Aloha, welcome to the 30-second session of the Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions here in the Hawaii County Building in Hilohoi, October 1st, 2024, and it is is 101 PM. Present are Committee members Evans, Kagiwata, Kamali-E, Kleinfelder, Kimball, and Kirkwitz. And I am the Vice Chair, Michelle Gullimba. Members, Chair Inaba is on route and members. Lee Loie and V.A. Guests will be joining us shortly. We will start with testimony. Thank you, Vice Chair Golem. But we don't have any testimony for the general portion. I mean, we have some people that were opting to testify. When Resolution 633 comes up. But I understand you like to start with bill, the bill's for ordinance is first. Yes, please. Okay, so I'll just clarify. There's any testimony for either bill 207 or bill 208, which are interrelated. Hearing none, bill 207 amends the state land use boundaries maps for the conflict wide by changing the district classification from the agricultural to the rural district, the Poucapeau YMES, South Gaule. Hawaii government by tax map, key 64017001 and bill 208 amends section 258-11. Lallemil Poucapeau zone map 8, type 25 of the Hawaii County Code, 1983, 2016 addition as amended by changing the district classification from agricultural 40 acres to residential agricultural 0.5 acre at Poole Cupu, Hawaii, Mia, South Kuala, Hawaii, covered by tax map key, 64017001, applicant, Kelvin P. Jarneski, area 1.997 acres, Lear Planning Commission for a failed recognition for this moment to the state land use boundaries map and for the request to change of zone which allow the applicant to submit a property into three lots. This property is located at 64-5208 although no, Johanna place. Introduce mystery NAMMA by request. Chair motions afford bill 207 to the council with the favorable recommendation. We have a motion by council member Kirkwitz and a second by council member Coneley-Lee Klein filter to move bill 207 to council with a favorable recommendation. Could we have the applicants come forward? Good afternoon, Madam Chair. May I have a mic? My name is Sydney Foucai. I'm here representing the owner applicant, Kelvin Jernesky. I'd like to initially apologize for his absence. He was supposed to be here. And for some reason, he's not. And I can't say why. But I just texted him and didn't get any response. But really, it's no disrespect to this body. Nonetheless, Mr. Jernesky is a local boy. He's a three children and he's lived in YMF a number of years. His intent is to basically subdivide his 1.997 acres into three parcels and eventually to convey it to his three children. He lives on the property right now. He has an approved permit for the construction to his three children. He lives on the property right now. He has an approved permit for the construction of a second dwelling, which he intends to implement. Should this rezoning be approved, and the state land-based boundary amendment be approved, then his eventual goal is to create three lots, one for each of his children. We needed the state land-based amendment from agricultural to rural, largely because the lots were going to be less than one acre in size. And so to be able to do that, the state land use designation has to be reclassified. All of the utilities are available to existing water meters currently on the property. He basically needs to have another meter installed. Water department had no objections. And as we went through the hearing process both before the planning commission and also prior to that, when notices were sent to surrounding property owner, we did not receive any objections from the neighbors. So having said that, if there are any questions, this body may have, would be more than happy to answer. Thank you. Any questions? I don't remember a kind of leading client filter. Thank you. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Foucault. You're very wonderful. I understand a lot of the applicators thought here. What is the current use of the property? Current use, it's like he has about, I would say about like one half to about two thirds of the site is currently, he has this, I guess heirloom cocks or fighting cocks on the property. And the rest of it's his property, you know, his dwelling and hand alone. Okay, so he's raising poetry. Right. He's raising poetry. Yeah, okay. And he has a, I mean, looking back at some of the history, looks like he had a AFD. Yeah, and initially it was an Ohanah dwelling permit and subsequently was converted to an additional form dwelling. So he applied for the building permit, the building permit expired. Now he's just gonna resurrect the recent middle of the building permit application. Sorry, additional farm dwelling being as farm dwelling as well as another farm dwelling. No, it's just one. Just one. Okay, so we have one house and he had a permit for second house. Second expired, correct? Correct. And now he's looking to both subdivide the property as well as change it from state land use ag to state land use rural. That's correct. Okay. So this is an interesting one, mainly because of the ADU bill. Because the ADU bill is specific. You can do ADUs, but they have to be, they cannot be on state land use Ag. So I'm looking at this almost as a cookie cutter for what someone would need to do. If they were wanting to do a number of ADUs on their property and having and needing the required zoning to be allowing them to have multiple ADUs on one property. So I'm interested, I understand the background that's being provided and there's no way of knowing what happens in the future but just I'm interested. I understand the background that's being provided. And there's no way of knowing what happens in the future. But I'm very interested to see this process come in following the passage of Bill 123, which was at EBU Bill, for a process that would exactly follow what's required now to implement a series of short-term vacation rentals on a piece of property that otherwise never would have been able to have. You follow what I'm saying? Yes, great. Okay. I think like, you know, the fact that the property is currently in the state-land use agricultural district and given the state supreme cost decision, then it makes it very difficult to have an additional dwelling, unless you can legitimately consider that as an additional farm dwelling. So by putting it in the rural classification, then I think that takes off some of the arguments that the court had made. And so notwithstanding that, you know, had we had this, the owner had like two acres, for example, and he came in for a state land use, like see me, just straight county zoning from egg 20 to F A 1 A, then on each of the respective lots, then you know, he'll be able to construct one dwelling. But at the end of the day, it doesn't meet his objective, because his objective is essentially to have three parcels on that that same parcel on that property. Okay, what given the zoning that he's requesting, I don't know, it's our next item, but given that, some looking at the state line you said in parallel with the other, given the zoning requested, what would be the maximum number of ADUs he could build on each lot. If you take away the state-managed version and just dealing purely with the county, R8.5, I don't exactly whether the additional ADU applied, you know, how did it apply to the R8 district, but assuming if it were the same as like the residential district, then theoretically he could construct an additional dwelling on each of the proposed three lots. So it could be four lots with two per. So three lots with a potential six dwellings on it. Wow. You know, two on each. And so, of course, like I understand the, the ordinance that was recently passed, it's still subject to availability of infrastructure. So, if the water department, hypothetically, we say no water, then, you know, that would be grounds for the planning director to deny the additional dwelling unit. Okay, I don't see that in here. Again, we don't know the future, but just interested in the this bill as it follows our conversation on 123. So thank you for being here. Appreciate it. You're very welcome. Thank you, okay. Councilmember Evans. Yeah, I have a question. So in terms of our zoning code, would it be a R district or an R A district? What? Because it's just saying it's a district. The zoning would be R A. It'll be R A. Yep, 0.5. And the 0.5 refers to a minimum lot size of half an acre. Okay, so why wouldn't we just go Ag 0.5 versus Ra 0.5? Based on the county zoning, there is no classification of an Ag 0.5. Okay. I just have to say for my colleagues, I've always appreciated going to the Planning Commission and seeing the staff give presentations to the Planning Commission and sometimes I feel I really wish I had the same type of presentation because it really puts it for me. It's a perspective of what's going on in the surrounding area and how this correlates to what other things and what trends are going on in the community. I know, so for perspective, for people that are listening, how close is it to downtown YMAIA? And this I assume is for everybody is this on the east side, the west side, the west side, the dry side. I mean, because I have to tell you, the community in Waimea right now is reeling because they have some concerns about protecting what is the best soil and aggrowing land on the one area of YMA is very well known for the quality of the soil they have. And then the other areas, not so much. And so the community sees the growth in the density growth moving towards one. They see it going in one area of the community, but they are resisting it going into another area of the community. So if we all kind of know where this lands, it could really equate to what the public sediment is in the community. So can you give us a perspective for this? The, occasionally the property is, I guess, what we would historically, you know, you feel the necessarily characterizes being like on the wet side of Waimea, like on the Hanukkah side. It's about, if I were to, I'm just taking a guess right now, but if I were to guess it's probably about maybe about a mile and a half or two miles from the town core itself. There are like a number of single family residences in that area. Last ranging from 7,500 to 10 to 15,000 square feet, the Camarilla Lakelands subdivision is located maybe further on the Hanukkah side of the property. So, in spite of the so-called designation, a lot of the agriculture designation in this area, it doesn't fit what's actually on the ground. So you could have properties that are zone egg 40 or egg 20. And if you look at the map, you'll find a lot of those so-called small, a lot in that area. So this subdivision, the rezoning and the subsequent subdivision of this area kind of like falls into this general quasi-rule residential kind of pattern. It's not like an area where you have exclusively surrounding that area, all five or 15 or 20 size, 20 acre size parcels. So, that I think is a distinguishing factor. And I think that if you look at the South Koala community development plan,, one of the things it said was that in the Weimea area, so if you just go outside of that area, which is presumably designated for like urban or residential use, it explicitly stated like as in this area, it would be good for small farms or family-oriented type of subdivisions. So as the staff's report, if you read the background report, you know, it's kind of acknowledges like this is really like a family-oriented subdivision. It's not like having 15 or 20 lots, which would be, you know, made available to the general public. I'm just looking at the map that you provided. And it looks like this particular road has maybe two acre. Like you go down the road, maybe it's two to and a half acre laws all the way down and so this would potentially break it down into three which then could be a trend for the rest of the people on the on the street. I'm just kind of curious when you open up, when you start doing that it could be what will happen going down the street. Conceivably, I guess, you know, that could happen, but as we all know, each application has to stand on its own. So in terms of the cumulative impact, you know, safety, this, you have like second or the third one. And maybe when the fourth one comes in, there may be different kind of concerns raised, maybe inability to provide water. The roadway infrastructure may not be sufficient. I can, to some extent, appreciate the quote-unquote precedent kind of idea concept. But nonetheless, I'm from believer that it has, you know, each application has to be taken on its own. Because if you are exclusively guided by a pattern or precedent, then if you have an area that's resound, resound hypothetically, then basically you could make an argument that the whole island would be so-and-resort out of sheer precedence. So, but that's not the case. So, you look at application by application on its own and see how they stack up with your general plan, your community development plan, as well as your infrastructure. Just for the sake of the public, was there a sign posted on the property so everybody in the neighborhood as well as notices to, feet from the sorority property. They were notified. Thousand feet yes. Okay. Good. Right. Great. Thank you. Thanks. We will be all transferring the chair to Councilmember Commission. Thank you, Vice Chair Ghalimba. After Mr. Foucait, at this time, I'd like to give the opportunity to the Planning Department to weigh in if they have anything further to add on this application. Director Kern. Good afternoon Madam Chair. Members of the Committee. Zando Kern Planning Director. Thanks for the committee. Zando Kern planning director, thanks for the opportunity. Really nothing much more to add to what Sydney had given the overview. It's consistent with the plans for the