of the County Council” Comment: Please explain the motivation for removing from the Council’s authority the examination and ratiﬁcation by Resolution the extension of sewer extensions within the Urban Growth Areas. Please submit this proposal to County Council for ratiﬁcation before placing it in the Draft General Plan. Comment: Please show a mapping of any changes in Urban Growth Areas on the present Draft General Plan 2045 Land Use Maps from the previous 2005 Land Use Maps HOUSING 16. P. 146. With an estimated population increase from 202,000 to approximately 273,000 in 2045, a 35% increase, there will be a demand for an additional 17,000 resident housing units over the next 25 years. Comment: Please describe the County’s views of the upsides and the downsides of an increase of 70,000 residents in the next 20 years. Is the only control opportunity of this number the availability of suitable housing? 17. P. 24. About 90% of growth is through immigration. Comment: The Office of Housing has regulations which favor current residents in opportunity for purchase of ‘affordable housing stock’ or rental of units which have been constructed or developed using ‘affordable housing guidelines’. With 15,000 of the needed 17,000 housing units likely to be resided in by immigrants, and with lack of affordable housing being recorded as a pervasive cause of out-migration of current residents, please include the following proposal in the Draft General Plan in the section ‘Housing’. “ Any application for Building Division permitting pertaining to a project which qualiﬁes as "Affordable Housing" according to Office of Housing criteria will be prioritized to be considered and examined by the Building Division ahead of any pending permit applications which would not have designation or fulﬁll Office of Housing criteria as "affordable housing". 18. P.146. 44% of the population will be over the age of 65 by 2045. Q: Does the Planning Department evaluate this for desirability? Again, would this not be an important reason for supporting the limitation of inﬂux of immigrants through available mechanisms such as the proposal above. 19. P. 149 Remove barriers to reduce cost for new construction and rehabilitation of the current housing through changes to tax, zoning and building standard requirements. Comment: 1) Please give examples of how changes in taxation will reduce the cost of new construction and rehabilitation. 2) Give examples of how changes to zoning will reduce the cost on new construction and rehabilitation. 3) Give examples of how relaxation of building standards will reduce cost of new construction and rehabilitation. Comment: It is stated above that 90% of growth till 2045 will be through immigration. Does it make sense to reduce taxation, which will beneﬁt the general public, in order to accommodate immigration. Much of the cost of immigrant ownership of housing will be distributed among the current resident population (though some of the cost will be in purchase of offshore materials). Where is the advantage in reducing building costs for this immigrant population of homebuyers. Removal of barriers should only be for the ‘affordable housing’ component. 20. P. 149. Create subsidies like LIHTC for the missing middle of affordable housing (80% -140% AMI) Comment: Please Describe the subsidies of LIHTC. Do individuals or families currently making 120% AMI qualify for housing subsidies? Please describe the thinking that an individual or family making 140% of Area Median Income should be able to qualify for Affordable Housing Subsidies. It seems clear that affordable housing projects must become the rule rather than the exception. Housing subsidies up to 140% seems like one method toward this proposal. But then this could be paid for by increased taxation on the total of new housing which would in effect redistribute funding to support affordable housing or perhaps a progressive tax of some kind. 21. P. 149. Encourage resort communities to include onsite workforce housing options. Q. Why has workforce housing onsite not been a stipulation of Resort Communities up until now. What are the downsides of making this a requirement rather than an encouragement? What is the encouragement which is being proposed here. If it is a requirement, or even if it is just encouragement, will it lead to importation of workforce. Can residency requirement be included? Can public/private incentivization lead to the County building affordable workforce housing on or adjacent to resort property? 22. P. 151. Amend building regulations to allow for as-built permits and new renovation permits for less than 50% of an existing structure to conform with the building code of the year the main structure was permitted, excluding electrical and other critical life safety codes. Comment: Please explain the meaning of this and the practical impact which it will have. 23. P. 153 Revise ﬁnancial mechanisms and property tax provisions to allow for creative ﬁnance solutions to incentivize new construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Comment: This sounds like it was lifted from a 2007 textbook for Real Estate Lobbyists. Please describe some of the ﬁnancial mechanism adjustments and property tax provisions that would allow the creative ﬁnance solutions referred to. 24. P153. Adopt a County affordable housing program, similar to HRS 201H that encourages development, reduces cost and simpliﬁes permitting. Comment: HRS 201H is an undisguised blow to the intent of Regulation. The main purpose of planning and a Planning Department is to impose regulation. The County Council should have jurisdiction to weigh the advisability of waiving regulation in the appropriate circumstance regarding Affordable Housing development. Please describe in detail the regulations which have been most commonly superseded by invocation of 201H. In what way would a County 201H similar proposal provide opportunities that HRS 201H itself does not. This proposal appears to be counter to the idea of safeguards to the common good for the beneﬁt of development, and should be abandoned. Question: Recently two 20 unit housing subdivisions in Honokaa, one affordable and one not affordable, have been passed by Commission and Council and survey begun. When the developer made presentation in Honokaa he indicated that the affordable lots without structures would be priced somewhere around $300K. By what mechanism does a vacant lot without a structure qualify as ‘affordable’. VISITOR INDUSTRY 25. P. 177 By adopting regenerative practices, our island can not only mitigate the negative effects of tourism but also ensure the long-term wellbeing and resilience of its communities and ecosystems. General Comments: 1. The emphasis on Regenerative Tourism came as a result to the mounting criticism of the numbers of visitors and intrusion into the social fabric that the numbers of visitors was creating. The numbers of visitors is the basic problem - not that the visitors are disrespectful of the historic and current cultures. The catchphrase of ‘Regenerative Tourism’ is an effort to divert attention from the real problem of numbers. It is likely that for 90+ % of visitors there has been no change of plans or behavior from before the term ‘regenerative tourism’ was fabricated. There has been no diminishing of numbers of visitors. 2. By far, the most ‘negative effect of tourism’ is the associated Greenhouse Gas emissions from air transport of visitors. As we see more and more the social effects of rising temperatures such as climate migration, civil unrest and food shortages and the climate disasters such as ﬁre, ﬂood, hurricanes, sea level rise etc. the more clear it will be that leisure travel must be eliminated. Hawaii tourism, as leisure travel, is perhaps the worst offender on the planet, Hawaii being the most distant archipelago from any inhabited continental land mass. 3. In 2021 I presented a paper to the Honolulu Climate Change Commission indicating that Greenhouse Gas Emissions from air transport of Visitors to Hawaii accounted for 1-1/2x Hawaii’s total domestic GHG emissions. The Honolulu Commission requested that I present the paper to the State Climate Commission. Dr. Makena Coffman, UHERO researcher, presented a critique of the paper a year later indicating that the correct ﬁgure would be equal to all Hawaii’s domestic emissions. However her analysis did not count any connecting ﬂight emissions, but only the two Hawaii legs of an itinerary. This is resultant from her use of the Hawaii State Greenhouse Gas Inventory, of which she was an author, for visitor data. My ﬁndings were based on the Hawaii Tourism Authority’s eight ‘Global Regions of Origin’ visitor data and thus counted ‘connecting ﬂights’ in the itinerary (which has its own problems). 4. Also subsequent to Dr. Coffman’s presentation, the IPCC designated as ‘best science’ on Aviation emissions a method which calculates the global warming potential of ‘non-CO2 emissions’ as twice that of CO2 emissions themselves. Whereas myself and Dr. Coffman had calculated these ‘non-CO2 emissions’ as equal to the warming potential of CO2 itself, using the IPCC endorsed method would bring her calculation of visitor air transport GHG emissions to 1-1/2x the state’s total domestic emissions, and my calculation, including the multiple legs of any visitor itinerary, to 2x the state’s total net domestic emissions. CLIMATE CHANGE 26. P. 11 “Although Hawaii Island alone will not reverse global GHG emissions, we can lead by example and set a precedent for other island states to become more sustainable. Comment: By far, the most important example that we can set would be to set a yearly adjustable tax or fee on visitation to our islands. This fee should begin modestly but progressively increase to bring the number of visitors down dramatically over a several year period. The only practical source of such a fee is a Visitor Accommodations Tax. The current State administration has suggested a $50/visitor fee (voluntary). This is insufficient to reduce visitation here. Whereas the appropriate placement of revenues from a Visitor’s fee should be toward resilience to the challenges of Climate Change and sea level rise, in that visitor air transport emissions are greater than Hawaii’s domestic emissions, the current proposal before legislature places the modest voluntary revenues received toward renovations of parks and trails and beaches. 27. P. 12. Airline transportation also contributes signiﬁcantly to greenhouse gas emissions, as the only transportation to and from the island is by air. Comment: The State Greenhouse Gas Inventory places the greenhouse gas emissions from domestic aviation at 3.2 million tons CO2(e). 86% of passengers are visitors. This is with total domestic emissions about 13 million tons. All ground transportation accounts for 3.8MMT and stationary combustion (electricity generation) at 8MMT. However this 3.2MMT is departures only (one way) and does not include connecting ﬂights on the itinerary but only the leg leaving Hawaii. It does not count any international ﬂights. It accounts for minimal NOx emissions but otherwise only CO2 emissions. An averaging of results of eight aviation greenhouse gas calculators found online places the ‘non-CO2’ emissions warming potential at equal to the CO2 emissions and thus the total global warming GHG emissions from aviation at 2x the easily calculable CO2 emissions. Using this method Makena Coffman PhD., UHERO faculty & an author of the Hawaii State GHG Inventory, concluded that emissions from visitor aviation equaled the total of Hawaii’s domestic emissions in 2019. Her method also did not include any connecting legs of an itinerary other than the Hawaii legs. Using her method but adding connecting ﬂights brings the total global warming in CO2 equivalents to approximately 1-1/2x the State’s total greenhouse gas emission. Using the IPCC endorsed factors for Non-CO2 emissions in calculating warming from aviation brings the total CO2(e) from air transport of visitors to 2x Hawaii’s total domestic GHG emissions. 28. P.13. “The County will need to preserve open spaces and forested lands to maintain carbon sinks. Comment: The county needs to dramatically increase its open spaces and forested lands but preservation is a foundational part of that. Funds for tree planting and restoration of forested lands should become available via a fee on visitors here due to visitors heavy GHG footprint from air travel. 29. P.15. Pursue innovative solutions that help achieve various goals such as waste to energy and micronuclear. Comment: The traditional approach to ‘Waste to Energy’, the burning of waste, creates more greenhouse gas per KWh of electricity produced than does burning coal. The elimination of landﬁlls diminishes Methane release to varying degrees depending on landﬁll technique, which may compensate for the combustion emissions. 30. P. 15. Fire risk reduction around communities potentially limits ﬁre spreading into upland areas, reducing ﬁre driven forest loss. Comment: The ﬁrebreak/fuel break perimeter management around communities works both ways for the good of community and environment. Water supply to these perimeter lands must be ensured to support grazing or agriculture or community gardens and, in case of ﬁre, the assurance of ﬁreﬁghting potential. 31. P. 17. Support the achievement of 70 percent renewable energy for the electricity sector by 2030, with 40 percent from renewables and 30 percent from efficiency, and 100 precent by 2045. Comment: The language here is misleading. If one is advocating for 70% of electricity generation from renewable energy, that is contrary to 40% of generation is from renewables and there has been a 30% gain in efficiency. Please explain the meaning of this directive. Is this merely a rationalization for failure to meet a 70% renewables goal by 2030. 32, P. 20. Adopt a land acquisition program with potential leaseback options for the purchase of hazard-prone locations or those with beneﬁcial attributes for climate adaptation or mitigation. Comment: This is not something that the public will bear. This feels like collusion between corporate or wealthy land owners and Administration. This is a directive which must be taken to the public in the form of a referendum before it is placed in the General Plan. This certainly would be reason for the County Council to defer ratiﬁcation of the Draft General Plan. Proposals with this level of controversy should not be placed in the General Plan until they are taken to the people by referendum or, at least, the County Council. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND RESILIENT COMMUNITIES 33. P24. Over the next 25 years, the population growth rate is expected to decline from an average of 2.3% per annum to about 0.9% per annum. In 2045 the resident population is forecast to be approximately 273,000 which is a 35% increase over 2018. Comment: Please explain the reason for this decline in population growth rate.. 34. P. 24. About 90% of growth on average is through immigration. Comment: Many people have concern that 90% of growth is from immigration. That concern rises to the level that many people feel that growth is not a good thing but in fact is damaging to the environment and our social structure. The proposal that Affordable housing permits and inspection should always be placed at the head of the queue of projects in the Building Division might help somewhat. Growth in housing development other than affordable housing or housing for heritage residents should be discouraged, and domestic agriculture should be emphasized for the purpose of resiliency. 35. P. 24. In 2018, 67,000 Hawaii State residents moved to the mainland; they were partially replaced by 54,000 mainlanders who moved to the State for a net out migration from Hawaii of 13,000. Comment: This problem might be improved by improving the attractiveness to the Developers of building Affordable Housing with modest discouragement toward building upscale homes. This might be accomplished by moving all Affordable projects to the head of the queue for permit review and building inspection. 36. P. 24. The population over age 65 is expected to grow to 44% by the year 2045. In 2020, the largest cohort of the population was between the ages of 60 to 69. Comment: All of the above statistics need illumination. The domination of this population age cohort seems unworkable. The inﬂux of retirement age immigrants is a challenge to our societal structure. 37. P24 The number of transient accommodation rental units is beginning to trend higher than hotel units that once dominated the visitor accommodation industry. There is also a shift in the type of visitors away from the major resort areas, which may put stress on the environment of other areas. Comment: All efforts to limit the proliferation of STVRs should be supported. Visitor Accommodations Tax needs to be applied to all STVR rentals. Visitor Accommodations Tax needs to be dramatically increased. 38. P. 26. Remove barriers to residential development in the appropriate districts to reduce development timelines, increase housing stock availability and increase affordability. Comment: Yes, this is one approach, assuming that one is trying to accelerate residential development. Perhaps one needs to start by making the case for accelerating residential development. This is not a ‘given’. It is a ‘given’ that we need more housing for our heritage residents, but it seems that a preponderance of development housing actually goes to immigrants. The County, for probably excellent reasons, seems unable to solve this problem, and so, as much as we build, build, build… there are still the same number of heritage residents who seem to have to move to the mainland to ﬁnd work and housing that are more practical. Consequently I don’t think that the assumption should be made that we need to remove barriers to residential development. Second, how is it determined which are the appropriate ‘districts’ for development. Changes in Urban Growth Boundaries must be clearly delineated for the public. One must respect expertise in determining where growth is appropriate, but the expression of the will of the public in and near those targeted areas is of importance to understand. It should be required that referendum or polling of residents in and near the targeted growth areas, or at least a ‘targeted’ presentation to those residents would be made in the process of determining the desirability of growth in that area. After all, are we talking about the Planning Department’s desire, or the desire of the residents of that area? Undoubtedly, the ultimate application will be a reﬂection of both. But a mailer to each post office box or address in the affected area, with a careful inquiry into the desires of the area residents, should be a part of the process. The General Plan Land Use Map should not be completed until such an inquiry with the public has been completed. 39. P. 26. Review and update the Building and Zoning Codes to allow for more ﬂexibility Comment: Please give examples of where more ﬂexibility would be desirable. Please indicate the basic problem that is being approached by increasing ﬂexibility, and explain how that ﬂexibility will yield improvement in that problem. 40. P. 26 Collaborate across State and County agencies to facilitate efficient and effective land use processes Comment: Collaboration is always desirable. Please describe what is currently the impediment to collaboration. 41. P. 26. Advocate allowing for County initiated State Land Use Commission District Boundary Amendments to meet the preferred land use pattern. Comment: I will infer from this proposal that currently Land Use District Boundary Amendments are a function prescribed to the State. This makes sense since the natural tendency toward urban expansion meets interface with Lands subject to Department of Agriculture and DLNR oversight. I would be surprised if there is not capability of urban planners and the County to make their wishes known and advocate for those designs within the current State Authority. However it seems entirely appropriate that, consequent to communication and collaboration between the State Commission and the County that the State Commission would take responsibility for initiating District Boundary Amendments to be considered by their Commission. It seems that this procedural proposal runs counter to reasonable administrative divisions. 42. P 26 Program the initiation of rezoning in targeted growth areas. Comment: This of course demands identiﬁcation of the targeted growth areas to begin with. And, of course, that targeted growth area needs to be identiﬁed to residents living within and nearby its boundaries. Please specify with map identiﬁcation where these targeted growth areas are at. Programming the rezoning in these areas might well be a proposal which should be preceded by referendum or public study of sentiment or reaction to this proposal. Media identiﬁcation of these areas with open discussion should be encouraged before programming the initiation of rezoning. 43. P 28. Develop a process for County initiated State Land Use boundary reclassiﬁcation. Comment: This, I believe is a State Commission responsibility. If it is County’s impression that the State Commission is failing its responsibility then please point out where those failures have occurred. 44. P 28 Amend the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code to allow Cluster Plan Developments to be applied to all zoning districts with appropriate building site standards. Comment: Please explain in detail the meaning of this directive. Explain what is a Cluster Plan Development. Explain why such a development cannot now be applied to all zoning districts with appropriate building site standards. Please explain what is special about Cluster Plan Developments that would argue that they should be allowed in any zoning district whereas a run-of-the-mill development might not be allowed in some zoning districts. 45. P29 Amend the Zoning Code to allow for Planned Unit Development to become administrative permits and subject to the approval of the Planning Director Comment: There might be a reaction to this Draft General Plan that the thrust is toward acceleration of the process of development. With that perspective, and less than unanimity in endorsement by the public of this perspective, it would be most desirable that there would be County Council oversight applied to the enthusiasm of the Planning Department for all signiﬁcant development, whether Planned Unit Developments or any other category of Development. If it is felt that the public would be supportive of this proposal then it should be subject to referendum rather than placed in the General Plan. 46. P 59. Support the development of small scale visitor accommodations with heritage, agriculture, wellness or similar themes in rural areas and near points of interest. Comment: All public support for short term visitor rental accommodation should be removed other than in designated resort areas. 47. P. 59. Provide ﬂexibility in discretionary permit applications to maintain health and safety for rural small scale visitor accommodations not serviced by public infrastructure. Comment: All public support for short term visitor rental accommodations outside of resort areas should be removed. 48. P. 59. Amend the Zoning Code deﬁnition and requirements for Lodges and reconcile similarities and inconsistencies with the special permit provision for Retreats. Clearly articulate in the Code the zoning districts appropriate for Lodges. Comment: Please specify the referred to deﬁnitions and differences between Lodges and Retreats 49. P. 59. Amend the zoning district’s currently listed as Family Agricultural District and Residential and Agricultural District to be consistent with the Rural designation and to allow for home occupations that do not negatively impact the rural character. Comment: Please explain how the Zoning district currently listed as Family Agricultural District and Residential & Agricultural District are currently inconsistent with Rural designation. Please explain the impacts of such proposed amendment on the living, building and occupational patterns in those various agricultural districts. If no impact, please state as such. 50. P59. Amend the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code to establish Clustered Rural Subdivision PUD Comment: Please deﬁne Clustered Rural Subdivision PUD. Please explain how it would be treated differently than any other subdivision in the Zoning and Subdivision Code. ROADWAYS 51. P. 79. Allow for private, non-dedicated cul=de=sac and alley designs that are in accordance with national road standards. Comment: The County should enact ordinances or policies that discourage the building of gated community roadways, even if the gated roadways are privately constructed. Such gated roadways only increase the sense of division in society at a time when blending those divisions has taken on much importance. 52. Removal from the Highways section of the 2005 General Plan the following: 13.2.5.4.2 Courses of Action (C) Encourage the State to construct a scenic highway from the Waipio Valley look-out extending Mauka to connect to Mud Lane at the entrance of Waimea. 53. Removal from the Recreation section of the 2005 General Plan the following: 12.5.4.2 Courses of Action (D) Encourage the State to develop a scenic park on the Kohala side of Hiilawe Falls in conjunction with the development of the scenic highway. Comment: Please explain the rationale for removing the above two directives of the 2005 General Plan from inclusion in the Draft General Plan 2045. 54. P. 103 SHALL indeed! 55. P. 118. Unable to ﬁnd reference Comment: ”Because in many of our rural communities with less residents public facilities are often neglected and deferred or no maintenance is typical. Examples are the gyms in Ookala, Hakalau and Papaaloa. The gyms in Ookala and Hakalau are now condemned and closed. Recreational and elderly programs there no longer exist. In the case of Papaaloa, the community rallied and got the county to restore at least the community hall. With adequate maintenance these legacy facilities could have been retained and allowed to serve their communities.” 56. P. 113 Unable to ﬁnd reference Comment: There is a ﬁne balance that good design ﬁnds between these measures and multimodal elements. 57. P. 19 Unable to ﬁnd reference Comment: A great place to start would be with County employees. 58. P. 27. Unable to ﬁnd reference Comment: While the State law and our GP speciﬁcally call for preserving scenic beauty and protecting scenic resources, we do not have any analysis and data bases for what those critical scenic resources i.e. viewshed, etc. are, speciﬁcally from the public domain i.e. state and county major highway rights of ways, public parks, etc. Instead we rely on after the scenic quality is compromised and it is too late. Do not rely on viewshed mitigation as protection of scenic resources as it is a band aid. Initiate scenic resource inventory identifying critical scenic viewsheds and corridors for protection/preservation. Then put in place scenic quality overlays within GP and CDPs with related regulatory measures to preserve and protect these resources. 59. P. 28 Unable to ﬁnd reference Comment: ”Agreed. Much of our zoning and subdivision code, including our land use maps are what got us to where we are now. Mechanisms like variances and PUDs are used as exceptions to the current status quo. Suggest overhaul of current system to mandate what is desired i.e. performance based; form based code which speciﬁcally show what is desired - integrated development that is environmentally sound, protects open space, higher density/affordable, street networks with multi-modality and connectivity, etc. Basic smart growth principles in both urban and rural contexts that are appropriate to our island.” 60. P. 49. Unable to ﬁnd reference. Comment”Agreed. Policies like this one is indicative of a framework that has created the many challenges we currently face. Stick to the proven principles of ""smart growth"" starting with the locational siting, network connectivity and on down to ﬁner grain. Many of our plantation towns around the island reﬂect ""smart growth"" principles.” 61. P. 80 Unable to ﬁnd reference Comment: Roadway network connectivity especially when provided with appropriately applied Complete Streets standards is a must and should be part of the subdivision code. Connectivity of roadways is a main component of Traditional Neighborhood design. We don't wish to repeat the lessons learned from the cul-de-sac subdivisions of the past with the high daily vehicle trip count and VMTs 62. P. 138 Unable to ﬁnd reference Comment: ”Besides parks, we can start with our urban centers' streets. Most of our parks are mostly devoid of trees because of Park department culture and their focus on lowest maintenance. Of course having trees in our streets would require appropriate funding and responsibility for maintenance of this ""green infrastructure"" and as importantly, a cultural shift at Dept of Public Works who have jurisdiction of our County roads.” 