Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-17 Leeward Exh A (REZ 15-192) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 BRETT W. RITCHIE (REZ 15-192) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 9:38 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Brandi Beaudet presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brandi Beaudet, Scott Church, Collin Kaholo, Barbara Nobriga, Sonny Shimaoka and Keith Unger ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Thomas Whittemore ALSO PRESENT: Danny Patel (Counsel for the Commission), Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Maija Jackson (Planner), Lucas Mead (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately 60 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: BRETT W. RITCHIE (REZ 15-192) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-20 acres (A-20a) to a Family Agricultural-1 acre (FA-1a) zoning district for approximately 5.94 acres of land. The property is located on the east (mauka) side of the Old Māmalahoa Highway across the street and northeast of the Matsuyama Food th Mart complex at Kalaoa 5, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-3-004:012. BEAUDET: First agenda item on this morning’s agenda is Applicant Brett Ritchie, rezone application, 15-192. Staff? JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. The first item on the agenda is a request for a Change of Zone. The applicant is Brett Ritchie – oh, let me go up and adjust the screen. Okay, the subject property is located in the North Kona District in the Kalaoa area. You can see the property outlined in red in the middle of the slide. It’s located just mauka of the upper road and just mauka of the Old Government Road. As a point of reference, the Matsuyama Market is located in this pink area right here. So the subject property is located just mauka and north of Matsuyama Market. It’s currently zoned Agricultural-20 acres, which is shown in the dark green. Most of the properties around it are also zoned Agricultural with the exception of Matsuyama Market. The General Plan designation for the property is split just about in half; so the area shown in the yellow is Medium Density Urban, this allows for residential uses, some commercial uses, community uses; and then the light green area on the mauka end of the property is designated Important Agricultural Land. The State Land Use District for the property and surrounding area is Agricultural, which is shown in the light green. The area north, I’m sorry, east of that is Conservation, which is a forest reserve, and then you have the Urban area shown in the pink. This is the Kona Community Development Plan Map, 1 EXHIBIT A and the subject property is located at the end of this arrow towards the top. So this zoom-out version just shows you generally where the future village centers are supposed to be located along the transit line in the middle of the slide. And then you have this area outlined in blue is a rural village center, which is Hōlualoa. So the property is located just outside of the Kona Urban Area, which is shown by the red line. And you can see the red line also goes right through the property; this designates the difference between the Kona Urban Area on the makai side and the rural area of Kona on the mauka side. This is an aerial photo of the property; there is an existing dwelling in the southwest corner of the property here, and then you can see a lot of the ‘ōhi‘a forest has been retained on the property that it has been selectively grubbed. The Old Mauka Road again is on the west side of the property. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling here shown in the slide. So the applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from Agricultural-20 acres to Family Agricultural-1 acre in order to create a three-lot family agricultural subdivision. The FA zoning district, based on their lot size, which is a little over five acres, with a minimum lot size of one acre, would allow a maximum density of five lots, but the applicant is just proposing to subdivide it into three lots. The existing residence will be demolished, and each of the three family members, the applicant, their sibling and parents, will construct a farm dwelling on their newly created lot ranging in size from 1.2 to 3.3 acres. The applicant’s parents would like to do some measure of farming, such as cattle grazing, and the applicant’s sibling, I believe, is a chef and he would like to have a small nursery consisting of edible plants, such as dry land taro, sweet potatoes and herbs, to use in his commercial culinary business. This is the applicant’s conceptual subdivision plan. You can see, it looks like they are proposing four lots, but there is actually a connection here; so the first lot is like a dumbbell shape, and then two lots in the middle of the property that are accessed through a flag pole down to the highway. These are some site photographs. This is looking makai; you can see Matsuyama Market in the distance here, and then the Old Government Road between the property and Matsuyama Market. So there is an existing concrete driveway. You can see that better on this slide looking mauka and then up to the existing home that they are proposing to demolish. And then this picture over on the right side just gives you a general idea of the type of vegetation that’s on the property; there are some old growth of ‘ōhi‘a trees. This photograph shows Old Government Road; it’s a narrow one-lane road, it’s only about ten feet wide, and you can see the driveway coming off of that on the right side. And then this view is looking south; again, you can see the driveway on the left side. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation with conditions be sent to the County Council. And you should have received one letter of support since we sent your background and recommendation reports out. I also wanted to let you know that the applicant is proposing quite a few revisions to the conditions that the Director recommended. So after the applicant comes up and presents their conditions, we would like the opportunity to add some more comments or let you know which conditions we are agreeable to. That concludes my presentation. Are there any questions? BEAUDET: Thank you, Maija. Commissioners, any questions of staff? 2 EXHIBIT A UNGER: I had a quick question just to be clear on what we are going to be deciding on. If this application does get approved, technically the applicant could subdivide it into five one-acre parcels, is that correct? JACKSON: That’s correct. UNGER: And they represent that they only want to do the three parcels. JACKSON: That’s correct. UNGER: Okay. BEAUDET: Thank you. Will the applicant and its representatives please come forward? Good morning. If each of you could please raise your right hand. Do you now swear and affirm to tell the truth now before the Leeward Planning Commission? APPLICANTS: I do. BEAUDET: Thank you. Please introduce yourselves, speak into the mike, name and address is fine. RITCHIE: I’m Brett Ritchie. FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m the planning consultant. I’m here assisting the applicant on this matter. I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the applicant’s brother, Ian, as well as their mother. And as the staff had pointed out, essentially this is a family type of subdivision. They have had a chance to review the staff’s background report and the proposed recommendation. The background report is, you know, as always on point. Relative to the recommendations, you know, we had some concerns regarding certain conditions, and we’d like to, you know, during the course of the presentation discuss some of these concerns. But I’d like to also acknowledge that, you know, I had subsequent discussions with the staff and I think that pretty much we have reached the consensus in terms of how the conditions could be modified to our mutual satisfaction. Before going on further, however, I’d like to kind of make some general comments. One is that, you know, you may hear comments relating to questions regarding the ownership of the property, and we had already provided, and it’s included in the Planning Department’s Exhibit, I think it’s Exhibit No. 3, we had provided the staff and the Commission with a warranty deed, which clearly shows that the applicant’s parents do own the property. And also, it’s also reflected in the real property tax report. So if there are any questions along the way, we would appreciate that maybe your counsel or the Planning Director to advise the Commission that this is really like, would not be the appropriate forum to discuss land ownership, and just looking at it purely from a land use and planning perspective whether the requested rezoning is or is not appropriate. The other, you know, the other general comment I would like to make is that, you know, the overall cost of fees, you know, just associated with developing properties, and if you look at the proposed, you know, it’s not to say that the staff is objecting to any of those proposed fees, but I was just kind 3 EXHIBIT A of like sitting down and just doing the numbers, and the fair share impact fee is like roughly about $13,500 per lot; so if you multiply that by three, you know, you are looking at $40,000. And relative to the fees for the water facilities charge, it’s about $6,500 per lot. So just off the gate, you know, for a three-lot subdivision you are looking at fees of, you know, like nearly $60,000. And so even if you own the land, and then you’ve got tie in like whatever required infrastructure, then it becomes very costly even to subdivide a property then, you know, for family purposes. The request is like, you know, I think a number of years, maybe a couple of years ago, I had assisted another family subdivision, Harold Teshima, you know, out in the Honalo area. And essentially it’s a same type of request; it’s a family oriented type of subdivision. The utilities are all available. The property comes off of this old homestead road. Your staff is recommending, and which the applicant wholeheartedly agrees, that there be a pull-out, you know, constructed on the property. What we are suggesting is that, and we have a language along the way, is that because on the makai side of the old homestead road, the land kind of like drops down; to be able to accommodate the pull-out, the applicant would like the ability to have the