area. You know, the lot right now is 1.9 acres or so in size. And part of the question that come up earlier around the one acre size, or excuse me, that kind of the the egg of the point five egg. If it's state land use agriculture your minimum lot size is one acre. So that would set it. So if you have a parcel that's less than two acres, you wouldn't be able to do it. So the next version down to be our rural designation, which is very, it's a good state land use for many places on the island that would allow that happy, precise to be effectuated and happy to answer any other questions. Thank you, Director Kern. Quickly, Mr. Foucait, are the property owners here today? Yeah, just prior to you coming in I had to apologize to this body. For some reason I can't explain their absence. I tried contacting him right before the start of the meeting and I was not successful, but they were informed that of this meeting and they had assured me that they would be here, but they're not here. I got it. Okay. Thank you. I apologize for that. Back up to the discussion again, we're on the tool7 for the state land use boundary amendment for the discussion council member Kagiwata. Thanks. I guess I'm just feeling like I'd really like to have the land owner here. So, I'm feeling a little uncomfortable advancing this forward without the property owner here. That's what I'm at right now. Council member, Galimba. Thanks. I just had one question. I noticed, and this probably more pertains to the next item, but I just ask it here. I saw that there's a requirement for a six inch water main if if he if they do subdivide it further I believe is what it said so the third oh I wasn't I'm not exactly sure if it's this that's triggering it or the next subdivision but I just wondering six inch is that that's a big pipe so So I thought, one third if there was any special reason that that's such a big requirement from the water department. I think that kind of may translate to a fire flow requirement. So in this case here, I know that if they just do a two lots of division, which is their initial plan, because they have two existing meters servicing the property, there is no water improvement requirement. In the event they want to subdivide one of those lots to create the third lot, then there invariably will be some water line improvements. Okay. And they will need to come back to do the third? No, at that point in time would be all administrative. So when they submit their application for a subdivision, then it gets routed to the water department. They review it. They make their comments and planning would have to incorporate that as a condition before they can get final subdivision approval to create the third lot. Thank you. Did you have? If I could add to that in your background report almost at the very end page 67 is the memo from the Department of Water Supply and they're the ones that articulate their needs for the department for the project they're going to go forward and then we take their requirements and then put those into our conditions. So that's where they're coming up from. There's a letter in there from them page 67. Okay, thanks. I guess I didn't get to that one. Thanks. It's very good. Thank you, council member. Be a guest. And then call you at the client filter. Sure. Thank you. Council Member, be a guest and then call you at the Eclan filter. Sure. Thank you for being here. I share the sentiments of Council Member Kagiwata in I'd like to be able to ask questions of the land owner. Through a quick Google Maps search, it looks like the property is currently being used as a game farm. I have a couple questions as they relate to what this puts them in as far as potential for short-term vacation rental and potential ADUs if they're changing from state land use ag to rural Yeah, the way that bill 123 is written that would allow for 80 use that obviously have to meet the Infrastructure requirements water waste water, etc Yeah, I suppose I have Reservations and concerns because this is right on Momila Hall Highway, going straight through my mail where that road is already dangerous and adding more traffic by splitting up these properties. Yeah, this is an agricultural area and while it may have happened in another piece of property, I have concerns that we're setting precedent here and we're creating more. I just recently had some folks reach out to me on how to change from state land use ag to another zoning and purposes for short term vacation rental allowance related. And so I'm not super comfortable with this right at this time. So I'll yield. Thank you. I'll remember. Polly and I'll be playing. Go ahead. Thank you. Director, if they did change to state land use rural and they were able to build 80 use given 123's passage, how many dwellings can they have on each lot? So Bill 123 would allow for three additional ADUs on that lot. I think the biggest constraint will be the wastewater systems. There's no septic. So we're creating three lots, right? They'd be creating three lots as it proposed. And so, so each lot, whether it's they create two lots or three lots, once that lot is created, then they would be allowed three additional ADUs. Three ADUs on top of the, when dwelling, the primary dwelling. So on top of the template then we could have three lots with 12 units if space allowed for that type of development. possible. I don't know how probable it would be. It has to be the space. I think the wastewater would be the biggest constraint. Yeah. So kind of my question, I think I was going to go into the question about water, but is water supply understanding the impact potential of their water infrastructure when they say how many water units are provided to a property when we've increased the potential building and density on lots to your knowledge. So I can't speak for water supply but you know a water meter or a water unit has as daily usage of allowance right so 400 gallons a day and so when you have that water meter the landowner is supposed to keep to that amount or they'd have to try to get an additional water meter or they would have to put in the catchment system to offset the additional water needed. Okay, but let's say that they could do two sweet, two 80 use and the primary dwelling. and water units were allowed per a lot to be whatever they needed to be. I guess that might be a big question to me because this is going to start happening and guessing more and more. Is water department ready for the kind of usage is going to happen because we've just created the density allowability. Allowance. Now what? So I think it's, I think the question is, is can the landowner make it work for what's allowed or what water has there? So for example, water may not be contemplating all of those, the three dwellings. But what they are saying is that our water meter, you're allowed to have 400 gallons a day. And if you exceed that, you're gonna get a letter and you're gonna have consequences that come along with that. You have to just back down to that. So however that property owner has to work with that, whether it's reduction in water, or they have to see if there's an additional water meter. Not sure if that's available or they'd have to put a catchment taken. So it's really up to the responsibility of the applicant and the landowner to comply with the Department of Water supply in that regard. It's about the interesting, most of the time. This is going to get real interesting real fast. I didn't realize all of that. So has that bill passed? Yes. Yeah. So maybe this is kind of like a really good test case to see how it really would unfold. And so if there is some hot burn regarding the potential of having three or two additional units on a lot, in a property that's within an ag or the rule district, then maybe the whole audience should be revisited and just kind of like limited only to an organized area. You know having said that to answer Council Member Viego's question about the access, the access is proposed not off of Mamalo Highway. It has to come off of the side road vehicle. We do realize, I think the applicant realizes that it is a relatively high traffic area. And so that portion of the highway, I believe falls under the county's jurisdiction. Or the state's jurisdiction. So I think it's going to be very difficult to secure an access off of that area. Relative to the issue about the water, I think that the water department and as the director indicated, and we can't really speak with them, but when they traditionally, when they look at the rezoning application, the assumption is that if you're going to create three lots then, are there like three water meters that can be serviced to that parcel? They're not looking at any new ordinances that would allow for additional dwellings otherwise. Yeah, I think water supply needs to be cognizant of what's about to happen with the A-D use. I think even for you, this was a little bit of a learning experience. I'm concerned about the density increase and also we're shooting for, but I don't know that everyone's ready for this. I mean, you with your experience can understand the impact this could have on an island-wide level. Yeah okay. And just be mindful because the next application before you has the same application as well. So you know I'm sorry one last question for you. Is the is Bill 208 does bill 28 require 207 of us? Yeah, yes, okay. Thank you. They're actually in tandem. Yes. Thank you. And before I send it back to Councilmember Kagiwada, I did check in with water to see if they're able to chime in on this specific application. And it might be an opportunity for us to have a separate communication to kind of discuss how water plans to implement the passage of Bill 123 and applications just in a general sense. So council member Kaguata. Thank you, Chair. So planning director, given that the Bill 123 had not passed when you made this recommendation originally, do you have any concerns or things that you think need thinking through a little more? Now that 123 has passed and the reason I'm asking that is because I was a big proponent for 123 because it's based on density in urban districts. This is not what I think I had in mind and maybe I don't know but I can't speak for anybody else. And for your team as well, But as far as people starting to jump from Ag to rural in order to do this density, which was really when we talked about it about density more in urban areas, I'm just wondering is it something that you had a chance to think through and process with your team? And, and, and, you know, this all happened like I said right before this past, so any thoughts on that? Yeah, I mean I'd say we're still processing, right? And adjusting, not sure how the bill was gonna be passed down and now that it is, this one's very interesting because it was already in motion prior, right? And here we are. And as I'm thinking about this conversation, and that could be a lot of density right there on that corner, there's always the possibility for you guys to condition something, you know, when that's being looked at. So I think with the limited amount of role that we have, we won't be seeing a lot of this. I think what we might see is people, if they're trying to do that for this purpose, I don't think that this was the case in this one. I think we'll have to look at those maybe a little bit different when they're true intent is just to do that for that uplift of the ADU density. Yeah, but regardless of the true intent, once we change it over to rural, the possibility is there. The property could be sold, they could change their intent, they could change their minds, and that opens that up. Correct. And I go back to kind of what we had talked about through the 123 processes, infrastructure is going to be limited. And if there was sewer right there, I think that might be a different conversation, but it's septic systems, and that's going to create a natural limitation. Okay, once again I'm a big proponent of density within the urban areas. One of the main reasons is to save our ag lands from density and from being overbuilt and not being used for ag. So for this one I'm not feeling great about it at this point, but I'll listen in here whatever you'll say. Thank you, Chair Eild. Thank you, Council Member, V.A.G.S. Yeah, I'm sure we've all seen that recent Supreme Court ruling and how many more questions that's bringing up when it comes to Ag Land. And so I wondered how, if you could provide any bit of understanding about how that ruling would affect proposed zone changes from Ag to rural or residential. We received the ruling, but we haven't done the debrief with our Corporation council yet. So I'd be speaking prematurely. My understanding is that from a change of zone from urban, excuse me, ag to rural on itself. I don't believe the ruling has any bearing on that. I think it's really a short term vacation rental. But again, we're waiting for our debrief from our corporation council. Okay. You know, not to make any judgments on anybody's intention, but I feel that the timing, it's gonna pose a challenge to these folks if their truest intention is to subdivide so that they can provide a lot for their family, which is something that I think is a valuable practice for us. However, I don't think that it's unfortunate that it's based on this timing because loopholes have been opened up while some have been closed and the risk outweighs the reward at this point, so I'm just not comfortable. Also familiar enough with this roadway that whether or not the road goes straight on their driveways go straight on to Momila Hoa or not. It's still adding more traffic to that area and that roadway that does not have the infrastructure to support that at this time. Also, you know, putting an Asceptic system isn't, you know, is something that's possible to change piece