Housing and Land Use Committee (2025-2027) - Regular Meeting

Good morning everyone. Will the Housing Land Use Committee meeting of July 29th, 2026 please reconvene. It is 9 0 8 a.m. on August 24th, 2026. I'm the chair of this committee, Nohelani Uuhajins. Thank you. Members, in accordance with the Sunshine Law, please identify by name who, if anyone, is in the room, vehicle, workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Committee Vice Chair Kaunoi Bidongan is excused, recused? He's recused, yeah. He's excused. Council Member Tom Cook, good morning.

Good morning and aloha, Chair. I'm in my Kihei office today and my aides are in the other room. I'm looking forward to the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilmember Gabe Johnson. Aloha and good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Councilmembers, community members. There's no testifiers here, or yeah, no testifiers here at the Lanai'i District Office. And I'm alone on my side of the office. And I have an appointment at 1030 today, Chair. I have to go visit the seniors at the Senior Center. So I will be leaving the meeting a little early. Thank you.

Of course. Thank you for sharing. Council Chair Alice Lee. I don't see her on. Maybe she'll be joining us shortly. Councilmember Tamara Paulton, aloha, good morning.

Aloha kakahiaka kakou. Streaming live and direct from the planning conference room.

Thank you. Councilmember Rollins Fernandez, aloha, good morning.

Aloha kakahiaka chair. Happy to be here in person.

Thank you for hosting us at Moloka'i the other day. It was a gorgeous day. It was. Special order weather just for you folks. Thank you. We appreciate it. Councilmember Shane Senanti, aloha and good morning.

Aloha kakai, aloha and good morning, Chair. Here at my home office, here by myself, there are no testifiers and on all of it, there are some heavy rain events happening right now, so we'll keep on monitoring. Hope everybody is safe. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. I hope everybody is safe, safe, safe out there. Um, and Councilmember Yukile Sugimura.

Good morning. I'm in my meeting room and I'm looking forward to a productive meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. From the administration, we have with us Deputy Planning Director Ana Leles, Fire Chief Brad Ventura, Director of Finance Marcy Martin, Land Acquisitions Officer Guy Hironaka, the Director of Water Supply John Stufflebean, Archaeologist Jay Raposa, Hawaiian Language Specialist Keahi Johnson, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Koa Heva Heva, and Deputy Corporation Counsel, Nahulu Nunukawa. We also have with us today the individuals we've designated as resource persons, including from their project and their consultants, from Unukio and Hiragopani Consultants, Mark Alex Roy and Hoku Kruger from AHL Architectural, Garrett Orimoto from AECOM Engineers, Diane Kodama and Jessica Samora from Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. Archaeologist Mike Dega from Calipono Architectural Consulting, Cultural Consultant Gina McGuire from Maile Lani Design, Landscape Architect Vivian Arita. Kaneali Williams is here with us, is also a resource person. We have with us two HOU committee staff. Good morning, everyone. Please see the last page of the agenda for information on meeting connectivity. Members, as a reminder, before us today are Bills 89-2026, Bill 90-2026, and Bill 91-2026 to approve land use entitlements for the proposed Haiku Fire Station project, which will be on about 6.1-acre portion of a 27.9-acre county-owned property identified as tax map key 227-007-008 in Hamakualoa, Hawaii. We've already closed oral testimony on this item and written testimony will continue to be accepted. Before we resume discussion, I'd just like to state for the record that the Board of Ethics has confirmed that I may participate in deliberations and vote on these bills, and therefore I will continue as chair and participate in today's meeting. On August 8th, the committee held an executive meeting before it recessed. At this time, I'd like to ask Deputy Corporation Counsel Nuhulu Nunukawa to provide a brief summary on executive meeting under in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statute section 94-4, 92-4. Afterwards, we can discuss whether another executive meeting is needed, or we can just continue deliberations in open session. So, Mr. Ununakawe, if you could please provide us in summary. Thank you.

Thanks, Chair. Yes, last meeting, we went into executive session to go over some of the legal concerns brought up by the members in testimony. We were in executive session for about 20 minutes before we had to end and then We went back into the regular meeting and ended the meeting before we last quorum.

Thank you. Do you assume we're going to need to go into executive session?

That's up to the members, but I believe last time some members said that they would like additional information in executive session.

Sounds good. Thank you. Members, we can then begin discussion. If you do have any questions for open session, we can have them now, and we'll do that by a show of hands. And if not, we can go into executive session and continue our discussion in there. I think a couple of us wasn't there as well. Member Paulton, do you have a question?

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, for Chief Ventura, since he wasn't here last time. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chief Ventura. Just wanted to know about the possibilities of just purchasing a house similar like how Pukou, I think they did it. Pukou.

Certainly. So the... I don't know how far we want to go back. The... Project area and the East animal okay, as we all know, is very sensitive. There's not a lot of development and there's not a lot of new development out there. And so we were fortunate enough to work with council member Rollins from this office to identify previously disturbed site with a home on it that is going through. I would say an extreme renovation right now to get it up to speed for the station size that it is now, which is one apparatus with currently three personnel and serving that east end of Molokai. Similarly, in Haiku, the property that we bought had homes on it. It was previously disturbed. and so our plan is to build on that particular property the reason the parcel is what some people would consider to be large the six acres is because of the way the water tank has to be elevated to provide for the additional fire suppression requirements and that is that is that pulls that that envelope open in that parcel so that we can get the tank up on a hill to serve the station at a lower elevation. Not to say no other property would work in Haiku, but purchasing a house and remodeling it or rebuilding it or demolitioning it and rebuilding it is what we're doing on a previously disturbed site. I want to also elaborate on site D. It keeps coming up a lot. Site D has a very...

If I could clarify on the other one, the water tank that you're talking about is within the six acres and it's above ground. There's no surface or below ground.

You're correct.

Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Sorry.

Yeah. So that in our current project site of the 6.1 acres, the water tank is on the property and within the six acres and it's above ground. The site D... to meet fire code requirements there we would need to increase the water supply system exponentially similar to what we were going to have to do with a corridor in the previous project we would have to increased a service line that comes down to that state owned parcel. That parcel also does not have water meters and we know the wait list is a whole separate situation to deal with. So getting water meters on that state parcel, I don't have any information on as far as timing goes. The water departments also expressed to us that the water supply, which is the tank serving that Site D isn't large enough to meet the fire code requirement. Therefore, we need to build an additional tank next to the existing tank. But the property is not large enough for that tank is to accommodate a second tank. So we need to buy the parcel next to that tank to expand the water supply for Site D. So Site D does have ton of infrastructural challenges on it, along with testimony received in meeting one on this topic about the Iwikupuna potentially buried on that site. And as Mark Roy kind of mentioned, anytime we move site from here, it is what it is, but it's basically starting the project all over again. So we're not completely against having a parcel with a house that we could completely remodel but the acreage would need to be sizably larger than what we're dealing with on Molokai and the water supply out there has always been a challenge no matter what site we've looked at.

Thank you.

Members I'm doing just a four minute round. Thank you. Do you have a question. Go ahead.

Aloha Chief. Mahalo for being with us this morning. I wanted to follow up on Member Paulton's questions. Okay. So I know that this project was like 17 years going and so it predated you becoming Chief. And this is not your project that you're spearheading, but just a project that was being worked on before you became chief. And I appreciate, you know, you and the department working with our island to meet our needs. As you described, in Mana'e, the east end of Molokai, where, you know, an initial project project was planned was completely undisturbed and there were significant sites and there was opposition and we worked together to find a predisturbed site that had a rundown place on it. And so the need for Molokai was like just finding like a, you know, predisturbed site. If for Ha'iku area, there was like a home that currently has a water meter that was like large enough, like a four bedroom to, you know, fit, I don't know how many bedrooms you need, but if it already had like a number of bedrooms that you, you know, would need so that people, the firefighters on duty would feel comfortable, you know, like it was lived in. So, you know, it's not like, the house in Walapu'e. So I wouldn't need the kind of major renovations that was needed for Molokai and was more like, you know, like Ho'olihua.

I mean, not as small as Ho'olihua's house.

But you know, so for Molokai, like we have three fire stations. One in Kaunakakai is a larger one, which at the time, I think it was built in 2012-ish time, but it was like something like 12, $15 million. But then we have like a hale, you know, in Hoʻolihua that's been the firehouse for decades now. And it's, you know, it's met our needs. And, you know, the place that the Irwin house that, the puku'o firefighters currently are staged in or, you know, are at. It's barely held together. Termites holding hands. And so I'm really excited for them to get a new place. And it'll be, like, a house, but it'll not be termites holding hands or duct tape holding the roof down. And so, like... I I I hear water as a as a need and so understanding you know like what? size pipe or a tank and like having a better understanding of that because i looked on the market and there were you know like houses right on the main highway um so like location wise it seemed like pretty good size wise and acreage wise it looked like it could meet the needs um if i understood them better um and you know like this is what my office did right for two years, we looked for a house that or, you know, like a place that the Pukou could relocate to. And so with already built house, we wouldn't need to do like another like EIS, because there's a house on it already, water, and then like, like Hoʻolehua and Ualapuʻe and Puʻokoʻo, there would be an apparatus shelter built. Well, not Puʻokoʻo, because that was temporary. Damn it, I was talking for 12 minutes. I mean, four minutes.

Sorry, I can't answer your question.

Thank you. Sorry.