pull-out be constructed on his property rather than necessarily all within the existing right-of-way. So we have language that would make that possible, you know, and whatever the additional right-of-way that he would have to relinquish and improve, he would like to then subsequently dedicate the portion to the County. I guess to answer a little bit Commissioner Unger’s question as far as, you know, the proposal is for three lots, and it’s ultimately, you know, the parents and the two siblings, and that’s the reason why they want to do a three. But from an infrastructure standpoint, however, they do have some limitation in terms of the ability to develop the property into a five-lot subdivision in spite of the, you know, the size of the property and the requested zoning, and the limitation is tied into the water availability. So currently the property is being serviced by three existing water meter, and the meters they already have an executed what-is-called like an out-of-bounds agreement with the Water Department, as well as an elevation agreement with the Water Department; so they have three meters and it’s ready to be hooked up, you know, if the rezoning is approved and they subsequently go through the subdivision process. To have like additional meters would require considerable cost and expense to upgrade the system, and thus, you know, be compliant with the Subdivision Code. The applicant also conducted an archaeological survey at the property. They found out that there is an entrance to a cave on the property on the south end of the property. And so he is proposing that that area be preserved; it’s going to be like a buffer, you know, around the portion. And he has already submitted the portion, the proposed preservation plan to the State Historic Preservation Division and just king of waiting for further comments. So the idea is once the preservation plan is approved, then he would modify the proposed subdivision layout and then submit that to the County. You will also notice that as conditions there are like, you know, as a result of comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, there are conditions relating to when you can or cannot clear the property; this is all in deference to the Hawaiian hoary bat, the sphinx monks, moth rather, as well as the Hawaiian hawk. So fortunately, you know, we are at the time when, you know, that’s the closedown period, so it’s not really going to significantly affect the proposed development of the property. 4 EXHIBIT A In terms of the kind of issues that we are kind of suggesting was, initially, if you look at Condition D, Condition D kind of like relates to, you know, having only one dwelling per existing lot of record, but I think I had just heard, so we are suggesting that since one of the properties would have like three acres in size and, you know, the larger property would be set aside for the parents, the applicant would want the ability to construct an additional farm dwelling on the property because the zoning would allow by density the additional farm dwelling. But having the restriction of only one dwelling per lot, and any change to that would require County Council approval, you know, the applicant would want to avoid having to go through the process again just to construct an additional dwelling. I have had some discussions with your staff, and I think the staff is going to propose the deletion of the particular condition. So given that, then, you know, we, the applicant is very appreciative of that. The other condition relates to Condition E, relating to the water variance and the 40 psi requirement. On that particular condition, we would like to suggest that it be amended to read somewhat along these lines: it’s like, should, you know, should a water variance form the Subdivision Code be required, as represented by the applicant, the applicant shall install a private pump and storage system to increase water pressure, and the balance is kind of continued. So essentially, what it does is like the proposed condition confirms what the applicant is going to do, and that is to say to have like a pump system and a storage tank developed on the property to increase the pressure while not necessary according to DWS’s rules, you know, it’s really designed more for the convenience of the respective property owners. What we wanted to eliminate was to have the minimum 40 psi cap. The 40 psi cap is what the, what is a standard Department of Water Supply requirement, and to meet the requirement, normally you would have to have your storage tank situated at difference in the elevation of 100 feet above the highest point of your property; so obviously, you know, that would be very difficult to achieve, you know. The alternative is to have a big pump so that you can reach the 40psi level. But I think that, as we had suggested, I think that would address the particular concern. The other one relates to Conditions I and J, and this relates to the driveway. Condition I states that, you know, the driveways have to conform to condition, Road Standard R-37 or R-38. And Condition J, you know, where it relates to the pull-out, what the applicant intends to do is to have the, his driveway also serve as the pull-out