of property so that they could add on all these excessive ADUs. I understand Mr. Fukai, your job is to represent the land owner and to petition us with all the means necessary to convince us that this would be an okay decision. So I respect and understand that. I'm just not, I'm not particularly comfortable with this right now. There's just too much going on and the intentionality as communicated by council member Coguata of ADU's then residing in urban areas to increase density there. We may have, I know, I did not support bill 123 because of my concerns for unintended consequences. And I think we have a circumstance right in front of us that may open that box. And then as stated by one of you prior, this is something that happened already recently in this area. And I do not want this to I think this bill could also be an example of the intended consequences of Bill 123. From the standpoint that if you look at the location of this particular property in the context of the larger Waimei region, you have a series of straight streets both above and below Mamaloha Highway that have smaller lots with residential use. And so this would not be in my mind necessarily outside of the standard that you would see in the area so you have subdivisions of much smaller lot size on either side as well as on the other side of Amalhoa punctuated in between by some larger agricultural properties. If this were to be subdivided into half-acre parcels, that's about 20,000 in-change square feet. For each dwelling, 10,000 square feet is going to be the minimum requirement for wastewater, individual wastewater system. So by the nature, and this was something we talked about with 123, by the nature of the wastewater requirements, they would be limited to ADUs. The median rental rate for a three-bedroom, two-bath house in YMAIA right now is $4,500 a month. Okay, so part of what 123 was intended to do was provide opportunities for long-term rentals. Now I know that the uncomfortableness comes from the transient accommodation rental issue. It's important to temper the concern about any additional dwelling unit becoming a TAR by doing the math, which is basically it is not going to be very economically feasible for people who are building a thousand foot square foot home. Let's say $500 a square feet which is low under these current commission and then turn it around and make it a TAR to operate and still make that pencil out in the long. They're gonna take forever to pay it off. It is much more likely that they are gonna make it for a kid or a family member or something like that who can contribute to the overall payment for it on a regular basis. It's just too risky. I don't want to spend too much time on one twenty three. That's been decided. But the whole point about the TAR piece was that it can happen anyway, regardless of whether or not we said it or didn't, people can just re-designate which is which and it could have happened anyway. So we just were re-rovert about it. So as much as people have concerned about this, please take a look at one of the many maps that are available at what's happening in the rest of the region, what the costs are in YMAA right now. You know this is something I regularly hear is people that are firefighters or police officers or nurses or teachers up there they can't find a place at $4,500 a month who could find a place. So this has the potential to create six units, five of them potentially long-term rentals that could be available to the community. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Evans, thank you. So Mr. Foukey, to your client, it may be possible to condition it to where his true intent is to build this forest family and so there would be three homes on it and for him to agree to that. So that would be a condition that he would have to agree to given what I'm hearing about Bill 1-2-3. But the other thing is if people want to have lots that are small, like other ones in the area, then they should come in, I think, apply to this council to go for the small lots. And that way they'd be TMKs, they would be paying their taxes, and we'd know exactly that we're creating a new subdivision up in Waimea that maybe everybody on that street will end up with 10,000 square foot lots. I mean if that's the trend and the way it needs to go. But one of my concerns about 1, 2, 3 is like it's kind of like the CPR in a way it's kind of like a way for people to increase density without going through the long process of subdivision and coming from the council and going, that's a much arduous longer process than maybe doing it this way. And I understand what my community is very sensitive to families wanting to give their children lots. And it's kind of a value system up in Miami to support the family in the next generation by figuring out a way To take their land and divide it up and their children living on the land with them So I understand that as a value. I do have concerns though about what we just did with one two three and that this could definitely create This huge density and I know my community would not be I don't think my community would be happy with that right now because of what's happening on the highway up there and the traffic. And I guess the last thing I would close is that we assume that the people that would move on there would be the local working class, middle class people. The reality is we have people moving from the mainland, from everywhere on the mainland that don't want to live there anymore and want to live in Hawaii. I'm not convinced 4,500 rents is ever going to go down over the next couple of years because the, I keep meeting people that are moving constantly into Y-Maya. They're coming from L.A. and Spokane and I keep talking to them. It's like they don't want to live. They don't want to live where they live anymore and they want to come to our island in Y-Maya. There's many theories why but it is a real hotspot for people wanting to move there and they're willing to pay the high price. So it's unfortunate, but that's what's happening. So can I answer your questions? Specifically in response to your questions, the concept of having limiting one dwelling per lot, I'm sure it would not be a warrant to the owner because that is intent. So if it's legally supportable, that's a condition that I'm quite sure that Mr. Jarneski would be willing to accept. The other thing is like on the CPR based on my understanding of the CPR law. You cannot CPR properties that's within the residential or the agricultural zone. I mean, you can, but provided that it conforms to the zoning and subdivision standards. So theoretically, if you have this current property that's that zone, egg 40, and you want to CPR to create two or three lots, by zoning that would not be allowed. The last comment I kind of want to make, I think this is a very healthy discussion on all this, because I'm not really totally conversing on this additional dwelling unit that Bill that was recently passed. I thought it was two. Now I understand it's three, per existing law. To me, I think like the irony behind all of this, is that if you were to deny this re-zoning, you know, then, you know, like it kind of goes against the whole ADU notion. The ADU notion was intended to provide opportunities for more lots, more homes for the local guys. What more is this guy, Calvin Jernesky? It's a local boy. He lives in Weimia for about 15, 20 years, born in raised in Hilo, three of his children live in Waimea. They need a home. So if you deny that, you know, like, then what do you get? You know, so that's why it's kind of ironic that, you know, like there's some sentiment of saying that maybe we ought not to approve this. Yet on the other hand, you have this ADU law to say, like, let's liberalize all residential units on all lots. So if there is a concern, I would say, that you don't want to liberalize the number of lots in an agro-rule district, change the law. To me, a simple thing is that, don't penalize someone that wants to do exactly what we all want. Provide? Thank you, Mr. General. That's an opportunity. Exactly what we all want. Provide. Thank you, Mr. General. Opportunities, you know, so anything for other councilmember Evans. Okay, let's wrap this up. I don't know that this body is able to make a decision. DWS is attempting to join right now regarding the water, but councilmember Kennedy, glad to be here. Mr. Mr. Kern, the move from state land use agricultural to state land use of rural, just noting this property was designated as prime agricultural land, with the classification of sea meaning moderate productivity does it land itself to being rural in that case? Yeah, the rule and the residential ag district do not preclude any farming. So it actually allows for smaller scale, still allows for the farming. It's actually a really good zoning and designation for a little bit tighter density that local folks generally like, because you can do all your ag on there without the constraints of the state land use of ag. Okay. And reading further down. Residential agricultural use would support more sustainable small scale ag activities, while also providing low density housing, low density housing availability. Exactly. And I would stress the word low density. Mr. Mr. Foucait, what all due respect, none of us can foresee the future. The zoning is zoning. Once granted, the zoning runs with the property. So anything can go in the future. I understand, I'm understanding Mr. Jarnesky's want. And I have the same want for my children in providing land for them in the future. But to do so carefully for the community as a whole because this isn't specific to just one lot. I mean, sorry, this ordinance is specific, but the idea can be broadcasted across the island so we need to do this carefully. I appreciate your comments. Ayo, Chair. Thank you, Chikkinin, any further discussion? I think water is having some trouble, but regarding the water availability, I share it thus far, confirming that there are two services there and water is available in the area for the third proposed lot. In the case of ADUs, they would likely be able to provide the water for the additional ADUs in that area for this specific application. The tricky part is the need to install waterline, hydrogen and other things that other normal subdivisions would require and that's what I was hoping. Water was going to be able to jump in and share about but just so we all know right now the general water availability is there. It's a matter of additional infrastructure required of the property owner should they try and proceed with any aid use. Overall I don't necessarily have myself a lot of concern on this application but I would like to hear from the property owners and I do support council member Coguata's suggestion. So council member Coguata, do you want to make a motion? Sure. October 15th is the next committee meeting. Let's see where are we. Oh, motion to, I guess we're gonna postpone bill 207 till the next legislative approvals committee meeting. On October 15th. October 15th. Move by Councilmember Kagiwata Seconded. May Councilmember Evans to postpone bill 207 to the October 15th committee meeting on postponement Council member Kimbo. I just wanted to make sure Mr. Fugui that the applicant be able to attend in Kona or do we should we postpone to the next halo meeting. I'm quite sure that the applicant is going to be you know can be there but I definitely will not be able to make I have some personal things to attend to that day. Okay. Noting that I withdraw. Okay, and then the next committee meeting here in here would be November 7th. Motion to postpone bill 207 till the next committee meeting on, what do you say? It would be November 7th. November 7th. Well, if I can't remember, a coggy waters, that can have I can't remember Kimball. We will be Councilmember Caguata seconded by Councilmember Kimbo and sorry Mr. Clerk the former Motion to postpone to November 15th was withdrawn. We now have a motion by Councilmember Caguata and a second by Councilmember Kimbo to postpone bill 207 to the November 7th Committee meeting on the postponement. Seeing no discussion, all those in favour of postponing bill 207 to the November 7th committee meeting, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries with. Eight aye is one excuse, Council Member Liloi. We will proceed then to bill two or eight. Oh, thank you, apologies. With that Mr. Foucault, would you like to get to a postponement or would you like to share on this application today? I mean I think that Council Member Kagiwada's comment is very you know it's taken taken to heart I think the applicant should be here and why he's not here you know I can't explain he just called me but I can't I didn't want to answer the call. So I think that the council deserves to see him in the flesh. Thank you, Mr. Fukui. Council Member Kimbo. Motion to postpone bill 208 to November 7th. Move back on to member Kimbo. I will first need a motion on the floor. Main motion on the floor. Apologies, but no motion. Okay. First motion. Motion to approve bill 208 and send to council with a favorable recommendation. Second. We'll be council member Kimbo. Seconded by council member Coddially. Eclineter to approve bill 208 and 4 to council with a favorable recommendation with that. Chair motion to postpone bill 208 to or November 7th, meaning? We'll be back on some member Kim Bo and seconded by Councilmember Kagiwana to postpone bill 208 to the Noes. Vembers, 7th Committee meeting, any discussion on the postponement? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries eight I's. One excuse. Council member Lee, aye bill two all eight and two of seven are postponed to the November 7th committee meeting. Thank you, Mr. Foucait. Thank you, Director Kern. With that, we'll take up the other planning application at this time. So bill 209. Serious testimony for bill 209. 