I would say... If I have my choice on how we're building fire stations these days, we're going to build a modern fire station. We're not going to – we're settling in Hualapui. We're settling for that. We would not choose that if that was our option. It's kind of why I say picture our latest fire station, 2012, Kanaka Kai, 2003, Wailea. now picture the size and space you need to build something that's hurricane resistant, right? Like right now, if we have major flooding where we're at right now in Hualapui, everybody's going to Kalanickakai because they're not safe where they're at. We don't want to rebuild that way moving forward, right? So everything we're doing moving forward is modern fire stations. They require certain things like hot, warm and cold zones so that we don't take contaminants into our bedrooms. And with a house, that's just not built that way um when you talk about facilities and the demand most houses are in the 100 to 200 amp service i think olowalo we're asking right off the bat for like a 300 amp service just because of growth and possibility same thing we're doing in haiku we're actually having to work with one lecture to upgrade the electricity to the site Because that's the demand of a new modern fire station. The Haiku fire station is built for the future. It's not built for what we need today. And like I said, I really feel that I wanted to do better for East End Molokai, but we had to, we were stuck. We were stuck in a situation where we had to settle on what we did. And it's better than what we have today, but it's not what I would have built had you allowed me, not you, but have we been allowed to build my modern fire station for East and Walakai. There was a lot more you were talking about in there that I'd like to share on. But think of something that's, you know, going to be a possible shelter that needs to withstand a hurricane so that if the public needs to, like in Lahaina, they came to the stations to charge phones in the immediate days after because we had generators. All those sorts of things you generally don't get in a house setting. Similar to Walapuwe, we're not putting in a permanent generator. They're going to have portable generators. You're looking at a commercial facility versus a residential facility. You're looking at something that's hardened versus not hardened. You're looking at something that is going to be able to grow in the future as the community grows. Haiku Fire Station is designed currently. It's two apparatus wide, two apparatus deep, so that in the future, if we need to, we can put up to four apparatus there, something we couldn't do in Hualapui. Although the Property for Haiku Fire Station is six acres. And like I mentioned, the envelope is large because of the water tank being added on. And we have a warehouse storage in the back there. When you look at Hualehua Fire Station, we could easily use another half acre there or an acre. In Hualapu'e, we had to ask Department of Hawaiian Homelands for additional easement to make our property larger, which we have a lifetime easement there, as long as the fire station's on that property. So the... Every place is different. Wailuku, busting at the seams. Paia, busting at the seams. We don't want that for future fire stations. When Kahului Fire Station was built in 1990 and surrounded by three cane fields, everybody's like, what are you doing? Now it's maxed out. So we need to think 30, 40 years ahead. So hope that clarifies some of the needs.

Mahalo, Chief.

Can I follow up real quick on one of the questions in the beginning of her question was, is the water meter size? So typically a house is like five meets and maybe you may have a larger water meter, but that's a standard two bedroom or three bedroom two bath house. What's the water meter size required in this proposed fire station and your typical proposed fire stations?

So the water department helps us kind of guide us along. It's a, from what I understand, it's a fixture count calculation. And in Haiku, we are able to receive two five-eighths meters that will service the property. And then a third meter, which was discussed in the last meeting, is a fire line. It's a separate meter. It's only for firefighting purposes. If we use it, it comes with a different rate. It's only put into places. We have them in several of our fire stations, but it's not something that has to come off a wait list. It's something that we can request for fire suppression. thank you the two five-eighths meters will be enough to take care of the building and the second five-eighths meter we've been required to put a landscaping plan together and irrigation per code which is going to steal some of the water from that other second five-eighths meter So we had to reduce some of the spigots that we have on the property to meet the code, which 158 meter covers the station and 158 meters going to cover the landscaping and the spigots in the yard space.

Okay, thank you. For the for the six acres.

correct yeah that's what's coming right down to six acres and the to give you kind of a comparison like as we move forward and we build in the future and learning from these sorts of things like we've asked for an one inch water meter in oluala just let's just get it right the first time right instead of having to band-aid things together or request to grow in the future so on those types of places we just ask for adequate you know

How big was that one?

I think the Ola Wala one was a one-inch meter, if I remember right.

Okay. Thank you. Members, does anybody else have any questions for open session? Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chief, for joining us today. The way I'm seeing this right now, we're kind of at a crossroads here where we would choose to either go back to the drawing board Find pre-existing structures or a commercial or a home or some pre-existing place that you could buy and build up. And I hear what you're saying. And then the third one is just this building on this parcel of land. So I guess my question for you, Chief, is how does the communities influence your decision on which path you choose to take? You can see the signs in the back. We've heard hours and hours of testimony. Does that affect your decision moving forward, Chief?

So that's a great question. And I think the best way to answer it is I'm happy to answer questions on the what we need in the fire department and what we need to best serve the community and that's what we've done here as far as ownership of the property that's not my responsibility to determine and as council member rollins fernandez said i inherited this project and this project was this project was purchased in 2007 it was ready for construction and about to be built in 2000 and about 11. And then in 2018, Council Member Molina came back to us and said, the community wants it. The site is fine. Let's go. But let's do another site assessment, which we did. And then we circled back. So there's been two assessments on this for site selection on this project. And so in 2019, that second site selection project circled back to the same property. And yeah, that's where I'll leave it.

Yeah, I, you know, I think for me, it's tough to, I mean, we all need, you know, safety and we all need you guys to do your job and, you know, we want to help you. But at the cost, you know, what's the cost of it? And I don't mean just the financial. I mean, look at the community, right? I mean, there's something, I think, that puts a weight on the scale for me. And I'm out of questions. I don't want to get into discussions. But I wanted to hear from you, Chief, what you feel like at this crossroads and how you feel about it. So thank you.

i can add to that too if you're asking me what i think the community feels about this project they want it they want it yesterday there's more people that want this done and i share with them public testimony is a way to be heard and come to amen local style is not to come and do this so um a lot of the people that are for it are you know just quietly waiting for it to be built

You know, I might push back a little bit on the locals style that morning because I mean, there's locals in the background. They're obviously expressing. I just don't think it's as black and white as that. So there's nuance. There's there's cloudy titles involved. There's the history involved of all of the things that brought us to this point. And I'm done with my questions. So thank you, Chief, for responding. Thank you, Chair.

Of course. Does anybody else have any other questions before we resume executive session? Go ahead, Member Alice Fernandez. Sure, go ahead. Okay.

Mahalo, Chair. Okay. I wanted to dovetail a little bit off of what Member Johnson was saying, Chief Ventura. So for, I'll go back to Mana'e, Buko'o, Walapu, project under Victorino, the Victorino administration. And of course, when posed with the question, should we have a fire station built behind Kilohana School, which is an undisturbed area that has cultural significance, or no fire station? Being given those options, Of course, people are going to choose the construction of having a fire station, regardless of where it's being built. And then when it looked like that was going to be the site, for those that understand the cultural significance of that area, that's when folks started to come out and express their opposition. there were still people who believe that if we don't build the station there, there will be no fire station because the Pukou Fire Station at the Irwin House is going to collapse. And so, you know, faced with those options, you know, of course, they're like, the trade-off is worth it. And then it wasn't until my office said, okay, well, let us do the legwork. and we'll find a place that the community can all support. And then that way there's a third choice and everyone can get behind it and it doesn't have to have this controversy around it. And so when you describe to Member Johnson about how the community is just like 100% on board or there's a lot of support and there's a lot of history and you know, it makes me wonder if those same people would still support it if they understood that there were claims to title to that parcel. Because I don't think anyone wants to take away land from, you know, Kanaka or extinguish rights that, you know, that should not be extinguished. And I know you wouldn't want to either in your personal capacity. And so... if they were given a third choice the way that Molokai was, would they choose the third choice instead of extinguishing rights from Kanaka? So I think when you're describing the support behind this fire station, was it that initial proposal of no fire station or fire station in a location that is surrounded by controversy?

That's a good question. I can't speak for all of you.

And then I had a follow up question regarding the so in 2011, the site, you said that the site was that the project was ready to be built. And then in 2018, well, member Molina wasn't a council member till 2019. 2019. Okay. So 2019 Member Molina asked for another site selection study. What happened in this seven year or eight years from 2011 to 2018 if it was ready to be built before Member Molina asked for another site selection survey. Do you know?

I was a captain in Napili. So I won't have all the details, but the project was shut down with some contesting of the project. And so it's kind of where we're maybe beginning to get at again with the Wallapuwe situation. It's like, It's like eventually you're just tired of dealing with it. And maybe the previous administration was just like, just put it to bed. It's done. I don't know. And then when Council Member Molina said, you know, no, the community wants it. Let's get it going again. Then it got going again.

And for the record, I did encourage, you know, Member Molina and the community to do what we did in Molokai back in 2019 so that it they wouldn't be faced with this impossible decision to make that there could be a third option.

I guess my comment to that is the property that county bought in 2007 that I'm being told is Franklair, had houses and was disturbed. What's to say we don't buy one of those places that you're talking about? And it's the same situation again and again and again. So that's all. I just can't predict the future.

Yeah, good point. I guess, like, with the houses I was looking at, they're, like, lived in right now. So I guess, like, because it's not about it being pre-disturbed. I think, like, the way for Molokai, for Haiku, as I understand it, it's about, you know, contested title.

Right. Yeah, that's what we're dealing with today. But these houses that were on this property were lived in. You know what I mean? So what's to say I don't buy something else? We have the same situation again. That's all.

Mahalo, Chief.

Thank you. Members, does anybody else have any questions for open session? I know the last meeting, you folks didn't really have time to get into any consultation with our Corporation Council to discuss anything. the land concerns, as we're just discussing now, and some of the liabilities and potential liabilities. Does anybody else have any open session questions? You good? Everybody good? Member Johnson?

Chair, I don't know how long the executive session is going to go. And I don't have questions for executive session. I have to leave at 1030. Can I go in and then leave at 1030? Or does that jam everything up? Should I just not even come in?

No, you're welcome to come in and leave when you need to. Okay. Yeah, that would work just fine.

Thank you.