areas, so the driveway will be wider than what is normally what is required by the R-38 standard; the R-38 standard calls for the maximum width of only 36 feet. And so when you include the driveway plus the need for like the pull-out area, you’ll probably be like, you know, you are looking at maybe 40 or 50 feet long. And so to having it tied down to the particular standard would not really be appropriate. I think that if you just say that, rather than deleting the reference, you know, you just modify it by saying “in accordance with Chapter 22, Hawai‘i County Code,” and I believe the, in that regard then the proposed condition to Condition I would read as follows: “Access to Old Government Road, including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Driveways shall conform to Chapter 22, Hawai‘i County Code,” and then you delete any reference to the County standards details R-37 and 38, and the rest would still remain. We are proposing that Condition I, you know, as it ties down to Condition J, and Condition J, we would like to modify just a bit, just to include the notion of this ability to put a vehicular pull-out on the makai section. So Condition J would read, “Prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval and for the purpose of mitigating the substandard width and roadside hazard clearances of Old Government Road, the applicant shall construct a paved vehicular pull-out,” and you would add, “fronting the subject property within the existing right-of-way and/or portions of the subject property, meeting with the approval of the 5 EXHIBIT A Department of Public Works.” The new sentence would be, “Further, all improvements and the land within the subject property used for this pull-out shall be subdivided and submitted for dedication to the County at no cost in conjunction with the Final Subdivision Approval process.” That pretty much concludes our presentation and our request. If there are any questions that you may have, then we would be more than happy to answer them. BEAUDET: Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? I have a question, Mr. Fuke. Relative to, or maybe it’s for staff then, with the requested changes or amendments to Condition I, you want to say, you want to refer to Chapter 22 of the County Code in replacement of R-37 and 38. I’m not familiar with 37 and 38. So if we could understand the differences in --. JACKSON: Sure. So one of those standard details, I think it’s R-37, requires that a driveway connection to the County road not be wider than 36 feet. And so, as Mr. Fuke mentioned, since they are proposing to combine their driveway with the pull-out, Public Works is recommending it will go beyond the 36-foot minimum, I mean maximum, and so it won’t need the R-37 standard. So Public Works, I spoke with Public Works and they were agreeable to removing the references to those County standards and instead saying that the driveway shall conform to Chapter 22, which is the Street Code, and the Street Code allows for a variance from the County standard details so that they can have a wider driveway that includes the pull-out area. BEAUDET: Thank you. CHURCH: Brandi? BEAUDET: Go ahead. CHURCH: This pertains to Condition J and the pull-out where the area is to be subdivided and dedicated to the County, therefore it becomes the County’s responsibility to maintain that. Is that a customary and ordinary thing for situation like this? JACKSON: Yes. Typically, if it’s, say, a pull-out that public vehicles would be using adjacent to a County road, it becomes part of the County right-of-way. And if I can just add a little bit to that, there is a quite wide right-of-way there, it’s a 50-foot right-of-way, so it’s possible that just a very small portion of the subject property would need to be subdivided out and dedicated; it could be that the majority of the pull-out and driveway apron is within the County right-of-way. UNGER: Can you explain your thought process in laying out the subdivision? I’m not used to seeing a makai lot and then two lots and then you’ve got the small connector access way connecting to a mauka lot; so basically, the one lot is the makai lot and the mauka lot with the flag lot. FUKE: Yeah, from what I understood from the applicant’s parents, the concept is to have the mauka portion be used for cattle grazing, and also the makai portion as well, which is where the applicant’s parents would own; so they want to be able to have like, you know, unfretted access to the mauka portion, as well as the makai section, for cattle grazing activity. The interior lots, well, the smaller lots, the one-acre size lots, one would be, you know, for the applicant and the other one would be for 6 EXHIBIT A the brother, and the brother, as the staff had pointed out, is an accomplished chef, and so he wants to do his, you know, farm-to-market type of agricultural activities on his property. But, again, the concept behind having, you know, the mauka and makai portion is largely to accommodate the applicant’s parents’, you know, desire to have cattle grazing on both the mauka and makai portion. BEAUDET: I have a question, Sidney. Going to Condition J, you referred to constructing the pull-out on fronting the subject property, so