39 Bill 209 immense section 258-3 North Cornelzone map article 8, 25 of the Hawaii County Code 1983, 2016 edition as amended by changing the district classification from agricultural 20 acres to family agriculture one acre at North Kona, Hawaii covered by tax map key 7 3 0 0 4 0 1 1 applicant Wadi, Elizabeth, Cleo, Kalani, Green area 4.985 acres, leader planning commission forwards a favor recommendation for this change of zone request. Wish a lot of applicant to submit by the property to four lots probably located Malka of Kaini 90 Drive on Old Government Road excuse me Old Government Malka Road approximately in and your feet south of this intersection with Hawaii Belt Road introduced Mr. Inaba by request motion to forward bill 209 to Council with a favorable recommendation moved by Council member Calimba and seconded by Council member Kimbo to forward bill 209 to Council with a favorable recommendation. We have Mr. John Pippin and the property owners and the screen here today. Mr. Pippin, if you'd like to make your presentation at this time and then I'll call Deputy Director Darryl Ford if there's any comment from the Planning Department. Thank you. Pardon me. Thank you, Committee Chair Inaba. Good afternoon, members of this committee. Here assisting the applicant, Wadi Green, to my left. Her son is attending today to really soak in and learn about this process. This project is for her family, is for her kids. They're here, they're looking at a housing market that is unattainable. They're graduating from school and finding that there is no place to call home in Hawaii. So this request for a rezoned to family agriculture, one acre minimum lot size is for family. The implications for Bill 123 are not applying here. Bill 123 specifically leaves agricultural state land use requirements for dwellings intact. So any additional dwellings would have to be additional farm dwellings and that is the status quo right now. So there's no change with respect to Bill 123 for this request of change of zone. This leaves state land use ag as state land use ag. We've done a lot of work with Department of Water supply to ensure that the water system that will serve this property makes sense. Will work will provide standard quality, quantity and pressure water for all of these dwellings. And in fact, this was kind of laid out for us in the property just to the south. They went through a rezone, they had the same substandard water pressure issues and in the end ended up installing private tanks and pumps for the resultant subdivision. So with that, we're here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Green. Would you like to add anything at this time? You know, I'm clearly alone. I'm Wadi Green. I am an heir to this property that we're discussing today. And with me is my co-co, my colleague, my son, Keoa. And he holds the name that represents the idea that we live on today. So hopefully he would continue to live on the property and then his children and his children's children. Mahalo, and can you, do you folks currently live on this property? Yes, thank you. I'm sorry to clarify that. So at this time, Deputy Director Darro, do you want to give you the opportunity on behalf of the planning department to share anything further on the application. Thank you. Hello, I'm Chair and members of the Council. Jeff Darrell with the planning department. I really don't have anything else to add. This is a pretty simple application. It's a little different from our last application in that it is remaining in the agricultural district, state land use. They are just creating four lots down to one acre each and again to provide for their family members. The soil in this particular area is very poor for agricultural type activities. You still can do it, but it is identified as a very poor soil for this area. Yet it's in the general plan, low density urban area and important land. Conditions look good, everything. If there's any questions that anyone may have, more than willing to answer. Thank you Deputy Director Darrell. With that I will open it up for discussion at this time starting with Councilmember Evans. Yes there was a comment by Mr. Pippin that the accessory 801-2-3 wouldn't apply to this. But I'm reading 123 and it says accessory dwelling units shall be provided within the RSRDRA FA and A districts. This is FA1. So that's what I'm reading that applies to FA. Yeah, just to clarify, the 123 is, doesn't apply to state land use egg. And this is going to remain in state land use egg. The county zoning is going to be egg, but the state land use will not allow for 80 years. And that's not changed. Okay, so it's state land use overrides the zoning. Yeah. Okay. All right, good. Well, I think that needs to be important because it does say in here. That would be under the next section after that particular section, subsection B. Okay. Good. All right. That's really, really good to know. So, good. All right, that's really, really good to know. So, yeah, again, my comment always has been, when we come in front of the council, it should be nice to get a little bigger briefing like you do for the planning commission that really shows, I mean, every time I've been to planning commission, it just really shows the whole picture of what's going on in the neighborhood and kind of what's happening. And I have to look to my colleague who represents the district to talk about kind of what the general nature of this part of your district looks like, you know, how this fits into the kind of the bigger sense of what's going on in the community. Yeah, so I just don't know that area. Yeah, so thank you. Thank you, Council Member Kimball. Yeah, this is kind of a more general comment with respect to rezoning ordinances and everything that goes before the planning commissions. You know, about a year or so ago, the planning department made the decision to no longer print out the full booklets around each of these rezoning ordinances. I want to make sure everybody is aware that they are available electronically and we store them on the council operations webpage. So there's a spreadsheet there that clicks through to the link in LaserFeech to access the slides in the minutes from those planning commission meetings. So just wanna remind folks that those are available. Wanted to ask. So this isn't, this is a little bit north I think of the area that's covered by the resolution recommending keeping some amount of forest cover correct. Yes, this is not a part of the colloquial mouth of South Division. Okay. Is that a condition that I, that's always tough, but it does look like it's, it's not cleared. It's primarily got some scrub on it now and some trees, I guess, to the director. Or applicants representative. Yes, historically this lot was cleared many years ago. I think around 1970 before the house was built, since then it has come up in non-native and invasive trees. So there's really no sense in keeping those and that kind of ties the hands of potential forms of agriculture that could occur on these lots. Okay. All right. And you can okay, the plan is to subdivide into four. We already have one. It's it's three new lots. Three new lots. Yeah. One is the pre-existing lot. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Just interested to hear from the district representative, but otherwise looks okay. Council member V.A.S. Yeah, so just a quick question. So it's currently one lot and after this it will be three lots or will be four lots. There will be four lots. There will be four lots. And there is an interesting kind of cutout you see in the map and that is a water board lot for a future tank site. Oh, future tank site. Oh, future tank site. Yes. Water tank. Hi, Wadi, nice to see you. You as well. Yes. You know, we've had long conversations about your ohana, and you have shared from your heart some of the challenging circumstances due to the nature of the history of our island, and where it's left your family with having land but not necessarily other resources and we work together to make some of the changes for the other property that's kind of more in the Kauho area and so I you know in looking at you and your O'Hana here today and your statement of intentionality and my trust and your legacy of looking for opportunities in order to ensure that you and future generations from a lineage of Hawaiian cultural practitioners. And yeah, our host culture is perpetuated by having the exodus of our children already. Exactly. I mean, they're going by leaps and bounds. And that's the last thing I think my child wants to be doing, or I would not want him to do is before I used to sell my land to a guy with $50 million and he goes and builds that I don't want mention on that land. And my son has the Exodus and go live where? Night Island, come on. That ain't gonna happen. The people that saved this land that I live on are my ancestors. And I want my son to live on the land. So this only increases the need to help us as local people. I mean, I speak for every one of you sitting on this board. You have to come a league coming around. Think about your own prunos that are right behind you. If I can pave the way for my child right now, Soviet, I'll take all the bullets I need to do it now. So that my child doesn't have to exit his Hawaii as a native home and go live somewhere with an excuse that I can't afford to live at home. I'm having an excuse. I live at home like you, like you, like Mr. Kleinfeld. I'd live on K Kalawa. I work. We all do. Sometimes you got to work two or three jobs, but you do what you have to do. I don't complain, but now I'm looking at my child. It's a listen. I'm not going to leave my churly on the for you. I'm going to take care of it. My mother and my father could never afford it. They would not reach people. They were basic people like all our ancestors were. But I'm proud to be native Hawaiian. I'm proud to be a land on up Kalawa. I'm proud to inherit land of my ancestors. So Cindy Pippoid a council of same people like you and I makes it worth coming here today and every day until I can get my chuliana taking care of for my child. Do I know anything about that? Do you think no? Do I want to know? No. I have a pocketbook for that hell no I do not. So when I tell you and John and everyone's sitting in this room, I'm going to plow that road for our children. Let's set a path for them so that they don't exit a soul. And turn around and make this an excuse. It's not. It's not an excuse to say I can't afford to live here. Yeah, you can. You're doing it. I'm doing it. Haleca, your family, everyone's doing it. Cindy, how long have you been in Hawaii? Yeah, I'm born and raised here. Born and raised, I'm gonna die here. That's the difference. My family are Hawaiian people. We are gonna live and create here. That's what this is all about. So thank you for having us here. I showed up. I drove in the rain in the last night over the morning, screaming on my green shelf and making my tires. Oh my god, I'm going to make it. I'm going to do it. Brought my child here to show you what I'm doing it for. Who I'm doing it for and why I'm doing it. It's my Kool-Anala, not his. Let's do it now. And let's set a precedent for this. We're done helping me and guiding me on the verbage, thank you. Mr. Darrell, thank you. Zendol, thank you. Everybody that has helped educate me to get me here. So I hope that you can co-cour me on that because remember it. What you choose to do today and the next meeting and the next meeting will also guide your children and your comedy coming right behind you. Let's set that up. That's not making an excuse anymore. I told myself no more excuses. I'm going to do it. Let's like I say, I don't have that money in my pocket, but God be willing. We'll find a way to do it. Thank you. And I remember that about your diligence and tenacity and commitment to find a way to and I know you're making it happen on Manini resources, but you are getting yourself where your honor needs to go for future generations. So thank you for being here today. make a quick point with respect to this and to the previous. And you're testimony, very obviously touched the hearts of many in here. us, right? Versus, okay, the guy wasn't here, so we don't know what kind of person he is, my colleagues right now, analyzes from the standpoint of what is appropriate in the zoning. I'm not trying to just don't diminish it. Thank you, Councilmember Coguata. Thank you. Councilmember Cognoli, Madam Bill. Yeah, so thank you for, it's staying Ag Land. Very important. Also important to hear from the Planning Department that this is really good soil for Ag. So appreciate that. And yeah, appreciate the fact that this is going to be staying at Ag. us. It's not about who you are, although obviously you're very passionate and doing amazing things for your Oana and your Kiki. Appreciate it. Thank you chair. Thank you. Council Member Conelli, client felt there. Thank you. And I'm given the testimony from the applicant, Ms. Green. Thank you. Good testimony. Thank you for being here today. For me, given the surrounding properties being of similar zoning type, that I can support this, then just on another note, I always did wonder how to access Monsiambas market easily. Then going up and around the back of the building would seem like a one-lane road. I've gone there a million times. I just never wanted to park in the upper parking lot. But I didn't know. It connects to the road that services your property. I might be driving my house more frequently now. Yeah, no, that's not a good way to do it. Just not a different. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Mojalo. Yeah, Mojalo. Hi, Yo-Tar. Thank you. Councilmember Kahneli, Kleinfelder. With that, I think that's it for discussion. This is in the heart of my district and a lot of the road properties along that road are long-time comma-in-a-families who are needing to kind of reevaluate you know a one large part so five-acre-three acre and we've seen other families do similar applications in the last couple years even when I've been on council. So in support of that level of density is still allowing for adequate property sizes after a subdivision. I want to put that mahalo out there to the Leeward Planning Commission for including the condition there regarding the water pressure and water improvements. So I was not to impact surrounding properties at such time that the subdivision does occur. I believe that's all I have to add on this. I'll be in support and thank you to the Planning Department for the five-year subdivision approval, provision of this bill. Appreciate those things being provided to us. So with that, there's a motion on the floor to floor bill two, oh nine, to council with a favorable recommendation, all those in favor. Any opposed? Motion carries seven eyes to excuse council members, Vee Loy and Kirkowitz, bill two, oh nine, moves to first reading. Mahalo. Thank you, everyone. Mahalo. Let's see. I know we have folks over in a continued order with resolution 633, please. Can I ask Keoni Fox and call a harm to come forward to testify in Resolution 633? And I just want to take the opportunity to thank you folks. We did take those things out of order and you folks have been here a while just with the availability of our planning staff to be able to share. So, Mahalo for your patients. Mr. Fox, you may proceed your testimony. You'll have three minutes. If you prefer not to start, you may advocate. Miss Harmon, would you like to begin? Kate, push the button there in your three minutes. Aloha, kippo, kumikye, hano hano, inaba, amenala, oka-ah, kalana, kumu ko kyeave. O kalamanamanaharmin koinoa, ovo kyeapo ko uohana. Kumu opuna koa lua, amerikven pukuye, amekumu opuna koa ha. Anali ipo emuku. Kupunai noho mawe kupuna. The millennial descendant of that area of Ka'u, I feel it is my kuleana to speak to you today, and urge the council to postpone the condemnation of this land under eminent domain. My great-great-grandmother wrote in detail about Waikapuna and recalled with great Aloha her experiences. They're under the watchful eye of her tutu. Waikapuna continues to be a special place for my Ohana, where we camp, connect with nature and practice subsistence fishing. There are so few places left in Ovaí, where we can experience a deep connection to our ancestral lines, allowing us to nurture both body and spirit. Wekapuna provides that space for myohana. It is where we pass down Ike, knowledge to our Kekianmo Puna, keeping history, culture, and traditions alive for future generations. The county got it right when you helped us to save Waikapuna and return it to our people. It was not only Pono, but it put us on our path of reconciliation for the injustices of the past while allowing us to move forward together in the spirit of mutual aloha. Rather than undoing all this progress, which is what the current plan of condemnation does, I respectfully urge the council to postpone this decision. I believe a more collaborative approach working together with Alakau-Kaitral Association to use Waikapuno for a more sustainable waste management system would benefit everyone as well as I know. Opening the space for meaningful dialogue will give us the opportunity to explore our alternative solutions that honor the cultural significance of the land and respect the needs of all involved. This collaborative approach will ensure that the future of Waikapuna reflects both the preservation of our Aina and the original intent of protecting the sacred space while also meeting the council's objectives. Mahalo Nui, Ko, Ko, Imi, Anai, Ko, Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Fox, you have three minutes. Please proceed. Good afternoon, chair, commissioners. My name is Keoni Fox. I'm the president of the Alaka Haka trail association. I'm also a a linear descendant of this property worked with Mary Covenant, a Pukui's family for over 20 years to help preserve this property. And today we are testifying in opposition to the proposed resolution. I provided a very detailed written testimony, which included background about the conservation efforts, specifically the contributions, the partnerships and protections provided by the county of Hawaii and the state legacy land conservation program. It's very important to remember that this entire property, every acre was purchased with state monies for conservation. Any change in use requires state BL and our approval. The state maintains a deed restriction, which requires that the entire property be managed consistently with the purposes for which it was awarded a grant and chapter 173 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Furthermore, a written approval of the State of Hawaii is required for any disposition, incumbrance, or conversion of the use of the property, including acquisition by the County of Hawaii through exercise of County Eminent Domain Authority. Now, to summarize my written testimony, promises were made by the department. Alla Kaaka is willing to honor our promise. All we're asking is that the county do the department. Holocaust is willing to honor our promise. All we're asking is that the county do the same. We were promised a wetland and native trees, which would absorb nutrients from the waste disposal. There would be four small buildings, which would be consistent with the preservation of open space. We were promised that they would collaborate with our board on the layout to avoid impacts to any of the protected resources. We were promised to maintain our main property access, which is used by native Hawaiian practitioners, community members for stewardship, and by ranching tenants who raised cattle on over 3,500 acres. Former Councilmember Miley David asked us to put this area aside for further consideration. It was important for her to protect and honor the cultural integrity of Waikapuna. And we, the Alakaha Kaitral Association, agreed to partner with the county on this project because we thought we were doing a good thing for the community without compromising what everyone worked so hard to protect. Miley crafted an incredible partnership between county and community. The partnership was praised by the mayor, the legacy commissioners, and the BL and our commission who recognized what can happen if community and government work together to find solutions. This latest alternative being proposed by the department is not what we agreed to. It compromises the research values which are under our protection and stewardship. Sadly, we see this resolution as an effort to subordinate to get the first place. Thank you. I'm going to be able to get the first place. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there any additional testimony for resolution 633-24? Very none. Resolution 633-24 authorize acquisition of private property by M in the domain of a portion of tax map key nine five zero zero seven zero and six situated at Cahili Paliiki and Cahili Pali Nui Apoa district of Ka'u island and county Hawaii state of Hawaii for the knowledge who wastewater treatment plant Authorize a corporation council initiate proceedings for the taking acquisition and condemnation of private property for the construction of a wastewater treatment plant required by the administrative order on consent injured into with the US Environmental Protection Agency introduced by stirring novel by request. A motion to forward resolution 633-24 to council with the Viva Board recommendation. Before that, I just want to say that I will be recusing myself from this. Thank you. If I can get a motion, move by Council Member Carly-Ely Klein-Felder and Seconded by Council Member Kimble to Ford Resolution 633-24 to council with the favorable recommendation. We have the EM Director Ramsey-Monsour and Deputy Corporation Council for the EM here. Oh, sorry. The motion was by Council Member Cunningh to the Eclan. I feel there was a second by Council Member Kimbo. Thank you. Yep. No worries. And yes, if there is a presentation by the department, we can go ahead. Good afternoon and thank you so much for the opportunity. I'm here today to address any questions and concerns that make them through this resolution. In 2005, EBA enacted a law where the cesspool community wastewater within Nala who and Pahala. And a deal was made where the county ended up taking both wastewater from Nala Hill and Pahala. And we were supposed to close these gangs cesspool by 2005 when the law was enacted. So when this administration started there was an existing AOC requires the county to close the gang cesspool within Nala who community area and converted to a waste water treatment plane. There was some studies were done on the property and other property to side up the best location for the waste treatment plan. And based on that study, the location before you was the recommended location due to the use of the effluent after the wastewater is treated. And when we took over, we negotiated part of the AOC with EPA. The proposed wastewater treatment plan was errated lagoon, which required a lot of excavation, 18-foot deep excavation and large area of area was going to be disturbed. So when we negotiated that AOC with EPA, we were given four options to review, which is IWS with a maintenance agreement IWS where the county also oversees and with a waste stream of plan package unit. and looking at these options during their review and the community meetings, the community you chose in to go with the package unit. So there is a lot of process we've been meeting with the communities, we've been fitting out the environmental documents and the preliminary engineering report. Our deadline to complete construction is 2027. That means the project have to go out sometime soon because it takes about two to three years to complete construction. And we ask in here today so we could pursue position of the land so we could start doing more testing, more surveys and be able to lay out the ground for the project. Mark, do you have anything to them? Hi, Mark Grant, T-A Deputy Chief for Wayswater Division. There's been in respect to Mr. Fox's concerns. We have several discussion meetings with Mr. Fox in person and as well as at the site. So we have heard his concerns and we have been open and willing to work and find a reasonable and feasible solution to try to accommodate these known historical features, as well as trying to meet the protocols of alaqa'i trails. There is no sure thing any of these impacts will or will not happen, but the county has been very open to kind of work and continue on that communication with alaqa'i's and Mr. Foxy. So, in addition, just please note, this action does not stop us from continuing working with Mr. Foxy we have and we're going to continue. It's a commitment. Well, I'll go with that. I wanted to give the opportunity to Corporation Council if there's anything further to add. At this time, Deputy Corporation Council, then, Melanie C. Sorry. Diana Melon, Lacey Deputy Corporation Council. I have nothing to add, but there's any questions. I'm happy to try and answer them. Thank you for being here. With that, I'll open it up for discussion. Council Member Evans please T.S. off. Okay so can you tell us what happened at the last meeting with the Alaka Kai trail association? Was there any agreement agreement? Agre agreed to disagree, agree what's the next steps. Kind of what happened at that last meeting. Yeah, so we walked the site with Mr. Fox. He pointed out those known historical sites, some of the cultural sites. He pointed out and he did express how the county, along with Alakaitrals, will have to go and present to the board and his tour ship, this new project, right, because as Mr. Fox noted in his testimony, the original concept was these wetlands, such as Eridelagoons, that would create this wet land environment. So we've been very open to communicating and working with Mr. Fox to meet in front of the board. What I have expressed is we will need to get our design consultants out at the fields so that they can conduct these topographic surveys, as well as geotech-borne testing, so that we could develop a conceptual plan that takes into account these type of features, knowing the physical locations, how it is, in relationship to the land, so we know how to develop this solution and try to work with what's feasible and reasonable accommodations on those. Okay, this is what's bothering me. It sounds like a lot of promises. Promises are words. If you honestly believe that you can work on this site and address the things that have been brought to you that need to be addressed. These agreements or these promises that were given over the years of how there would be protection for a lot of these sites. Why don't you put it in the resolution? Why don't you say that we want imminent domain, but we will commit to blah, blah, blah, blah, and put it out there, be very clear that you're agreeing to it now, because I really have concern. Eminent domain, just like you go in, now you have your attorney here, right? Eminent domain, you get control of it, you get control of it. But yet you've been promising things. So I'm feeling really uncomfortable that it's just a straight eminent domain. Why can't you commit now? I'm gonna say we need to do this. We need the treatment plan. We have an AOC. We wanna move forward however, we will do anything and everything and we will commit that we will protect the wetlands. We will do protect this. We will do that. And the consultant, the designers and everybody is just going to have to figure out how to do that while they're doing their design, not