As long as it doesn't affect quorum, but well, yeah, that's fine. 10.30 is cool. Okay. Thank you for asking. So I will now entertain a motion to convene an executive meeting. In accordance with section 92-5A4, Hawaii revised statutes to consult with legal counsel on questions and issues pertaining to the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liability of the county, the council, and the committee. Can I get a motion, please? I have a motion made by Member Cook. Do I have a second? I have a second by Member Poulton. Any discussion related to executive session? If not, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye.

Chair, we see six ayes, three excused. Members Patongan, Sugimura, and Lee. Okay.

I think Member Patongan is abstaining.

Okay. For the record, the following personnel will be in executive session meeting. All council members and attendants, including myself, Committee Chair Nohut'u'uhajins, Councilmember Tom Cook, Councilmember Gabe Johnson, Councilmember Poulton, Councilmember Rollins-Fernandez, Councilmember Senensi, and Member Sugimura is not here. Office of Council Services staff will be Megan Moniz, Legislative Attorney, and Jennifer Yamashita, Committee Secretary. We have Nuhulu Nunekawa with us, and we have somebody else, you said?

Two more attorneys, Nancy Zhao and Catherine Hall. Okay, and they're both... Deputy Corporation Councils.

Okay, great. And so at this time, we're going to take a five-minute recess. It is 9.41, yeah?

So, remember, Sugimura is not allowed in, or she is not... She's not here.

She's not allowed in. Well, she's... I think the rule is, if you're not here when we vote, right, then you can't, and so... She's not coming. I guess not.

Okay. Go ahead. I just wanted to clarify with staff, perhaps. Sure, go ahead. So member Batongan recused himself because he worked on this project in a previous life. So staff keeps saying that excuse is sufficient. My understanding is if someone recuses themselves, then they should be recused for the record and not excused.

And Member Sugimura is here now. So I'll mention, Member Sugimura, we just voted that we're going into executive session. You're here now, so I'll list you as being present for executive session. Thank you. And then can you please answer Member Rollins-Fernandez's question?

What is the rule?

Yeah. Okay. I would say to be safe. Let's re-vote so that it's clear. And for purposes of Member Rollins-Fernandez's question, the rules don't really address that, Chair. And we were just clarifying for purposes of the vote that Member Batangan is excused. Okay. Mahalo. Thank you.

And when you say rules, council rules or? Yes.

Okay. I think that the kind of the fallback is generally from staff's perspective, only a member themselves can confirm whether or not they're abstaining. So with Council Member Batonga not here for the vote, you know, even though he indicated that he's abstaining because he's not here to say that again when the vote occurs, we consider him excused.

Okay. So if they're not, if a council member is not here themselves to say that they're recusing themselves or abstaining, then we say excused. Okay. Correct.

Thank you. Okay. That sounds good. Mahalo. Okay. And then we're going to do a vote again. I'm not going to do a first and second because that was made by Member Cook and second by Member Paulton, which are still in the room with us. So do we have to do a reconsideration?

Let's just vote as if.

voting to go into executive session okay i can use the same motion okay correct okay all those in favor to go into executive session please raise your hand and say aye aye chair there are seven eyes no no's to excuse members but tangan and me do i need to read the list again uh yes to include council members you know how much i love reading For the record, the following personnel will be attending this executive session meeting. All council members in attendance, including myself, Committee Chair Nohe Uhajans, Council Member Tom Cook, Council Member Gabe Johnson, Council Member Poulton, Council Member Keonee Rollins-Fernandez, Council Member Shane Sinensi, and Council Member Yuki Lea Sugimura. Council Services staff include Megan Moniz, Legislative Attorney, and Jennifer Yamashita, Committee Secretary. And from Corporation Council, we have three Deputy Corporation Council. One is Nahulu Nunukawa. The second is Nancy Zhao. The third is Megan, what was her last name?

No, Catherine Hall.

Catherine Hall. And it is now 9.45. We're going to take a five-minute recess to reconvene at 9.50, an executive session. Welcome back to HOU. It is 10.49 a.m. We have just completed our executive meeting on HOU 17, and we're going to do, I'm going to ask Ms. Moniz to provide a summary in accordance with Hawaii revised statute section 92-4. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Chair your committee met to consult with the body's attorney under H.R. section 92-5 on the council's powers duties and privileges, immunities and liabilities. And now we're back in open session. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, does anybody have anything to add at this moment? Right now, we do have one member down. Member Paulton has a meeting soon. So I would like to take an early lunch to reconvene at the chambers at 1.30. But does anybody else have anything to add before we go? Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. I... Saw that Mr. Williams, our resource person, did submit new information. If I could ask if he could come to the podium and the podium would need a mic and just to just explain what additional information that you submitted to the committee that's different than what you had previously submitted to us. Sounds good. Mahalo, Chair. Mahalo, Mr. Williams.

Aloha. I'm Kanye Lee Williams. So I submitted an additional written testimony that is on Granicus now, and it concerns whether or not this body has actual jurisdiction to continue any actions at all. So last meeting, the department, I recall, Member Ukulele asked the Department of Planning about their position on what I had shared as far as title issues and whatnot. And in summary, the planning department said that HRS section 46-4 which is county zoning would allow you folks to rezone properties regardless of ownership. That's what the position was. So I looked into that HRS and so it does not empower a county municipality of the state of Hawaii to exercise zoning actions that are not lawfully within the jurisdiction of the respective county. And so, for example, the County of Maui cannot go into the County of Hawaii or the City and County of Honolulu or the County of Kauai and rezone properties. It doesn't allow you to do that. And likewise, it does not allow you to go outside of the United States of America and rezone properties that are outside of the United States of America. As we had established last meeting through all the documents I provided to you folks about Cuyahoga and evidenced for you folks that entirely comprised private property and did not comprise public government or crown lands as required by the Newlands Resolution in order for it to transfer over to the United States. It's not part of the United States of America, right? And so trying to exercise jurisdiction outside of the United States of America, you cannot do lawfully under international law. um that's one facet of it the other facet of it is because there is the title issue and you folks i'm pretty sure you discussed that and looked at those documents i'm hoping um because there isn't clear title that's also a reason why you don't have jurisdiction on that property so it's two two parts um that's in the written testimony the hrs is provided for you folks um additionally so The County of Maui Mayor's Office as well as the Maui Police Department have been placed on notice about the land dispute. And because of that, because it is a civil matter, it's beyond the jurisdiction of MPD. Again, it's a jurisdiction issue that's coming up. Following the last meeting, Maui Now published a report on August 12th titled, Haiku Fire Station Project Stalls as Maui County Council Panel Wrestles with Land Title Dispute. That's also linked in the testimony as well as in Exhibit B. I'm trying not to read everything because I think you folks should understand by now. The county from top to bottom is on notice that there's a land dispute. any attempts by the county of Maui to circumvent this policy by staging false criminal matters such as HRS 710-1010, which is obstruction of government operations, or HRS 70-814, which is criminal trespass in the second degree, to justify unconstitutional searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and to pursue criminal prosecutions will prove to be unsuccessful tactics by the county of Maui, especially considering the inalienable Native tenant rights of Kuiaha is private property rights that are attached to the subject property as provided in prior written testimonies and considering prior attempts by the County of Maui to pursue criminal prosecutions against Kanaka Maoli or Native Hawaiians like myself at Ukumehaume Maui who were exercising traditional and customary practices on property claimed to be owned by the County of Maui while an active land dispute was occurring. I share that because this County unlawfully arrested me before for being a Kanaka on property that the County purchased, and I want to make sure we emphasize the word purchased versus owned. Those are two different things. And claiming to own a property is one thing, but actually owning the property is another. And so that arrest did result in an attempt by the county to criminally prosecute me, and it was not successful. What ended up happening is that the court dismissed it with prejudice. And I share also in the exhibits the case summary report as well as the court rulings paperwork so you folks can see exactly how Maui Police Department in particular frames these kinds of issues against kanaka that are on lands that are rightfully ours to be on, practicing our culture and traditional coastal practices, our native tenant rights, unlawfully arresting us, putting us through months and months and months of criminal prosecution only to drop the charges because there was never a legal basis to have arrested us in the first place. I'm telling you this now because if the county proceeds doing that further, that's what the result is going to be, is wasting county resources, taxed by payer dollars trying to prosecute Kanaka when the law will show that we cannot criminally prosecute us because of our rights. This written testimony serves as official notice to the County of Maui to cease and desist from further action concerning the lands described in TMK 227007-008 If the County of Maui proceeds with rezoning the subject property, deploys Maui Police Department, employs or deploys private security such as A. John, who I saw gathered out front or in the back of this building earlier this morning as I was walking in, or facilitates any further actions on the subject property, the County of Maui would be at fault for unlawfully occupying a private property that is neither within the jurisdiction of the United States of America due to the relevant historical context of Cuyaha and the Newlands Resolution, nor under the lawful ownership of the County of Maui due to the absence of clear title. As a result, the County of Maui and all involved representatives would be at fault for committing war crimes in violation of international law. Please refer to the memorandum written by Dr. Alfred M. Zayas, Professor of Law, Geneva School of the Diplomacy, United Nations Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, May 12th. May 2012 through April 2008, dated December 14, 2018, with subject heading, quote, the application of international law in the context of the Hawaiian Islands, end quote. As I've shared previously, if the County of Maui continues pushing forward despite the cease and desist notice, be advised that I do not have an issue filing for injunctive relief in the necessary venues, which again, an injunction would result in delays in the project. I highly suggest for the county to do what makes sense, look for a different option that is faster, that does not have controversy, that will not burden taxpayers of the county of Maui through unnecessary lawsuits.

Thank you. Does that answer your question?

Mahalo, Mr. Williams. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you. Member Sugimura, you have your hand up. Member Sugimura, do you have a question? Can you hear me? Member Sugimura, yep, go ahead. Oh, oh, she can't hear us.

Member Senanti, can you hear us? Yeah. Then it's a Member Sugimura problem.