I’m assuming that’s makai side of the road. FUKE: No, the property is on the mauka side of the old homestead road, so the pull-out would be adjacent to the property on the mauka side, rather than on the makai side of the right-of-way, because the makai side of the right-of-way, you know, the property is right in the back of Matsuyama Store, if you are familiar with that area, there is a severe drop, you know, and so to have the pull-out on the makai side would really not be feasible, you know, except at some considerable cost. The mauka section would be much more feasible. BEAUDET: But still within the right-of-way, the 50-foot right-of-way --. FUKE: Well, that’s why --. BEAUDET: -- or within its encumbrance on the property. FUKE: It could be within the existing right-of-way. Then, again, he may have to encroach into his own property. So if there is any encroachment, then the encroached portion would be subdivided and dedicated to the County. So that’s the reason why when I had proposed the language, it was, you know, like, “a vehicular pull-out fronting the property within the existing right-of-way and/or portions of the subject property ….” So, you know, until an actual survey is done, it’s difficult to determine whether their pull-out can occur entirely within the right-of-way or it may have to encroach, you know, into the private property. So if it does have to encroach, then he has the obligation to dedicate the portion. BEAUDET: Thank you. Staff, one of the conditions that was requested for amendment was Condition D. Was there any position from Planning, from the Department on the request? JACKSON: This was for Condition D? BEAUDET: Yeah. JACKSON: Yes, so we, the Department has actually included this condition in all rezones and all Agricultural rezones for about 15 years now, and we’ve done that as a way to kind of control density, residential density on Agricultural land. But in reality it’s kind of a form of contractual zoning, because when someone applies for FA zoning, FA zoning allows for additional farm dwellings; if you meet the farming thresholds, you can apply for and get an additional farm dwelling. So the, I spoke with the Director about this and he is agreeable to actually deleting the condition completely in order to allow for additional farm dwellings on the entire property, if they meet those criteria. BEAUDET: So what is the farming threshold for three acres, or three-point-something acres? 7 EXHIBIT A JACKSON: It’s an hourly threshold. So I believe for a second dwelling it would be eight hours per week of farming, and then if you want an additional dwelling beyond that, there is a higher threshold, more hours per week of farming. BEAUDET: Okay. Because this is, it’s two-sided, yeah? We are subdividing it into three lots with the restriction for one dwelling per lot. We obviously have a water issue, a Water Supply issue. But yet the request is to strike the condition so they can construct additional buildings. I would assume that a farm dwelling would need water service. JACKSON: Yes. BEAUDET: So how do we accommodate that, if there is other changes to Condition E? KANUHA: Perhaps I should respond to that; I was going to do that anyway. With regard to the philosophical notion that was raised by the applicant and discussed with the staff, that’s, the current situation now is even without subdivision someone could come in and ask for a farm dwelling. So to condition a rezoning for density purposes to limit additional farm dwellings when the Code already permits those, provided you can meet the requirements for farm dwellings, it’s, there is criteria already in the Code, but the analysis has been, you know, evolving over the years, because the primary threshold in the state Land Use Law is whether or not the proposed farm dwelling provides income to the occupants of the dwelling. Now, there is no real threshold for what the income is, and in the past the threshold has been at least 50 percent, okay, which obviously depending upon what kind of crops are involved, how big the property is, what the financing is for the dwelling, it could be difficult to accomplish. So the criteria has since been expanded somewhat to also include employees, you know, count your employees, how many hours they participate, you know, in the farm production, things of the nature. So based on that, that’s why I’m, I’m agreeable to waiving this restriction because in my mind it is, it is a form of contractual zoning; you know, you let somebody get a zoning, and in any other situation you are not restricted from applying for these farm dwellings, but because you are getting this additional zoning, now you get this restriction. If there were no qualification criteria for farm dwelling, then I think we would take a different approach, okay. But the provision is already provided for in the Code. Related to water, farm dwellings, there is no specific water requirement for farm dwelling as they are for a rezoning and a subdivision, okay. Those, to accomplish, the concurrency requirements in the County Code provide that you have to have either public water service or a system, a private system, that meets the same requirements of a public water system, right, in order to