wait for the design people to come back and say, oh, we can't do it. That's like saying, and the reason not to do it. And I'm looking at your commitment to do it. And why can't you say that now? Let me, let me answer this question. There's no wet land on the site. What he's referring to the wet land is the errated wastewater treatment system. So there's no such wet land exist. We have entered into an agreement. The county entered into an agreement in 2019. The county Hawaii funded some of that land. It's not only state fund. County fund went into the purchase of such land. So, and part of that agreement when the county agreed to put a fund into purchase in that 2000 Hacker to exclude 28 acres for the purpose of the waste treatment plan. That was the agreement, and that was what agreed on 2019. And I think it's part of the attachment in your document. We get in through an environmental process. Everybody in the county has the right to go through the process and submit their concerns pertaining to the layout and the designs that it's being presented and we received Mr. Fox comments and we responded in writing as well. So and that's the process we've been talking to Shifty about also historic preservation of the land and we promised him. We need to be part of the process. We haven't had the plans yet. So we cannot even start the plan so we get on the property. And it's been since 2019, when 2025 comes two months, so six years in the process and we haven't got anywhere, if getting the topography, understanding the site and start laying out plans. So the agreement also allows 10 years window. If we cannot have construction completed 10 years, it's void, non-unvoid. So that means we have no right to that property even though the county funded that property. So and that's where the cash 21. We six, five years into it, we got five, five years remaining, we got AOC 2027, we haven't even start the design plan because our consultant can I get to the site We got four years to act Right because the ten years limit will explain I understand I just I just have to tell you a director When you work with with the community and promise and there's really Amazing things going on in the community that's important to the community. You need to figure out a way to achieve both, not exclusive one, exclusive to the other. What I heard from the testifiers before you, is I think there's a lot of intent to do the right thing for the community to understand there's a problem with wastewater and it needs to be a drug. I they get it, I understand that. I want to make sure you get it that there's some important stuff going on on this land and how are you going to and what agreement is it through this Rezzo? I don't know the right agreement to do this but there has to be something that is really more solid than a handshake or a promise in the meeting. Because I don't think that's the way we should go. I think we should have a lot more clarity, comfort level with the community. However, that looks like. But I don't think the community wants not to help the community. It's just they know more about that community and the importance culturally, historically, however you want to say it is spiritually. They understand the importance of that. So why can't you be together? I want to see you together making it happen, not pitting one against the other, I guess is what I'm getting at. I mean, 100% sounds like you're just moving forward. It's just you're going to do it. And that just is not resonating. I think the owner and the defendant I'll have our duty corporation council. I think it's a part of that acquisition of the land. We have to go through it. It's a process. I don I understand. Yeah, and we understand that we respect highly the concerns and like I said, we met our staff met. Like we've been here three and a half years or years almost and it's through the work that we have done with the community as a home. We had quarterly meeting, monthly meeting sometimes with the communities. We drive up there and we talk to community and what they like to see and what they like to do. And we give them option, we do presentation, we do graphics so everybody comes on board of what we're trying to achieve and we're going to continue that. So until we finish the construction and get these people better system environmentally, it's for the benefit of the community. We're not working in a vacuum. I guarantee you that we've been having meetings after meetings after meetings with the community. So what you're saying is you cannot, even with all these quarterly meetings and monthly meetings, you cannot move forward. You have to do them, not domain domain which means all discussions are done. The, because you're going to move and get it. The, I'm going to do main is to get position of the land for the waste treatment plan. So we could start designing, doing layouts to see what layout they like or don't like. With that, be able to do that, it's only talk, and we lose in time because we only got four years within the 10 years to complete construction. If the question is that land is never gonna be a location for waste treatment plan, that's a different discussion than having the land and work with the community. So if the question is that land, not to be looked at as a potential, it's we too late in the game because they did look at different locations and that's the location based on the current soil condition best fed for the treatment. Okay, so I'm going to hang my hat on your saying it's too late in the game. So having said that, I'd like to have Mr. Fox for just a couple questions and I'm done chair. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Fox, if you could come forward, these council member events have some questions being that you are with the Olegock Iterale Association who currently owns that property. So I know members of your trail association, you have a lot of qualified, a lot of people with a lot of knowledge there. So having said that, is there a way forward? Like, obviously they want to move towards eminent domain, but how could you have a comfort level? This is the parcel that late in the game, the soil's right, they've made the decision, this is the right location, the right soil. The question I have for you is there a way to move forward with this parcel that yeah, protect what you want to protect? Is there a way forward? Yeah, I definitely think so and and that's what we want is more opportunity for us to work together in partnership with the since this design change we need to readress how this is going to impact those resource values. And I'm really glad that you asked these questions Cindy, because I think Mahu Kona is a property that just recently got preserved in your district. Am I incorrect? So you got funding from a lot of different sources. You too, I think through Hilt or whoever applied, had to identify the resource values at the land conservation agreement was protecting. It doesn't matter if there's a house site and oh it's not the best house site, you know, we don't really need to protect it. Whatever HILTS or your office put in that grant application as a resource value, it needs to get protected. And together we're going to have to come to the BLNR with a solution on how this treatment plan can move forward without impacting those resource values. When we first went to BLNR to exclude this area from the conservation easement, the BLNR did not just come right out and say, oh, yeah, this is great. They wanted a lot of reassurances that we are going to work closely together to protect everything that the state paid for. Because really, their interest is protecting the monies that the state put into it for everybody in Hawaii, not just our county. It's a resource that's protected for the people of Hawaii. I definitely think that we can work together. We just haven't had a time to sit down where I'm getting a lot of pushback and then this condemnation resolution really was a surprise. We got the right of entry agreement from Mark two days before this was introduced. Passed to you, Holika, for introduction. I wasn't enough time for me to review it. They actually had a right of entry agreement back in 2020 that expired in 2022. They sent out archaeologists, surveyors. They did everything they needed to move forward with the constructed wetland design. This is a different design. That's why they are asking for a new right of entry agreement to come back in and do their testing. And I will look it over and work with them so they can get access. But we have to have this open dialogue. We have to be able to trust each other in order to make this work. And if I don't have that from the director, I'm not sure how we're going to get this passed by BLNR. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the consular agents in this. Are you all for the discussion at this point. Councilmember, kindly. Thank you. Just our department. The purpose of the eminent domain at this point. What is the purpose? The purpose is to get position of the land does not constitute not continue communications. Two different things. I do respect the comment I was made with Mr. Fox, and we're gonna continue. This is the whole idea about cooperation with the design. Has, that's one route. The other route is you have to have the land to be able to put the waste treatment plan on it. So we have, right if entry does not give us the right to build on the property. We have to have the property as it was agreed on 2019 so we could be able to build the facility. We're going to have contractors, we're going to have engineers, we're going to have construction. But all that is to get the position of the land so we could start planning and doing the design plan. That doesn't take away. And I assure you. And him and I talked about it. It doesn't take away the continuing communication of commenting on the design plan. Sorry. So, we have the agreement that you submitted as exhibit A, which was made between the Alakah and the Trail Association aka the ATA, as well as the county, 2019. Looks like granting use of 28.7 acres for a wastewater treatment facility. Yes, that's correct. Okay, that's done, agreed to. Well, that's why we're here today because we need to get that 20 point acre. We need to get to go through this process through the court system to be able to get granted that 28 acre. Mr. Fox wanted to keep that 28 acre, even though the county paid for it. So, and our hand are tied because I cannot get a consultant on the side, I cannot start drawing the plans. So we need to get position of that 28 acre as agreed on in 2019. And the rest is just communication and cooperation. So the idea is you're right, we need to get that granted 28 acres under the county ownership. So if the 28 acres wasn't provided to the county then what use was exhibit A? It's, that's the legal description. Are you about you're referring to the describing the 28 acres. I may start off at the top disagreement regarding the Nalai who waste water treatment plan. The agreement is made this 16th day of December 2019 between Allah Qqqai Trail Association and the County of Hawaii. It clearly shows ATA is this fee-simple owner of the entire parcel, which is 2,300 acres plus or minus. And then it shows that the county has identified 28.7 acres as a potential location. I mean, it keeps going and going and going. And this to me clearly shows that we've kind of settled on this idea, but now we're coming in with the eminent domain request via this resolution. And is that the problem? Is that we're asking for a minute to make a property that hasn't been discussed with the fee simple owner or was this agreement the binding document that set this install? Maybe, Diana. I couldn't answer that. Better from a legal point of view. The way I understand it and is the 28 acres still part of the 2,317 acres is still fee symbol under ATA. Okay. So for us as a county to take position of that 28 acre we have to go through the eminent domain of process. So it could transfer to the county if we're though the okay, Ms. Allen, great. Okay, so deputy corporation council Diana Melon, Lacey. So there's this was a punk purchase and it was between with the county and the legacy land providing the funds and the it has a conservation easement on it the property. So the 28.739 acres that was identified by the county as the possible site or probable site for the wastewater treatment plant What's the conservation easement is not on that land? That's what you know why it can still be considered by us because once a conservation easement is not on that land. That's what you know why it can still be considered by us because once a conservation easement is on land you know that's permanent. So the county was asked to make inter-into this agreement with Al-Qaqai trails by the state and that's because in the event that we take this property, they wanted an imminent domain proceeding to ensure that legacy land gets the money back, that the county will pay for the 28.739 acres. And just to be clear, a resolution doesn't create an imminent domain because that's a legal action that has to be filed in court. It just, you know, you cannot file the action without the resolution passing. And I think the concern that the director has is that we're under a time constraint, you know, with the AOC and EPA and we want to keep being able to provide evidence that things are moving forward. I believe that by the schedule they submitted their behind on their design because I haven't been able to get on, you know, on the property and at least be able to show the EPA that this has been brought before this body, which is required by our state law before imminent domain proceeding can be filed, shows good intent on the part of the county that we're trying to continue to move forward. The other issue that Council