Member Sugimura, you might need to up your volume or something. Member Cook can hear us. Okay. Okay. One second. Okay. I'm texting her, I think it's her computer. Okay, does anybody else have any more questions before I take a recess to reconvene at the chambers at 1.30? Okay, can you hear me now?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I was just saying we're going to take a recess soon to reconvene in the chambers for in-person at 1.30.

Oh, cool.

Go ahead.

Chair, I just want to clarify, by chambers you mean the council chambers on the 8th floor?

Yes. No, I'm going to read the whole vibes. I just wanted to give everybody a heads up before I do. I think it's because you couldn't hear.

We can...

I can repeat it.

Member Sigimar, did you hear my question to Mr. Williams and his response to my question? His new testimony is on Granicus.

Okay, I'll read it. Okay. No, I didn't. Thanks. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay.

No worries. Anybody else have any questions? Double checking online. Okay. If that's the case, we're going to take a recess and reconvene at 1.30 in the Council Chambers, Kalano'o Maui Building, 8th Floor, 200 South High Street, Wailuku, Hawaii. The online meeting will remain the same. Yes? Okay. Any final thoughts before I adjourn? I'm sorry. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. Recess. My bad. I know. 1.30, Council Chambers. See you folks then. 8th Floor. Thank you.

Same Teams link, yeah, I almost said Zoom too, that's okay.

All right, it is 11 o'clock and we are now in recess. Good afternoon, everyone. Will the HOU committee please reconvene? It is 1.44 p.m. and we are back in the chambers. Yay, I apologize for the slight delay. I was having technical issues, but we are back. We left off in discussion, so let's continue with discussion. If anybody has any questions for any of our resources, we have a whole bunch. I would prefer not to read them off again, but please let me know if you have any questions. Member Palten, I know, sorry, not to call you out, but I know you had a couple questions about what we may do with the rest of the IGLAND. On the parcel, did you want to ask Deputy Director Heva Heva, who was on earlier, is he still on? Oh, never mind. Okay, we can always send questions in writing if you would like. Member Rollins-Fernandez, please go ahead.

I did speak to him offline. Oh, okay. Before the last meeting.

Oh, okay, okay, okay. Sounds good, thank you. Go ahead, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. Okay, so... I know we came out of executive session in the planning conference room. Did staff repeat anything that should have been said in open session? I guess that would be that way. That was discussed in closed session that should have been open session discussion.

Thank you, Chair. I believe there was items, and I'm not sure if Deputy Nunokawa wanted to go over some of those things.

I think the only one that I remember being specifically things to go over in open session was the question from Member Cook, and I can't remember exactly what it was. what the question was, but I believe that it was caught at the time and said that.

It was his concern about Cuyahoga as a whole and all the residents.

That's right.

Living on stolen lands or, I mean, you can ask it.

That's correct. It was about the kind of overarching impact to the area. Yeah, and I think that that I'm not sure exactly The question posed would you like to ask a question related to that number cook basically the question is um It's it's related to this particular issue as far as the fire department location because during the testimony it was stated the the ownership or management access rights for all of Cuyaha, and I believe I asked if that consists of both west and east Cuyaha, that area, and then how does that affect the people who have been living there for a long time, and how does that impact their ownership and their use?

Thanks for the question. I think that it is hard to determine on such a large scale other than it would be dependent on whatever their title report said. And if there was an issue, it would probably be something that the court would be the proper forum for determining.

I guess that's the issue is if it's the title reports or if it supersedes title reports, because that's what's basically being presented, I believe.

And that's another question that is hard to really answer. answer, I think, directly to what you're asking. It is sort of dependent on whatever the court says, which would then educate us on how to move forward. Currently, we have sort of the precedent that's been given to us. that's based off of sort of what title reports tell us, et cetera.

That's all my questions, Chair, thank you.

Thank you. Does anybody else have any other questions? No? Member Palten, you look like you were just about to say something.

I did ask in the executive session what of the information could be shared in open session and obviously no information from executive session could be shared in open session but it was stated that I could refer to the title report Schedule A and exhibit one that if the lands, land patent grant number 6553 to Florence Wood would have been any portion of LCA or RP upon us to Nalopi, Kapihe, or Armstrong. It would have been listed in Schedule A or Exhibit 1, which it is not. And I guess, you know, was said that that was okay to say in open session. So I'm not violating executive session.

Yes. Did you have anything else to add? Um,

Not at this time.

Okay, thank you.

Member Hernández-Fernández. I have a question for Member Poulton. There's a on granicus item 16 and it has four points and then a statement at the bottom.

Yeah, that was when I had assumed that based on testimony and resources that RP 383, which is Lima Ikaiko or Richard Armstrong, that this title report, yeah, my assumption was that this title report came down from that one, and then, not saying that what we heard in executive session, but in looking at the title report, it says that, or it doesn't say that it was any portion of Land Commission Award or Royal Patent to, or APANA to Nalopi, Kapihe, or Lima Ikaika. So this correspondence was before That was what I was told. I was at that point thinking that it was somehow part of RP 383. I spoke with Ms. Hall separately and I didn't believe necessarily all the things. and then I looked around and not saying I'm any kind of great scholar or Googler, but I found some records saying that there were government lands in Cuyaha during the Mahele era and that government lands didn't have like meets and bounds because there were Crown lands, Konohiki lands, Kuleana lands, land grants, rural package, rural grants, whatever, and all of those meets and bounds were supposed to be recorded, and then government land was everything else from what I was able to learn, which I think was just barely scratching the surface. And so, I think the only thing I learned from hours and hours and hours of reading and talking to people and Googling and is that it's very interesting. And if the computer was at this stage when I was in high school, I might have took a whole different track in my career. But yeah, basically, I don't feel confident enough to know all the nuances. Mr. Williams said it is very nuanced, very complicated. In doing some of the research I did, I think our ali'i, I wish they would have had more control over the process because part of what I had read was another Pawella parcel that Catherine Lee owned. When she liquidated that parcel, she sold it to a Hui, a land Hui of like 33 native Hawaiians because the land that she sold When the land commission tried to quiet Taito and say like, oh, this one belongs only to you and this one belongs only to you, that wasn't how the system at that time worked, where when you create Lo'ikalo or Loko'ia, thousands of people to do it. And so if you only have a one acre or a five acre and it's only you, it's not how the system in the 1850s or pre-contact worked where it often wasn't enough land to sustain and it wasn't working where only one household can work the land to sustain themselves with food. But I mean, I don't know if that's to the point or besides the point, but it's all very interesting. And knowing that the Waitoli did sell her land interest to a native Hawaiian land hui gave me a little bit of a better impression of her. And I think what she made her money on for the popular science investment was a Kauai sugar interest that paid dividends or something. So yeah, I mean, When I looked into it in younger, the computer wasn't, or the internet, or the resources, or the archives weren't to the level they are now. You can just Google stuff, and obviously you gotta take Google with a grain of salt, or chat GPT, or whatever, but different questions can lead you down different rabbit holes, and I feel like I learned more than I intended to, which not necessarily a bad thing. but with all the other reading for the South Maui Community Plan, I had to rein myself in a little. Shoot, I hope that answered your question.

Member Rollins-Fernandez, you have other questions, or was just that one? Member Palten does have a hard out at four, yeah, okay.

Maybe for Fire Chief Ventura. Not sure.

Do you mind joining us at the podium? Thank you.

And then I'll just repeat the question as you're.

Oh yeah, or you can sit.

I mean, if no one else has questions for me, doesn't need to, but.

No, that's okay.

I don't know if during the recess you were able to ask anyone that may have additional information on what happened in the eight years between 2011 when the project was ready to be built and 2019 when Member Molina asked for a second site selection survey.

No, I was not, I did not, wasn't asked that. I had other meetings between now and then, so I did not get the follow-up. Yeah.

Okay, mahalo. And I guess for Mr. Kanialii, shucks, trying to find that. You submitted a map to the committee, if you wouldn't mind explaining that.

Yeah, okay. There's two maps. I guess one of them I can direct anyone from staff to pull up, because the one I submitted via my informational documents last time, it's not as close up. But if you go onto the DAGS website, Department of

You know which date, that one? We have testimony from August 24 from you.

It would be the 10th, informational documents.

Okay, that would be Granicus item 19.

But the better view of the maps, if you go onto the DAGS website, for the map search, there'll be a list of boxes for different map entries, and in the registered map, if you put the number 956, and then click on the NCAPS color, so it's a better view of that one visually, and then once you get there, let me know, and then I can guide you folks better.

Is it exhibit K-1 and K-2 and K-3?

It's not listed in exhibits for my written testimony. It's in the informational document, so that wasn't part of the written, so there's no exhibit number for that.

Is it under Papakilo?

No, no, it's DAGS, Department of Accounting General Services.

And then go to the GIS section? This one?

No, not that one. It would be on the DAGS map. If you go on Google, anybody, I don't know.

Oh, you don't want us to, you didn't submit a hard copy of it. You want us to pull up the website.

Yes, I submitted a hard copy, but the hard copy you cannot zoom in. Oh, okay. And I'm trying to get you folks to be able to visually see.

Is it this one?

No.

No, he wants us to go to the website. Okay.

So I don't know the staff people, but the DAGS maps, if you go on Google, type in DAGS map search, there should be a website that pops up.

Mr. Williams, we're on the survey map search. I see multiple boxes. Which box should it go into?

The one that says registered, in that box, if you put in the numbers 956, and then there should be several maps under that number. If you choose the one that says NCAPS color at the end, it should be a brown map.

Okay, it's pulling up now.

We have a little time to load too. Okay, so that map is 1879 map and the title is Hawaiian Government Survey. If you zoom in on the left side generally towards Kuiaha, Are you able to zoom? OK, just making sure. I don't want to go too fast. And then you can see where is, right? Chair, we see the two Cuyahas.