63. P.184 Unable to ﬁnd reference Comment: ”Thus the need for leadership that recognizes and demands an integrated approach amongst the cast of players, agencies, etc.” 64. P. 28. Discretionary permit applications for uses that may impact view planes to and along the coastline, and areas of natural beauty should take into consideration visual impact assessments and propose conditions to mitigate scenic impacts where appropriate. Comment: ”While the State law and our GP speciﬁcally call for preserving scenic beauty and protecting scenic resources, we do not have any analysis and data bases for what those critical scenic resources i.e. viewshed, etc. are, speciﬁcally from the public domain i.e. state and county major highway rights of ways, public parks, etc. Instead we rely on after the scenic quality is compromised and it is too late. Do not rely on viewshed mitigation as protection of scenic resources as it is a band aid. Initiate scenic resource inventory identifying critical scenic viewsheds and corridors for protection/preservation. Then put in place scenic quality overlays within GP and CDPs with related regulatory measures to preserve and protect these resources.” 65. P. 29 Create “Village Plans” for unique urban areas that include considerations for urban design, aesthetic quality, and the protection of amenities in adjacent areas through landscaping, open space, and buffer areas. Comment: Should be part of the CDP implementation actions. Need to get funded in County budget across relevant departments as an INTEGRATED effort not the current siloed modus operandi. Increase in house capacity. 66. P. 29 During discretionary permit applications, the Planning Director may require a pedestrian, equestrian, and/or bicycle path when it is possible and safe to connect to existing or future drainage or active living corridors Comment: ”Rather than waiting for applicants to apply for permit and rely on Planning Director discretion, opt instead for integrated regional overlays that identify environmentally/culturally sensitive corridors i.e. drainage, wildlife, riparian/coastal, scenic for designation as protected zones in which limited improvements like trails, pedestrian, recreational and interpretive amenities would be desired. Partnerships between public and private sector could implement these desired corridors improvements.” 67. P. 31. Amend the Zoning Code to establish building setbacks for inland cliffs. Comment: ”Are we assuming that there already is or will be zoning code for setbacks for coastal cliffs/palis? Besides safety of adequate setbacks along cliffs, also consider scenic view impacts. Scenic quality is continually being degraded as more development is sited on the edge of cliffs along the coast and other inland palis. Ensure protections against these incursions. NOTE: Waipio and other valleys.” 68. P. 34. Lands to be kept in a largely natural state with minimal facilities consistent with open space uses along with agricultural land uses. Includes areas vulnerable to natural hazards, steep slopes, lava ﬁelds, and areas set aside for cultural and/or natural resource preservation purposes that are not necessarily under active management. Comment: ”Per Priority Actions 5a, 7b, 7c, create Land Use designation(s) for ""Sensitive Lands"" (Environmental, Cultural, Hazard) that are protected by restrictions. “ 69. P. 50 Coastal resort developments shall provide public access to and parking for beach and shoreline areas. Comment: Need to deﬁne equitable public access facilities. Currently resort design public access facilities to deter easy public access. Limited parking regulated by guards and distantly located from the shoreline or recreational amenity without adequate facilities are the current norm. Ensure the standards for public access are improved accordingly. 70. P. 50 Industrial-commercial mixed-use districts should serve as transitional areas. Comment: ”It should be noted that industrial areas around the island such as north of Kailua town and in Hilo became defacto ""mixed"" industrial/commercial areas because of it is cheaper to build commercial retail space in industrial warehouse type buildings in industrial zones bypassing the other requirements such as parking, landscaping, etc. At both Hilo and Kona these defacto hybrid areas due to the proximity to harbors and airports and adjacent urban centers they have become the ""gateway"" ﬁrst impressions of our tourist visitors. “ 71. P. 51 Provide for the establishment of new Retreat Resort areas in appropriate locations. Comment: Too vaque. Deﬁne appropriate., P. 52 Transit Oriented Development Character Guidelines: Character: Vernacular architecture that respects the historic context and scale of the community, usually subject to design criteria • Urban Grid Street Network • Limited driveway access • On-street parking • Public off-street parking • Landscaping (including street trees where appropriate) commensurate with environment/water availability. •Sidewalks and/or walking or bike paths ••Comment: "Why the qualiﬁer ""appropriate""? Street tree/landscape codes need to be updated along with appropriate county agency/department capability as street trees and landscaping is part of good design from a holistic planning perspective - environmental, social/cultural/psychological. It is a quality of life issue that Hawaii County has long neglected.” Note this Comment above applies in multiple locations in the tables of 1.3 from Table 11 through Table 17 describing ‘Character guidelines. 72. P. 78 In November 2020, the County of Hawaiʻi adopted by resolution a Street Design Manual to set standards for how County streets should support all modes of traffic. For each street type found in the County, this manual illustrates how the right-of-way should allocate space for multimodal activities following active transportation priorities. These standards are essential for new development and infrastructure rejuvenation projects to design and achieve active transportation solutions in each step of modernizing the County’s transportation system properly and adequately. Comment: ”Besides active transportation and multimodal aspects of Complete Streets, consider adding mention of environmental beneﬁts of green strategies roadway design as this is also a key component of Complete Streets. Roads make up a large component of the public infrastructure and their environmental impacts are immense. Best practices like incorporating vegetated swales and basins for inﬁltration and water quality treatment; and street trees for shade, visual quality and community character, carbon sequestration and air quality are part of sustainable development/resilient community design principles.” 73. P. 79 Continue to adopt the County of Hawaiʻi Street design manual as the county’s complete street design program/policy. Comment: Why hasn't the Street Design Manual been adopted as the County's road standards and incorporated into the Hawaii County Code? 74. P. 80 Encourage ﬂexibility in applying the County of Hawaiʻi Street Design Manual when necessary to preserve the rural character of an area while maintaining a pedestrianfriendly design and desired landscaping solutions. Comment: Amend the Street Design Manual to include rural road standards that are appropriate to our typology of rural village roads. Also amend the manual to include alley design if not already adopted as part of the manual for rural and urban neighborhoods. 75. P. 81 Develop green infrastructure standards including right-of-way (ROW) landscaping, low impact development (LID), and drainage. Comment: Provide funding and County capacity and responsibility to maintain green infrastructure in the County Right-of-Ways. 76. P. 92 Prioritize sewer for sensitive urban areas. Comment: ”Not just sensitive urban areas. We have sensitive areas in rural and residential areas that are no longer appropriate to rely on cesspools and even IWSs. Also need to ensure directing upgrades and new wastewater infrastructure to those desired areas as identiﬁed in the GP and CDPS.” 77. P. 92 Encourage groundwater recharge through on-site practices. Comment: ”Not just through on-site practices. Encourage groundwater recharge PERIOD. If you want to deﬁne how, then include all scales from sound regional scale master planning down through site speciﬁc best management practices such as Low Impact Development strategies.” 78. P. 93 Public Utilities section on Stormwater: • Prioritize resiliency measures that support climate change impact scenarios. •Regularly amend County codes to be as current and innovative as possible. ••Comment: ”suggest adding a priority action item that identiﬁes speciﬁc County Codes need to be updated. Much of our current codes as it relates to stormwater are woefully outdated. For example our roadway and landscape standards and building code site planning standards need to be revised to reﬂect current best practices such as Low Impact Development (LID), green/sustainable standards, Smart Growth principles, etc as appropriate to our island environment.” 79. P. 94 Encourage the clustering of developments to reduce the cost of providing utilities. Comment: and higher density, 80. P. 95 The Hawaiʻi Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO) supplies electricity for Hawaiʻi Island and operates major switching stations (used to transfer the ﬂow of power between different transmission circuits) at critical locations around the island. These transmission switching stations provide greater system ﬂexibility and increase system reliability in supplying power to the various distribution substations and eventually, to customers. Distribution substations, which transform voltages to distribution voltages, are also located island-wide in proximity to communities and other developments. Comment: Wouldn’t more localized/smart grids reduce the loss of power inherent in distributing electricity over long distances? 81. P. 103. Maintain the water master plan to consider water yield, present and future demand, alternative sources of water, guidelines, and policies for the issuing of water commitments. [project | DWS | ongoing] Comment: Need to ensure that the Water master plan is in sync with the GP and CDPS and other community plans so DWS actions are coordinated with the County's plans instead of the status quo of meeting their existing customers' needs and/or those who can afford to develop and pay for new water infrastructure. 82. P. 106 As communities generate wastewater through various sources such as residential, commercial, and industrial activities, effective treatment is necessary to remove harmful pollutants and contaminants before the water is discharged back into the environment. Improperly treated wastewater can have detrimental effects on marine ecosystems, coastal waters, and freshwater resources, jeopardizing both human and ecological health. Comment: ”Recognize that the fact that combining waste with water and then having to separate, treat and convey the wastewater is a very inefficient and expensive process. At least consider at appropriate scale other alternative systems that avoid combining waste with potable water. As with recycling, instead look to view waste as resource with beneﬁcial use. 83. P. 108 Plans for wastewater reclamation and reuse for irrigation and biosolids composting (remaining solids from the treatment of wastewater are processed into a reusable organic material) shall be utilized where topographically feasible and needed for landscaping purposes. Comment: ”While it is less expensive to use gravity ﬂow to distribute reclaimed wastewater, we perhaps should not limit reuse to ""topographically"" appropriate areas. We have the technology to use sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar to pump reclaimed wastewater for reuse. All the more critical to ensure proper location of development and the associated waste/wastewater treatment facilities as part of an integrated plan, not just for urban areas but rural villages and our agricultural lands.” 84. P. 109 Encourage on-site water reuse solutions for large developments. Comment: “Require, 85. P. 112 Green infrastructure is crucial for stormwater management, as it captures and absorbs runoff, reducing the volume and rate of runoff. Comment: And provides water quality treatment i.e. ﬁltration of sediment and bioremediation of toxic pollutants. 86. P. 113 Encourage grassed shoulder and swale roadway design where climate and grade are conducive. Comment: Suggestion,Vegetated shoulder rather than grassed. Grass/lawn is not the only option. Important to note that these policies need to be accompanied by capacity to properly maintain to ensure ecosystem service beneﬁt. 87. P. 113 The “Drainage Master Plan for the County of Hawaiʻi” should be updated every 20 years for urban centers to incorporate new studies and reﬂect newly identiﬁed priorities. Comment: ”Not just urban centers. Need to look at regional scale context and identify areas that provide ﬂooding buffers, natural water quality treatment i.e. wetlands, riparian edges, muliwai, etc. for these areas provide valuable ecosystem services way more effective than engineered solutions. Consider utilizing these areas as open space, recreation zones with trails that serve not only environmental function but cultural/community beneﬁt.” 88. P. 114 Maintain the Department of Public Works Storm Drainage Standards to reﬂect current data and to incorporate strategies and standards of green infrastructure and low-impact development. Comment: “”Add ""and upgrade”" 89. P. 114 Develop a monitoring and evaluation program for impervious surface coverage. Comment: ”Add ""and conﬁguration."" Low Impact development principles also call for the shapes and location of impervious and pervious areas to be discontinuous so that storm runoff from impervious areas can be received by appropriate sized adjacent pervious area. This minimizes generation of storm runoff and erosion and provides for better inﬁltration and groundwater recharge.” 90. P. 115 Identify County Parks and Recreation sites for green infrastructure demonstration projects. Comment: Also utilize road rights of ways for demonstration pilot programs. 91. P. 117 The County provides police and ﬁre protection and solid waste disposal Comment: Also waste water treatment, 92. P. 118 Under Public Facilities and Services Challenges: Sewage, industrial waste, and other pollutants have penetrated some swimming, surﬁng, ﬁshing, and boating areas, reducing the availability and/or quality of these areas for recreation. Comment: ””contaminated"" instead of penetrated?” 