accomplish zoning and in order to get subdivision. On the subdivision component without rezoning, you can apply for a subdivision, if the requirements are there is no County water available, there is no private system, you know, meeting County dedicable standards available, then you have an option to apply for a variance, a variance from the water requirements. And the result of the variance is usually some form of a catchment system, and that is related indirectly to an analysis we do with regard to what the annual rainfall is in the area, what size tank you are going to have, you know, whether or not the structure you are going to provide has enough roof area to provide, you know, those requirements. So in this particular case they are only going for three lots because that’s how many meters, water meters, they have for the property. Now, in this case just because they have the meter doesn’t mean they have 8 EXHIBIT A enough available water, and that’s why there is, you know, there is conditions in there about water pressure, out-of-bounds agreement, you know, things in the nature. Should they, should the applicant or their successors or their assigns decide to apply for a farm dwelling in the future on any of these lots actually, if they can meet those requirements – it’s not only limited to the bigger lot, you know, they could possibly qualify depending upon what they want to do on the smaller lots as well, that’s why we feel the restriction is a form of contractual zoning, you know, it shouldn’t be incumbent upon the property – but at that time the subdivision requirements for water don’t apply, okay, so catchment could be done, or catchment system could be utilized to service the additional farm dwellings, right? In this area, you know, it just depends on what the rainfall is, again, what size the catchment system is going to be and so on and so forth. So I hope that kind of helps us explain things a little more. Thank you. BEAUDET: Thank you, Director. I appreciate that. Commissioners, any more comments or questions of the applicant or staff? Since I hear none, we have two members in the audience who have signed up for testimony. If I could ask the applicant to go back to their seats, and if Norman Keanaaina and Robert Freitas, Jr. could please come to the table. KEANAAINA: \[To the audience\] Good morning, everybody. AUDIENCE: Good morning. KEANAAINA: Public hearing, freedom of speech. BEAUDET: One second, one second. If you could both please raise your right hands. KEANAAINA: Here’s my, I have hearing impaired --. BEAUDET: Okay. KEANAAINA: -- so he \[Mr. Freitas\] has to talk to me. BEAUDET: Good. Do you now swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Leeward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes, I do. BEAUDET: Thank you. Please state your name and address in the microphone. KEANAAINA: I’m Kahu Norman Akahai Keanaaina, born here on the island right in Kalaoa, 1940. My address is 73-4303 Hawai‘i Belt Road, Kalaoa Street. The property, or the subject property, is where I grew up on. The property owner is my father, Henry P. Kamaka, and my mother, Emily J. Keanaaina Kamaka. The property is unique; it was given by King Kamehameha, III as a Land Patent. And if anyone here has the knowledge of law in the U.S. Supreme Law, the Patent cannot be changed. That’s the law. I’m here to speak for the family and for the person who purchased the land. The family is not accepting the fact that the land be sold, but yet the Ritchie family purchased the land without the knowledge of the Patent. Now the Patent is national, international, federal, and 9 EXHIBIT A united nation, or united kingdom, law, and the County and State of Hawai‘i cannot get around it. And this is what I wrote: “Notice of application, ‘Rezoning Request.’ Applicant, Brett W. Ritchie. Portion of Royal Patent Land Grant No. 2972, Lot 12.” And I got a letter for Mr. Fuke: “Dear Mr. Fuke: I am the son of Henry P. Kamaka and Emily J. Keanaaina Kamaka, in which are part of my heritage. I am aware of the lawful title to this ownership of this land. This land sits on an undivided interest of the family, Allodium R.P. Land Grant No. 2972 Ka‘akau and Kama, by King Kamehameha, III, my great-granduncle, to the heirs and the assigns forever. The words ‘assign forever’ means forever and nothing less. The property is in the first degree in land larceny, extortion and war crime complaint today. The United Supreme Court has certified that Land Patents when properly identified can’t be ruled, cannot be ruled against, the fact that the Land Patent certifies absolute and supreme title to the land. Therefore, the land cannot thereafter lawfully be taken or adopt or taxed or executive orders, except by the willingness of the landowner. It is within the Bureau of Land Management, United States of America. United States Constitution Title 18, Section 241 and 242, and any and all other applicable federal and states, civil or criminal, trespass statutes shall apply to these following provision. You are hereby notified by the owners of this property requires all public officials, agents or persons to abide by the Supreme Law of this land and the United State Constitution and the ratified amendment