That would be the Cuyaha on the right-hand side.

Yes, it'll be the right one. That's the East Cuyaha. And so the red lines are the boundaries of the Ahupuaas, of each Ahupua. The red lines are the boundaries of the royal patents that were awarded for those Ahupua. So as far as the East and West Cuyaha, West Cuyaha was awarded number 217 to William Lee. East Cuyaha was 383 to Richard Armstrong. If you see in East Cuyaha, there is not just the red boundary markings, but there's also, it should say Grant 383, and there's an R, and then also a little, looks like a crunch on the map, because that's the Armstrong part. So that map shows that the entire Ahupua'a of East Cuyaha was under Royal Patent 383. The parcel that you folks are wanting to build on is landlocked inside of those boundaries. So as far as the title report and title insurance policy saying that there's no Royal Patent 383 for your folks claim does not mean that the parcel is not under Royal Patent 383. This is a map, this is a historic map registered with the state of Hawaii. This is a Hawaiian kingdom government survey map from 1879. I don't know if you folks can see the red writing where it says grant 383 and then the R. If folks can see that clearly. If I can get confirmation. Can I, am I able to move this thing over here closer to me? Yeah, just so I can see it clearly and I can say move right, move left, move up, move down, and so on. Yeah. Okay, yes. So if you look on the eyes, the two eyes you can see, right, they have the left eye and the right eye. under the right eye, in red, written it says Grant 383, and then there's an R. And that's within the boundaries of , which is his royal patent. And so from that point, if you, that's okay. This is all, yeah, that's why I'm going very slow, because this website's kind of, yeah. And then from that point, if you scroll upward just slowly, a little bit further, right about right there. Now you see where that U is on the top left? That's like a little half U. If you look below that, there's like a little line or it looks like a road. There it says RT or something like that. That spot right there is the TMK for this proposed site. That place is in East Cuyaha, is inside Royal Patent 383 to Richard Armstrong. So again, going back to the title report conversation, how is it that a title report company or title insurance company, which who historically, trace title only so far in order to dispossess Kanaka from our lands, why is that giving precedent or superiority over the actual historical document showing the Royal Patent 383 on a map? That's the first point. There's also a second map that I provided in the informational documents, and it's a map titled, I think, Kamakualoa Haiku Pawella, and it's a county map, County Maui. It was created by the East Maui Water Board Authority, and I'm not sure if you can pull that up on the correct website link, but I can give you a summary of what it looks like. It takes a version of that map I just showed you folks, overlays it on a modern bird's eye view of Hamakua Law, so you can visually see the grasses and everything, houses, whatnot. And again, the parcel for the proposed site, is in East Cuyaha, the labeling of RP 383 to Richard Armstrong is there, it's in Royal Patent 383. There's interest of Royal Patent 383 to that parcel that exists. The only thing is that the county does not have a claim to that interest. And that is what your title report and title insurance policies are telling you. It's not saying, in the absence of putting 383, that it doesn't exist. It's saying in the absence of 383 on the report, the county does not have a claim to that title. Otherwise they would have put it in the title report.

Thank you. Member Rollins-Fernandez, did you have anything else you needed him to clarify for you? I know that your bell rang, but it looks like you may be the only person who still has questions.

Mahalo, Chair. No, I was just trying to look for that overlay map that he was referencing.

It should be here.

Do you know what date it was? This is... Was it on the 10th, too?

Yes, it should be on the 10th.

They're saying yes.

It should, let me try to see if I can pull the.

Chair, that's number 14 on Granicus. I think the map he's referring to is the 11th page in that PDF.

It's also, if you go on the East Maui Water Authority Resources Library, you folks should have access to that website, because it's a county website. And then once you get to that website, I can direct you further. It should have a list of different links on there.

19 on Granicus. Oh, 19, not 14. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. 19, not 14, page 11? Yep.

And it would be on that website. It's under Maps of Streams, Ditches, and Irrigation Infrastructure of Maui County. And there's a map labeled Hamakualoa, Haiku, and Pawella Map PDF.

This is a different map?

Yes, it's a county version.

Okay. And that one is on a submittal or not a submittal?

It's on a submittal with the informational documents for 8-10 from me, but I'm trying to have you folks bring it up on the screen, because again, same thing, the zooming part is.

Easier on this end.

Yes, and you can visually see that I'm not bluffing. It would be the.

East Maui Water Authority?

East Maui Water Authority Resources Library. Okay, and then from there, if you scroll down to the second section, it says map of streams, ditches, and irrigation infrastructure of Maui County. And then underneath there, Hamakualoa, Haiku, and Pawella map.

That's the interactive map that you want pulled up?

I believe so.

Or the Hamakua Ha'iku Pawele map. There we go. Yeah, that's the one. Okay.

So you can see that this map looks the same as the other one except it has green and a lot more modern view stuff on it. So if you scroll to the same location in East Quiaja as the prior map, Yeah, right. Now from there, if you scroll down, sorry, it's kind of awkward.

It's between the Cuy I and the A.

Right there. If you see under the I, on the right side, right? Right there it says Grant 383 R Armstrong. And if you scroll up, you can see by the U generally where the proposed site is within those boundaries of RP 383. Yeah, below the U, it was right there, that's fine. If you see underneath the U, that's the area. So again, now this is a county of Maui map that acknowledges Royal Patent 383. So the title report, how you may interpret it, then title report and title insurance policy is how you're gonna interpret it. But the reality is Kingdom Maps, County of Maui Maps, both acknowledge that there is a Royal Patent 383 for the entire Ahupua'a. And it does not make sense whatsoever that a landlocked parcel, and I mean landlocked as in like if you were to divvy up the parcels, right? the landlocked parcel in the Ahupua'a that belonged to under this Royal Patent 383 magically is not part of Royal Patent 383. That makes zero sense. I don't know how I can make that any more clear, but I think it's important to also mention that I understand from the BFED committee meetings when the Johnson and Myall Ohana were here, and there was consideration by the county to purchase property that their Ohana had claims to, and purchase it from the Mormon Church. There were members from here, such as, for example, I recall Chair Owsley, Member Owsley, being very adamant about supporting the Ohana And I remember Member Ugule following suit with that. And so during those meetings is also when the county started to share about this policy that the county has, that if it acquires properties that are owned by others, it's the county's policy to hand the land back over. And that was either through a court ruling or clear title. So considering those things on top of everything else I've shared, one thing that needs to be asked is why is it in this situation, it doesn't seem there's consistency with supporting the ohana, which is right before you right now. I'm the representative for my ohana. The policy, the laws, the case law, all is in the favor of my ohana. And when I talk about the potential of lawsuits and whatnot, I'm not talking about it as, maybe I should say it this way. I approach it in a way of aloha. I approach it in a way of being nice. I approach it in a way where when I say I don't want to get involved in a lawsuit, it's not because I'm scared of doing that. It's because I have an understanding of the ramifications for this county based off of the evidence, based off of the facts, based off of the admissions the county has made, based off of the case laws, based off of the policies. I'm trying to be nice about it to save the county. from really losing a lot of money investing into something that the evidence is not in support of the county. It does not make sense to me to burden taxpayers because again, your title insurance policy does not cover the claims that exist prior to the land patent grant. It will not cover that. So the burden then is on who? The county, ultimately the taxpayers. It's about fiscal responsibility. It's about making better decisions for the betterment of the county. I'm not sure how else I can explain that more clearly for you folks.

Thank you. Member Rollins-Fernandez, you have anything else to ask or are you good?

Mahalo, Mr. Williams. Thank you. Mahalo.

Oh, Member Palten, go ahead.

You know, when you speak of the ramifications, like for me, I would like you to win because the ramifications would, for me, go beyond the county. You know what I'm saying? because I feel like that's the revolution that we need. I guess I had one clarification, and I'm not saying that you don't know who your tutu is, but for our lawsuit, could you get a lineal descendant declaration from Maui Lanai Island Burial Council?

I am not sure what their process is for So the Shifty documents I have, there's two. Actually, there's several because there's also emails. Maybe folks aren't understanding the difference as far as Shifty is concerned, administrative rules, the difference between a lineal descendant and a cultural descendant as far as Shifty. because that's one set of definitions, and that's different from the cultural outside of that context. So in Shipti, a lineal descendant, as far as burials are concerned, is somebody who can prove their genealogy to that person that's buried, and they know who that person that's buried. That is the lineal descent, as far as Shipti, for burials. The cultural descendancy is, I can prove my genealogy to this person, that's not the burial, this person who resided in the ahupuaʻa, and because they resided in the Ahupua'a to culturally to those barrels that is in that same Ahupua'a. And so with that understanding of the difference between lineal descendancy and cultural descendancy as far as shifty and barrels are concerned, The Shifty documents I've provided, the first one is a letter from Shifty for their recommendation for cultural descendancy. If the exact language off the top of my head, I cannot recall, but if I was going to try my best to quote it or paraphrase it, it acknowledges a genealogical connection to Nalopi has been verified to the satisfaction of Shifty. So that piece is my lineal descent to Nalopi. and the rest of the language refers to how that was verified is because of birth records, death records, and an LCA, because Nalopi had his LCA in East Cuyaha. So that genealogy has been verified by SHPTI.

So it's just the skeletal remains, we don't know if that skeletal remains is Nalopi and that's why it's a cultural descendancy.

I cannot say that the skeleton remains, and this is in a different area. I'm not gonna disclose exactly where it is because now we're getting to triangulation things and, again, trying to protect our burials and other burials in our Ahupuaʻa. I have the records of those burials, and the reason I was able to get descendancy to that burials is because my genealogy to Nalopi, who had his LCA in the same Ahupuaʻa. That's why, and that's all that it was necessary for. And then after I went through burial council and they voted unanimously to support the recommendation of Shifty, Shifty then provided another letter describing that they unanimously voted on my descendancy.