93. P. 134 Parks and recreation areas play a key role in climate resilience efforts and overall environmental sustainability. They may provide green spaces that help mitigate the urban heat island effect in our urban growth areas, improve air quality, and support biodiversity by providing habitats for native plant and animal species. Comment: ”Can also serve as disaster mitigation. For example open space, appropriately contoured and vegetated can serve to reduce the force of tsunami. Also parks and open space areas can serve as buffer zones to receive and store ﬂood waters. 94. P. 136 Recreational facilities shall reﬂect the natural, historic, and cultural character of the area. Comment: ”A needed change is the Park's department's approach to facilities design and maintenance. Design and maintenance of parks facilities should improve the quality of life of our residents and be a source of community pride. While facilities need to be sturdy and durable, they should not be designed with vandalism resistance and minimal maintenance as the primary focus. Parks including parking lots and open space should be properly landscaped with trees and other plantings for shade, beauty and function. For too long the County's Park department park design and maintenance culture has been dominated by a lowest common denominator of vandal resistant and lowest maintenance design resulting in fortress-like structures and parks with minimal shade trees, shrubs and groundcover with the exception of lawn. This needs to change. Hawaii County deserves better. “,,136 95. P. 137 Implement a proactive maintenance program to ensure that park facilities and trails are safely maintained for optimum usage. Comment: ”Add ""appropriately"" maintained... See general comment under heading above for Recreational Facilities Siting and Planning.” 96. P. 139 Analyze under-represented open recreation and healthy living activities to be included in Park Standards. Comment: ”One of these under-represented recreational facilities is trails for walking/hiking/biking. As part of a strategy for climate change transition and sea level rise, identify coastal areas and routes for these trails. 97. P. 139 Amend the HCC to better address park and recreation issues in the following ways: Note: Edit to reﬂect future code updates. i. Amend subdivision code (Ch. 23) to be consistent with Dedication of Land code (Ch. 8) in providing land area for park and recreational use or pay a fee in lieu thereof. ii. Develop and adopt an Impact Fees Ordinance Comment: Paying fee in lieu of has never been an workable solution for even partially funding projected recreational needs. 98. P. 154 Under Affordable Housing Character Guidelines: Comment: ”Suggest adding that these affordable housing developments shall ideally be located in proximity to and integrated into existing and proposed urban and rural centers so that there is easy access to necessary services and goods, recreation and other quality of life amenities.” 99. P. 164 Under Economic Challenges of the Visitor Industry Add: “better planning/design and management,” 100. P. 180 Implement interpretive programs and stewardship at wahi pana. Comment: Need more speciﬁcs: Develop community based program to codify wahi pana status along with speciﬁc stewardship organization and processes. 101. P. 181 Integrate ‘āina based and place-based values into Hawai‘i Island’s identity. Comment: ”Aina based generally covers place-based. Maybe ""aina and community based"" instead of "" aina based and place-based.”" 102. P. 184. The county has not developed a scenic resources protection program, including view impact procedures, criteria, and standards. Comment: ”add ""scenic resource inventory”" 103. P. 184 The waters surrounding Hawaii Island are affected by increasing waste products such as marine debris, plastic pollution from land and ocean sources as well as effluents, pollutants and toxins generated and released from land-based sources such as cesspools and septic systems. Comment: ”add ""injection wells”"" 104. P. 186 Encourage the preservation and restoration of natural landscape features, such as coral reefs, beaches and dunes, forests, streams, ﬂoodplains, and wetlands, or aquifer recharge areas that have the inherent capacity to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts of climate change. Comment: ”and, not or” 105. P. 188 Develop buffer policies to protect native forests, wildlife, and habitat. Comment: ”add ""rivers, streams, coastal waters including but not limited to anchialine ponds”"" 106. P. 190 Restore wetlands and riparian corridors to decrease erosion, increase sediment management, groundwater inﬁltration, nutrient/pollutant uptake, soil moisture retention, stormwater abatement, and cultural/community connections. Comment: Protect and…, 107. P. 194 Develop and establish view plane criteria, rankings, and regulations to preserve and enhance views of scenic or prominent landscapes from speciﬁc locations, and coastal aesthetic values. Comment: ”Add ""and/or corridors”"" Collaborative Bicultural Stewardship chapter The plan urges the County to increase interagency and intergovernmental collaboration. The ‘ahupua’a (mauka-makai) perspective by island communities is essential to face the (not so distant) threat of adverse climate disaster. I would encourage the plan to recognize the role of estuaries to our forest/coastal resources health. Hawaiian estuaries, albeit small, is the gatekeeper of our mauka-makai and makai-mauka connectivity. Hawaiian streams are two-lane highways. My suggested changes are listed; 108. p.184; Watershed +There watershed…(Three?) Stewardship Intergovernmental? 109. p.185 Policies 45.2 +remove coral from coral reefs-not all reefs are coral. Hamakua coast, for example Policies 45.3 +include riparian buffer zone 110. p.187 Priority Action 45.i +include ‘streams’ Priority Action 45.o +include ‘estuary’ Priority Action 45.q +inclue ‘estuaries’ 111. p.189 Policies 46.6.f +remove word (volume). The character (ﬂashiness) of stream ﬂow is as signiﬁcant as its volume to native biota and stream ecological processes. 46.6.j +add ‘…develop partnerships to mitigate sediment and nutrient loads.’ (ie. oysters planting to decrease nutrient load in Hilo Bay) Submitted to Planning on Dec. 27 by, Tawn Keeney, Chair, Hamakua CDP Action Committee Communication No. 2024-02 Communication No. 2024-03 LEGEND (For Maps of the Mud Lane - Waipio - Honokaa Area): VIOLET LINE: Waipio Vally Rim proximate to Kukuihaele - 2005 General Plan proposes the County advocate to the State to build a Valley Rim Road for the Waipio Lookout to the Mud Lane entrance onto Highway 19 with multiple recreation or viewing areas. WHITE LINE: Mud Lane running from Kukuihaele Bypass Road to Highway 19 near Waimea. Also White is a side Jeep Road running from Mud Lane to the Old Waipio Lookout which the Hamakua CDP proposes for study as a pedestrian (?) bicycle access to a park on the Valley rim. RED LINE: Alternate access from Mud Lane to the Honokaa - Waipio Road. Cane Haul Road now gated. YELLOW LINE: Previous and Proposed Emergency access route from the Large Acreage Subdivision on the Waipio side of Mud Lane Mauna of the Eucalyptus Plantation to the Mauka Cane Haul Road and Honokaa. (Now blocked by private property ranching owner) BLUE LINE: Lower Cane Haul Road from Kukuihaele to Honokaa. There is a ‘bridge out’ on this Lower Cane Haul Road between Haina (below Honokaa) and Paauhau. The bridge on the Waipio side of the Power Plant below Honokaa I believe is intact but would need clearing. Communication No. 2024-04 BRIAN CLARK LIVING TRUST SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA ASSESSMENT APPLICATION, October 2023 A proposed 4 lot subdivision in the SMA at: TMK 2-7-004-118 Portion of LCA 11,215 Apana 1 to Aarona Kealiiahonui, approximately 16.9393 acres Mill Road Highway 19 TOPOGRAPHIC NAP SHOWING v%, „ EXISTING CONORIONS UPON t= no.. Mokihana Bay Kekiwi Point NOTES IreamMame Iowa salml ram Subject parcel outlined in Red To Hilo PATTISON LAND SURVEYING COPY- Papaikou, South Hilo Communication No. 2024-05 SMAA 2-7-004-118 General Vicinty Map 8/1812023, 2:58:28 PM TMK Zone -Sections (Labels) USGS Parcels (labels) Red. Band_1 0 Parcels (boundary lines) Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 0 Coastline 1:9,028 0 0.1 0.2 1 r i 0 0.15 0 3 0.4 mi 0.6 km Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, Ertl Community Maps Contributors, OoenStreetMap. M¢rosoft. Esri, HERE, Gamin, SateGraph, GeoTechnobgies, Inc, METIMASA, USGS, EPA, US Census Bureau, USDA ArcGIS Web AppBuilder Sources: Esn, USGS Esn, NASA, NGA, USGS I Esn Community Maps Contributors, O OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esn, HERE, Gamin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METIMASA, USGS, EPA, US Census Subject parcel looking North Subject parcel looking southwest BRIAN CLARK LIVING TRUST SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT APPLICATION, OCTOBER 2023 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED (FOR DETERMINATION OF MINOR, MAJOR or EXEMPT STATUS) 1. Description of the proposed development... Applicant Brian Clark Living Trust intends to perform a four -lot subdivision of TMK 2-7-004-118- 0000 at Papaikou, South Hilo, Hawaii Island. The parcel is approximately 16.9393 acres in size and has mixed zoning with approximately 11.4363 acres in County Zone Ag -3a and the balance 5.5030 acres in County Zone Ag -20a. The Lots will range from 3.053 acres to approximately 7.236. No grading, grubbing, leveling, or soil movement of the premises is planned, the subdivision action under this SMA Assessment being benign to land movement and only entails surveyed lot line boundaries and description of easements for access and utility purposes to the four proposed Lots. Groundwork grading and grubbing being deferred until the future Lot(s) are developed. These future developments for construction of a structure or excavation of sub- surface utilities are expected to fall under a separate SMA Major application at the time those actions are contemplated. At this time, Trustee Brian Clark, intends to keep Lots 1 and 2 in possession and may consider selling Lots 3 and 4 in the future. 2. Statement of Objectives of the proposed project... The Project is to utilize the existing zoning of the parcel to perform a four -lot subdivision on the 16.9393 parcel by way of Rule 9 exemption to Planning Commission rules and practices to perform the subdivision as an SMA -Minor or exempt action. The cost of the subdivision survey and easement creation is not expected to exceed $100,000, well under the $500,000 trigger for a SMA -Major action. 3. Anticipated impacts of the proposed project on the Special Management Area... a. Description of the area involved, existing uses, structures, vegetation, and features: TMK 2-7-004-118-0000 was the primary site of the Papaikou Sugar Mill for Onomea Sugar Company Inc. and its successor Mauna Kea Sugar Company Inc. The parcel has been in industrial type use for over 100 years. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) shows a good portion of the parcel in "Industrial" designation. Sugarcane milling at the parcel ceased in the late 1970's. At that time the parcel was part of the much larger TMK 2-7-004-025-0000 that included the garage and repair facilities for Mauna Kea Sugar Co. The lands continued to be in a supportive industrial / agricultural use for the sugarcane cultivation operations until those operations terminated in 1994. In 1995 the parcel containing the former sugarcane mill and coastal lands from Papaikou Bay to Kekiwi Point, approximately 11.4363 acres, was sold to Jim Waugh and Charlene Prickett, under the name Hawaughya, Inc. a Canadian corporation. In 1997 Mauna Kea Agribusiness (Sugar) Co. sold approximately 5.5030 acres of additional lands from Kekiwi Point to Mokihana Bay to Waugh and Prickett through Parcel Consolidation and Re- subdivision action #6848, May 4, 1997, recorded Bureau of Conveyances 97-085749. Since that date the lands have carried the amount of 16.9393 acres within TMK 2-7-004- 118-0000. Recent Boundary Study work by Pattison Land Surveying will show that the earlier Donald James Murray subdivision maps, S-3007 and S-6848 did not accurately account for the southern course of the property as being the centerline of Kapue River. The 4 -lot subdivision map will describe the lots and parcels correcting this omission. (See Exhibit B "Boundary Study"). Under the Waugh/Prickett ownership land development actions were undertaken to clear the area of weed trees and establish property fences and berms to define the parcel boundaries. Many timber trees were planted and remain today in tall, beautiful stature from their early start as saplings. Significant demolition work was performed at the former Papaikou Mill site under DEMO Permit 960720* dated 5/29/1996 and has an expiration date of 5/29/2026, (permit is still "open") See Exhibit C. Several building permits have been issued on the parcel with the most significant being 2003-1045 for a new residential structure. This 1,295 sq. ft. 3 -bedroom home shows a completion date of 2006. The house is situated upon the foundation of a sugar warehouse that sat above the Mill complex. Of significance to note is that the parcel has many former structure sites and vast areas of concrete or asphalt pavement. The history of this parcel and its long use as an Agri/industrial complex remains evident in the landscape. One cannot walk too far before one structure remnant, or another, are encountered. The Boiling House structure remains standing to a height of perhaps 35 feet or more along the banks of Kapue River, the solid concrete fire room walls stand near the ili'ili stone beach, the 'cane pit' loading station is a unique, perfectly round feature, with a pedestal in the center where a crane once sat. All of these 'features' prove the long and thorough use of the lands in near 100% developed status. There is not much native flora and fauna that has not already been disturbed or otherwise obliterated by these industrial activities. Native species are present on the parcel, however, are limited to floral species such as Coconut (Cocos nucifera) or Hala (Pandanus odoritisimus). Other native species have been re -introduced to the parcel by the actions of Waugh and Prickett with their re- forestation efforts. Species such as Hau (Hibiscus tiliacues ), Kou (Cordia subcordata ), Milo (Thespesia populnea ), and Kamani (Calophylum inophylum), are now present in cultivated plots. Faunal species such as the endangered Hawaiian Monk Seal Neomonachus schauinslandi) have been known to use the ili'ili beach for brief periods to bask before returning to the ocean. This is one of the foremost reasons the former and current landowners do not allow Dogs to