thereto. Owners refuse to permit any access, audit, assessment, or inspection whatsoever to this property without the presentation of a warrant prepared as prescribed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized, allege zoning or land use code violations for entering this property. Violators will be treated as intruders. Violators can trigger fines up to \[$\]10,000 and prison sentence of ten years, or both, pursuant to the trespass laws as above-stated. Warning, Allodium R.P. Land Grant No. 2972, the Aupuni of Hawai‘i.” That’s the law. I’m here to protect the person who purchased the land by a fraud sale. And I spoke to Sidney Fuke about this over the phone. And it’s a shame that this thing continues on and on and on and on in Hawai‘i. The laws that they are bringing to Hawai‘i is not the laws of Hawai‘i; they are bringing in laws from the mainland and applying it to Hawai‘i. But all who are involved will be charged criminally in the war crimes of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. That’s all I have. BEAUDET: Thank you. Mahalo, Mr. Keanaaina. Would you like to proceed with your testimony? FREITAS: Good morning. My name is Robert Freitas, Jr. And I believe, if there is also Kamehameha Schools, well, if you really look at it, it’s pretty much the same thing; Kamehameha Schools had Land Patents, Royal Patents, that was passed on from the king, so do we. So why is it that you are recognizing Kamehameha Schools’ Land Patents and Awards, but not those of the Hawaiian people that have them as well, with the same allodial titles and claims? This is my testimony: To Whom It May Concern. My name is Robert Freitas, Jr. and I am the oldest son of Robert Freitas, Sr. and Amy Mokihana Keanaaina Freitas. My grandfather is William Keanaaina, Jr. and my grandmother is Emily Kopa Kapanui. My hānai great-grandfather is Jacob P. Kamaka Kama Kaiokeko‘a and my hānai grandfather is Henry P. Kamaka. My great grandfather eventually changed his name from Jacob P. Kama to Jacob P. Kamaka. My mother’s father William Keanaaina died when she was very young, and upon her mother Emily meeting Tutu man Henry P. Kamaka, he became the only father she knew, caring for him, his father Papa Jacob and her mother Emily, as a devoted daughter would. Because they didn’t know how to drive, my mother and father would drive them wherever they needed to go and even assisted them in not only the caring of their 10 EXHIBIT A lands but more importantly in trying to stop the theft of their lands by the State of Hawai‘i, being ‘O‘oma and Keāhole kuleana lands, Hu‘ehu‘e Ranch, and speculating developers of the mauka portions. My great grandfather Papa Jacob was also an attorney, and because he was aware of the illegal overthrown and how the illegally occupying government, businessmen, ranchers and speculating developers were trying to steal the lands, he made it a point that only one person was given the kuleana or responsibility for all lands belonging to both himself and his son Henry. Because my grandfather Tutu man Henry had no children, he kāna hānai adopted my mother as his only daughter, and passed onto her the kuleana, as it was passed onto him from his father, and so on. As instructed by my mother Amy and as Hawaiian protocol dictates prior to my father’s passing in 2008 the kuleana for all documents and lands belonging to Papa Jacob P. Kamaka and Henry P. Kamaka were passed onto me as the eldest son. These lands also included Land Grant 2972 Ka‘akau Kama for 515 acres signed on August 24, 1864 by King Kamehameha V, not III as my uncle had mentioned, it was Kamehameha V. BEAUDET: Mr. Freitas? FREITAS: Yes. BEAUDET: Excuse me. Kala mai, but I have to interject. Testimony is either to communicate your support or non-support of the application. So I respectfully ask that maybe you direct your testimony in the direction of your support or non-support of the application. FREITAS: Well, actually, what I’ll do is I’ll --. BEAUDET: I respect, I respect what you have --. FREITAS: -- I’ll go ahead and just --. BEAUDET: -- to share with us, but. FREITAS: -- share the Exhibits that are being included. BEAUDET: Okay. FREITAS: And Exhibit A is the Lang Grant 2972 Ka‘akau Kama, of which it was awarded to my grandfather. BEAUDET: I guess --. FREITAS: Exhibit B --. BEAUDET: -- if I could, if I could just interject one more time, Mr. Freitas. Our, the issue that we have to decide on today is not on the rightful ownership of the property, but it’s merely for a rezoning and a subdivision of the subject property. Your issues and concerns are valid and real, and I respect that. But this is not the right venue for us to share in a discussion of that or provide opinions relative of how it should or not impact the application. So if you support, then you support; if you do not 11 EXHIBIT A support, then you do not support. But as a commission, we are concerned with what direction your testimony is --. FREITAS: Okay. BEAUDET: -- relative to just the application, not the land. FREITAS: Well, actually, I am just going to kind of round it up, because I’m pretty sure my Exhibits that I’m going to be handing in and the testimony will speak for itself. BEAUDET: Thank you. FREITAS: But in conclusion, because