Could they give you a letter that says that you are a lineal descendant of Nalopi or genealogical descendant is enough?

the genealogical connection to Nalopi, that language in the shifty letter is enough. Because you cannot apply to a descendancy to a burial without showing proof of genealogy to somebody. And so the shifty document that shows that, the genealogical connection to Nalopi, it's a direct line. Otherwise, I wouldn't have gotten any shifty documents whatsoever. They wouldn't have made a recommendation to send to burial council for them to vote on and whatnot. So regardless of lineal descendancy or cultural descendancy, the genealogy to Nalopi has been verified by SHPTI and voted on by Illinois IBC. And there's also additional emails from SHPTI to not just Tanya Lee Gregg, who's been working on a report for the Hamakula Cultural Preserve, because she had to also consult with me as a recognized descendant. Shifty directed that. There's also emails from Shifty to Department of OEB, as well as Janet Six, about them having to consult because of my recognized descendancy to East Cuyaha.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Member Cook, you have questions?

Thank you, Mr. Williams. Besides the fire station and the impact with the county, how does this work with the rest of East Cuyaha and the people who live there and some of them have been over 100 years? And I'm just sharing with you, I'm super impressed with everything you've done. I mean that, very, very impressed. The thoroughness, the integrity, the intent, intelligence, everything. I want you to know that. I'm just, where does this go? Because that's a much bigger issue than the fire station property.

I'm trying to, I wanna make sure I say this in a way that is graceful and not just word vomit. In having been on Mike Ohana's Kuleana lands, I have been constantly harassed. Many times. For example, I believe it was in April, was it April 28th of 2025, I believe, Maui Police Department officers, knowing that there was a civil matter happening, two MPD officers and five workers from Mahi Pono decided to come to my Ohana's gate and were harassing me and my mother, who was a disabled veteran. So there's seven people against two of us. That's just one example of one of the most recent. Prior to that, there was many, many, many of that. When I consider people who reside in the Ahupua'a, I would hope that they would respect us Kuleana Ohanas and that they wouldn't harass us. and try to push us off of our lands. Not all of them are doing that, but there have been. Have I attempted to push other people off of those lands? No. I've just wanted to be left alone, as many of us Kanaka would love to do, is just be left alone on our lands, right? I mentioned last meeting about those families that they should sue the government, in my opinion, and the banks and the whole real estate industrial complex for the scheme of selling lands that they potentially don't have clear title to. That is a settler colonial scheme. The title reports is a good example. Again, going back to the jurisdiction questions, it does not make sense for the county of Maui to require those families to be paying property taxes, one, on properties that they may not own, and two, in an area where the county does not necessarily have actual jurisdiction. To me, it makes more sense for those families not to participate in the system, and to participate in the system of us Kanaka that understand how the land titles work, what our rights are to the and to live under our laws and way of life. There's a lot of possibilities that is inclusive, can be inclusive, but again, generally speaking, the trend has been to try and dispossess us of our lands It's on those folks to be pono with us. Because it's our rights that are locked into there.

Thank you very much for your answer and your, thank you.

Thank you, Member Cook. Does anybody else have any other questions? Either for this resource or anybody else? Thank you very much for being with us for the last few weeks. If we don't have any more questions, I will then move on to recommendation. Unless you folks have any questions, I want to make sure. Okay. All right, seeing none. Members, I will first entertain a motion to recommend passage on first reading of Bill 89-2026, the District Boundary Amendment Bill, incorporating any non-substantive revisions. Do I have a motion and a second? A motion made by Member Sugimura. Do I have a second? Second by Member Cook. Okay, I do have an ASF which was passed out earlier today and I will soon entertain a motion to recommend the ASF. It does incorporate under Exhibit C the following conditions required under Section 205.3.5 Hawaii Revived Statutes. There shall be a prohibition on any action that would interfere or restrain farming operations adjacent to the petition area provided the farming operations are conducted in a manner consistent with generally accepted agriculture and management practices on adjacent or contiguous lands in the Ag District. B. There shall be a notification to all prospective developers or purchasers of land or interest in land in the petition area and subsequent notification to leases or tenants of land that farming operations and practices on adjacent or contiguous land in the Ag District are protected under Chapter 165 Hawaii Revised Statutes and the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. and that the notice shall be included on any disclosures required for the sale or transfer of real property or any interest in real property and to incorporating other revisions for consistency including a reference to Exhibit D for the associated unilateral agreement. Also as a part of my motion, I will entertain the amendment to the main motion to recommend the unilateral agreement be recorded by the Bureau of Conveyances or Land Court of the State of Hawaii. Can I please have a motion? I have a motion by Member Cook. Do I have a second? I have a second by Member Pauldin. Okay, now, discussion. And we're gonna do just a quick discussion on the ASF, if you don't mind, and then we can go into the main motion and then have discussion there. So this one is a housekeeping amendment to incorporate conditions required under section, or H.R. Section 205 . period five for district boundary amendments for land contiguous or adjacent land. So this is a housekeeping requirement. Do you have any discussion on the ASF?

I kinda wanted to make an amendment, but if it doesn't work with this, I can wait till this passes and make my own amendment.

Okay, sounds good. How about let's do this one and then we can go for yours and as it's related to? It's a little bit related.

Okay. How about I say it and then you say if it's not an amendment to this and its own amendment.

Okay, how about you say it and then I can have him say whether or not it's related to this. Yeah, did I say it? I'll point it at you.

Or I say it? I'll say it. Yeah, you say it. Okay. um so i guess for discussion my amendment to your amendment would say something along the lines of um department of oev resources maui county department of ag and the fire department will work together on a pilot subsistence farming on that property along with the community and native tenants.

I don't think it necessarily needs to be its own, but it might be cleaner to have it separated. These two conditions are the Right to Farm Act conditions, just for discussion purposes, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be separate.

And what, no straw poll? Or we can straw poll, because we're in open session, or no? or what do members preference? Make the motion. Chair Lisa, make the motion. Okay, I move to amend the amendment to include a condition that the Maui County Department of Ag, the Department of OEV Resources, and the Fire Department will work together with the communities and native tenants to do subsistence farming on the remaining acreage.

Nahulu?

Yeah, I just wanted to point out, staff mentioned to me that we're currently on the DBA and this might be cleaner as a condition of zoning.

Oh, all of it or just mine one? Just your one. Oh, okay. So I'll hold that motion and cut pace later.

Okay, okay, we'll hold that motion. Okay, then we will, Stick with the first one, the First Amendment. Member Rollins-Fernandez. Mahalo, Chair.

Okay, so these two conditions are conditions of the DBA. And why would Member Poulton's condition not be appropriate for the DBA?

Not necessarily not appropriate, but cleaner as a condition of zoning. which also is, this is being decided on the condition of zoning as well. But I was told that the DBA is moving forward and then the change in zoning separately. Is that correct, James?

The change in zoning is Bill 91. This one is the DBA Bill 89. The next one is Community Plan Amendment Bill 90.

so you want me to hold that amendment to Bill 91?

I have no preference, it's their recommendation.

It would be cleaner there, but I think that it's still within your authority if you decide to move forward as a condition of the district boundary amendment.

It just... Could it be all three or both DBA and CIZ or DBA, CIZ, CPA alphabet soup?

Potentially, but it's... usually better in these conditions to have it in one place that way if it wants if there needs to be a change it can be addressed in that one place rather than all of them requiring separate changes you can make it a condition in zoning but these amendments are in the DBA now

Wait, what amendments?

These conditions in the DBA on exhibit C, there's two of them in the ASF, referenced in section two. And if they're gonna be here, then why would the other one not be here?

I think the feeling is because those conditions are related to state requirements, HRS requirements for right to farming. And so it makes sense for it to be in DBA conditions since it relates to state jurisdiction. types of conditions that Council Member Paulton is talking about is more related to county authority, and so it might be cleaner to place it in the condition of zoning rather than the conditions of DBA.

Let me interrupt you folks real quick. James just asked for a five-minute recess so we can figure out where is best to maybe put this recommendation.

Okay, and then I'm going to ask a last question before we recess. Yep. Wouldn't it be better for it to be consistent across the board in all documents? Okay, and then we can recess.

Perfect, yeah, can you folks discuss where it should go and if it should go in all of them? Okay, we're gonna take a fiver. We'll come back at 2.41. Thank you members for that quick recess. It is 2.52 and we have decided on our plan of action. And Member Poulton is going to add her amendment in Bill 89 and Bill 91. Member Poulton, would you like to state your amendment to the amendment for the record, please?

Sure, I move to amend the amendment to include that the agricultural, the portion of the land that remains in agriculture will be worked on as a joint project with Department of OEV Resources, Maui County Department of Agriculture, and the Maui Fire Department, along with the community and native tenants for subsistence farming. And, I guess I'll save the discussion until I get a second.

You, okay. Member Palten, does Member Palten have a second? Second by Member Rollins-Fernandez.

I have a second with Monau. Okay.

Me first or you?

Okay, so you don't have it in writing. What was the last part you said? Okay, you said farming. Subsistence farming. How about subsistence agriculture?

Subsistence, I'm okay with that.

And when you say community, like anybody community?

Okay, so the way I'm envisioning it is to hopefully be a pilot program because the county claims ownership of a lot of ag lands, you know, and so my hope is that we use our ag lands for subsistence. agriculture, because food is getting so expensive, and it doesn't need to just be plant food. I'm favorable to chickens and pigs and whatnot. but recognizing native tenants have a higher right than community. It's not my intention to be exclusive. I'd rather be inclusive, and so I'm kind of leaving it open to Department of OEB, Maui County Department of Ag, the fire department, the community, the native tenants, to work it out how this pilot program can be successful and the hope is that it would be so successful that we could replicate it in other ag lands under county stewardship. So that's I guess my discussion and answer.