enter the trail and beach area. OTHER FEATURES upon the parcel... Subject parcel 2-7-004-118 has several "features" that should be described as part of this Assessment and SMA action. They are: a. Sugarcane Mill, Factory, and Processing complex b. Cane Flumes, Flume cuts and shelves, and the "Cane Pit" c. Mill Road access and related Utilities d. Kapue River and the "Puniawa" (impounded river) aka "Mill Beach" e. The Beach Trail, (constructed in 1997 and enhanced in 2002) a) The Sugarcane Mill, Factory and Processing complex: The most overriding element on the subject parcel is the sugarcane mill and related processing structures. A sugarcane mill has existed on this parcel since approximately 1867. The mill from being a wood and stone structure has been modified and rebuilt many times over the course of one hundred nine years (109) of operation. The area defined in Ag -3a zoning, approximately 11.5 acres, was the primary location of the industrial complex that processed sugarcane into juice and then refined it down to raw brown sugar. The mill was shut down in 1976 and sat vacant for decades until the parcel was sold to Waugh and Prickett in 1995. Today the crushing plant, furnace room, and boiling house remains are still evident. Demolition and metal recycling actions from 1996 to 2000 removed much of the crushing plant metals and steel beams of the building. However, the furnace room and boiling house were not demolished or entered for recycling efforts due to the difficult access of these structures upon the steep landscape to the north and west and the edge of the Kapue River immediately south of the structures. These structures remain in place today yet covered in years of jungle growth vines and weed species trees. b. Cane Flumes, Flume cuts and shelves, and the "Cane Pit": Related to the industrial sugarcane milling complex was the method by which the cane was delivered to the Mill. A. 4A. f tea. 4 4416*&- PAPAIKOU MILL COMPLEX and FLUME SYSTEM (circa 1936) For most of its existence the harvested sugarcane from the fields of the plantation was delivered through a system of on grade water flumes. The hand cut cane pieces were bundled and placed in the flumes and they coursed their way down to the crushing plant. Being on grade and using water as the transport medium, the flumes were elevated over low spots and valleys, or they were 'cut' into the ground to pass through a high ridge or other such elevated impeding height of land. The terminus of the three major flumes was the "Cane Pit" upon the subject parcel. The round concrete side and floor structure collected the cane prior to it being loaded into the cleaning plant and main delivery flume to the crushing plant. Cane Storage Pit with Crane and Feeder Table in Operation The subject parcel is-crossed by flume cuts along the edge of Mokihana Bay and Kekiwi point to the north as well as the main flume shelf from the cane pit to the crushing plant floor. These cuts and shelves are a defining feature that is separate from that of the ocean boundary or that of the "Top-of-pall" edge that is often used to define the properties' edge as being the sheer bank or slope that then extends down to the high wash of the waves. It is significant to note that the parcel has several areas where the edge of the property at the high wash of the waves then extends inward and upward to the "top-of-pati" then further extends onto a flat flume shelf where after some 30 or 40 feet the slope extends upwards again to the current 'flat' agricultural and building site lands. At Mokihana Bay the top-of-pali is more complex having a flume 'cut' between the oceans edge and the usable agricultural and building site lands. The subdivision plan for the proposed four lot subdivision uses the outer most top-of-pali edge with the ocean as the origin of building setback, the flume shelf or cut being included or partially included within the set back width. These unique elements are depicted below... Top of Pali and set back widths measured from here. Flume Shelf Boundary at high wash of waves along boulder strewn shoreline b) Mill Road Access and Utilities: Mill Road is a private road owned by the Applicant, TMK 2-7-027-065. The road provides access to the subject parcel and the proposed other three subdivided lots. All the residential owners along Mill Road hold easements that allow access to HDOT Highway 19. Within Mill Road are the sewer mains that take waste waters from the surrounding communities and transport it to the Papaikou Sewage Treatment Plant at the far side of Mokihana Bay and Waipahi Point. Potable drinking water is provided by County of Hawaii Dept. of Water Supply mainlines and meters. Electricity is provided by HELCO poles, lines, and meters to each house. It is a unique feature that these public service providers hold easements across a private road. Photo of Silverton Camp subdivisions, Mill Road at center, Kopilimai Road to left, and H-19 at far right. Kimura General Store at corner of Mill Road and H-19 c) Kapue River, the puniawa, and Mill Beach: A unique feature of parcel 118 is the impounded Kapue river at the oceans edge. Parcel 118's boundary is the centerline of Kapue River and is shared with the ahupua'a lands of Puueopaku owned by Joseph Melilio. (See Exhibit B, "Boundary Study") The surf break waves push the water worn ili'ili stones up against the river causing a dam effect on the river. Some of the earliest evidence maps of the area found on the DAGS Map Search website refer to Papaikou Bay as "puniawa" which means enclosed bay. The sketch notes by C. J. Lyon describe the area around the Papaikou Mill and the bay, headlined as Puniawa. See the embedded sketch from "Field Book 316 dated 1877". (as catalogued at DLNR). The specific pages being dated February 12 and 13, 1878. These notes as well as others in the vicinity were used to create Registered Map 910 and Registered Map 938. The impounded waters create a large pond before flowing out to sea in a steady stream at the far south side of the beach. The pond supports several estuary types of fish and shellfish. Common Godi fish inhabit the area near the exit into the ocean. Young mullet and Aholehole swim in the deeper waters of the pond and non- native Tahitian prawns are prevalent in the rocky bottom areas. During periods of heavy rainfall, the river can reach flood status and the entire ili'ili beach will disappear, washed into the ocean. Not long after these flood events the waves will restore the berm and the puniawa pond returns to its calm and serene state. Mill Beach as it appears today was not accessible to the public during the entire term of sugarcane milling operations. The milling operations completely dominated both the river and ocean in the mill vicinity. Anecdotal stories from the old timers that worked the mill tell a story of a much more degraded beach and ocean interaction with Mill waste, spent sugarcane bagasse, furnace slag and ash pushed into the river, and cleaning plant wash waters depositing soil, rocks and debris into the river and bay. The enactment of the EPA Clean Water Act in 1972 required the mills along the Hamakua Coast including Papaikou mill to stop all dumping of bagasse and soil into the ocean. The result of the Clean Water Act was the shutting down of Hilo Sugar Company's Wainaku Mill and Hakalau Plantation's Mill in 1974. The Papaikou Mill stayed open another two years milling all cane formerly handled at the Wainaku Mill. The cane storage areas upon the subject parcel were expanded to accept this doubling of material, thus today one can see large areas of concrete floors poured and unloading stations constructed to handle the increased amount of cane to process at Papaikou Mill. All bagasse and cane cleaning wastes were hauled by truck to the fields above the mill. After 1976 all cane formerly milled at Papaikou Mill went to the enlarged huge new mill complex at Pepeekeo. The Hilo Coast Processing Cooperative (HCPC) was formed and accepted all the cane from the former four separate mills. In the years after shutting down milling operations at Papaikou the beach and puniawa has become a much cleaner and attractive site. Note cane trash and spent bagasse completely covering Mill Beach and Papaikou Bay Oaamea Mi11 Puniawa or 'e Crushing Plant foundation and seawall 1 Cane pit and flume shelf to crushing plant foundation iclosed river" feature Photo date: August 2023 c. Description of surrounding area and land uses: Adjoining parcel 118 to the West and across the Kapue River is TMK 2-7-004-119-0000 a 20.00 -acre parcel also owned by the Brian Clark Living Trust. This parcel is zoned Ag -20a and is used for truck crop farming of sweet potato and other root crops. To the North of 118 is "Mill Road" TMK 2-7-027-065 a 1.292 -acre private road that is also owned by the Brian Clark Living Trust. Silverton Camp Makai subdivision and Silverton Gardens Subdivision with approximately 60 parcels hold access and utility easements upon the "Mill Road" parcel. The Silverton Camps formerly housed mill workers and employees of the Papaikou Mill or field agricultural workers for Mauna Kea Sugar Company. The Silverton camp subdivisions are zoned either RS -10 or RS -7.5. (See embedded ArcGIS maps). Directly South across the Kapue River lagoon (puniawa) is TMK 2-7-003-001 & 004 owned by Joseph Melillo To the Northeast of parcel 118 is TMK 2-7-004-025-0000 owned by The Shropshire group. This 76.674 acre parcel is zoned Ag -20 and has multiple active agricultural crops under cultivation. The parcel also includes the former repair and maintenance Garage facility for the former Mauna Kea Agribusiness Company, (MKAC). MKAC is the successor to Mauna Kea Sugar by name change to include the cultivation of Macadamia Nuts along with sugarcane. At present the Shropshire Group licenses the garage structures to a sweet potato and ginger processing entity. To the North and adjoining parcel 118 is the DEM Papaikou Sewage Treatment Plant STP). This 2.561 -acre parcel processes waste waters from the communities of Pauka'a, Papaikou, and Kaapoko Homesteads. The gravity mainlines extend from Mill Road onto subject parcel 118, thence across Shropshire Group's parcel 025, across Kopilimai Road, re-entering subject parcel 118, and finally entering the STP. All the mainlines are covered by recorded easement across the various private parcels. Finally, to the East of parcel 118 is the Pacific ocean with features such as Mokihana Bay, Kekiwi Point and Papaikou Mill Beach. d. Relationship of the proposed action to land use plans and policies: The proposed four lot subdivision complies with the County of Hawaii Ag -3a zoning of the parcel. The LUPAG for the area has multiple uses implied for the parcel with Low Density Urban use, Industrial Use, and Open Area use. The four -lot subdivision complies with the Low Density Urban designation, but it does not comply with the Open Area designation. The Open Area designation appears as an overly broad swath on the LUPAG map and does not match the geographic / topographic features of parcel 118. The LUPAG Industrial designation appears as an artifact of past sugarcane milling operations and may not be the appropriate pattern for the future uses of the subdivided parcel 118. Additionally, the Industrial pattern swath appears shifted and mis-matched with areas shaded Industrial where currently there are residential homes complete with appropriate County RS 7.5 zoning. LUPAG 5/8/2023, 8:35:03 AM LUPAG Current Status (Labels) LUPAG (Current Status) Important Ag. Lands S Industrial Low Density Urban — COH Slreetnames TMK Zone -Sections (Labels) Medium Density Urban COH Centerlines (labels) Parcels (labels) Open Area — Centerlines U Parcels (boundary lines) 1:4,514 O 0.04 0.07 0.14 mi O 0.05 0.1 0.2 km un»s. 151.Ab0a 05 U5G5, Nen NASO CG1AR, N Roberton, NCEA5. NLS, 05, NMA GeorlatasMNaen, FIiawMaWal GSA, embed. FEMA A,CGIS Web Appaullder Sources' Earl. USGS IEel Gorman* Maps Conb61o,s. oOpenSiree1Mep, Microsoft, Es,i. HERE, S ,t,, SaMGaph, GeoTe5MN cies,Irc. MENN0SA, USGS, EPA, USCensus Bureau, USDA County Zoning 5/8/2023, 8:38:32 AM Zoning (Labels) Zoning I (road) NMI A -20a A -3a RS -7.5 Centerlines CV -10 — COH Streetnames TMK Zone -Sections (Labels) RS -10 COH Centerlines (Labels) Parcels (labels) 1:4,514 O 0.04 0.07 0.14 mi O 0.05 0.1 0.2 km NESeB05ENMAGeotlelas5GS NGA NASA I5 l N RobMwn NCEAS. McMm. npaswrrueal. cSA, Gedend. FEMA. A,cGIS Web App0Wdr Sources Earl. USGS IEarl Crm5Stl Maps Conb0aors. 0OpenSueelMep, Mlraaoft. Eel. HERE, Gemen, SefeGlapl,, GeoTedarologbs, Inc, METIMASA, USGS, EPA US Census &eerie. USDAI e. Description of how the proposed project will affect the area and surrounding properties: The four -lot subdivision will have little impact on the surrounding properties. The only item of possible concern may be the increased traffic from additional occupants of the subdivided lots. Lots 1 and 2 will gain their primary access through Mill Road while Lots 3 and 4 will have their primary access through Kopilimai Road. Either way the anticipated increase in traffic flow will be minimal on the community. According to County DEM the sewer treatment plant is running under capacity and has more than enough room to accept waste waters from three additional lots and respective farm dwelling units. Availability of water meter units from the County DWS has been requested by letter dated 8/11/23. See Exhibit E. ...by the County DWS. Construction of farm dwelling structures on the newly created lots may possibly impact the view plane of the coastline from nearby adjacent properties. However, the proposed set back of 50' from the "Top of Pali" should minimize view impediments of the lands nearest the coastline. f. Description of impacts which cannot be avoided, and mitigating measures proposed to minimize that impact: It is not expected that any impacts will be of significance that would require mitigating measures. g. Alternatives to the proposed project: Alternatives to the 4 -lot subdivision include A) decreasing the lot count to 2 or 3 lots; or B) not doing the subdivision at all. h. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources: Once the 4 -lot subdivision is completed, owner Brian Clark Living Trust may place Lots 3 and 4 on the market for sale to others. Once sold to others, the continuity of a single owner for the parcel (as a whole) will be lost. Fortunately, the private trail to Papaikou Mill Beach will remain in the hands of Brian Clark Living Trust upon the retained Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 contains the residential structures and entry gate for the beach trail as well as the access and utility easements to Lots 2, 3 & 4. Lot 2 contains the remnants of the Sugar Mill, the switch back portions of the beach trail, and the ili'ili beach. The Brian Clark Trust intends to keep the trail open to use by surfers and other persons wanting access to the ocean for fishing and gathering. Use of the trail will retain the same restrictions and conditions that exist currently. Trail hours are 6:30am to 6:30pm. Brian Clark Living Trust intends to investigate resuming demolition actions upon the remaining mill structure near Kapue River and the beach. Any demolition work is NOT part of this SMAA, those actions will be assessed at a future date. Demo work on the mill will be irreversible but when completed the remaining area of "Lot 2" will be far safer to enter and utilize. Additional Descriptive elements pertinent to an SMA application... A) State Land Use Designation, (SLU): Parcel 118 is primarily classified as Agriculture with a small strip of Conservation along the top of pali to the oceans' edge. The conservation area is approximately 30 feet wide from the northern edge of the "Cane Pit" along the edge of Kekiwi Point and through Mokihana Bay to the DEM Sewage Treatment Plant. Of significance there is NO CONSERVATION classification depicted for the area of the Cane Pit and along the edge of the pali all the way to the Crushing Plant foundation and to the centerline of Kapue River boundary with Puueopaku. This area being fulling developed for cleaning plant structures and the transportation flumes that were placed along the top of pali edge. State Land Use 4047037 L.,1 r700402s 581/2028 8:31:29AM SLU Classifications Urban —Centerlines O Parcels (boundary lines) A9ricU88r8l — COH Streatnamas TMKZone.Seclions (Labels) 0 Coastline Gonsarvalwn COH Centerlines (Labels) Parcels (labels) sac.usrslFsrira•..Mrwcam. em Widthof Conservation area —25 to 30' Enlarged portion of SLU map 1:4.514 004 007 1) Conservation Classification ends at Cane Pit structure / cleaning plant. B) Soil Classifications: Parcel 118 soils are Hilo Silty Clay Loam (HoC). This soil is very well drained, runoff is slow and erosion hazard is slight. The ALISH designation for the agricultural portion of the parcel is "1 PRIME". The coastal edge and lands used for industrial purposes are "undesignated". Land Study Bureau shows the agricultural portion of the parcel as "C- FAIR", (study used 5 classes with A=BEST and E= POOR). Like the ALISH, the lands used for industrial purposes was not rated. C) Hamakua Community Development Plan: The subject parcel is within the Hamakua Community Development Plan that was adopted by the County Council as Ordinance 2018- 078 in August 2018. The Hamakua CDP makes recommendations on land use and land planning actions for regions of the Hamakua Coast from Wainaku South Hilo through North Hilo, into Hamakua and terminating at Waipio and Waimanu Valleys. Land use and land planning actions within this region have various recommendations, (based on community inputs) as to how the community would like to see land uses moving forward. These recommendations are taken into consideration when certain land actions such as SMA application/use permits, Rezoning actions, Subdivisions, and other permits are brought before the Planning Department or that of the Windward Planning Commission. The proposed 4 lot subdivision at Parcel 118 has actions that are covered in the Hamakua CDP that need to be vetted against compliance or non-compliance to the recommendations within the CDR The 4 -lot subdivision appears to meet the "Preferred Land Use and Settlement Patterns contained within Section 3 of the CDP. The subdivision matches the County Zoning (Ag -3) and to some degree the LUPAG as well. Further to that, the lots will be able to connect to the existing sewer lines that service the area as well as water, electricity, and cable services. Within section 3.1.3, Land Use Policy Control the following statement regarding Public Access is recited: Appropriate public access to and along the shoreline shall be ensured as a condition of SMA exemptions and permits. (HRS 205A-26) Parcel 118 contains the Papaikou Mill Beach Access Trail, a private trail open to community use, following conditions and time restrictions employed by the landowner. The phrase "shall be ensured" appears overly broad. The Brian Clark Living Trust intends to keep the trail open for use by members of the community for access to the ocean, surf break, and gathering purposes, however, the Trust cannot agree to a public access easement or use agreement as a condition of this SMA action. Future actions upon proposed lot 2 (the Mill building remnants) may interfere with the current location and use of the trail. Until certain demolition measures are taken it is simply not an option to discuss public easements. In Section 4, "Protect and Enhance Natural and Cultural Resources", the 4 -lot subdivision intends to employ setbacks greater than the standard 40' from shoreline. Concurring with the recommendations within section 4.2.4 and Policy 18, The Brian Clark Trust will be using the "top-of-pali (cliff)" as the defining edge for the building set back. The Trust has designated a 50' setback from the top of cliff. Keeping buildings away from the coast along with the existing kamani trees, will protect and enhance the view planes, recited in Community Objectives 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.5). The Brian Clark Trust appreciates the thoroughness and vision that the Hamakua CDP has set forth for the district. It is hoped that the planners and agencies would concur that this 4 -lot subdivision meets some of the Land Use and Policy goals of the CDP. 4. Written Description of the anticipated impacts of the proposed development on valued Cultural, Historical, or Natural Resources on the property. a. The identity and scope of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources in the area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the area... Subject parcel 2-7-004-118 was the former site of the Onomea Sugar Company's Papaikou Mill Complex. This site shares both Cultural and Historical values with many members of the community who may have worked in the factory or the sugarcane fields. The Mill has been raised except for a portion of the Boiling House. Other features such as the Cane Pit and transportation flumes are a fractional relic of what they used to be. The site, more so, embodies memories of what once was rather than visual standing edifices of concrete and metal, those are all gone, hauled away to metal recycling centers or landfills. Natural Resources on the parcel and nearby areas are the Kapue River, Papaikou Mill Beach, the Surf Break, and the resources gathered from the sea. Traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights exercised in the area... The only areas where traditional native rights are currently exercised is the access to the Kapue River and the ocean at Papaikou Mill Beach. It should be reiterated that these traditional rights are more a recent right rather than that of ancient and traditional use specific to this particular parcel of land. Certainly, fishing in the ocean, collecting opihi and limu (seaweed) from the shores, and surfing on the waves is a traditional and customary native Hawaiian right exercised in like areas of the island, but at Papaikou Mill site this ancient right of access was completely obliterated after the sugarcane processing operations started in the 1860's. The rights of native Hawaiians as well as others who wished to access these resources were blocked and denied for over 109 or more years of active sugarcane milling operations. In 1976 the Papaikou Mill was shut down for good. The site was fenced off and trespassers were ejected if they entered the property. Over time the use of the ocean for fishing and occasional surf riding was occurring by local members of the nearby community. Access was very poor and dangerous. In 1995 the parcel was sold to James Waugh and Charlene Prickett. The dangerous trespass through the Mill site to the beach was discouraged and was eventually replaced by a newly built switch back trail to the mauka (west) side of the dilapidated mill site. Access to the beach, surf break and fishing activities were vastly improved, and the numbers of users extended beyond that of the local community to that of the extended communities from Pepeekeo to the north and Hilo town to the South. So, what once may have been a native tradition in 1860 or earlier has once again been restored to active use starting in the mid 1990's through to and including today. b. The extent to which those resources, including traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights, will be affected or impaired by the proposed action... The 4 -lot subdivision will not affect or impair the use of the river, beach, or surf break. Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision will be retained by the Brian Clark Living Trust. Lot 1 contains residential structures as well as the gate entrance to the private trail that was constructed. Lot 2 contains the remnants of the Mill structure and the rest of the switchback trail to the river and beach. The boundary of parcel 118 (and that of proposed Lot 2) is the centerline of the Kapue River with the other half owned by neighboring Puueopaku lands of Joseph Melilio. The Brian Clark Living Trust intends to allow access across the private trail subject to the use conditions that are posted. c. Thefeasible action, if any, to be taken to reasonably protect and valued cultural, historical or natural resources, including any existing traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights... Trustee, Brian Clark, has owned the property since December 2022 and he has been actively involved in learning about the site's historical and cultural past. He has started clearing vegetation that once covered many historical features such as the "Cane Pit" and the flume shelves that crossed the property to the crushing plant near the shore and bay of Kapue River. These actions are helping restore the history of the site and its relationship to the culture and community of Papaikou. From past industrial use the site is now returning to active agricultural crop production. Recently, Brian has partnered with the Ulu Cooperative and has planted ulu tree orchards. The use of native Hawaiian trees and crops is expanding on the site. As stated earlier the permitted use of the trail to the resources of the river and ocean will remain for customary gathering rights and uses. 5. Written statement discussing the proposes development and anticipated impacts of the proposed development on the following in relationship to the objectives and policies as contained in Chapter 205A, HRS and the SMA Guidelines: a. Recreational Resources: The proposed 4 lot subdivision will not impede the recreational resources that are currently in place on the subject property. The Brian Clark Living Trust recognizes that Papaikou Mill Beach, Surf break, and Kapue River is the only ocean access site within miles of Honolii Park to the south and KoleKole Beach Park to the north. The recreational resources are protected by use rules which help protect the coastal resources and fauna such as the Hawaiian Monk Seals that sometimes use the beach for rest. b. Historic resources: The proposed 4 lot subdivision will not affect the historic resources that may be present on the parcel. The Brian Clark Living trust intends to clean the site of invasive non-native weeds and tree species making room for planting of more "canoe plant species" (such as Ulu mentioned previously), show casing the voyaging tenacity of the Polynesian discovers of Hawaii. Where possible preservation of unique sugarcane milling features will be preserved or otherwise documented in photos for historical purposes. An Archaeological Inventory Study, (AIS), has not been performed on the subject property. If deemed required by the State Historic Preservation Division, the Trust will endeavor to engage with a licensed firm. However, it should be noted that the property has been in near 100% fully developed state for over 100 years and any native historic elements that may have been present prior to sugarcane operations are now completely obliterated. Modern era remnants of sugarcane milling and fluming do exist on the subject property, and they are also documented in many photographs and maps. The 4 -lot subdivision action will not disturb any Historic features or resources. c. Scenic and Open Space Resources: Rather than using the standard 40' set back from the high wash of the waves at the ocean boundary, the project will be employing the use of "top-of-pali" edges for measurement of building set back widths. As depicted earlier the unique topographic flume shelf and flume cut features of the parcel will be used as point 0.00' from top of pali, then measuring inland some 50' for the limit of building set back. This will minimize buildings being too close to the ocean edge. The distance from Highway 19 is approximately 1,240 feet and view planes from there will be indistinguishable from what is present currently. Views from boating traffic on the ocean or that of incoming aircraft will be able to view a more natural ocean shoreline not impacted by buildings being too close to the shoreline. d. Coastal Ecosystems: A unique feature upon the subject parcel is the "puniawa" or enclosed river. The Kapue River is impounded by the 'ili'ili pebble beach. It is a coastal resource feature that the Trust would like to employ better stewardship practices to enhance the water quality and biota that reside in this unique "quasi -estuary" lagoon. The puniawa and beach have been impacted by upstream land clearing actions from unknown property owners who have been cutting down trees and palms and throwing chain sawed logs into Kapue River. During flood stage river flow, the logs literally cover the beach and float into the surf break or marine traffic commerce routes. We need to educate the upstream owners of their damaging impact on the coastal resource of the beach, the surf break and the puniawa. Another educational aspect of the puniawa is simply the use of the Hawaiian language and its meaning. Signage at the trail head and beach could further educate the trail and beach visitors of the special coastal resources they are experiencing, and how they can help use and protect it into the future. e. Economic uses: Currently the Brian Clark Living Trust is exploring enhanced economic uses for the property. Besides the Agricultural crop production values currently under expansion, there are two economic developments that may be