of the Evans raised as far as an agreement, the agreement that was crafted with ATA in number four states that the parties acknowledge the importance of the conservation easement, preserving natural and cultural resources of the Y Capuna property, agreed to make good faith efforts to adhere to the spirit of the conservation easement over the surrounding Y Capuna property. Should the county develop the Naule who wastewater treatment plant on wastewater treatment plant location and intend that they will openly and transparently communicate with each other about conditions and actions on the Y Capuna property and the wastewater treatment plant location that may impact the conservation of the natural and cultural resources protected under the conservation easement. So I believe that the county has agreed to that. And of course, the counties vested in this property, they also have an oversight as the grantee to make sure that the conservation easement is properly maintained. So I don't think the county is schizophrenic or trying to be here. We have duties on both sides and it's my understanding that Mr. Grant has been making considerable effort to work with ATA. But we are under this time constraint with EPA and the fines could be considerable if we are not making proper progress. When was the Arakaha Kaya Chair Association notified of the eminent domain resolution? I don't have that information. I'm sorry. I said Mr. Fox, a email, I think probably a week or two weeks prior to, and when we met on the site, yeah, when I met Mr. Fox. Are we here to work today? Yeah. And then when we met on the site, the discussion was, I understood his concern. I mean, it domain is strong language. And we talked about it. We've been using friendly condemnation. And we talked about it. I mean, look at it as a frindy condemnation because that's what we did with the other sites through the different property that we went after as it was friendly condemnation where you get the two parties, get together. So, Hem and I, we talked about it in the field, which I think probably a month ago when we met at the field with the idea, because I know he's show objection about using the word condemnation. It was strong, but you know, it's that's what they use when they do omitted domain. So friendly condemnation, if it's bit award. Oh, sorry real quick Mr. Reconnaissance the Eclanelfelder. I just want to make sure this conversation was forward. So if a question's asked and we just answer the question. I want us to move through this conversation I'm is melon just just briefly summarize eminent domain proceedings Well the imminent domain very high level like so so so okay, so the imminent domain proceeding is it requires a resolution from the county council. And then the petition is filed with the court which has to demonstrate that the land is being taken for a public purpose. It also ultimately has to be supported by a appraisal that would demonstrate that the county is going to pay fair market value for the property. And then the court would make a determination as to yes, this is or no, this isn't a public purpose. And also, you know, hear from any concerns that the landowner may have. And then if the court decides that that is a public purpose, then usually the only remaining issue is, well, I guess there could be two. One is that the amount of property being taken is what the county really needs. It cannot take more than what it needs to do the project. So the county would have to demonstrate what it really needs. And I believe that's another reason they'd need those design information to determine that because it could be less than that 28 acres. And then also that the amount being offered is fair market value, is fair compensation. And then has it appraisal been done? No, the appraisal has not been done. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah, they as the director reminded me, the appraisal would have to be able to get on the property. Right. And at this point we don't have an agreement for that. Okay. Thank you. How you all turn? Thank you. Council member V, I guess. Yeah. A couple of questions were answered, but I have a few more. So the change of the actual wastewater treatment plan is what triggered the need for a new right of entry. That was something that was said, I'm just trying to find the spaces where there seems to be malalignment and understanding and it sounded like there was an agreement for a certain kind of wastewater treatment facility, but that changed. Fianna Melon-Lacey, Deputy Corporation Council, there was under the previous administration a contract with a different contractor and there were design plans that were developed. I don't know how much formal approval there was of the design plans but there was development of them. And the previous contractor wanted to go on the property to do certain studies and so a write of entry I worked with Mr. Fox on getting something that was amenable to both parties and that contractor went on the property for the specific purpose of some design plans and field testing, I believe. And that was for a couple of year time period, which expired. And that contractor is not the one that's, that the county is working with now. In addition to that, I just want to make sure it's clear. Right if entry, when a few years back when they were asking because they were trying to explore the option, right? With that side and different side. Right now the option has been determined. This is the site that the county need. The best site that fit the waste treatment plan, given on the data that the prior administration and the consultant have done. So without we need to have position of the land to be able to construct the waste treatment plan because it's going to be county facility. Yeah, I get all that. So yes, so thank you. I get all that sort of. Yes, so thank you. I get that too. So it sounded like from what Mr. Fox said. I understand the desire and the need for the urgency to move forward with things. And it sounded like what Mr. Fox was asking for was a postponement from today to provide. I don't know if it's two weeks, if it's a month, for more collaborative work between you guys, not an indefinite postponement, but just a shorter period of time that would allow for some final details. I mean, that's what I'm hearing here today. So to me, that sounds, I understand what you're saying on this process. I also hear from Mr. Fox the desire for there to be continued. You want to know how much money this property ends up being worth and no okay so sorry for miscommunication there but that's what you're explaining the process of eminent domain and then it goes to the court and it gets appraised and then there's a certain amount of money that the county needs to pay in order to basically take ownership of this property even if it is through imminent domain. The state, which is what all of this says needs to happen. But if I'm understanding correctly that that is the ask of the testifiers here today and actually your partners in this project. You know I was sitting here on council with you know one of my long-time mentors, Miley David, when this all came to fruition. So with the hopes of not tainting what is otherwise really been a smooth and moving forward program project and parcel. Is that something that you're open to for today? Is a postponement for and I would kind of ask that to you. What's that amount of time? Is it? Yeah, thank you. It's a great question. And I think really it goes back to the first intent. If Mr. Fox doesn't want to have waste treatment at all, even the agreement say granted 28 acre, it's different discussion, then let's talk about how the design look like. If the discussion about how the design is going to look like, we haven't even got to the property to be able to survey If the discussion about how the design is going to look like, we haven't even got to the property to be able to survey it, do aerial and do layout, and because we cannot get into the property, and the most expedient way to do it is to be able to get a, go through the process, get get the minute to remain. So we can start the design and the negotiation of what design, how do you want us to model? And I firmly, I recognize that. I guess what's striking me today with a number of the different things that are coming between us, Council, is some of the dichotomy and the differences between what seems the reasonable and most expeditious way to do something from a colonial government mindset and the responsibility we have to the lineal descendants and the cultural practitioners who thankfully have been allowed again and provided the opportunity to steward these lands. So for myself I would love to see the opportunity for the best case scenario from what I've heard and he's spoken on the record so you can hold him and me accountable for that is that the intention of coming and testifying an opposition today is asking for a postponement and a pause to then be able to move forward. He's shaking his head, yes, as are the other people. If two weeks is adequate for him and us to figure out what the ask is, I would love to do that. There was no objection as the concern is, if Mr. Fox intention is not to put the waste tree on the pine there and find other location. That's not something you can do, right? Because this is something we can do. Something we can do. Something we can do. I just want to make sure on record. Got you on the record. But if he's, he won two more weeks just to talk about what he would like to see, I would love to do that. I met him on the site and we walked it and he said I want fins here. I said we give you a fins and we hired a consultant to do our ecological survey, historical preservation survey. So we hired all these kids. Gotcha. You're following through. I get it. You're following through. And you are, you've got a fire lit under your ukuleh to get this project's got to be moving, because literally our ukuleys are toxifying. And just to let you know, I think going through the MND is six to a year process. Gotcha. Just that way itself. Gotcha. Just that way itself. Gotcha. So I'm not sure what chair I'm going to really wish but I just I'm hoping. So just to kind of chime in what kind of postponement we're looking at. So from my implementation standpoint design perspective. So if we're able to work with Mr. Fox, say we get a right of entry within two weeks. Our consulting will be able to go out to the field to their surveys. Probably take them about two to three weeks, about a month, and then what I'll see is about maybe a month of developing a site plan to kind of present to Mr. Fox. And that might be some back and forth, right? Because again, it's again, our archaeological inventory survey study reflects no further work is required based on their determination. Now I can understand there's significant value greater than what a determination on alaqaït trials part, right? So to be mindful, again, what's reasonable and feasible solution to accommodate these concerns and Alakae trails broader goals. So that back and forward, I can see thinking about another month. So you're looking about a two to three month postponement for this push. Now this, we all got to be aware that month that we push out poses us closer to the AOC deadline date. So it's likely we got to most likely have to go to EPA and request for our time extension on that AOC. There's no guarantee such extension will be granted. So we put the county at risk for that, the reason of the push. But thank you for pointing that out. I think the reward outweighs the risk on that and I think we do have special circumstances being that we are. So I firmly understand but I guess I'm willing to, you know, I'll talk to them if I have to, not that they'd listen to me. But I get what you're saying. So my question then, and I'm not sure on process here, but if we come up with what the time of creating a lag here, so we can get where we need to get to, so this facility can be built with as much panel movement forward as possible. And so I just, I think it's worth, I think it's worth I think it's worth the investment so that's my thank you council member yes council member Kimball yeah before we potentially consider a motion to postpone I would suggest that since this will require another reading in council given the urgency we pass this through today Give the opportunity for further discussion when we come back on November 6th or side October 16th If we find that we still need more time we can hold it there, but I think we just continued the forward movement today. Councilmember Kagi, want to- Thank you just a quick follow up. I'm wondering if Mr. Fox, if I can ask you a question. Because I noticed that you seem to be nodding along and shaking your head at certain things there's that. So I just want to clarification. Yes. If we're able to postpone, are you willing to work with the team here so that they can get onto site? Because I think that's one of the things I keep hearing is that they felt like they haven't been able to get on the site. Yes. We are a willing landowner. I just want to confirm that. OK. So I mean, that's what I keep hearing is that you really want to get on the site so that you can start visualizing and planning and all that stuff and I Also hear from you that this imminent domain thing maybe seems a little like aggressive and scary and like maybe just like slow down a little So I'm just wondering can we do both those things like slow down But also get you on the site at the same time so that you guys both feel a little more comfortable going forward. Yeah it's the condemnation hanging over my head is not something I'm comfortable with. I mean I love wake up when it dearly. It's also important to note that the state has a deed restriction they're gonna have to bring in the