Member Fernandez, did you have anything to add to that discussion?

I'm going to support this motion which is included in this motion or is a separate vote?

It's included in my amendment with the Right to Farm Act.

Okay, because we made a separate motion.

Oh, we did. It's an amendment to the amendment. Yeah, so it would be a separate vote then.

Yeah, it'll be the separate vote. Procedurally, that was the question. And then I did have one more question about the amendment that I... but I plan to vote in support of this amendment and your amendment, because that's part of the law, and this amendment as a form of harm reduction, if there's enough, if the majority of the council members vote to pass all the bills before us. Hopefully the thought I had just a second ago comes back soon. Mahalo chair.

If not, we're gonna discuss it again in Bill 91, if we get that far. Okay, so now we're gonna do a vote on the amendment to the amendment, but I saw Member Johnson's hand was up.

Thank you, Chair. Similar in vain that I will support these amendments, but so far as what I've seen, I won't be supporting the main motion as amended. Thank you, Chair.

Sounds good. Thank you for letting me know. So I will just do a raise of hand now and a raise of hand next and do a roll call for the main motion as amended. Thank you. Chair Lee.

This is a very complex issue. I hope people don't think that all of us are is an easy decision for all of us. I know Mr. Williams did not at first, I don't know if he's changed his mind, prefer to support the notion of agriculture for the rest of the acreage, but I see this as a compromise and I hope at some point he will understand, thank you.

Thank you, Chair Lee. Any other discussion on the amendment to the amendment? If not, all those in favor of the amendment to the amendment will vote after Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. Maybe if we can just have it read into the record one more time, if you have it written, or was it just from memory? Just so that staff has it, like, paw.

It was that the remaining agricultural lands would be used for subsistence agriculture through a pilot program that would include the partnership of Department of OEV Resources, Maui County Department of Ag, Maui County Department of Fire and Public Safety, Native Tenants, and the community.

Go ahead. I remember what my question was. Is it a may or a must?

It's a must.

Okay. And then I think, I mean, I'm sure staff will kind of like work with the attorneys to get the language like, straight good for the you know condition uh because i think i don't think we would say pilot i know in our mind it's a pilot program but uh i don't i don't know if that would be what the program that we hope to replicate successfully Okay, mahalo Chair, mahalo Member Bolton.

Of course, thank you, thank you very much. Okay, all those in favor of the amendment to the amendment, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, aye. Eight ayes, no nos, one excuse, Vice Chair Patonga.

Thank you very much. Okay, moving backwards to the amendment, which is the right to farm act when the ASF, does anybody else have any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, you have eight ayes, no nos, one excused. Vice Chair Patonga.

Thank you very much. And now we're back to the main motion as amended. And I know people had discussion if they would like to do discussion now. I see Member Sinensi's hand is up. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Just a question for you for process. We'll go through each of the bills.

Yes, sir.

And vote on them separately.

Yep, all the bills.

Okay. Okay, I've heard all the testimony, and I'd like to share this and mahalo to all the testifiers for providing testimony. That said, in lieu of some of the information we heard this morning, I... I can support this bill out of committee. However, I would like to reserve my right to make final decision at Council just in case there's new discovery or if Mr. Williams can get some additional paperwork from SHPTE and some of the other agencies. So that was my discussion, Chair. Thanks.

Thank you very much, Member Senanci. Any other discussion? I'll go Member Palten and Member Rollins-Fernandez. Go ahead, Member Palten.

For my discussion, it's very clear that Mr. Williams is correct that it's not a clear title to the county because of the overthrow in 1893. So any land transfer that occurred after 1893 would not be a clear title because of the occupation of America. However, that continues to occur and occur and occur to the detriment of, I would say, this county because as more time passes on, more and more people that move here accept the narrative that this is a part of the United States rather than an occupied kingdom. And as I said earlier in the discussion, with all my reading, I feel as though it is very complex and nuanced, and that we've just barely scratched the surface of all the information that is relevant to this issue, not just for this parcel, but for the entire Paya Aina. And... to the extent of the information shared with us by Mr. Kaneali'i Williams, perhaps he is the person that we've been waiting for to take it there. I hope that he brings a lawsuit and I hope that he prevails because what is occurring in Cuyaha, what's occurring in West Maui, what's occurring in South Maui, the hours of testimony that we hear from owners, all of it is due to the initial wrong, which was the illegal overthrow. And if this is a way to prove that it's wrong, I'll take it, I'll be on the side of that lawsuit. Because like he said, the ramifications would be revolutionary and with all the things that are occurring and have occurred, that's what we need. And his research abilities and finding of documents, I would hope that other people that are aware the occupation of the illegalities that occurred through the New Lands Resolution, the Organic Act, the Admissions Act, the Supreme Court case on the apology resolution. He's not the criminal, he's the evidence of the original crime. And that's why everything is so difficult. I often explain this job to other people. It's like living with one foot in two worlds. And there's the world that is the truth to me, which is the illegal occupation. And then there's the world that we live in and that's like a reality that people choose to live in, which is, this is America. And any effort that will bring us closer to the truth, I think needs to take place. So for that reason, I will be supportive because I think that choosing not to build the fire station isn't going to give the kind of permanency that a lawsuit win would, it's kind of to me like the injection well case to the Supreme Court, you know, they wanted clarity and they got clarity, like, no, you cannot. And I'm hoping for that same type of clarity here with the lawsuit to shake the foundations of the way things are currently done Thank you.

Thank you, Member Pothin. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. Okay, before I provide my discussion on the main motion as amended, in going through our Q&A, you did distribute this at the beginning, your ASF at the beginning of the meeting, so there was an opportunity to ask questions to our resource personnel about those conditions to the DBA. and CIZ eventually. But for the third condition that Member Paulton proposed, which I supported, we didn't have an opportunity to provide or hear mana'o from our resource personnel. So I wanted to ask Mr. Williams for his mana'o on the proposal that we just voted on for Member Paulton that wasn't in writing. he didn't have an opportunity to see it beforehand, before we voted either.

Okay, I will accommodate that, but if we could make it quick, because Member Palten does have to leave in a little bit. So if you want to come up, sure, and then I'll give you three minutes.

Mahalo, Chair. Of course.

I believe the first amendment as was initially presented only is the word tenant. I do appreciate the explicit use of the words phrase native tenant because that's a very different legal definition with very specific rights attached to it and Member Palten is correct that native tenants have superior rights that are locked in the property. There's no way around that. And I provided those documents last meeting, 1850 documents, resolutions from the kingdom. As far as the whole, I can see how it is a mitigation effort on the part of the county. What I So I appreciate the amendment that Member Paulton is bringing to the amendment. As far as the discussions of it being a compromise, I am not compromising where I stand on the issue of the title of the issues that I presented. So I'm not going to say necessarily I support or don't support because I don't want my words to be twisted to say, oh, Kanye Lee supports everything that's happening. I want to be very clear that I appreciate the due diligence of acknowledging the native tenants. That's what I appreciate. Also, as far as the question earlier about the cultural descendancy shifty documents, I pulled up and I can read the verbiage for you verbatim. I did provide this at the June 5th regular county council meeting in that huge 106 pages. So you folks already have this somewhere. I know that packet also wasn't uploaded to Granicus. So maybe that should have been a long time ago. So the actual language, it says, This is the initial SHPTI recommendation letter. The administrative rules require that the applicant provide evidence of genealogical connections to a native Hawaiian ancestor who once resided and or are buried in the same ahupua'a or district where the unidentified skeletal remains are located or originated from. In this case, the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence connecting him to Nalopi who once resided in the ahupua'a of Hamakualoa in the Hamakualoa District. The SHPTI has verified this information through birth records, death records, as well as an LCA. And just a clarification, when they say of Hamakualoa, it's because for some reason the state maps out that area as Hamakualoa because the LCA is part of Hamakualoa as the Moku. Separately, the letter following the Maui Lanai Island Bear Council's approval of the recommendation, they specifically used . Still the same. I know that we're concerning. So thank you just for that clarification. You guys already have these documents so I I don't think it's necessary to get anything additional from ship T because That's very clear Exhibit a1 and a2 on the June 5th council testimonial is where I I found it

Thank you.

Okay, mahalo.

Mahalo, Mr. Williams. And then perhaps I can make that request for staff to include it as part of this item in committee, and then that way all the documents are together.

The entirety of the June 5th Council testimony.

Oh, there's...

It's a packet.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, that whole 110 pages. Yep, we can do that. Okay. Oh, rather, they can do that. Mahalo, mahalo staff.

Did you have any, I'm assuming you have more discussions.

Yeah, okay, and I recognize that Member Poulton needs to, has a hard out at four, and I mean it's, these are all, endeavoring to achieve the same thing. So these remarks are the same for each bill.

So, okay.