of importance to the State and County economy, 1) Ag -Tourism guided experiences for the visitors who want to experience a unique agricultural, historical, and cultural education on the parcel; and 2) Hawaii Film Industry potentials using the features of the Beach, Puniawa, and the sugarcane mill. Along with the adjoining 20.00 acre parcel. TMK 2-7-004-119, also owned by the Trust, the Kapue River and waterfall/ponds can be additional features available for film uses. Lots 3 and 4 of the subdivision do not appear relevant to Ag tourism or film economic opportunities. Lots 1 & 2 that are being retained by the Trust clearly have this potential for enhanced economic uses and benefits to the County and State. f. Coastal Hazards:.. The 4 lots within the subdivision have varying hazard elements. Lot 1 will contain nearly all of the ocean coast exposure however they are protected from storm waves or tsunami impacts due to the pali or cliff edge that exists between the buildable areas of the lot and the high wash of the waves. A portion of Lot 1 has the mill crushing plant seawall as its boundary with the sea. This concrete structure rises some 15 feet above the shoreline. Lot 1 is subject to possible erosion of the pali edge collapsing into the ocean. Evidence of past erosion events are evident, but fortunately none being catastrophic in size. As recommended by the Planning Department, the subdivision includes a building set back greater than that of the mandatory 40' from ocean edge. The Trust is proposing a 50' set back from Top of Pali regardless of where the high wash of the wave boundary exists. Lot 2, (the Mill Site, Beach, and portion of Kapue River), does not have the same top of pali cliff edges with the sea, instead this lot includes a portion of the Mill Beach and its interaction with the ocean and Kapue River. Lot 2 has its boundary as centerline of Kapue River with that of the Ahuapua'a of Puueopaku to the south. This lot can be exposed to storm waves, tsunami, and river flooding hazards. The Trust will be installing signage to provide the visitors to the beach adequate information about the hazards that may exist at the ocean and river areas. Although the entire parcel is designated as being Flood Zone X, it is well known to the Trust that flood hazards from tsunami or river floods can impact areas of what will be Lot 2. This lot will be retained by the Trust and is not intended to be sold. As a condition of subdivision approval, the Planning Department may want to consider as a condition that any building or development upon Lot 2 cannot be performed until a elevation flood study is performed. It appears that there are adequate safe building elevations upon the lot where the mill boiling house structure currently sits. 205A-26 Special Management Area Guidelines: All development in the special management area shall be subject to reasonable terms and conditions... A. Adequate access to publicly owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves is provided to the extent consistent with sound conservation principles... Those areas upon proposed Lot 2 that are makai, or on the ocean side of Mill Beach from the point of the high wash of the waves to the ocean and surf break beyond is considered public lands of the State of Hawaii. A private trail exists from the end of Mill Road to Mill Beach, and Kapue River. From there the visitors can access the areas of the State of Hawaii held in trust for the benefit and use of the public. The trail has certain use restrictions that are not onerous and are emplaced to protect the users of the trail as well as the native flora and fauna that may be present. The Brian Clark Living Trust is not able to dedicate or record a public easement for the use of the trail. The Trust has no intent to deny access to the trail subject to certain occasional closure actions allowed within HRS 264-1. The trail was built in 1996 with sound conservation principles to provide a hardened surface on an acceptable grade to the trail users. The Trust reserves the right to use the trail, those privately owned areas of the beach and river for its proposed eco - tourism and potential film industry uses. B. Adequate and properly located public recreation areas and wildlife preserves are reserved... The beach provides access to the ocean for surfing and fishing recreation uses. The trail and private property restrictions include not allowing dogs or pets on the premises to protect native Hawaiian Monk Seals that occasionally bask on the beach or swim in the puniawa. C. Provisions are made for solid and liquid waste treatment, disposition, and management... The parcel is serviced by County of Hawaii DEM sewer mains that cross through the property and take waste waters to the Papaikou Sewage Treatment Plant. All four lots will be required to connect to the sewer mains through utility easements. Lot 1 is already connected to the mainline. Should any construction activities occur on the proposed lots solid waste management measures as well as BMP's to minimize adverse effects on the area will be employed. D. Alterations to existing landforms and vegetation, except crops, and construction of structures shall cause minimum adverse effects... The 4 -lot subdivision project will not alter any existing landforms or vegetation and will not cause any adverse effects. Any future action for construction of dwellings or defined 'development' actions upon the lots created will require an SMA application that will need to address these potential effects. 2. No development shall be approved unless the authority has first found: A. That the development will not have substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect... B. That the development is consistent with the objectives, policies, and special management area guidelines... C. That the development is consistent with the county general plan and zoning... These three elements are answered together herein), The 4 -lot subdivision action will not trigger any adverse environmental or ecological effects. Certain actions that may occur in the future may need to address potential cumulative impacts from multiple actions taken on the four lots. At the current time the subdivision action itself does not create an impact. The subdivision is consistent with the objectives and policies of the special management area in that conditions are emplaced to protect the shoreline with building setbacks and view plane preservation. Further to that, access to the ocean and recreational uses are recited. The subdivision is consistent with the current Ag -3 zoning and appears compliant with the Hamakua CDP. 3. The authority shall seek to minimize where reasonable: A. Dredging, filling or otherwise altering any bay, estuary, river mouth, or Iagoon...The 4 lot subdivision will not undertake or emplace any of these actions. As explained earlier, the Trust intends to enhance the experience of the Beach, Bay, River, and Puniawa (lagoon) with signage and educational historical references of the area. B. Any development which would reduce the size of any beach... The 4 -lot subdivision will not reduce the size of the beach. The Trust wants to make the beach better and more "useable" by working with upslope landowners to educate them as to their depositing of grubbed trees into Kapue River. The tree and log wastes are impacting the use of the river, beach, and surf break. C. Any development which would reduce or impose restrictions upon public access to tidal and submerged lands, beaches, portions of rivers and streams within the special management area... The 4 -lot subdivision action will not reduce or impose any new restrictions upon the current access trail other than those use restrictions that have been in place for over 20 years. The use restrictions are emplaced to protect the users of the trail and the native habitat of the beach, river, and puniawa. D. Any development which would substantially interfere with or detract from the line of sight towards the sea from the state highway nearest the coast... Highway 19 is approximately 1,240 feet away from the project site. The view plane towards the coast and ocean beyond will not be affected by the subdivision. E. Any development which would adversely affect water quality, existing areas of open water free of visible structures, existing and potential fisheries and fishing grounds, wildlife habitats or agricultural uses of the land... As recited earlier in this document, the Brian Clark Living Trust is endeavoring to improve the water quality at the river and beach. Potential future structures on the subdivided lots will not be able to build too close to the ocean having development setbacks more than the mandatory 40' from ocean edge. The fishing grounds at Papaikou Mill Beach will not be impaired. There are no other access points to the shore along the remaining lots of the project area, these shoreline edges being steep cliffs above a rocky boulder strewn shoreline. Opihi gathering along the boulders can be accessed off Mill beach traveling north along the oceans edge being submerged and/or wave impacted property of the State of Hawaii. It is clearly a dangerous fishery activity and possible signage could be erected stating the risks involved if that type of activity is undertaken. The Trust also is endeavoring to improve the wildlife habitat of the beach and puniawa lagoon. Agricultural uses of the subject parcel are expanding currently. Future Lots 3 and 4 may be sold to others and it is hoped that along with construction of a farm dwelling, agricultural uses such as Ulu tree plantings or other fruit and food crops would be entertained by these future lot owners. REQUEST TO WAIVE THE NEED TO PREPARE A CERTIFIED SHORELINE SURVEY TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: The Brian Clark Living Trust respectfully requests to waive preparation of a Certified Shoreline Survey for parcel TMK 2-7-004-118-000 for the following reasons: 1. Proposed subdivided lot 1, while being oceanfront has a steep pali edge between the buildable" area of the lot and the ocean. Characteristic of "Hilo-Paliku", (The realm north of Wailuku river named as Hilo of the standing cliffs), the parcel and the lots have approximately 30' cliff faces along the ocean edge boundary. Further to that, the subdivision will be imposing building setbacks at 50' from the top-of-pali edge in excess of the state mandated 40' from the high wash of the waves. The buildable area of the lots in combination with the enhanced setback distance will situate any development a considerable distance from the shoreline. Lot 3 — Example of Top -of -Pali being somewhat inland of the ocean boundary. Lot 3 — Example of Ocean boundary and Top -of -Pali being synonymous. The 30' pali cliff is sheer to waters edge. a High wash of waves on stone beach 2. Lots 2,3 & 4 are not considered oceanfront. Lot 1 has a coastal edge conservation zoned "tail" that separates lots 3 & 4 from the ocean, see subdivision plan "Exhibit A" Page 2 Request to waive certified shoreline survey... 3. Except for the ili'ili pebble beach boundary with the ocean and Kapue River, Proposed Lot 2 has a majority of its southern boundary being the centerline of the Kapue River. The river is not considered "shoreline" or ocean. 4. A portion of the property being part of Lot 1 is fixed by a man-made seawall. Lot 1, 7.236 ac., Primary residence, crushing plant foundation and seawall See Subdivision and Site Plan, Exhibit A for more detailed description of Lot boundaries. EXHIBIT A: SITE PLAN OF TMK 2-7-004-118 a) Boundary adjustments to centerline of Kapue river; b) Setbacks from ocean and Top-of-pali; c) Existing structures and features; d) Proposed 4 lot subdivision. EXHIBIT B BOUNDARY STUDY and CERTIFICATE OF BOUNDARIES #165 FOR THE AHUPUA'A OF PAPAIKOU, L.C.Aw. 11,215 APANA 1 TO AARONA KEALIIAHONUI, August 15, 1889. Synopsis: As stated earlier in this application the previous boundary descriptions and maps for TMK 2-7- 004-118 as shown on subdivision maps S-3007 and S-6848 was in error by not stating that the centerline middle") of Kapue River was the last course to the edge of the sea at Papaikou Bay. Presented herein is a copy of Certificate of Boundaries #165 for the Ahupua'a of Papaikou. Of interest, in the notes preceding the hearing for the setting of boundaries it was found that the original descriptions for the Ahupua'a as stated in the original Mahele were in error. Quoting L.A. Thurston, Minister of Interior, in a letter written to Mr. F.S. Lyman, Commissioner of Boundaries, Hilo, Hawaii, "Upon examination of the boundaries and plotting out of the metes and bounds therein specified, it appears to be wrong in almost every essential particular ofa survey. It cuts across and overlaps several other lands whose boundaries are known and will not close by about half a mile." A Royal Patent could not be issued on the land of Papaikou until a new survey was commissioned and heard before the Commissioner of Boundaries of the 3rd Judicial Circuit. The new survey was ordered and previous testimony from kamaaina was read. One of the testimonies was from KUHIPONO and sworn in states: I am a kamaaina of Papaikou. I was born there, and my parents also. 1 was born during the time of Oku. [Oku'u] My father was a canoe maker, I followed the same trade and used to go with him on Papaikou. Piihau is an ili of Papaikou. Puueopaku is on the Puna side of the gulch being the boundary at the shore, the pali belongs to Puueopaku, and the rocks, limu, and etc. at its base to Papaikou. Thence the boundary runs up this gulch to the end and thence to an old trail to pahoehoe gulch in the woods..." Using the former testimonies and then confirmation of the on the ground determinations of surveyor C. J. Lyons being correct, the new boundary was heard before the court and with all adjoining landowners in agreement, the new boundaries were set and certified on August 15th, 1889. Course 20 of the survey states: South 65 degrees 45 minutes East 6,595 feet along Pueopaku, the middle of the gulch however being the boundary on this last course — to the sea in an imaginary point which is South 9 degrees 30 minutes East 4,750 feet from the initial point. With the boundaries of Papaikou certified, Royal Patent 7875 was issued by Kalakaua and seconded by the C. N. Spencer, The Minister of the Interior, August 28th 1890. The Patent confirming that the Ahuapua'a of Papaikou on behalf of Onomea Sugar Company, was issued to Aarona Kealiiahonui, some 14,000 acres, said Onomea Sugar Company being the current owner of the Ahuapua'a of Papaikou. A handwritten fly sheet to the Certificate of Boundaries states in