there is no treaty of annexation, the confiscation of lands belonging to the occupied state is a war crime, as my uncle had indicated. So I highly recommend, and there has been meetings that have been going on with Dr. Keanu Sai regarding this very issue, besides overthrow but also land claims and land titles and the consequences involved, so I highly recommend, and I provided both my attorney Dexter Kaiama, his phone number, as well as Dr. Keanu Sai’s phone number, and I highly recommend that you obtain the professional and expert opinion on this matter and the information that I have provided to you. Dr. Sai is the leading expert in International Law, United States Constitution Law, Hawaiian Kingdom Law, Hawai‘i’s political history and land titles. Both Mr. Kaiama and Dr. Sai are assisting me in filing my felony and war crime complaints. So once again, I highly recommend that you contact them before making your decision, because if you make the wrong decisions, you can be implicated as accessories. That is my testimony. BEAUDET: Thank you, we appreciate that. If I could ask the applicant now to return to the table. FREITAS: Mahalo. BEAUDET: Mahalo. Applicant, if you could just hold off one second. So that concludes those who had requested for testimony. If there are any others in the audience who wish to testify on this agenda item, please come forward. Thank you. With that, I would like a motion for the closing of this portion of the public testimony. SHIMAOKA: I move. NOBRIGA: I second. BEAUDET: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye \[unanimous\]. BEAUDET: Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Fuke, any, so you’ve heard the testimony and the discussion, is there any follow-up from the applicant that you would like to provide? 12 EXHIBIT A FUKE: The only thing is that, you know, I had submitted a letter to the office, to the Planning Department and, which is reflected in your Exhibit 3, I just provided a copy of the title report, you know, a warranty deed, and so that’s all we can rely on. And I concur with your comments in the sense that, you know, while there may be some constitutional or judicial related type of issues associated with the title of the property, I concur with you that this is not the appropriate forum or venue, you know, for the discussion. And that’s all I can say, you know, with regards to the comments that was provided earlier. BEAUDET: Thank you. Commissioners, any comments or further discussion with the applicant or staff on this matter? CHURCH: So I understand, the Planning Director is advocating a favorable ruling accepting the applicant’s request for modifications of Conditions D, E, I and J, is that correct? JACKSON: The Director is agreeable to deleting Condition D, modifying Condition E, modifying Condition I and J as described by Sidney. CHURCH: Right. That’s what I thought. Thank you. BEAUDET: Commissioners, any more discussion with the applicant? With that, thank you, Sidney. So I think I’ve just got to make one comment before we move forward, and this is in dealing with the testimony. As a commission, you know, we make our decisions and we based our concerns and our comments and our discussions and everything on a set of rules and standards, although there are issues far beyond those things that are relevant, yeah, and, you know, individuals may look at those things differently and that’s okay; but the format of the Commission and the forum that, and the platform, that we sit on in order to make the decisions on the applications request is only based on the standards and the rules that are put in front of us by the County of Hawai‘i and the State of Hawai‘i from a land use perspective. So we cannot let ourselves to be directed in our decision making processes with those rules that we are not governed by. And that’s why, as a commission, as its Chair, I need to facilitate these meetings in such a way that we just stick, as a commission, we just stick to the rules that we have to decide on, and we cannot be swayed by other things that we could have compassion for or not. So I just needed to share that with the audience. So if there is no further discussion, Commissioners, I need a motion for action. KAHOLO: Mr. Chair? BEAUDET: Yes. KAHOLO: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for Change of Zone, Docket Number Rezone 15-192, based on the Planning Director’s recommendation, findings, and proposed conditions, which shall be adopted. BEAUDET: Subject to changes and revisions? KAHOLO: D, E, I and J. 13 EXHIBIT A PATEL: And just to clarify, that’s as stated and agreed to, as stated by the applicant’s representative and agreed to by the Planning Director? KAHOLO: Yes. BEAUDET: Second? Asking for a second. UNGER: Second. BEAUDET: It has been moved by Commissioner Kaholo for a favorable recommendation on the rezoning application, 15-192, and seconded by Commissioner Unger. Staff, roll call, please. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Unger? UNGER: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Church? CHURCH: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion passes, six-zero. The discussion ended at 10:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 14 EXHIBIT A