We all have our kuleana and kulana. Our fire department has a responsibility to keep our community safe, fire public safety, as well as our firefighters and staff. And so expanding and having a fire station in strategic locations supports our fire department. And so that's the kuleana of the fire department. Our attorneys, kuleana is to defend the county and decisions that are made by individuals that hold decision-making power at any given time that make up the county. Whether they're good decisions or not good decisions, their kuleana is to defend it. the courts, then their is to interpret the law. And when a question is not one that it can provide a decision on, it punts it back to the legislative branch as a political question. And so I don't think the courts will give Member Poulton the revolution that she spoke to in her remarks. I'm sorry, I know, sad face. nor will it answer Member Cook's question about what happens to all these other lands that were stolen at the time of the overthrow and then subsequently bought up by people who weren't part of the original theft. Because then what happens if the courts say, yeah, you know what, that was all illegal. Does the entire system collapse? And so, punt, political question. You guys figure it out. That's not for the courts. As a council, we're the policy-making body. As an individual council member, my personal policy is to never steal land or displace or dispossess kanaka maoli from ancestral aina, regardless of how small a potential it could be. regardless of whether our attorneys are super convinced that our title insurance and the title report says so, the title companies has been a tool for the colonizers to continue to dispossess aina from our lahui, from kanaka maoli, from native tenants, from hoa aina. title companies are part of the racist system that persists to this day. For me, I didn't take on this position to continue to hurt my people. And I understand all the arguments being made, and it's not a dichotomy. It's not either we have a fire station in Ha'iku on this parcel or no fire station. Just as we showed on Molokai, it's possible to have option three by purchasing a house on a bigger parcel for expansion, for hot, warm, cold zones, to meet the needs of the fire department that supports our firefighters. Also, as a council member, when I look at the speed and cost, so when we're talking about meeting the needs by expanding by having a fire station in Ha'iku, and it's been 17 years. And back in 2019, I suggested, perhaps, you know, Ha'iku community work together if they want a fire station in that area, and the communities after that, east of Ha'iku, to, you know, do what we did in Molokai, and maybe they'll get a fire station faster. If there's gonna be a lawsuit, then that slows the process down and increases the cost. So in looking at the speed of meeting the needs of the community and the firefighters by not stretching them too thin, I think everyone would prefer a speedier option. And acquiring a hale that's already there is a faster option. It's not a modern fire station, but it's been 17 years. And it also wouldn't cost $18 million or more if there's a lawsuit. The fire station on Molokai, or the firehouse that we're constructing in Ualapue, that hopefully will be done by the end of this year. You know, the firefighters in Pukou have waited for over 30 years to be moved out of the Irwin House, the Irwin Center. And it was because the community members went and looked for a place to be able to relocate them that we are able to have a fire station on the east side of our island. I think, you know, As my colleagues have all pointed out, Mr. Williams' research abilities are impressive. As I go through this meeting and I hear the comments of my colleagues and the attorneys and the government, the government hasn't always been on the side of the people. the government has been guilty in dispossessing kanaka of our aina because the government is made up of humans and these humans aren't always supportive of kanaka mauli. Oftentimes, there is a minority if even one kanaka maoli in the decision-making body. I mean, we're lucky here that we have more than one. And putting the burden on the native tenants to do the level of research that Mr. Williams has done oftentimes is not accomplished by the native tenants. And that's how they end up losing their land. It's often the most vulnerable And that's what the title insurance companies bank on. They rely on the native tenants not having the expertise of Mr. Williams, of not having the resources to be able to hire private law firms to represent them, to go against the county and prevail in court, and to not be able to go to court and represent them themselves. That's the system in which our people have been forced to be in and be dispossessed of their ancestral ʻāina. The loss of our ʻāina is the loss of connection, is the loss of our culture, and then there's a loss of our people. I'll be voting no on this bill. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Is there any further discussion before I ask for a roll call? Okay, I'm gonna go with Member Johnson and then Chair Lee.

Thank you, Chair. I'll try to be short. I feel that building a fire station should be great news. We should be so excited to do something like this. We should be talking about our resiliency and our infrastructure needs and way to go team. But I don't feel that this time. I don't feel that. I feel we should pump the brakes because as we all talk about, this can get very expensive and we can be Besides the cost financially, morally, I'm not going to bear that cost. I support fire stations putting out fires and building on this parcel land is only gonna conflagrate the issues that Kanaka's and Hawaiians have over getting their land back. So I'll end it there. I appreciate the discussions and I appreciate all of the testifiers and I appreciate the firefighters doing that deed, but this doesn't feel good to me and I won't be supporting it. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Chair Lee, followed by Member Sugimura.

Chair and members, I will be supporting the motion because I feel strongly that we are responsible for public health and safety. The reason why I mentioned the word compromise, this is for me, not speaking for anyone else. This is a compromise between the County Council and the administration. They wanted all of it, but we are setting aside a huge portion of it for Native Hawaiian uses. And that doesn't take away to me any of the work or intentions of Mr. Williams and the Ohana. I fully respect what they're doing. I wish we could find another way, but For me, I think the people of Haiku and East Maui are in great need of a new fire station, and they have waited decades for this, and that's the reason why I'm supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Lee. Member Sugimura?

I was recently at a Haiku Community Association event forum and this question came up about the Haiku Fire Station and I gathered from the members who are there, the community have been waiting for this. So I support this and thank you, Member Paulton and all that has been said with Member Rollins-Fernandez. And I I do know that this land, we have clear title for it, and unfortunately, for Mr. Williams and what his family is experiencing, it is maybe contrary to what he has done, all this research for 100-something pages that he's provided the council. So I appreciate him and his family, but at this time, I support a need that has been a great need that the community has waited for. So thank you.

Thank you. At this time, roll call.

Chair, proceeding with a roll call vote. Council Member Sinensi. I would vote for Rations. Chair Lee.

Aye.

Council Member Cook. Aye. Council Member Rollins-Fernandez. Council Member Johnson. No. Council Member Paulton.

Aye.

Council Member Sugimura. Aye. Committee Vice Chair Betongen.

Excused.

Committee Chair Uhuhajens.

Aye.

Chair, there are six ayes, two nos, and one excused. The motion carries.

Thank you very much. Next, I will entertain a motion to recommend passage on first reading Bill 90-2026, the Community Plan Amendment Bill incorporating any non-substantive revisions. I have a motion by Member Cook. Do I have a second? Second by Member Sugimura. This one we won't have any amendments on, but we will have amendments on the next one. Is there any further discussion? If not, I will take a roll call. Seeing none, roll call, please.

Chair, proceeding with the roll call vote, Council Member Sinensi. Aye with reservations. Chair Lee.

Aye.

Council Member Cook. Aye. Council Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Aye.

Council Member Johnson. No. Council Member Paltin.

Aye.

Council Member Sugimura? Aye. Committee Vice Chair Betongen?

Excused.

Committee Chair Uhuhajens?

Aye.

Chair, there are six ayes, two nos, and one excused. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. We're on our last one now. I will entertain a motion to recommend passage on first reading of Bill 91-2026 for a change in zoning bill incorporating any non-substantive revision. So I have a motion. Member Cook? I have a motion by Member Cook, second by Member Sugimura. And we also have the three amendments, as we discussed in Bill 89, which include the right to farm, as you saw in the ASF, and the language that Member Paltin provided earlier, which do you guys have in writing? Would you like to read it? Oh, they can do it. Then you can double check that what they have is what you said. Go ahead, James.

Chair, what we have right now is the remaining agricultural land would be used for subsistence agriculture. Must be used. Must be used for subsistence agriculture through a pilot program that would include a partnership of the Department of OEB Resources, the County Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fire and Public Safety, native tenants, and the community.

Did you say pilot program or private program? Pilot. Pilot, okay.

okay sounds good member rollins fernandez and member johnson are you guys okay to vote on this one i can do a show a hat oh no on the amendment Okay, just making sure on the amendment. I will then do a show of hands and I'll definitely do roll call for the main motion as amended. So for right now, we're gonna be voting on all three of the amendments. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, apologies. Conditions.

Conditions.

For the conditions, can we confirm the move on to the second?

Oh, yeah. Thank you. I jumped the gun. Member Palten made the motion. Do I have a second? though I have a second by Member Rollins-Fernandez.

And Chair, just as part of the motion, can it also include, to change the main motion, to also include a recommendation for the UA to be recorded?

Yep, friendly amendment, okay? Thank you. Okay.

And I don't know if we need to say any non-substantive revisions, because they can pretty up my words.

Okay, we'll add that. All right, thank you. All those in favor of the amendment to the main motion, raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, there are eight ayes, no nos, one excuse. Vice Chair Batangan, motion carries.

Thank you very much. And roll call on the main motion as amended.

Oh, can I add on to my previous discussion? Sure. I hope that Mr. Kaneali'i Williams is the person that we've been waiting for. He did reference international law, and if there isn't remedy in U.S. courts, I do hope that we go all the way to international law because, I mean, If not now, then when? If not us, then who? And, you know, I guess I really feel that it needs to be resolved, that there were illegal things done, there is an illegal occupation, there is a path forward, and that needs to be taken. And from what I've seen, I believe Mr. Williams is the person. So I guess I would just add, if not through the US court system, all the way up to the international law system, because they have records of treaties with other countries. They have, you know, it's already been Larson versus Kingdom of Hawaii, so they know at the international level, and that's the relief we need.

Thank you very much. Go ahead, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

I love Member Bolton's optimism.

Me too.

Yeah, the thing was that four superpowers have like veto power. So even if the courts decided in our favor, enforcement would be an issue in the US, China, Russia, and one more country, are all on veto power. the UN Council that would be able to veto any pursuing of the enforcement of UN court decision. And there's a record of that, the U.S. not following through on U.N. court decisions and the U.N. wanting to pursue damages from the U.S. and then the U.S. just vetoing it. The power really is with the people. It's the people who make up government It's the people that are in government, and this is our opportunity to make things maybe not as right as we would like to be able to make them, but at least to not continue the harm. And that's partly what this is doing, mahalochar.

Thank you. Member Rollins Fernandez. Um, at this time, let's do a roll call please.

Chair proceeding with a roll call vote. Council Member Sinensi.

Iowa Reservations.

Chair Lee.

Aye.

Council Member Cook. Aye. Council Member Rollins Fernandez.

Aye.

Council Member Johnson. No. Council Member Paulton.

Aye.

Council Member Sugimura? Aye. Committee Vice-Chair Betongen?

Excused.

Committee Chair Uhu-Hodgins?

Aye.

Chair, there are six ayes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much. Members, this concludes the Housing Land Use Committee meeting. Thank you very much. Excuse me. It is now 3.34 p.m. and this HLU meeting is adjourned.