pencil: "Bdry along Puueopaku follows middle of stream; Bdry along Papaikou follows middle ofstream." The boundaries of the proposed 4 lot subdivision by Pattison Land Surveying correctly uses the middle of Kapue river (stream) as one of the courses for proposed Lot # 2. Note: The spelling for the Ahuapua'a of Puueopaku or Pueopaku are used interchangeably and transcribed as written.] EXHIBIT C DEMOLITION PERMIT 960720* ISSUED TO PAPAIKOU LANDING INC. EXHIBIT D PAPAIKOU MILL BEACH TRAIL" CONSTRUCTION AND NOTES DATED 1996 THROUGH 2002: EXHIBIT E LETTER TO DWS ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL WATER UNITS FOR SUBDIVSION UPON PARCEL 118... EXHIBIT F Flood Hazard Assessment Report... PATTISCIN LAND SURVEYING INC. Thomas G. Pattison Hawaii License No. 10743 P.O. Box 384569 Waikoloa, Hawaii 96738 Phone (808) 327-9439 tom@surveyhawaii.com LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL December 10th, 2023 On behalf of Brian Clark Trust, owner of record, I wish to submit a SUBDI- VISION of TMK(3) 2-7-004:118 into four (4) lots. (being portion(s) of the land(s) described in and covered by Royal Patent Number 4968; Land Commission Award Number 4645 to Paaoao and Royal Patent Number 7875, Land Commission Award Number 11215, Apana I to Aarona Kea- liihonui) situate, lying and being at Papaikou, South Hilo. Hawaii, State of Hawaii. THE FOLLOWING ARE TRANSMITTED HEREWITH: Subdivision Map. Application. Payment for $350.00 Thank you in advance for your assistance in processing this application. Please contact me at 808-327-9439 or email me at tom@surveyhawaii.com if you have any questions. Sincerely, c G.PA SO I ti LICENSEDPROFESSIONALLAND sllEYOR f µo-t07L3 ygWaii v 5 Thomas G. Pattison, LPLS No. 10743 On behalf of Brian Clark Trust Communication No. 2024-06 Pattison Land Surveying Inc. tYOFx County of Hawaii Planning Department Website: www.planning.hawaiicountyeov • Email: planning@hawaiicountygov East Hawaii Office• 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 if• =+:T Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 rE OFN West Hawaii Office• 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy- Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 Phone(808)323-4770 - Fax(808)327-3563 SUBDIVISION AND/OR CONSOLIDATION APPLICATION SUBDIVIDER: Brian Clark SIGNATURE(S): G?2r,L DATE: 11/30/2023 ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: SUBDTVTDER'S INTEREST: If not the recorded owner) Agent , Trustee Any entity acting on hehalf of recorded landowner must also provide written authorization. RECORDED OWNER(S): BRIAN CLARK LIVING TRUST SIGNATURE(S):C" BRIAN CLARK LIVING TRUST DATE: 11/30/2023 All recorded owners must sign.Attach additional pages if necessary.) DATE: DATE: ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: ENGINEER/ Authorization letter ®Yes SURVEYOR: Pattison Land Surveying attached?No ADDRESS: P.O Box 384569 Waikoloa Hi, 96718 PHONE NUMBER: 808-327-9439 EMAIL: tom@surveyhawaii.com DESCRIPTION OF SUBDIVISION: Subdivision of parcel 118 into 4 lots TAX MAP KEY(S): 2-7-004-118-000 NO. OF LOTS: 4 TOTAL AVE. SIZE LOTS:3A& 7 ZONING: AG-3a ACRES: 16.9393 acres THIS APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY: 1. Preliminary map drawn to scale, stamped, signed by a licensed surveyor, and prepared in accordance with Article 4, Divisions 1 and 2, Chapter 23, Subdivision Control Code of the County of Hawaii. This also includes a vicinity map. The Planning Director requests an additional copy of the Final Plat Map to be submitted as a dwg"or".dxf'file prepared by CAD software. 2. Filing fee based on $250.00 plus $25.00 per lot resulting from the subdivision and/or consolidation action, exclusive of roadway or easement parcels. 3. Letter of transmittal and completed application form. 4. Written authorization from landowner(s) authorizing an engineer, surveyor, or other agent to act on their behalf,if applicable. WITHIN TEN(10) DAYS OF FILING THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT SHALL POST A SIGN NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC OF THE SUBDTVISTON/CONSOLTDATTON APPLICATION(see reverse). Svov y,V3 4/10/2023 Y 'rfitlif"Makil I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION FORM INSTRUCTIONS COMPLETE THE SECTIONS BELOW. AN EMAIL ADDRESS IS REQUIRED FOR ALL CONTACTS-ALL COMMUNICATION REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION WILL BE EMAILED. LOCATION INFORMATION VERIFY AT: www.hawaiipropertvtax.com/search.html) PARCEL NUMBER 12 - 7 - 004 - 118 - 0000 LOCATION ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (Owner contact information is required) VERIFY AT: www.hawaiipropertvtax.com/search.html) IF PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAMED BELOW DOES/DO NOT MATCH THE COUNTY'S REAL PROPERTY TAX OFFICE RECORD, PLEASE SUBMIT A COPY OF THE CURRENT OWNER'S PROOF OF OWNERSHIP. OWNER NAME Brian Clark Living Trust MAILING ADDRESS OWNER NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER EMAIL OWNER NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER EMAIL AUTHORIZED AGENT INFORMATION AGENT NAME Pattison Land Surveying Tom Pattison MAILING ADDRESS P.O Box 384569 Waikoloa Hawaii, 96738 PHONE NUMBER 808-327-9439 EMAIL tom@surveyhawaii.com Hawai'i County is an equal opportunity provider and employer Ounfjl of I OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ADDITIONAL CONTACT INFORMATION (LIMIT2) NAME John Cross MAILING ADDRESS P.O Box 367 Hakalau Hi, 96710 PHONE NUMBER 808-987-4229 EMAIL cross.john@gmail.com NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER EMAIL Pursuant to Hawaii County Code, Section 5-4-1(a)(7), and by my signature below, I certify the following: (1) 1 am the owner of the property described above or the owner's authorized agent and I consent to the submittal of this permit application; (2)the information in this application is accurate and complete; and (3) 1 understand that all contacts listed above will receive communication regarding the permit application and plans. CHECK THE BOX IF PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION ABOVE MATCHES RPT'S DATA. Brian Clark If no, proof of ownership is required.Verify at: PRINT NAME www.hawaiipropertVtax.com/ search.html 11 /30/2023 SIGNATURE DATE Hawai'i County is an equal opportunity provider and employer Posting of Public Notice PL--SUB-2023-000222 AFFIDAVIT OF John C.Cross,Consultant/Agent on behalf of Brian Clark,Trustee of the Brian Clark Living Trust, here being first duty sworn on oath,deposes and says that I caused the sign to be posted pursuant to Section 23-58A, Hawaii County Code, relating to the application to subdivide TMK(3)2-7-004:118- 0000(PL-SUB-2023-000222). Photo of the posted sign is attached. Sign posted on December 11,2023; 1:40p.m. Furthermore,the applicant has been informed that the posted sign cannot be removed until the application has been granted, denied, or withdrawn. Further affiant sayeth not. Signed John . Cross,Consultant/Agent for the Brian Clark Living Trust Subscribed and sworn to before me on this day of V N V,2023. 1 Mq, NOTARY N' My commi**ion Expires; JUN 2 2 2027 PUPLI 1.'W - z No. 03-340 OF VA1...... M,c j gA°1ricir4 r NOTARY Doc Date: DEC 1 3 Notary Name: S.MA Cir>ic No.03-340 Stamp or Seat) P p- ,{ F''ca Ira i V Pd"'•4 OF Qsae<<<ssY g 7' Page 2, attached to Affidavit of John C.Cross Photos of Public Notice posted 12/11/2023 PL-SUB-2023-000222 YPUB LIC'0%.!OTICE f e x i.. Photos from of Mill Road subject property TMK 11 1i... Y: m 0 Cf) m Mai 0 m 0 v o A A D Z MEL rn m C a 7a z 9 rr- rr p mi c rn 0000 41iC 0 a z ar- M 0rnz w Z 1 1 1 A o Ca i M - 9- SwwG% J m vv mn Z rn 0 C iii b 1mnzj r r 0 3ci1 iw Cli ozZo cow 0 v az a a a a > - az n = 1 3000 0 , 70 q m m m m rn 0 rn rnrnrnrn m T v hcl) cl) Cl) w — m m z 0 0 z c K) m SUBDIVISION OF LOT G OF ROYAL PATENT 4968, L.C. AWARD 4645 TO PAAOAO & ROYAL PATENT 7875, L.C. AWARD 11215, APANA 1 TO ARONA KEALIIHONUI LOT 1 COUNTY OF HAWAII SEWAGE TREATMENT RESUBDIVIDING IT INTO LOTS 1 253 & 4 Wo PLANT SITE OWNER: COUNTY OF HAWAII AT PAPAIKOU, SOUTH HILO, COUNTY OF HAWAII, STATE OF HAWAII o 530 013 W W 2 red road 50 ft. building set back from N top of pali 47 lj / 40 ft. building set back from ROAD EASEMENT "D-2" shoreline L47 FOR ACCDES SY PURPOSES 40-58-44 34.82) 0 \ 9,583 Sq Et) R=1925.00' L53 L52 L48 t4 FT, j A Or' 49-05'32" i 0 49 LOT F-4 i A 28.87' 054 L2 OWNER: A 531 R=45.0il - L5 vo SHROPSHIRE GROUP LLC i L9 4 v top of palliTMK(3)2-7-004:025 J 13 3 i N L LC, L O LL 19TFrovedroaj/-N C N( 01 N01 T0 5CA F) 1 TRUE NORTH o EASEMENT "D-IA" J FOR SEWER POINT HAWI OOTt PURPOSES ON POINT KAPAAU MAAKAPALA F e 9,0 2 4 S g Ft I 1- PACIFIC KONALA K0 ALn WAINO 0 0'O CV I I I 6) OCEAN KAWAI E o lip o J J PACIFIC OCEAN 0 60KAWAIHAEKUKUIVILLAGEINBAYWAIMEA PUAKO UMIKOA KUKU POINT WELOKA HAMAKUA 3' 0 I I SCALE ONE INCH WAIKOLOA PEPEEKEO POINTVILLAGEMAUNAKEA SUBDIVISION C j[ S7; I O y^ EQUALS 60.00 FEET PUUANAHULU LOCATION O I I I KONA HILO HILO BAY L11 KEAHOLE GENERAL LYMAN FIELD POINT HONOKOHAU HILO AIRPORT)O KAILUA(KONA HOLUALOA KEAAU TF AD 0' Or CD 4.569 Acs LOT 4 L62 KUKUI TF Q Q V' JKAHAwu EALAK OKEALAKEKUAKAPOHSd`o A I ICAPTAINCOOKPAHOTF•0 I IGLENW00NAPOOPOGPUNAs - / TO El BE ALMA PIHIKAo 0 p00. 38'54'14" 2KEOKEAVOLCANO HOOKENA BE ALIA MAUNA LOA EHENA KALAPAN 39.19,I I WOOD VALLEY A'U PAHAL PACIFIC 55 40'12" TOOPULOA LFT 37.02 MILOLII HAWAIIAN OCEAN OCEAN VIEW ESTATES I I L25WAIOHINU HONUAPO v IC, SOUTH POINT T -7 T 0, p \ TF I I TF ISLAND MAP os Tn , i 1141 .00' s L27 NO to 5c/tF) TA UTILITY EASEMENT L2 FOR ELECTRICIIIITELEPHONE PURPOSES FT I I 8 g8, 41 .00' 7 J.0 I I GRAVE 1 SITE R T O 530 3 doY40ft. building set back from qshoreline 232 50' pa wall FT 1/S 19.83LF j wall ed o° d 50 ft. building set back from LLg18801919 LOT 3 top of pali R14.266: g 3.053 Acs N FT, 1° top of paliLL IeLL y L33 DA 2 EASEMENT Q. CV, FOR RADIO TOWER PURPOSES i 3 U) FF EFF o , building LE 001EASEMENT 0 0 0 FOR R DIO TOWER PURF OSES / n 6.394 Ac. c m co Q 166053'20"n m E\ 64.15' do LOT 17 Ct) -V I BERG,CHRISTOP ER AUGUST NER: BERG,JEAN Al WILLEY Ft TMK(3)2-7-027:012 ZIN229057' 23.05' l- LOT 18 R=116.32' j iJ OWNER: M j IGAWA,JILL I V o wall 156.03'wall IGAWA,DEREK 0 93 20 49w, n 1 9a IRON PIPE FOUND 105 97 o TMK(3)2-7-027:007 W ` o Ref. "ALALA"p s EASEMENT "B" 3 185.79, 20,341.92 feet South 03 o 6,606.15 feet East 262"02'51 W 11 ,096 Sq. Ft. v Concrete m M J 40 FT. WIDE UTILITY 41.29 ) 78 061 10g V M.1 wall CANE AND ACCESS 82-02'51 1 DO F E EASEMENT 51.27 41.29.O 263°40 278' BPS Y 10.94') EASEMENT FOR T cre teANCHORPURPOSES ry trail con o 47 Sq. Ft. 102.71' 114.5 , -wall 83040_00" 99018,00„ wan pti LOT F N EASEMENT FOR concrete concrete concrete20.00 AC.4 0/ SEWER &ANCHOR Address No. N/A top of pall PACIFIC OCEAN TMK(3) 2-7-004:119-0000 l 29 o PURPOSES 1,320 Sq. Ft. 94 4•, a wall concrete as LOT wallconcrete 2411 wall 7.236 Acs Ta lO 3I40ft. building set back from W o shoreline Q? I o wall a 50 ft. building set back from Q l N top of pall Q o(b• J mokirianasay RESIDENCE Q. wall a G O M ail 00 concretR N' o wall concrete 0 1 Y a wall 5 a concrete walla A ok pa 0 P P La o A SITE ok P a 262024 33 FT, IV' q TRUE NORTH e 122•49' OFT 5\ ail cp. LE70 0 0. VICINITY MAP LOT 2 c9 cL Zp 2 NOT TO SCALE 3.111 Acs Cbo J ail Boundary Line Table Boundary Line Table Boundary Line Table Boundary Line Table SHORELINE TRAIL 40 ft. building set back from Line# Length Direction Line# Length Direction Line# Length Direction Line# Length DirectionryAPPROXIMATEshoreline LOCATION) L1 37.28' 042'31'47" L21 39.22' 316'59'20" L41 25.64' 007'18'26" L61 6.18' 311'04'39" L2 19.50' 078'53'37" L22 53.65' 306'07'19" L42 32.50' 054'06'41" L62 14.16' 009'14'02" 7r, L3 13.07' 026'04'01" L23 46.47' 299'22'19" L43 45.18' 021'03'45" L63 30.76' 336'39'15" L4 15.17' 076'1613" L24 58.11' 290'25'26" L44 21.51' 059'34'04" L64 47.27' 316'59'20" I Cb edge of \ D) O L5 11.02' 101'18'10" L25 24.18' 269'31'48" L45 45.10' 042'31'47" L65 58.27' 306'07'19" Ver OL6 29.43' 079'28'20" L26 83.76' 320'44'52" L46 24.55' 078'53'37" L66 50.59' 299'22'19" 04,0 174 L7 11.93' 111'09'35" L27 64.74' 275'06'45" L47 11.50' 026'04'01" L67 65.99' 290'25'26" Q trail L8 23.34' 052'52'24" L28 59.90' 285'27'57" L48 5.74' 101'18'10" L68 15.33' 269'31'48" LOT 1 O/ L9 26.31' 093'09'58" L29 131.45' 334'32'37" L49 26.71' 079'28'20" L69 82.00' 320'44'52" 11 .383 Ac. 4,1 L10 18.56' 067'28'30" L30 64.77' 006'27'39" L50 20.15' 111'09'35" L70 74.64' 275'06'45" C L11 19.62' 093'40'22" L31 39.27' 050'36'31" L51 29.06' 052'52'24" L71 43.48' 285'27'57" L12 38.51' 050'39'08" L32 87.75' 123'24'58" L52 22.15' 093'09'58" L72 109.17' 334'32'37" LOT 3 L13 36.27' 035'47'30" L33 40.31' 082'47'39" L53 18.42' 067'28'30" L73 44.02' 006'27'39" NOTES: 5.307 Ac. L14 21.38' 358'57'47" L34 83.95' 042'06'30" L54 24.46' 093'40'22" L74 4.98' 050'36'31" edge of river AZIMUTHS AND DISTANCES ARE BASED ON RECORD INFORMATION AND REFER TO L15 33.86' 018'03'51" L35 108.01' 021'27'28" L55 54.24' 050'39'08" L75 76.73' 123'24'58"GOVERNMENT SURVEY TRIANGULATION STATION"ALALA". I,Thomas G. Pattison,do hereby certify that this map NAME(S) OF OWNER(S) OF ADJOINING PARCELS WERE TAKEN FROM COUNTY TAX is an accurate representation of a survey as made on L16 24.41' 001'50'12" L36 55.40' 341'18'59" L56 50.17' 035'47'30" L76 62.54' 082'47'39" RECORDS. the ground, by me,or under my direct supervision. L17 26.30' 336'56'02" L37 83.84' 005'27'38" L57 26.32' 358'57'47" L77 100.53' 042'06'30" ALL BOUNDARY CORNER ARE MARKED WITH A "'PIPE,UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. G.PAS/ p SOS L18 15.98' 311'04'39" L38 49.27' 345'43'48" L58 33.09' 018'03'51" L78 124.44' 021'27'28" TOP OF PALI WAS CREATED USING LIDAR DATA COLLECTED ON AUGUST 28TH,2022. LICENSED poor-EASNSIIONAL L19 22.08' 009'14'02" L39 21.84' 030'51'56" L59 35.31' 001'50'12" L79 59.95' 341'18'59" Parcel is within the SMA. Approval to perform 4 lot subdivision with the SMA granted by PL-SMM-2023-000054 SUFNEYOR dated 11/06/2023;Subject to compliance to conditions of approval therein. No_10743 L20 16.80' 336'39'15" L40 40.84' 055'06'15" L60 39.81' 336'56'02" L80 76.21' 005'27'38" Access to Government Road Highway-19 available to subdivided lots by pre-existing easements across"Mill WA11 Road' TMK 2-7-027-06S and"Kopilimai Road",TMK 2-7-004-025. FLOOD PLAIN NOTE: PREPARED BY: VCV Access and Utility Easements(power,water,sewer)available to subdivided lots through easements as depicted THOMAS G. PATTISON on subdivision map.ACCORDING TO THE FIRM It 155166 0700 7, DATED December 4th, 2023 PATTISON LAND SURVEYING P.O. Box 384S69.Waikoloa Hawaii *96738 09-29-2017 THIS PROPERTY DOES LIE IN 'ZONE X" Hawaii License No. 10743 Office 808.327.9439• AFFECTING:TMK (3) 2-7-004:118