state as a defendant. That's the way I see this. I mean, originally, the plan was that we go back to B. L. and R together, sell this idea to them that the resource values are going to be protected. And then if they have to do a condemnation, they do a condemnation, or we just sell it. It's all, you know, that was all these are. I understand, but what I kept hearing, I heard multiple times the director saying that the reason they felt like they had to go this way was because they weren't able to get onto the site to start planning or at least seeing where they are at. So I feel like that's a big sticking point that there could maybe be some collaboration around. And director, you can let me know if that's wrong. If I was mishearing that or anything. But thank you, Mr. Fox. I appreciate your responses and I'm willing to miss. Thank you. Director, is that correct? What I heard is that one of the main reasons you felt you had to push this kind of quickly is because you haven't been able to get on the site. Right. That's one of the main reason. The other main reason is the imminent domain process takes a long time. Takes a year just to have the courts say. And if that's the only process for us to get positioned, we need to start yesterday. I understand that. But but your understanding that what we're hearing here is this kind of aggressive stance, or least what was perceived to be an aggressive stance is kind of like making them like whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. And so it seems like if we can get you on the site and get you to start being able to do the things you need to do at the same time giving a little bit of break on this, that might get us further along together. Does that seem if they both could work together because it seemed like there's no My understanding from legal. There's no way around not going through that minute Okay, if we're gonna call it a friendly condemnation. I agree with council member Kimball go through it We continue working with mr. Fox and we see where that's going to take us. But there's two things. One is the route of M&M domain, which has no other junction or exit to it. We have to go through that process. It doesn't matter if we do it two months from now or do it now. We have to go through it. Let's do it now. And we continue working to other route to make sure that we, if we need to get into different agreement, or if the language in the current agreement is not adequate, we could work it. But that's a different way. I'm willing to vote on passing this today with the hope and of all, that you are going to work with the owner, the fee simple owner, to make him comfortable enough and to you guys get to a place where this doesn't seem like an aggressive move, but the way that the path forward for the whole project. So I think, you know, that that seems to me to be some work on your part is to just really spend that time to make sure that there's a comfort level there to go forward. I agree, tell a person. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, I think I have a question. Director, was there an attempt to sign a new entry agreement before this started? The right of entry agreement, yes. Mark then. Yes, the intent was to get a right of entry agreement to sign in place. The timeframe of it, we met with Mr. Fox out in the field August 22nd. We talked about the previous red eventry that was executed about just re-utilizing it, just swapping the few words update the dates, sending back to him for review and approval, that sent back to him around September 10th. So a couple of weeks I followed up with that draft for the right of entry. And I think from that point, he got notified about the bill or the resolution being posted. So, and I think that is not point on how can you put out an agreement request in two weeks later, bring this resolution before the council for eminent domain? No. So, to answer your question, I want to point out that on previous imminent domain requests, we've requested kind of like detailed maps. And I'm hoping, I don't know how we're going to proceed with this. But if we can, can you just share us what's going on in exhibit B map? Because it's a little difficult, you know, we're not all from this area and wanting to make sure we are oriented and understanding this map correctly. Okay, so exhibit B, so if you look to the right hand, um, to that inset plan, that, that's the overall large parcel, um, that's owned by Alcaycho, that's 2000 plus acres. Um, that stretches, you know, close almost near Mamalo highway down to the coastline. Um, and then to the left, the inset A, um, you would see the exclusion area of the 28.7, 739 acres that's been excluded out of the conservation easement for the purpose of the Wastelard Truman Plant usage on that. Okay. So, and was this reviewed by the Environmental Management Commission? Recently or when it was purchased? Remember we came into 2021 so this has been in progress since 2017 the agreement was written 2019. A lot of work has been done. So we just carry an over what was left from the prior administration and the prior design to be able to meet the AOC. So it's not like it just started. This has been in progress for the last four or five years. That's prior to us. I asked if they reviewed this, this resolution and this imminent domain proceeding that you folks are trying to initiate. No, they have not reviewed. So with that, I guess this type of resolution has pointed out by the clerk does require two readings at full council unlike normal resolutions Where it's just a committee and a council and I have not heard a motion to postpone Although I believe the intent of the body is to postpone When we get to the next Point and I'm hoping by the time we get to council there would have been discussion that we can report on At least for the entry agreement. So with that, please get that done. We have a motion to forward resolution 633-24 to council with the favorable recommendation. All those in favor? Any opposed? No. Any opposed? No. So, Consum member of the Agus and I voting no, everyone else voting yes. With an excused Consum member, Perkowitz and recuse, oh, by Consum member, Galimba. Okay. Tell me how we make sure that is five eyes. Okay. The nose. Two nose, Council Member V.A.G.S. and I, an excused, reaccusal for Council Member Galymba and an absent Council Member Kirkwoods. Okay, I've got it. Five in favor, Chair and Ms. V.A.G Villegas opposed. Ms. Kirkwood's absent. Ms. Galymbic excuse for voting. Thank you. Thank you. We look forward to the update from you folks and a couple weeks. Thank you. Last communication. Please. Be on our way to the next committee shortly for those who are waiting. You can enter the test mode if you're communication 934. Hearing none, communication 934, information of an adult committee for the county of ViVi grants from legislative approvals and activities committee chair, like a Gorillina by data July 2024. The adult committee would evaluate and review the 2024-1025 application process. Discussed to provide recommendations for improvements to the 2025-2025 application process. Discussed to provide recommendations for improvements to the 2025-2026 application process. Develop a scoring rubric for the 2025-2026 application process and make recommendations on this six month progress reporting view process. This matter is postponed July 23, 2024, and is a motion of the floor of Miss Liloie. Second, I misquemaged a close filing communication in 934. of Miss Liloie. Second, I'm Miss Kimlet of Close Fire Communication 934. We have Cunication 934.1. From the Legislative of Proof of the Actuositions Chair of Haleca Goroi, nominated September 12, 2024. Transmitted request to report that, how committee's findings recommendations. And communication 934.2. From the Legislative of Proof of the Actuositions Chair or you now have dated September 12, 2024, transmitting draft documents regarding the upcoming by-way nonprofit grant cycle. You don't we love these. He's ad hoc committee reports. All right, Council member Liloie. Yeah, and I'll make it brief because, you know, the recommendation can be found in communication 934.2, but just to highlight, the group really focused on what we could do better on our side of the counter. We heard a lot from applicants about the confusion about the application, how we could provide more clarity around the application in even training videos. So the first recommendation really is to streamline the application process along with the budget sheet because it seems like a lot of The timing, all of that, but we really landed in a space that that six-month report is valuable, and now that we have a dedicated staff to that, it helps with the compliance piece of the entire Vi-by-Grand application. However, you know, still more clarity around that process and how we can streamline that six-month progress report. And then, finally, was the scoring group. you know, the group really focused a lot on how to score. We recognized that we as council members could use a lot of help with how we score and you know, you know, defying good fear for and a lot of times emotion goes into that, but at the end of the day, the deficient applications would be receiving a score, even if it's zero, zero. That way when we complete the entire vibe by grant process, we can look back at all of the applications, recognize that we did our part on communicating information, giving them all the tools to either self-resolve or get help to filling it out and providing very clear language on what is required of them. Open to any questions or even other members who sat on the subcommittee or permitted interaction group. but I just want to comment. I started this in 2016 and here I am putting it down eight years later. And this program has transformed for the better. We were definitely just giving away pennies when we could have been more focused with priority funding and I think that's where we are as an entire council but as an entire program. So really thank you to all my colleagues but also a big big Mahalo to Council member Inaba who really you know really pushed hard for us to reform this program and it's something I know personally we can all be very, very proud of. Thank you, Chair Ebbens. Thank you, Council Member Ditoie. Council Member Evans. Thank you. Chair, I'm sorry, Council Member, Chair, before you proceed, this is a presentation of that, a committee's report. There's no deliberation. There's no discussion. That's right. So it's, this is the second of two meetings. So after this report is presented, that will committee dissolves and then there'll be a subsequent meeting where the committee or council can take actions on its findings. Thank you for the reminder, Mr. Clark. So with that, that's kind of where the group landed. If you have anything to add, council member Kaguata is a member of the permitted interaction group. Thanks. I just wanted to add that I think two of the sticking points that we really worked hard on and are still working hard on, but are really important to the public is the issue around public purpose and really being very clear. Everybody on the same page of what that is, and also trying to be as clear as possible about things we can, you know, kind of on the flip side of that, things we cannot fund because I think it's something that has hung people up with their applications in the past and, you know, I think we all feel bad when that happens and want to be very, to clarify as much as possible. So I was just really happy that the group came together to really spend a lot of time on that. And I do want to thank everybody on the team and Council Member Leigh Lloyd for starting this off with so much passion and keeping with it and for Council Member Inaba for taking up the helm and stepping up. Yeah. So thank you all. I think it was a good experience. And I do think it's much improved and we'll keep going Thank you. Thank you. Don's a number of you want us so with that We As opposed to the recommendations that are not you provided where you would take further action on voter's recommendations I'm not sure you're going to proceed with your findings You could probably just vote to close file at this point and not postpone it again and then figure out what you're going to do as far as a group and taking action at a later time. So you could vote to close file at this point and if you wanted to bring it back for further discussion, you could bring it back again with a new communication. Perfect. With that, we will, if there are any questions or concerns regarding the draft documents that are shared in this communication, there might be a little bit more refinement that's to happen. And I want to give a special mahalo to Jessica about the special assistant to council chair who's here and she has put together all of these documents and is working actively to prepare the application and work with finance to get it up on their website for opening on November 30th. If there's any questions please come see me or Jessica and then we can have those conversations but those draft documents are what we're looking to kind of base our next grant on cycle on. So thank you, everyone. Council member Evans. Point of order, just for clarification reasons. So if there is some other things that we'd like to see considered, that would have to be, because the Sunshine Law, we probably need to bring it back for discussion at the council. The sassaver out. Okay all right thank you. All right thank you with that there is a motion to close while on communication 934 and subsequent communications. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries with. 8Is, one excuse, council member Kirkowitz. Thank you all. This meeting is adjourned at 320 and we'll begin the policy committee on health safety and well-being in a few moments.